This is a very two-sided extremist argument (either Global Warming is 100% truths or Global Warming is 100% lies), and not very open for multiple opinions. Basic answer: Global Warming is real and not a scam, but nothing like how environmentalists say it is.
If you believe that the millions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year are not affecting our enviorment then you are turning a blind eye just for your own comfort.
There's no proof, but keep 'saving the planet' because the CO2 emissions are rising and global warming could exist in the near future. However, although no scientific prrof has been concluded as true, the proof around us includes the rising temperatures and more frequent natural disasters. It is almost 100% likely that the biggest portion of climate change is because of our own human activity and lifestyle.
Definition of a scam: –noun 1.a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle. why would the scientific community invent global warming to make money, and how would they make a profit?
i didnt say the scientific community invented a scam but none the less global warming can be debated as a scam that policticins would say is a scientfic scam
You could've used another term, like "Global Warming: Real or Fake?" Scientists have discovered ice in the south pole that has been frozen for millions of years, and when they tested the ice for carbon dioxide levels, they said the Earth's present carbon dioxide levels are dramatically higher. Now, millions of years ago is a huge time frame, but if you doubt it, just wait for some scientists to find ice that was frozen for a couple hundred years and test it.
I never said Global Warming wasn't real, I merely said it wasn't real in the sense the government and environmentalists are saying.
Look, if you're going to try to insult environmentalists by calling them insane, at least get the term mental right. Mentalists are basically illusionists/magicians, they're the guys who hypnotize audience members on stage and correctly guess your card and junk like that. If you want to call them mental, as in mentally retarded, do that, don't call them magicians. As for this debate... false dichotomy between real and scam. It could be real, but not man-made, it could be fake but scientists who support it are genuinely mistaken rather than scammers, it could be real man-made and a scam to make money through exaggeration. Pretty much there are a wide range of things that could be the truth, but both sides have motive to present the case for the most extreme result they can. Personally, I believe its real and man made, but exaggerated. With billions of dollars on both sides of the debate, both sides are going to invent experiments and present data that appear to support their side. So called "Green" businesses will present the data that appears to most support easily changeable man-made global warming, and businesses that profit most from polluting are going to present the data in such a way that it appears to support the globe not warming at all. Ever since I read How to Lie with Statsistcs for my statistics class a few years ago, I have been very skeptical of every claim based on statistical evidence, especially when there are two contradictory claims being made as in the case of global warming. Basically you can make the numbers say anything you want them to say, and there are plenty of corporations with the motive and the money to manipulate the data to further their agenda rather than present the truth. Its like the time the Wrigley gum corporation sponsored a study that found that chewing gum made students get better test scores. Oh yeah Wrigley scientists? No **** the study you guys did found the result that your sponsoring organization wanted, BIG ****IN SUPRISE! Climate change is very similar to that, the result of any given study is most likely to support the organization that paid for the study, because if it didn't the study would never get published.
Not nearly as much as televangelists or as much money that has gone to AIDS research or any other field of study.
Who cares about global warming? I don't want my kids drinking chemical waste and eating tainted meats. Clean up the planet!
Chemical waste and tainted meat have nothing to do with Global warming.Sounds more like a Nuclear aftermath scenario too me.
I actully heard someguy in minnasotta or somthing like that intercepted emails from government scientists talking about how they were going to create false evidence, since according to the scientist the world is actully cooling ..... apparently the were doing this so companies would be more efficient. Personly a dont believe the above statement at all.
Green technology will be a highly profitable market in the future. That's one the U.S. should probably invest in heavily and quickly. It will strengthen the U.S. economy because for once, the U.S. would be producing something. Looking for clean renewable energy sources, although expensive, is a small price to pay for national security. Getting more oil from countries ruled by dictators that oppress their people is immoral. It's also the main reason why terrorism is such a problem today. The U.S.'s own need for greed has indirectly led to the down trodding of others. It just makes sense, but I doubt the politicians in place today will ever see the sense in any of it. They'll probably wind up seeing more cents from a Saudi exec or something. Plus, it doesn't help much when people spin this whole Global Warming thing as a fear tactic to get people's money, which are grounds for this debate. I don't know enough to deliberately say there is Global Warming, but there are more reasons to support it than out of love for the environment. It's smart economically, geo-politically, and environmentally.
Current first world countries fund third world oppression through their need for oil and drugs. The short and long term effects of global warming have always been up for debate, but the fact remains that the planets climate is changing. Also up for debate is whether we are responsible for such change, or whether it is of natural occurance. From what i have gathered from a range of sources throughout the last few years of life within a 'green energy' rage, it is that Hydroelectricity is a huge producer of energy and at little cost, however it is locationally specific. Solar energy is starting to boom particularly in South America and some areas of southern Europe, where the climate is much warmer. I also feel that the scare around Nuclear energy is absurd, and it should be embraced instead of resented.