Man made global warming real?

y/n

I have yet to see a good study indicating it. Every debate is so fucking dogmatic.

>>2
Maybe you should, you know, open your fucking eyes?
The only reason this is an issue at all is because of Republican spin.

>>Maybe you should, you know, open your fucking eyes?

environmentalist proof: ACCEPT IT, BITCH

>>2
Ever hear of the phrase, "peer reviewed?"

moon landing a hoax, NASA has Down's, ketchup is a vegetable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ltZeD8sTg

it doesn't matter if its real or not, watch this video!

Here's a better question: How could humans releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment NOT cause global warming?

By not absorbing enough infrared radiation so as to alter the average ocean temperature.

>>7
Nice video --it's simple enough so that the mouth-breathers can understand it.

>>6
OH GOD IT'S ALL COMING DOWN

APOCALYPSE DECEMBER 2012

BELIEVE IT

>>7
The guy left out option three where the hippie terrorists win if we listen. Also if we don't listen I get to keep my mercedes and mansion for the last ~30 years I've got left to live out my retirement as a rich executive from a very polluting company. Option three truly is win-win.

Let's have a retard from youtube explain this one!
"One cost you left out is the cost of freedom.
Should we rist loosing our freedom to a big government bureaucracy to stop something we can not change?
30 years ago scientist claimed we were headed tward the next ice age for the same reasons because the Earth was getting cooler.
Also, we now know that ALL the planets in are solar system are warming because of increased solar activity. Also I get to keep
my Mercedes."

Thanks youtube retard!

>>1
yes, it's real.

>>12
Wtf are you talking about, I read your comment like 4 times, and I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

Stop contributing to the science/math geek inarticulate stereotype.

>>12
arg, two statements in there, ice age and planets, are repeated by retards so often it is ridiculous.  Anyone who repeats that nonsense just does not read any science in any form whatsoever, excluding newspaper editorials and political blogs.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

>>12
The consensus among scientist that the Earth was heading toward another Ice Age was not there, it was a mania created by the media, the same media which is attempting to invalidate global warming.

Also, the citation of the fact all planets are getting warmer due to 'solar activity' is laughable.  Please, take any intro to astronomy class at your local community college, there you will learn the basics of solar life and death, and the activity in the middle.  As the sun converts hydrogen to helium it grows larger, and when it grows the larger it produces more heat.  But, and a big but, our Sun only becomes 10% hotter every billion years, in the insignificant amount of time human beings have consciously inhabited the Earth we have not even realized a fraction of a percent.

Why do fucking ignorant Christian coalition fucks come into /sci/ get the fuck where you belong, some church youth club where you and all the other neonazis can blow themselves while basking in God's great penumbra.  You are fucking scum.

Guys sceintists once said smoking wasn't bad for you. Therefore they are always wrong and global warming is a myth.

>>3
Maybe you should, POST A FUCKING LINK TO A .PDF OF A STUDY?
>>5
I thought it was self-evident that I meant a peer-reviewed one.
>>16
Hello liberal true believer. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a Christian and a neonazi. The shock, a liberal saying that.

>>18
Fucking google it, dipshit. AGW is a scientific consensus; there's hardly a shortage of studies.

Hello liberal true believer. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a Christian and a neonazi. The shock, a liberal saying that.
Anyone who takes issue with the religious right is obviously a liberal, amirite?

Fucking google it, dipshit. AGW is a scientific consensus; there's hardly a shortage of studies.
IOW, you can't?

>>20
IOW, I'm not your butler, Republican.

>>21
Right, not that you don't have any as I asked in >>2.
Anyone who asks for studies is obviously a Republican, amirite?

man increased the speed of global warming. But nuclear winter will come just as fast.

>>18
I like how the word liberal now carries a negative connotation.  Did Limbaugh, or O'Rielly give you some fodder to swindle as substance? 

And, I have reason for opposing the Christian coalition, first being their stewardship stance on the resources of this Earth.  The ostentatiousness that exists, my god, they actually believe the resources on this Earth were set in place by the all powerful god to use as we like, with no concern to waste. Disgusting. 

Secondly, why do theologists, those who profess their ABSOLUTE belief in something which is unknowable (the afterlife), but yet are holding out on the Global Warming debate because, you know, they want more information so they can make an informed decision about something so scientifically complex. 

Please, go beyond yourself and look at the world in a communal perspective, and think, really think, of the possibility that your church leader cannot interpret the ultimate Truth (big T) in this existence.  I mean, when scientists try to explain the underpinnings of existence they can quantify their reason, and admit to mistakes; conversely, the church bases their decision on irrationality, nothing is based on reason.  Honestly, if something goes wrong, we can all just pray and it will be set straight -I hope this is not your plan for global warming.  Are we all going to use the same method Chuck Haggard used and pray the gay (metaphor for the consequences of global warming) out of all of us?

>>24
Concerning your first and second points, I feel left out, since I'm not a Christian.
Oh wait, also concerning the third one. :-(
Or was this supposed to serve as proof for man made Global Warming?

>>25
Just keep your tin-foil hat on. It's all a conspiracy. It'll all go away if you keep your eyes tightly closed.

There's never a mention about God until an environmentalist accuses somebody of being Christian

>>27
No one professed themselves to being an environmentalist either.

>>28
If you believe in global warming you have to be an environmentalist, amirite?
Don't try to follow the thought process of Republicans. They're high on Kool-Aid.

>>29
If one believes in global warming they are just reasonable, if one prefers decisions to be made that will preserve humankind one is a humanist.

>>25
You believe in a conspiracy theory, named man made global warming.
You seem to love your tinfoil hat.
>>29-30
Now it's changed? Is that a straw man I see? THE POINT IS FUCKING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, NOT GLOBAL WARMING YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Could you point out some journal articles to support your hypothesis that man is not in fact the major contributor global warming?
No?
Oh well, go back to living in your fucking cave, trogolodyte.
Oh, and if you want papers, follow the citations in this:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
(Mentioned earlier, but no-one seems to actually give a shit about evidence anymore)

>>31
Congratulations, you're on step 2 of the Republican thought process regarding global warming.

Step 1 was "there's no such thing as global warming".
Step 2 is "global warming exists, but we didn't do it".
Step 3 is "man-made global warming exists, but we can't fix it so we shouldn't try".
Step 4 is "man-made global warming exists, but it's a good thing".

Let us know when you move to the next one.
Protip: when you're clinging so desperately to what your think tanks are coming up with just to avoid listening to actual scientists, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your position.

global warming was invented by Al Gore,everybody knows that....

I enjoy wearing pants.

>>33
How about, let me know when you prove man-made GW, faggot.
Protip: I don't avoid listening to actual scientists, in fact I asked someone to post a link to a peer reviewed paper on your conspiracy theory.

>>36
Posted links to an article full of them, arsebandit.

>>37
post a link to a peer reviewed paper on your conspiracy theory.

Gee, I wonder where the fuck all these greenhouse gases came from. MUST HAVE BEEN THE MOON, AMIRITE?

>>38
FFS, THERE IS A LINK TO AN ARTICLE WHICH HAS FOOTNOTES FULL OF THEM. ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF FOLLOWING A LINK YOU RETARD?
ARE YOU?

>>40
I'm guessing it's selective blindness. Neocons are full of it.

>>40
Then type the sources in the footnotes. Preferably with a link to the full paper of said article.
>>41
Neocons did global warming.

Sage goes in every field.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Global%20Warming%20and%20Science%20green.ppt

The site in general seems to be some kind of looney tunes conspiracy theorist ranting, but this powerpoint is full of good arguments that favour a null hypothesis...

>>24
ITT: "Smart" people who still argue about religion being true or false

The battle of science vs. religion is so last century.  Both have dogmas and both can be biased by personal opinions (as demonstrated in 24).  Get over it.

>>45
ITT butthurt religionfag.

>>44
It's not. It's another looney tunes conspiracy theorist rant.
Just google the names of these guys, and look at the real papers.