Humanity should kill itself.

[Blizzard]

No, he doesn't have a point. All he did is to take 1 fact and 1 argument and stretch it through the entire topic while everybody else was bombarding him with different arguments. How can he be the winner if he didn't successfully defend his point?

[Diokatsu]

Atone for our sins lmao. You act as if everyone really cares. Truth is, more people worry about surviving the next day with less food than they really need. I honestly care more about helping my fellow humans than animals.

You act like we even matter. Sorry, we don't. Tough break. There are plenty of other planets out there with plenty of other animals and possibly intelligent life such as ourselves.

The goal of life is survival, simple. That's what causes animals to hunt and breed. We are animals at our base. It's not bullshit, it's science.

Being selfish of life and wanting to sustain it are different things. We aren't a "long term satisfaction" kind of people. We like our instant gratification. We're being incredibly selfish because we want to experience all those emotions that seperate us from animals: joy, love, and freedom.

And what makes you think we CAN change for the better? We DO repeat the past, it's inevitable and not worth my time to worry about.

Sure kid, I'll recycle and do my part. I'll be kind and petition to stop animal cruelty. Hell, I'll even spend time in Africa helping them with their horrible lives. But, in the end, we will eventually kill off everything in this world. We aren't a people that can fix such a mistake. We're greedy and ambitious. For every push I make forward, someone will take two back. We're doomed, but that's how life works. nothing lasts forever, especially life. Things die and wither and end.

[Blizzard]

You didn't seem to have read this thread, Lurker. We already proved the point that Global Warming isn't humanity's fault. Now please reread the topic before you make an idiot out of yourself. ._.

As for extinction... Seriously. The dinosaurs died out. Is it the humans' fault? No. You can't pin something on humanity just because it happens. Old species die out, new species are born. That's a natural cycle. Sure, humans probably speeded it up in a few cases, but that doesn't make them solely responsible for a species' extinction.

We are not at the point of no return yet. It is still possible to reverse the damage done to the planet. (Zeitgeist Addendum, anyone?)
But that won't happen as long as capitalism is around.
Also, if we "kill ourselves", who will reverse the damage we have done so far? Nobody.

[Blizzard]

I could read opinions, but, I would rather read studies.

You know, reliable sources.  Facts, studies, research, whatever.

It's funny that you say that because...

http://sustainablog.org/2009/05/18/prevention-of-global-warming-understanding-the-main-causes/
http://sustainablog.org/2009/06/18/the-top-causes-of-global-warming-natural-or-human/

...blogs are based on opinions and not regarded as scientific articles.

Wikipedia isn't close to being a collection of scientific articles either, but it has some valid metafacts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

In addition to human-caused emissions, some models also include a simulation of the carbon cycle; this generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain. Some observational studies also show a positive feedback.

Sure, there are studies that show that human do affect global warming significantly, but there are also studies that show that this isn't the case. Here is a counter article: http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htm
Here's a very nice quote from that article.

The evidence is overwhelming that temperature records from places remote from human habitation show no evidence of warming. These remote places include forests, ice cores and other proxy measurements, measurements by weather balloons, measurements by satellite (the only truly global measurements) and surface measurements in places where human influence is minimal. It only remains, therefore to characterise the human influence around weather stations in more detail;.

Funny that people call it "global warming" while it's clearly "local warming". How typical for humans to assume the are the (center of the) existing world.

Also:

http://ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm

This is a nice article about a few facts. But for some reason I can't find any mentioning that this is the major cause of global warming except for the misleading title saying "Causes of global warming". Just putting a label on something doesn't turn it into what the label represents.

Spoiler: ShowHide

Figure 6 goes back much further, more than 2000 years, and shows a slight recent warming which cannot be considered as exceptional. A slight increase in tree-ring thickness recently is to be expected because of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide

This is so typical for people to assume that a short-term change will cause or will not cause a long term change.

While natural causes are a small part of global warming. You'll be ignorant or in your words "an idiot" to not admit that humans are a much bigger part of the global warming picture. I really don't talk or debate without reading up on something before I enter a debate.

Your first response didn't make the impression that you read it. That's all I am saying. I didn't call you an idiot, I said that it could make your look like one if you think you can burst in an into a debate and shake the foundations of one side with one single sentence. Putting words in my mouth isn't nice.

Underestimating me even in the slightest will not be beneficial to your argument.

Then I hope to see some facts and not opinions, some proofs and not biased studies.

Humans, are responsible even for some of the natural elements of GW. Such as chopping down trees/forests for lumber. Any elementary student can tell you that Trees/ plants convert Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen. The less trees there are, the more Carbon Dioxide there will be.. and as time progresses I think you could put two and two together.

That's true. But humans have been chopping down woods for quite some time now. And other people have been complaining about it for the same period of time. I'm not saying that it's a good thing to do and I'm not saying that it doesn't affect the life on the planet at all, but if you read this you will see that currently about 0.2% of forests disappear every year. It was about 0.4% per year several years earlier. What that means? Well, that means that we could fairly say that 10%-20% of all forests have disappeared in the last 100 years. How much did the temperature go up (that includes other factors as pollution)? Not that much. So how much do you think was caused by the disappearance of forests?
ALSO, forests are not the only vegetation on the planet. In case you didn't know, there are many algae under sea. Are you saying that they don't produce any oxygen? Especially since algae are quite a consumer of CO₂.

Resources isn't infinite on this earth and almost everything has a complex relationship.

Hence it is wrong to assume that the change of one single factor as humans creating more gashouse effect gases is the major cause of a climate change.

(I.E. One time the US tried to rid Africa of harmful mosquitoes in Borneo. They succeeded, but then they failed. They got rid of the diseases that mosquitoes caused but.. a butterfly effect was triggered. That was a doozy.
Read here: http://www.cdra.org.za/creativity/Parachuting%20cats%20into%20Borneo.htm)

That shows how the most noble intentions can turn out quite ugly. What makes you think it can't work the other way around?

Humans are more influential than you may think.

I am not saying they aren't and I never said that. But to think that humans are a major factor in some things is very arrogant. How are people supposed to take such exagarations seriously when you come across articles like this one?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece

Here are a few more good reads.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070419_earth_timeline.html
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090218/usda-census-part-ii-destroying-land-destroying-planet

Yet again no scientific articles but media and media can be influenced.

Finally, of course the last reason that I could not believe you.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5266-Seattle-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d16-White-House-report-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-human-activity

Very nice article about what might happen. But somehow I can't find the part where we have some valid statistics about how this is solely humanity's fault.

^The white house reports it to be true. Both Obama's and Bush's.

Nobody said it wasn't true. The article describes a possible scenario after all. Probability is always true.

Of course if you could show me your degree in the study of Global Warming I'll take back my words. I'll Apologize, hell I'll even say that I'm a moron. Of course, if you can even show me any studies you read that are from a reliable source which source their sources.. I'll think it over.

I don't have a degree in Global Warming studies, but neither have you. But I am not questioning global warming here, I am questioning the scientific methods used to achieve results. As we all know it is possible to simply ignore various factors that seem irrelevant. Just because they seem to be irrelevant doesn't make them irrelevant.
And what makes you think that human knowledge is absolute? Humans once thought the Earth was flat and it was accepted common knowledge. It is hard to prove a theory on a large scale because (as you said yourself) of many factors that affect the result. Hence it is foolish to believe it unless a majority of studies show or a minority of studies actually PROVE that humans are a major factor in global warming.
Again, I am not saying that we shouldn't act pre-emptively and supress possible causes. But just because a few people (remember, humans are biased creatures) decide to make a study to "prove" (those terms are exclusive, you can't prove anything with a study) that humans are the major cause of global warming, doesn't mean they are right.

Besides, you are going off topic here. It's about why humanity should kill itself, not if there is global warming. If you want to discuss global warming, please make a new thread.

[fugibo]

AHahah.. HAHAHAHAHA Did you really pull a Sun Newstory out on me?
HAHAHAHA!?!
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sun-we-made-false-allegations-against-muslim
http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun (Scroll down to Controversy)

The Sun who has a history of running fake news stories? *Wipes tear from eye*

Oh man.. dude.. no. That's like bringing up Limbaugh in the cause of why Sanford cheated on his wife.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/06/26/limbaugh_sanford/index.html. We all knows that Obama has some sort of Jedi mind trick, that can mystically go back in time to 2008 when the emails just started and make Sanford lose all hope.. he's moving those chess pieces mang, moving those chess pieces.

Hehe. *sighs* Oh yeah, that's also like siting Fox News as a reference. Literally. TheSun being owned by Murdoch and all... and we all knows how they feel about Global Warming.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2009/01/fox-news-still-denies-reality-of-global-warming.html
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/27/gainor_gore/

I'll ignore that TheSun comment though, I like ya. You didn't know.

Since you don't trust the blog of a professor.. fine I guess I'll have to go to do this.
Funny, huh?: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html

.. Maybe if that doesn't convince you. How about a professor majoring on this subject?
http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/

Hmm. Nice fail there. Let's just scream "I'M A LIBERAL WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN INSULT CONSERVATIVES TO COMPENSATE FOR MY OBVIOUS LACK OF OPINION ON MORALS AND PHILOSOPHY," why dunn we? Oh yeah, because it makes you out to be a self-righteous prick. Take note. It's better to seem a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

Also, you misspelled "cite."

On the subject, the roots of global warming are impossible to discern. Those "studies" you cite fail to mention that there is no control group involved. Therefore, the entire thing is pointless. It's impossible to prove it one way or the other.

[Blizzard]

Longfellow's just being a dick.

AHahah.. HAHAHAHAHA Did you really pull a Sun Newstory out on me?
HAHAHAHA!?!
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sun-we-made-false-allegations-against-muslim
http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun (Scroll down to Controversy)

The Sun who has a history of running fake news stories? *Wipes tear from eye*

Yes, I did. ^_^ Who knows what else is there that was made up, that's my point. Not all scientists are trying to get famous the ethical way.

Oh man.. dude.. no. That's like bringing up Limbaugh in the cause of why Sanford cheated on his wife.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/06/26/limbaugh_sanford/index.html. We all knows that Obama has some sort of Jedi mind trick, that can mystically go back in time to 2008 when the emails just started and make Sanford lose all hope.. he's moving those chess pieces mang, moving those chess pieces.

My point here was also that you put loads of text somewhere and there will be some truth in there. Especially since an assumption is always truthful. It's an assumption after all. It doesn't matter if it was right or wrong it the end, it wasn't a lie. Except, of course, somebody lied about the assumption. xD

Hehe. *sighs* Oh yeah, that's also like siting Fox News as a reference. Literally. TheSun being owned by Murdoch and all... and we all knows how they feel about Global Warming.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2009/01/fox-news-still-denies-reality-of-global-warming.html
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/27/gainor_gore/

I'll ignore that TheSun comment though, I like ya. You didn't know.

Eh, my point was that it was made up. I actually said something along that:

How are people supposed to take such exagarations seriously when you come across articles like this one?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece

Radical people tend to go farther than a joke like this.

Since you don't trust the blog of a professor.. fine I guess I'll have to go to do this.
Funny, huh?: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html

Sure, those are quite some undeniable facts. But yet again, labeling something the major cause of global warming doesn't make it one.

.. Maybe if that doesn't convince you. How about a professor majoring on this subject?
http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/
http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/global_warming_predicament.html

My point is still valid. Those are some well-known facts. And I'm not going to argue them because they are facts.
But where is the proof that this is the major cause of global warming? All I see here are two series of events corelated with an unknown factor that happen at the same time.
Imagine that I get an injection with a toxic substance. 1 hour later I die. After the obduction it turns out that I swallow a metal spikey ring that teared me up from within and I died from internal bleeding. The poison wasn't enough to kill me, the quantity wasn't enough. Just because I got a toxic injection that could have killed me doesn't automatically make it the cause if I really die.

[fugibo]

*sniffles* I'm trying not to debate. I just cant help myself.

Here's a hint: Don't click the link that says "Intelligent Debate"

[Blizzard]

(Edit: Actually I did say that Global Warming was humanity's fault. Eh, well.. I guess we're both at fault.)

Yeah. :/
Also, proving a point doesn't require a scientist. The point was that global warming isn't proved to be humanity's fault. Proving a theory like "global warming is humanity's fault" does require a scientist.

@Blizzard.

I'll end this here. By my own admission, I see this debate as a stalemate. Neither of us can prove with certainty the true cause of Global Warming. Though I'm slightly irritated that I couldn't arise the victor and basically everything I said was void. From lack of a more intimate view of this I retire.

Lol, ok. This entire debate is more or less pointless as we pretty much concluded earlier.

[Blizzard]

Yes, that's what I said. I agreed with you there. xD

[fugibo]

*ends with this*

"there is no constant"

Because logic and common sense need fancy URL strings to be proven X_X

[Blizzard]

No, it needs valid facts to be proven. Valid facts don't come from the media or the internet, they come from research. And nobody of us has really posted any scientific articles. I didn't post any because most publishers of scientific magazines don't give their magazines for free (i.e. IEEE).
It was common sense once that the Earth was flat. You can't trust on common sense.

[fugibo]

No, it needs valid facts to be proven. Valid facts don't come from the media or the internet, they come from research. And nobody of us has really posted any scientific articles. I didn't post any because most publishers of scientific magazines don't give their magazines for free (i.e. IEEE).
It was common sense once that the Earth was flat. You can't trust on common sense.

Well, that was really more of a hyperbolic observation. By saying "there is no constant, and therefore we have no idea what the results mean," I'm stating that observations are pointless in regards to the topic. Unless, of course, we had a time machine, but all the fancy-pants scientists are too busy nay-saying to get any work done on that.

[Blizzard]

My point is still valid. Those are some well-known facts. And I'm not going to argue them because they are facts.
But where is the proof that this is the major cause of global warming? All I see here are two series of events corelated with an unknown factor that happen at the same time.
Imagine that I get an injection with a toxic substance. 1 hour later I die. After the obduction it turns out that I swallow a metal spikey ring that teared me up from within and I died from internal bleeding. The poison wasn't enough to kill me, the quantity wasn't enough. Just because I got a toxic injection that could have killed me doesn't automatically make it the cause if I really die.

[fugibo]

I'm not arguing with you, I'm defending myself. (and my last post was referring to the "earth was flat" part)

[Blizzard]

Because logic and common sense need fancy URL strings to be proven X_X

That was an attack on our way of debating. You have nothing to defend.

[fugibo]

Because logic and common sense need fancy URL strings to be proven X_X

That was an attack on our way of debating. You have nothing to defend.

No, I was defending my last point: "It's impossible to prove or disprove global warming, since we have no control group." Lurker then said that I just use one-liners while you have forever long posts full of URLs; I responded saying that my point didn't need any references because it was just common sense.

*ends off-topicness*

[Pokol DaErran]

This probably has nothing to do with the current topic of discussion, strangely enough, but;
How exactly did this conversation change from "Humanity should kill itself" to "PROVE/DISPROVE GLOHBAHL WAHMING!!!!!!!!!" 

Seems like all the Intelligent Debate threads become something entirely different after two or three pages.

[fugibo]

Ick. Technically, as Ulta said a while back, we can't really prove Global Warming (since there's only circumstantial evidence that the cold -> warm isn't a bicentennial cycle or something), but I meant to say "prove global warming is caused by humans," which is what you'll read if you look at the actual post I was referring to >_<

[LurkerKoetsu]

I have to opt out *deletes posts*.

[Blizzard]

"It's impossible to prove or disprove global warming, since we have no control group."

Just saying that it's impossible doesn't make it impossible.
You assume that you are right here and base your entire argumentation on this which ends up as circular logic.

Also, global warming is real. It's happening. But nobody said anything about it being humanity's fault.

Eh, I'm too lazy to split this topic.