Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just let me know which Wikipedia links you are going to post, so that I can "correct" those ahead of time.

No links...just you and me, mano-a-mano. A logical debate. Are you up for it kemosabe?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No links...just you and me, mano-a-mano. A logical debate. Are you up for it kemosabe?

Go for it! I will start.

I offer Human activities have some impact on the environment as a postulate.

[Peikko 1,575]

Go for it! I will start.

I offer Human activities have some impact on the environment as a postulate.

Let's try human activity has had a significant and well acknowledged negative impact on the environment through out the history of human agricultural and more recently industrial activity.

[Peikko 1,575]

Early agriculturalists discovered simple facts such as, continually growing the same crop on the same piece of land led to that crop reducing in harvest until it was pointless to grow that crop. Over grazing by live stock led to desertification.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

Fishing without allowing the fish to regain stock levels leads to fish extinction. Introducing chemicals that are only naturally found in weak concentrations in high concentrations often leads to chemical poisoning.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Go for it! I will start.

I offer Human activities have some impact on the environment as a postulate.

Agreed, although I take issue with the qualifier "some" given how broad a statement this is.

But let's move on to the nitty gritty of Global Warming as theory. Do you accept the theory itself or not?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Agreed, although I take issue with the qualifier "some" given how broad a statement this is.

But let's move on to the nitty gritty of Global Warming as theory. Do you accept the theory itself or not?

It is easy. It is just a qualifier that man is responsible for part, but not all. Even you can agree that humans are not the sole actors on the global stage. I will agree that humans are actors on the global stage.

As to your question, define the theory, and we can go from there. I am not sure exactly which theory you want to debate. You have to establish the question first, and if you want to take the Pro side, you get to frame the question.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is easy. It is just a qualifier that man is responsible for part, but not all. Even you can agree that humans are not the sole actors on the global stage, them I will agree that humans are actors on the global stage.

As to your question, define the theory, and we can go from there. I am not sure exactly which theory you want to debate. You have to establish the question first, and if you want to take the Pro side, you get to frame the question.

Ok, here's Global Warming Theory in my own words (so let's not get too technical over terminology):

The earth's atmosphere contains various gases , some(greenhouse gases) of which trap heat from the sun, thereby warming the planet. The amount of those gases released into the atmosphere combined with the amount that is absorbed by the oceans, plant life, or dissipating into the upper layers of the atmosphere, keep our climate relatively stable. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not be alive today.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Let's try human activity has had a significant and well acknowledged negative impact on the environment through out the history of human agricultural and more recently industrial activity.

Ok, here's Global Warming Theory in my own words (so let's not get too technical over terminology):

The earth's atmosphere contains various gases , some(greenhouse gases) of which trap heat from the sun, thereby warming the planet. The amount of those gases released into the atmosphere combined with the amount that is absorbed by the oceans, plant life, or dissipating into the upper layers of the atmosphere, keep our climate relatively stable. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not be alive today.

Okay. I agree. You win!

[Peikko 1,575]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Okay. I agree. You win!

Hold on, kemosabe, because I think we're getting to the part where you disagree with.

The amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is at around 380ppm. Over the last half million years, it has remained around 300ppm (or 320...I can't remember), but within the last century, particularly within the last 50 years, the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased dramatically.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hold on, kemosabe, because I think we're getting to the part where you disagree with.

The amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is at around 380ppm. Over the last half million years, it has remained around 300ppm (or 320...I can't remember), but within the last century, particularly within the last 50 years, the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased dramatically.

Really?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Really?

LOL...Bill, I don't know what source you got the graph from, but lets set aside any graphs or links and stick with a logic based argument. If you accept the fact that scientists are capable of measuring atmospheric CO2 levels both now and from previous time periods, then you would logically accept such data from the leading bodies of science who take those measurements?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LOL...Bill, I don't know what source you got the graph from, but lets set aside any graphs or links and stick with a logic based argument. If you accept the fact that scientists are capable of measuring atmospheric CO2 levels both now and from previous time periods, then you would logically accept such data from the leading bodies of science who take those measurements?

I am just putting things in perspective. It all depends which window in time you look at: There is a reason proponents of Global Warming Theory picked 500,000 years as a perspective, rather than 750,000, or 1,000,000 years.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am just putting things in perspective. It all depends which window in time you look at: There is a reason proponents of Global Warming Theory picked 500,000 years as a perspective, rather than 750,000, or 1,000,000 years.

What is the reason?