Debate: climate change

[Mhera]

   Some people talk about observational science and historical science. Regardless of the problems with that model, even if you were to work within it... It's still not much of a question.

Heh, "some people"? You can name names, it's okay .

Anyhow, wrong debate. We've got plenty of data on global temperatures, so this is dealing with observational science. Unless this thread somehow takes a massive rabbit trail into origins, historical science vs. observational science doesn't even need to come up.

Put another way, what we are dealing with when it comes to global warming is the interpretation of data to explain a current phenomenon, not a past one. These interpretations can be tested repeatedly to see if they hold up, unlike evolution or creation. This puts climate change squarely in the realm of observational science.

As a side note, more than 30,000 scientists think that global warming is far from fact: http://www.petitionproject.org

[The Mask]

I voted both. Sure, the planet has a system of heats and colds. But imagine this cycle going Super Saiyan. It happens more frequently, the colds are colder and the hots are hotter.

[The Skarzs]

@Rus: Can't deny the fact that man's contribution to chlorine-bearing substances is insignificant compared to nature's. If every molecule of CFC drifted up into the atmosphere and released its chlorine, man would  have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere during peak CFC production. The oceans alone put 600 million tons of chorine (from the salt) into the atmosphere each year.
Point is, as time goes on, nature will continue to do as much and more damage to herself than we will.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

@Rus: Can't deny the fact that man's contribution to chlorine-bearing substances is insignificant compared to nature's. If every molecule of CFC drifted up into the atmosphere and released its chlorine, man would  have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere during peak CFC production. The oceans alone put 600 million tons of chorine (from the salt) into the atmosphere each year.
Point is, as time goes on, nature will continue to do as much and more damage to herself than we will.

Exactly.

[Hickory]

I voted both.

[Mhera]

@Rus: Can't deny the fact that man's contribution to chlorine-bearing substances is insignificant compared to nature's. If every molecule of CFC drifted up into the atmosphere and released its chlorine, man would  have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere during peak CFC production. The oceans alone put 600 million tons of chorine (from the salt) into the atmosphere each year.
Point is, as time goes on, nature will continue to do as much and more damage to herself than we will.

Exactly.

Yes. 750,000 is 0.125 percent of 600 million. It doesn't seem like the earth's ecosystem is so fragile that it can't correct for an extra tenth of a percent of chlorine.