I would say that it depends on how broad your definition of culture is, but, in general no.

Even if a group decided to create a global culture, by either convincing everyone to join, or getting rid of everyone who didn't agree, this could only last for a short number of generations. Eventually, counter cultures would emerge, or the original culture would split over some issue. This can be seen throughout history in various different places throughout the world, and in fact, explains the diversity of cultures in our world today.

First: Dr. Takeda Kunihiko is an engineer. If you wanted to see a doctor about your eye, would you go to a gynecologist?

I would ask you to tell me why Kunihiko thinks that CO2 emissions are not responsible for our current warming, but I already know that answer so I'll just address it here.

For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko

This argument is fallacious for many reasons:

When talking about this in my previous argument I mentioned Milankovitch factors, but did not explain what they were. Allow me to do so now: the earth experiences long term changes in it's orbit having to do with 1) orbital shape (eccentricity) 2) axial tilt (obliquity) 3) Procession (axial rotation) and 4) Orbital inclination. These changes occur independently and periodically. They each individually have relatively little effect on the earth's climate, and often their effects cancel each other out. Once about every hundred thousand years, however, these effects come together to create a global warming or global cooling event. This pattern was first noticed by Milutin Milanković, a serbian cicil engineer and mathematician. By looking back at global temperatures from the past couple hundred thousand years, and comparing them to these cycles, Milanković was able to determine that these ice ages coincided perfectly with when all of these factors lined up (which is about once every hundred thousand years).

Therefore by determining when these factors will line up again we can determine when the next global cooling/warming will occur. Look at this graph for a visual of how we can predict these events: Milankovitch cycles. The next is not supposed to occur for about 20 - 30 thousand years.

None of this of course has anything to do with solar output, as Dr. Takeda Kunihiko suggested.

These Milankovitch factors, however, cannot completely account for the dramatic spikes in temperature. Take a look at this graph. Here you can see both the rises in temperature, and the levels of CO2, which correspond over the last 400,000 years. Correlation, however does not imply causation, and in fact in this case the rising CO2 is not what caused the initial temperature increase. As I already said, the initial spark for the temperature change was the long term changes in orbit. There are other forces at work however that amplify these climate changes.

One such example of this is polar ice. As the earth warms there is less ice. This means that less sunlight is reflected, and more is absorbed and radiated into heat. This means more ice melts, which there is more heating which means there is less ice which means there is more heating, and so on. This is known as a positive reenforcement system.

Another positive reenforcement system that contributes to the warming is greenhouse gasses. As I said, CO2 does not originally cause the temperature to increase, however, once the temperature does begin to increase oceans and soil heat up, releasing greenhouse gasses (CO2 and CH4). Through the greenhouse effect these gasses amplify the initial warming, which releases more greenhouse gasses. In this way, temperature and CO2 emissions feed off each other.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the sun. In fact, for the past 100 years (the time in which the majority of our current warming has occurred) the sun has been on a steady 11 year cycle. Don't take my word for it; look at this graph.

So is it that Dr. Takeda Kunihiko is simply unaware of these facts, or that he is intentionally misleading people. I would like to hope the former but I suspect the latter.

I mean really, how could the sun have any effect on the temperature when it's been relatively constant for the past hundred years? Kunihiko is filled with what scientists refer to as bullshit (it's a pretty technical term, if you want I'll explain it to you).

you act as if [1] the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. [2] That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. [3]That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.

1. In only "act" like the amount of CO2 is causing warming because CO2 does cause warming (basic physics which I can explain to you if you don't understand it), and right now there is over 380 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. In addition, humans having been pumping out tons of greenhouse gasses, so unless you can tell me another source from which the CO2 is coming from then we can only conclude that humans are what has caused both the increased CO2 and the warming.

2. I never said trees and plants have stopped doing their job, however the deforestation that has occurred from industrialization is undeniably significant, and is an ongoing process. Less trees mean less CO2 gets converted into O2. In addition, there is more CO2 in the air. In essence what you expect is for less trees to deal with more carbon, and the environment not to change. This logic is just plain silly.

3. As I have shown you with some of my graphs, the CO2 levels have not been much higher then 300 ppm in about a million years, and right now they're at 380 million. In addition "nature" is a vague term. Could you be more specific about what specific parts of nature you are referring to that could be causing these changes.

To this last point let me add that during each of the warming events I showed you (the ones associated with CO2), each one corresponded to a major extinction event in the fossil record. This means that natural or not, our current warming is likely to have similar results. Regardless of whether it's natural or not, shouldn't we try and stop this from happening? Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis are all natural, but wouldn't you stop them if you had the power? Just something to think about.

the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.

That's not why the scientists statements were dismissed. The scientists ideas were dismissed because they were inconsistent with the evidence.

But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it.

Wrong

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

Alright, you almost did what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence, and you gave me an unattributed quote. Fine, I'll just explain the basic argument behind global warming and why CO2 emissions do have an effect. And like you I'll copy and paste (but at least I'm copy pasting my own words)

"The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)).

Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.

In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.

We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat."

So know, tell me which part of this you have a disagreement with, and while your at it take a look at this graph and explain why it's just a coincidence that 1) emissions 2)CO2 concentration and 3) emissions all show the same upward trend at the same time.

Let me put this in the simplest I can, so that you can understand it fully:

It is not in debate. There are no legitimate skeptics in the scientific community that have presented valid evidence that a) global warming is not happening or b) global warming isn't being caused by humans.

In a previous debate you brought up the republican's minority report on the climate change consensus. I then explained why the whole thing was bullshit. I'm not going to go through the whole thing but if you would like to bring up specific points made in the document, or any other scientific arguments against global warming I would be more than happy to address them.

Pyg, I understand skepticism, but there comes a time when doubt becomes unreasonable.

(Also, global cooling was never really considered a significant problem by the scientific community...only by time magazine. At the time of the publication on the issue about global cooling, more scientists were actually concerned about global warming, despite the fact that there had been a slight decrease in temperature. Listen to scientists, not the media.)

I have attempted to debate you on this issue a million times, but almost every time you end up pussying out. If you want to argue the science of global warming (since you think it to be an unsettled issue) then I am perfectly willing.

What also confuses me, is that at the same time that you say that global warming probably isn't happening, you seem to consider yourself an expert on how we would need to stop it if it was happening. We can easily curb carbon emissions to the point where the warming effect will only be mild, if we have international cooperation from nations like China (Obama has already met with these nations, and they have agreed to cut emissions significantly in the next 40 years).

Recycling, has very little to do with global warming when compared to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels. It is however still important, because (as I told you in an earlier debate about paper vs. plastic) there is currently a giant patch of plastic in the middle of the pacific ocean that is larger than Texas.

Filtered water? WTF?

To sum up here is your argument:

-Since fixing the problem might require a lot of effort, let's instead do nothing.

-Because Hitler killed a lot of Jews, we shouldn't act on the science of Global warming

-Also, despite the fact that every major scientific organisation agrees that global warming is happening, there is still so much doubt and all these vague theories (which you convieniently neglected to mention)

So come on... I am very prepared for you to debate me on the science, because clearly one of us doesn't understand the facts of climate change.

While I agree that something should be done about the economy, and that the negative effects of our current recession are serious, I would argue that far more people will suffer in the long term if we don't fix the environment now.

You can read my other arguments for the specifics, but for brevity's sake I will give you the highlights of what will happen if we allow climate change to continue unabated.

-Increased aridity leading to crop failures

-Rising sea levels that could displace millions of people in the next 100 years

-Better climate for bugs that destroy both crops and trees

-Mass extinction of animals, and general disruption of world ecology (this one, once done, cannot be undone)

So in short, there will be less food to support our ever expanding population, there will be millions of refugees, and the biodiversity of our planet will suffer tremendously. If this doesn't hurt the economy (and in turn the human species as a whole) more then our current recession then I don't know what will.

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea of multi tasking, and in fact that is what Obama is trying to do: create jobs by making our nation more reliant on renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels.

The issue is, we must do something now about the current warming, otherwise it will be to late. Here's why: Imagine a seesaw with balls balanced perfectly on either side. A small touch to one side causes the balls to role, making the seesaw even more out of balance. The more the seesaw becomes out of balance, the faster the balls role. The faster the balls role the more the seesaw becomes out of balance. This is an example of a positive feedback system.

A similar example can be seen when it comes to climate change. A small warming, can cause changes in the environment which cause warming to accelerate. In other words, more warming means more warming. For example: as the earth warms, the polar ice caps begin to decrease in area. This means that there is less ice and more land/seawater exposed. This means that less sun is reflected into space by ice, and more is absorbed and radiated into heat. Obviously this means that there is going to be more warming, and therefore more ice melting.

Another example of a positive feedback system can be seen in the melting permafrost. As permafrost from arctic lakes melts, it allows for the growth of methane forming bacteria, and releases stored CO2. This in turn speeds the warming process.

My point in all this is that if we do not act quickly then the warming that was originally triggered by humans will be out of our hands.

Here is a great video that talks about these positive feedback systems if my explanation wasn't sufficient for you to understand the idea: Polar Ice Update

Why is it that once scientists predict something based on past data, the same must occur in the future no matter what?

That's because scientists don't shake a crystal ball. Obviously as more data comes along, then we will have a better understanding of what is happening, but to wait and do nothing while we collect this data is irresponsible when we already have a good idea of what is going on.

Maybe the prediction was another 20,000 to 30,000 years, but in reality it was supposed to be 10,000 to 15,000 years. We don't know.

By that same logic it could be another 40,000 to 50,000 years. However, this is not a guessing game. Allow me to explain why scientists know that this will not be happening for another 20 - 30 thousand years.

When talking about this in my previous argument I mentioned Milankovitch factors, but did not explain what they were. Allow me to do so now: the earth experiences long term changes in it's orbit having to do with 1) orbital shape (eccentricity) 2) axial tilt (obliquity) 3) Procession (axial rotation) and 4) Orbital inclination. These changes occur independently and periodically. They each individually have relatively little effect on the earth's climate, and often their effects cancel each other out. Once about every hundred thousand years, however, these effects come together to create a global warming or global cooling event. This pattern was first noticed by Milutin Milanković, a serbian cicil engineer and mathematician. By looking back at global temperatures from the past couple hundred thousand years, and comparing them to these cycles, Milanković was able to determine that these ice ages coincided perfectly with when all of these factors lined up (which as I said is about once every hundred thousand years).

Therefore by determining when these factors will line up again we can determine when the next global cooling/warming will occur. Look at this graph for a visual of how we can predict these events: Milankovitch cycles.

Sure, I agree we are speeding it up slightly, but I honestly don't think human beings have caused as much effect as before our time, what with volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and the countless amount of animals with flatulence issues. :) lol

Humor aside, the current amount is CO2 in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. In the past couple hundred thousand years, CO2 has never gone much above 300 parts per million. Incredulity is not a valid argument.

You do acknowledge that for the environment to fix itself would take a long time. From your argument however, I'm not sure you understand how long that would actually take, so let me put this into perspective for you.

The human species, in its modern form, has only been around for a couple hundred thousand years. Civilization has existed for around 10,000 years. This means that recorded human history is less than 10,000 years old. In addition, as I'm sure you already know, the United States is 233 years old.

Now let's look at the environment.

Average global temperature in the last 140 years

In the past 1000 years

In the past 450,000 years

Okay now that we have some context, let's look what this means for us.

As you can see, throughout the majority of human history, and all of civilized history, humans have lived in world with an average temperature that is more, or less stable. What you can also see is that there is a trend of periodic warming and cooling that seems to be occurring about once every 100,000 years. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.

What does that mean for us?

Well, it means that, unless we try to solve the issue of climate change, we are going to experience a global environment that is significantly warmer than what we're used to for over 2-3 times the the length of recorded human history.

Why is that a big deal?

Well, increased temperature is going to have a number of adverse effects. For the sake of brevity, I will ignore rising sea levels, and massive extinction of animals and instead focus on how plant life will be effected. First, aridity will cause crop failures to dramatically increase. This means that it will become much more difficult to support our ever increasing world population. Incase you haven't figured it out, this means that tens of millions of people will likely die from starvation.

There is one type of life form that the climate change is good for: bugs. In many northern ecologies, cold winter temperatures that can last from a few weeks, to several months are necessary to keep populations of bugs under control. Without this cold weather, bug populations decimate plant life. In addition, plants grown in CO2 rich environments are more prone to being destroyed by pests. This is due to the fact that the natural defenses these plants have are not produced as well in higher CO2 environments. The bugs that eat these plants live longer and produce more offspring.

Now compare this to the fact that economies come and go, and the idea of an economy is only a couple thousand years old. In all likelihood, the current climate change that we are experiencing is likely to have effects that last longer then the U.S. will even exist.

I would also argue that the effects of climate change will have a much more adverse effect on our economy in the longterm then the current recession ever could have. If there is less lumber from dying trees, if there is less available food from dying crops, and if literally millions and millions of people are displaced by rising sea levels, then you can be sure that the world's economy will suffer.

Damn facts getting in the way of a perfectly good argument.

I need to stay out of economics debates... they're not my strong suit.

Or the corporations could pay CEOs and other top executives reasonable salaries, as opposed to the ridiculous salaries they're getting now. That might cut down on costs a little.

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology

Hahaha...usually I'll let people make ridiculous claims on the internet but I know that if you don't understand the scientific evidence behind evolution then either a) you don't have a bachelors degree in biology or b) the school you received you degree from has very low standards for it's students.

There have been numerous observed instances of speciazation. This means that we have seen evolution occurring. So in that sense, yes it has been proven.

In addition, the genetic evidence completely supports the idea of evolution. I'm not sure where your getting your facts from, but clearly it's a bad source.

In addition, you are using the Darwinism. That isn't a correct term sense the theory of evolution has developed a lot sense Darwin first proposed it. Darwin for example didn't know how beneficial mutations were passed down hereditary. With the discovery of DNA our knowledge of how evolution works increased. In addition there are other mechanisms (such as horizontal gene transfer) that Darwin was unaware of.

As far as evolution being faith based...I would like to call bullshit again. They're called fossils, and are readily available to prove that life has been increasing in complexity over about the past 4 billion years. Please, watch this video on transitional fossils if you won't take my word for it, and please...stop encourage scientific illiteracy.

Well actually yes I have. I can't find the argument (if you really don't believe me I'll find it for you) but it was about vegitarianism, and the guy argued that they were retarded. I actually got him to send a message to me apologizing for being a dick.

In addition, I have had my own mind changed on issues. Beinglostats, for example changed my mind about genetically modified crops, and helped me learn a few things about genetics in the process.

So yes, I think people's minds can be changed.

I actually do remember that argument, and jessald was kind enough to post it for me.

First, what was posted was a relatively small list of scientists who don't believe in global warming, compared to an overwhelming number who do. Unless you have actually analyzed the peer review documents yourself then you are choosing to believe the minority over the majority for convenience sake (if global warming is right then that would mean more government intervention, which you don't want).

However, if you would like I will go through the list sparsely gave. I don't particularly agree with your strategy of quoting someone whose quoting something that's quoting people, but I guess sometimes it's more convenient to let others argue for you.

First off, if you actually looked at the report (seeing as you couldn't find the argument I would be surprised) you would see that one of the arguments presented by the scientists is that the current warming trend is part of a cycle. One of the scientists who claims this is S. Fred Singer. The evidence for the cycle he refers to is from ice core data from Greenland, that show that every 1500 years (or sometimes a multiple of 1500 years when the cycle skips a beat) the earth warms - not enough to melt the ice sheets, but a significant amount nonetheless. These warming periods are called "Dansgaard-Oeschger" events.

On the surface this seems like a convincing argument that global warming is a natural cycle, however, what one must consider is that these spikes in temperature were measured only in northern ice sheets. In order for the warming to be global it would have to be witnessed in both the north and south poles. So what do we see when we look at the south poles? We do see a similar pattern in fact, with one important distinction however. The spikes in temperature in the antartica correspond to opposite spikes in greenland. That is to say that whenever there is a dramatic increase in temperature in the northern glacial sheets there is a comparable drop in temperature in the southern ice core samples, and vice-a-versa. What this means is that the warming and cooling are in fact regional and not global warming events. What Singer did in his argument was cherry pick a relatively small sample of data and unreasonably extrapolate (either intentionally or unknowingly) on global temperatures. The full set of data shows global redistribution of heat during these events, not global warming.

Here is another argument presented in the report:

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming,"

This statement is just plain not true. Allow me to explain:

The troposphere has been shown to be warming, while the stratosphere has actually shown a cooling. This is exactly the pattern that one would expect to see if greenhouse gasses were responsible for the earth's current warming.

However, if it's not greenhouse gasses then what could it be? The most common answer I saw in the document was solar activity...let's examine that claim, shall we?

As I already said the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. If global warming were real then we would expect to see a uniform warming in all layers of the atmosphere. This is obviously not the case. In addition, we would expect to see fluctuations in temperature that correspond to the suns 11 year cycle. This, once again, is not the case. Throughout this century the average temperature has been steadily increasing, (with the most significant increase in the last 40 years). Would this be the case if the sun was causing the warming? Of course not...the warming would instead coincide with the 11 year solar cycles.

Also mentioned is the unreliability of climate models for predicting future climate patterns. I must once again state that this is inaccurate, and in fact climate models have made very accurate predictions, and every year our models are getting better. For more information watch this video that debunks that myth.

Now I could go on and talk about how many of the scientists quoted are talking outside there expertise, or how some of the quotes that claim the earth is cooling are just plain wrong (see the chart I posted earlier) but I am going to stop here because I'm actually getting a little tired...tired because you pointed to a report to do your arguing for you (a report that I'm guessing you never really read). I would appreciate it in future arguments if you would actually present arguments about why climate change isn't happening, so I can deal with them instead of debunking a 255 page report.

It shouldn't surprise you, however, that Republicans and science don't exactly go well together...

The Earth has gone through stages of hot and cold for billions of years now, I don't think the dawn of factories is really what's causing Global Warming. The most close to home hypothesis is that we MIGHT be speeding it up by a few years.

Nope. We the warming we are seeing now is unprecudented in recent history, and we know for a fact that it has to do with the dramatic increase in CO2. Please look at this graph if you still don't believe that human activity has had a significant effect on temperature.

True, there is no way we can force other nations to stop emitting CO2, however what we can do is set an example to the rest of the world. To those nations who do continue to emit lots of CO2, we can impose sanctions, where this is possible. To African nations especially we can attach strings to any loans given to them from the world bank or any other institution we control. For China, it becomes more difficult, however, we can certainly work with them diplomatically to convince them to cut down on emissions. What you can be sure of is that they will not even think about trying to stop global warming, if they don't see us making a real effort on the issue first.

I do believe in alternative energy mainly because we do need to become independent. But regulating our lives for something that won't do shit is ridiculous and Authoritarian.

There is no reason to get all fucking paranoid about an authoritarian government. This is where the whole "global warming isn't real" myth came from: conservative anti-government groups that don't want any type of regulation...even if this regulation might help save the planet.

Global warming is very real, and we are causing it. This is what every major scientific institution agrees upon, and unless we make a move to stop it, there will be serious consequences.

Edit: forgot the graph

The whole Nazi thing was mostly a joke, so don't get your panties in a twist.

Anyway, what the guy is saying is that our culture is the best, and everyone that comes to our country should be like us.

First, assuming your own cultural superiority is arrogant, and second there is no one American culture, and hopefully there never will be. Is he suggesting that we all dress up in wigs and 17th century clothing like our forefathers? Or better yet, does he realize that the first people to come over here didn't bother to learn the native language. I suppose if we really wanted an American culture we could all buy tee-pees and wigwams...maybe do a rain dance around a fire. But clearly Mr. Thomas Pain didn't think about that.

You live in Texas correct? I'm guessing you know a little bit about Texas history as well then. You therefore know that Texas was originally a part of Mexico. If you're going to annex part of a country then you may have to put up with people speaking that other languages culture.

In addition, this guy doesn't seem to realize that the majority of our founding fathers were not religious, and some didn't even consider themselves Christian. For some reason though, this guy seems to have a problem with atheists. If you're gonna dress like your from the 18th century, at least know some history. Even Thomas Paine was against religion:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Historical inaccuracies, controdictions, and hypocrisy aside, his overall idea of "one nation, one culture" is still a pretty crappy one.

I understand why people who don't speak English would want to learn English if they came to our country, but what I don't understand is why people like the guy in the video get so damn angry at them when they don't, and I certainly don't think we should force them to learn the language. I thought conservatives were about no government intervention?

How about we consider the fact that some of the greatest cultural achievements in recent American history have been from those who weren't part of the mainstream culture, but instead part of a counter-culture.

The one thing I did agree with was that we shouldn't encourage tolerance. I guarantee, however, that my reasons are different than his. When I stub my toe I tolerate pain. Differences in our society shouldn't be merely tolerated but accepted, and even embraced. I don't understand why anyone would want to homogenize our society. If you want an example of how diversity is good, look at our food: Philly cheesesteaks, New York style pizza, Memphis bar-b-q, Louisiana jambalaya and so on.

Difference is good. We need different cultures to challenge our assumptions. I know that this isn't something you're used to doing, but maybe you should start.

Wow...okay last time I compared you to the KKK and you got upset, so I'm guessing that comparing what this guy is saying to Nazism is probably not going to go over very well.

To argue that diversity is a weakness of America is to argue that the idea of America itself is a bad one. This is what I don't understand about these "America First" groups; it's like they have never read a history book. Diversity is what has made this country great. The fact that we have different cultures and different perspectives makes us stronger.

Amazing creativity has come from the different cultures that exist in our nation. If you don't believe me look up the Harlem Renaissance, or the Beat poets, or Jazz.

He argues about language, but how often are you actually bothered by the fact that people speak other language? In fact, do you know one of the reasons why our codes were unbreakable in WWII? Navajo code talkers! That's right. The fact that people knew different languages actually helped us win a war.

I guess what sums it up best is probably the statue of liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Well, first I'd say that regional temperatures are not necessarily a good indicator of global temperatures. For example during the middle ages in Europe the temperature was warming then average, and this led people to believe that there was a "medieval warming period." When you scientists looked at the average global temperature, however, it was about average. Trust me, I know what your talking about, here in Delaware it feels like summer hasn't even started. We've had cool temperatures, and rain. As I said though, is doesn't have to reflect the world's climate.

As far as eventually getting colder, I'm pretty sure that it will actually get warmer before it cools down.

First off, we are continuing to put more and more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. This, in itself will cause the temperature to continue to rise.

We are also cutting down trees. Obviously trees convert CO2 into O2, so the less there are, the more CO2 is going to exist in the atmosphere.

In addition, the warming that is occurring now is causing large areas of ice to melt. Ice tends to reflect sunlight, and when it melts it exposes either water or ground. Needless to say, both of these surfaces absorb heat, meaning that the warming is actually causing more warming. This is known as a positive reenforcement system.

Now, I have heard that there is usually some tipping point that triggers an ice age to occur, and graphs of global temperature demonstrate this trend, however, I can't say that I know enough about the subject to understand what precipitates this change. I guess it's possible that that could happen, but once again, I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

If you want to know more about the subject there is a great youtube channel that debunks myths on the subject.

Hope that was helpful.

Seriously tugman? I thought you would have stopped arguing after I proved how ignorant you were on the subject.

It may be getting warmer but it has nothing to do with us

Wrong. Greenhouse gasses are playing a significant role in the earth's heating. What is producing the majority of these greenhouse gasses? Human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, deforestation is exacerbating the problem because there are less trees to convert the CO2 into oxygen.

it have to do with the fact we are coming out of an Ice Age

Really? Take a look at this graph. I know that you're kinda thick, but even you should be able to see that the increase in temperature in recent years isn't just the result of us coming off of an ice age.

Liberals are changing it to Climate Change so when it gets colder they won't seem stupid when it gets cooler.

This is not a political issue. Whether it's liberals or conservatives or neither or both who support global warming has no bearing on the science. It wouldn't matter if it were the Nazi's who believed in global warming...or if they called it something completely different. None of that effects what is happening.

Actually, it's quite clearly a global warming. Check it out.

If you want to argue semantics, whatever, but what is happening is that the earth is warming at an alarming rate, and something needs to be done about it.

That's exactly what I said, and my point was that that doesn't make any sense.

What are you, 10 years old? Is English even your first language? Do you have some type of mental handicap that we should all be aware of?

Well actually most meat people eat comes from animals raised for the sole purpose of consumption (cows, chickens, pigs, etc...). If people stopped eating meat, then there would be no reason for farmers to raise this livestock, and therefore would not exist at all. In this way, people eating less meat would mean less animals.

Where you are correct is with animals like deer, or other wild animals. Because most of the local predators for these animals have reduced populations, or in some cases are completely wiped out, there numbers probably would increase. When you factor in the amount of domesticated animals, however, there would more than likely be an overall decrease.

This is possibly the dumbest statement I have ever read on this site...wait, no I take that back. This is the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life.

What you stated is equivalent to saying that I sped up and slowed down my car at the same time.

Global cooling is absolutely not happening, because global warming is happening. The two cannot exist at the same time.

I didn't make up those graphs. They were put together by scientists who researched the worlds climate using numerous different techniques including sampling tree rings, historical data, coral samples and ice core data. In addition, numerous other, independent studies of global temperatures have confirmed that these graphs are accurate.

What we want the facts to say is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the truth, and the truth is that global warming is real.

You need to get your facts straight. The earth has not been cooling since 1995, in fact just the opposite.

Here is a graph demonstrating the average global temperature for the past 150 years.

Here is another one demonstrating the warming over a longer period of time.

As you can see in both cases, the earth has been warming significantly in recent years.