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.