My POV : Your friends are bullshit and don't exist, all made up by you.

Split personalities ftw..

3rd POV: It's a natural event, and we're simply not helping.

In the grand scheme of things, we've only been here for a short while, and we've only been advanced enough to potentially start doing damage for the past 100 years. Just remember that you're standing where a glacier was, just a few million years ago. Earth has had 4 billion years to get to this point, with basic life only joining the party around 2 billion years ago. Unless you're a religious type, it should be obvious that this planet will not be habitable forever - at least for our form of life.

However, man-made or not, there's no reason not to support green initiatives.

Ok, so if we put it down to a natural event, do you agree with being taxed more for more polutant vehicals etc?

No, but I don't believe in taxes at all.

If we put a few billions dollars into science/technology for every issue, there wouldn't be any issues left. Instead of just trying to throttle the problem (which will result in people dodging the rules anyway), why not just make the problem obsolete? Nobody would want to use pollutants if there was a cheaper, safer, and faster way to do things.

This.

I'm all for chaos and the destruction of everything. Should be starting soonish.

Now, It's not like I can say to him he's wrong, because I guess it's still currently a matter of opinion?

no its not, just because dumb people repeat a stupid point of view again and again does not make it less true

He also says facts and science agrees with him, so I guess it's a matter of not being able to tell someone their god is wrong.

Scientific consensus on climate change is wholly one-sided. It's not a matter of opinion. Is your friend an American? This here is the latest survey:

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

And this is the said IPCC position that 97-98% of the world's leading climate change researches believe in:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

This. It's not a matter of opinion.

Aye. Saying human-made global warming is bullshit is refusing to see the truth and face the facts.

It doesn't matter that it is also a natural event, we're aggravating it.
It's just like with species extinctions; never have species disappeared as quickly as they do now. IIRC in about 100 years 50-70% of the current species might become extinct. That's even faster than the permian/triassic mass extinction (the biggest we know of). And it's our fault more than anything else.

I would say social unreast is a far bigger an easier problem to solve than global warming.

Keep more muslims out of europe.

The west should let the crappy countries get on with their life, if their people are too stupid to change it for themselves then tough.
Why put innocnets in their own country at risk for their political gain?

GVT's should not be so keen to replace traditional jobs/roles in the favour of profits.

Also the cost of living is becoming insane, petrol/energy in the UK isn't even funny, and its that which is pissing many people off, especially the poor, who just say fuck it and give up on life or turn to drugs to crime.

I'm smart enough to not really be a victim of all that, but that definitely makes society less enjoyable.

Why are you changing topic? This thread isn't the place to discuss social unrest. The topic here is Global warming.

Stick to it or GTFO.

Unless my points are addressed society will be so horrible to be part of you won't give a shit about the weather.

I don't see the point in talking about something which we can't really change (only prolong) and is many many years down the line, long after society fucks itself over because of my far more important points I addressed.

What little changes we make with regards to global warming will be undone by population increases, might aswell make it as good as we can now from a social aspect. If you want to see that in example, buy one of the Eco Drives, they use less power, make less noise, yeah and they take twice as fucking long to do anything so its a false economy. Just like global warming.

Rather be freezing or boiling my tits off in a happy society than freezing or boiling my tits off in an unhappy one a few hundred years later.

Its all about hierachy.

Global Warming is happening and unless you start culling people because its their needs to contribute to the used resources then nothing will change.

Pointless Discussion.

Everything you said is retarded, but good trolling.

If you deem it as retarded I take it as a compliment.

Don't worry, you could always put them in concentration camps if they become a problem, or maybe make a new state in Africa and just drop them off there. I'm sure the UK government is more than able if they need to.

you sure changed the basis of comparison there champ.

Your 'friend' sounds like a moron who probably basis his opinions on how something 'feels'.
e.g. "I feel really strongly about this even though I haven't the faintest Idea what I'm talking about."

Your example is correct :)

i bet your friends are americans!

peer reviewed science > bullshit media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

Also: every time there's a hurricane or cyclone, "never used to be this many, global warming that is.."

at least draw the distinction between contributions to warming by human activity and that from nature. not that it's practical to untangle them directly, but just to understand better.

with these distinctions in mind, (and even without tham,) what is relevant is the extent to which humans can alter these events relative to how much effort.

see, if it was the case that human activity was 100% responsible and yet that there was 100% nothing we could do about it, this discussion would be pointless.

the assumption is always tacitly that when humans are x amount of percent responsible (..blabla tangled up in feedback mechanisms etc..) this responsibility is related to what we can do.

this assumption tends to rely on moral reasoning; guilt, responsibility etc. rather than some actual link between them.

at least this is where i've found most people get *invested* in their reasoning

This thread is full of Jamerio