Which theory is more plausible?

[??????????]

Which theory is more credible/plausible? I'd lean Chemtrails in this poll due to the fact that at some point within our lifetime we may be able to confirm it.

[Hatman 🍁]

global warming (normal)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If by Global Warming you mean "the greenhouse effect" then there is still some room for arguement, despite the scientific concensus being overwhelming believers (and I tend to think these people know their sh**t.. much more than some randommers on an Internet forum decidated to finding the percentages of cubans living in the north-west of West Virginia's fifth district.). But still more likely and plausible than chemtrails.

If by Global Warming you mean "the earth is getting hotter" well... let's just say this thread wasn't a very smart idea then. Facts are the greatest tool a scientist has.

I'm tempted to insert a General Ripper\Flouridation "tampering with our precious bodily fluids" joke.. but the question is where.....

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Global Warming

[Alcon]

Which theory is more credible/plausible? I'd lean Chemtrails in this poll due to the fact that at some point within our lifetime we may be able to confirm it.

That doesn't really have absolute relevance to its plausibility.

[SPC]

global warming, but that doesn't mean I think either theory is true.

I ask people who say "Global warming is real because they have a scientific consensus on it," was there not a scientific consensus on eugenics, a theory that led to the death of tens of millions of people? Was there not a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth? The list goes on and on about times when there was a scientific consensus on ideas that ended up being wrong.

[Gabu]

Which theory is more credible/plausible? I'd lean Chemtrails in this poll due to the fact that at some point within our lifetime we may be able to confirm it.

Er, since when does provability imply plausibility?

Is the existence of God implausible because it can't be definitively confirmed?

[MasterJedi]

Global Warming

[7,052,770]

global warming, but that doesn't mean I think either theory is true.

I ask people who say "Global warming is real because they have a scientific consensus on it," was there not a scientific consensus on eugenics, a theory that led to the death of tens of millions of people? Was there not a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth? The list goes on and on about times when there was a scientific consensus on ideas that ended up being wrong.

There was no scientific consensus on eugenics, unless I'm completely ignorant of it, at least not to the level of that of global warming.

It is ridiculous to compare scientific thought of today to that of thousands of years ago.  They didn't have the technology back then to get accurate measurements and data that is needed for the scientific method way back then.

Can you elaborate on why you don't believe in global warming?  I'm always curious about why skeptics are so unwilling to accept it...
Since you're not a Republican, it's presumably not because [insert Republican politician] says it's not real, so why is it exactly?

[Gabu]

global warming, but that doesn't mean I think either theory is true.

I ask people who say "Global warming is real because they have a scientific consensus on it," was there not a scientific consensus on eugenics, a theory that led to the death of tens of millions of people? Was there not a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth? The list goes on and on about times when there was a scientific consensus on ideas that ended up being wrong.

There was no scientific consensus on eugenics, and the concept of a "scientific consensus" didn't even exist when they thought that the sun revolved around the Earth.  The church thought that the sun revolved around the Earth and executed anyone who said otherwise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a lot of the global warming skeptics realize that global warming is a fact, but don't want to do anything about, and figure they'll look like less of an asshole if they deny global warming, rather than admit that they are too selfish to want to do anything about it.

[SPC]

global warming, but that doesn't mean I think either theory is true.

I ask people who say "Global warming is real because they have a scientific consensus on it," was there not a scientific consensus on eugenics, a theory that led to the death of tens of millions of people? Was there not a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth? The list goes on and on about times when there was a scientific consensus on ideas that ended up being wrong.

There was no scientific consensus on eugenics, unless I'm completely ignorant of it, at least not to the level of that of global warming.

It is ridiculous to compare scientific thought of today to that of thousands of years ago.  They didn't have the technology back then to get accurate measurements and data that is needed for the scientific method way back then.

Can you elaborate on why you don't believe in global warming?  I'm always curious about why skeptics are so unwilling to accept it...
Since you're not a Republican, it's presumably not because [insert Republican politician] says it's not real, so why is it exactly?

I watching the Great Global Warming Swindle, which presented many legitimate arguments against global warming. I find it to be implausible, given the historical record, that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

[7,052,770]

global warming, but that doesn't mean I think either theory is true.

I ask people who say "Global warming is real because they have a scientific consensus on it," was there not a scientific consensus on eugenics, a theory that led to the death of tens of millions of people? Was there not a scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth? The list goes on and on about times when there was a scientific consensus on ideas that ended up being wrong.

There was no scientific consensus on eugenics, unless I'm completely ignorant of it, at least not to the level of that of global warming.

It is ridiculous to compare scientific thought of today to that of thousands of years ago.  They didn't have the technology back then to get accurate measurements and data that is needed for the scientific method way back then.

Can you elaborate on why you don't believe in global warming?  I'm always curious about why skeptics are so unwilling to accept it...
Since you're not a Republican, it's presumably not because [insert Republican politician] says it's not real, so why is it exactly?

I watching the Great Global Warming Swindle, which presented many legitimate arguments against global warming. I find it to be implausible, given the historical record, that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is well-known to be complete garbage and has been universally condemned by scientists.  It would be like if some weirdos made a "documentary" that said gravity isn't real and then I watched it and used it to back up a belief that gravity isn't real.

And I don't mean to be rude here, but you're not a climatologist, and I don't see how you can possibly declare it to be "implausible" when the consensus of climatologists, people who've studied this their whole life say otherwise.  If you were a climatologist, I might listen to you (I would still be skeptical about your disagreeance with your colleagues, though), but since you're not, I don't see how your opinion is valid.

And I don't really follow the socialism statement at all.

[7,052,770]

Well, assuming man-made global warming is real, the next thing you know, we will be having carbon taxes, taxes on driving gas guzzlers, higher oil taxes, etc. I would be a nightmare for the economy. True this doesn't prove my point, but, I'm just saying that the effect of it being proven false would be much less disastrous than the effect of it being proven true.

That's not actually true....it's just an oil company scare tactics.
The only industry that will be hurt by fighting global warming is the oil industry, which is just, since they're directly responsible for much of the problem.
Not acting will cause a much bigger negative on the economy than acting possibly could.
Also, in many cases, going green saves money (the NYC cabs are switching to being all-hybrids, which will save the city a lot of $$$, in addition to being eco-friendly).

[DanielX]

Well, assuming man-made global warming is real, the next thing you know, we will be having carbon taxes, taxes on driving gas guzzlers, higher oil taxes, etc. I would be a nightmare for the economy. True this doesn't prove my point, but, I'm just saying that the effect of it being proven false would be much less disastrous than the effect of it being proven true.

That's not actually true....it's just an oil company scare tactics.
The only industry that will be hurt by fighting global warming is the oil industry, which is just, since they're directly responsible for much of the problem.
Not acting will cause a much bigger negative on the economy than acting possibly could.
Also, in many cases, going green saves money (the NYC cabs are switching to being all-hybrids, which will save the city a lot of $$$, in addition to being eco-friendly).

Harry, that's wrong. Oil companies won't even be the worst hit; they're big enough that they could switch over eventually, and in the meantime buy enough Senators (even ones feigning to be their enemies) to make sure the money keeps flowing.

The people really hurt will be those who use these products - i.e. almost everyone. High energy costs are already dragging the economy; higher ones could well cause it to break down.

And no, hybrids don't save money, not for 90% of people (the extra cost isn't outweighed by gas savings for years of normal use - which is why it MIGHT be advantageous to taxicab drivers, who drive a lot in urban areas where hybrids get the biggest savings). They're also environmentally hazardous in other ways - where do you think all those batteries come from, anyway?

[??????????]

Plus ethanol uses more fuel to produce it then you get, plus it raises prices on corn which causes milk and all corn based products, including beef, to raise in price. The effects of which are already hitting some ranchers I know.

[Gabu]

Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

If the theory was true and if we're all going to die in a short while if nothing is done, don't you think it would kind of be preferable not to all die?

[SPC]

Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

If the theory was true and if we're all going to die in a short while if nothing is done, don't you think it would kind of be preferable not to all die?

Just like all the humans died during the ice age?
And just like all the humans died during the medieval warm period?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

Shouldn't that read "Also, As the entire premise is that is socialism is justifiable because of it, I find the theory wrong"?

Come on, we all know that's why most libertarians have doubts on the Greenhouse effect. It's their putting ideology above science. (And I repeat I believe there are good reasons to doubt TGE from what I've read.)

[Gabu]

Also, I find not only the theory to be wrong, but the entire premise that socialism is justifiable because of it.

If the theory was true and if we're all going to die in a short while if nothing is done, don't you think it would kind of be preferable not to all die?

Just like all the humans died during the ice age?
And just like all the humans died during the medieval warm period?

I said "if".  I never asserted that it was definitely true; I was proposing a hypothetical in which it is.

[David S]

As I understand it the chemtrail theory is based on an idea proposed by the late Dr. Edward Teller. His thinking was that it would be very expensive and probably impractical to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 emissions. He proposed  instead that a cooling effect could be achieved through a slight increase in the earth's albedo (reflectivity). As I recall one of the ways he suggested for doing that was to inject certain chemicals into the atmosphere to seed cloud formation. More clouds would reflect more sunlight away and produce a cooling effect. He estimated that this could be done for a fraction of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions.

As far as I know this approach has not been tried. But if it was being done why keep it a secret?

[Bacon King]

Chemtrail 'theory' is utter garbage.

The fact that the Earth has been continuously warming has been known for a while now. It's somewhat debateable that it's caused by humans (I mostly agree with Gully here), but at any rate it's still more likely than the existance of chemtrails.

[jokerman]

Plus ethanol uses more fuel to produce it then you get, plus it raises prices on corn which causes milk and all corn based products, including beef, to raise in price. The effects of which are already hitting some ranchers I know.

Won't corn prices settle eventually once people start growing more corn (which I know some farmers have begun to do already)?

[7,052,770]

Chemtrail 'theory' is utter garbage.
It's somewhat debateable that it's caused by humans

No it's not.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And no, hybrids don't save money, not for 90% of people (the extra cost isn't outweighed by gas savings for years of normal use - which is why it MIGHT be advantageous to taxicab drivers, who drive a lot in urban areas where hybrids get the biggest savings).

Wrong.

A civic hybrid costs you about $4,000 more than a similarly equipped gasoline-engine Civic.

Federal tax credit on a 2006 Honda Civic: $2,100.  And that's a credit, not deduction.  We've already cut the cost of owning a hybrid to $1,900 over the alternative.

How long does it take you to make up that $1,900?

Well, a hybrid gets about ten miles more per gallon than the standard Civic (assuming 50/50 highway-to-city driving).  You only need about 125,000 miles at $3 a gallon to make that up, even fewer if you're living in a place like California where $4 a gallon is more the norm.  (You only need 100k miles to make it up then.)