Global Warming - Reality or Myth?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

TW, I think it is hiliarious how you constantly make and establish the link to leftist points of view and support of the global warming theory...you need to learn to separate your politics and science; there is absolutely no link between the two unless you are using the Inconvienent Truth as the tome of debate...which we aren't...

As an honors student in sciences, State Science Fair Winner (senior HS level...as a 7th grader!) and Marine Biology major, I have a little news for all of the conservative political scientists in the argument...mankind is affecting the planet, and not in a good way! It must hurt to have to agree with Al Gore, but he's right on this...stacks of research that go beyond the internet article that you reference support his view...despite earth cycles, it is the slightest change of mean temperatures that global warming speaks of changes much more than your choice of scarf or no scarf...

Scientists will always debate, but that those who don't know a microscope from a hygrometer are entering the argument based on political leanings is when the science leaves the room and the talk radio retoric begins...bottom line, I belive that your lack of belief in global warming has less to do with your extensive research into the matter and much more to do with the Al Gore led crusade to inform the world of the issue...

Am I right?

No. Would you like a link to MULTIPLE stories of MULTIPLE scientists who disagree with the whole theory of man-made global warming? Well, here it is anyway...

debunking_global_warming

If global warming is real...then why does Al Gore make so many false claims? Can you say, alarmist?

e.g. - A tree fell from an apple. Al Gore states that it must indicate that the apple trees are dying because of global warming and soon the world will have no food to eat.

i.e. - Al Gore = Chicken Little...the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

[Bigvivec]

Why the fixation on Gore...I thought we were talking about global warming!?!?

Did Sean Hannity put you up to this!?!?

If Al Gore said the building was on fire, would you still check links via the conservative fathers to find the articles on the net that support their feeling that while it was hot, it was more likely a leftist attempt to grab a little pub and counter with the stance that fire is natural so what's the problem!?!?

It's a shame that Al Gore is leading the global warming debates...it is too easy for a large portion of the populationto find an excuse, any excuse, not to believe anything that comes out of his mouth...be it truth or not...

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Why the fixation on Gore...

It's very strange!

Almost creepy at this point....

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

How do you know this ? I'd be interested in any objective information revealing which and how many "scientists" believe what on this subject.

DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

How do you know who's funding them or what their motivations are ?

Read the articles I posted from earlier...it stated that many members of the IPCC were activists and greenpeace members, etc. I don't KNOW their motivations, but one can logically surmise from the facts. Maybe I am wrong, but when a treehugger says the planet will end if we don't rid the world of industrialization...I tend to think they're not trustworthy.

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Did you even read that, TW?

And if so, did you fully understand it?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

I just find it amusing that an issue that has been around for nearly 20 years (remember the first Earth Days back in the start of the 90s?) has been revivied as a political chip largely due to Al Gore's participation...

When did the conservatives become interested in global warming?

After Al Gore wrote a book.

Discuss...

I actually participated in an Earth Day 5k fun run (where's the FUN in that?) back in the late 90's. I'm not saying we should trash the planet and do our best to destroy it. I'm simply saying that my driving an SUV to work every day isn't going to destroy the world.

Discuss what? Conservatives (see how YOU brought politics back into this) are simply trying to enlighten people so they won't be compelled to believe the bunk that IS al gore and his misinformation.

Is mankind having an effect? Yes. Should we respond "OMG, we're going to cause the world to heat to 50000 degrees in 10 years if we don't completely change everything?" NO. Did you see that video I posted. Gore made it sound like we were going to cause the planet to heat to such a high level that the entire planet would practically burst into flames.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by pick-it-up

Did you even read that, TW?

And if so, did you fully understand it?

I did. Do you need me to explain it?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Why the fixation on Gore...I thought we were talking about global warming!?!?

Did Shawn Hennedy put you up to this!?!?

Why the fixation on Sean Hannity (I assume that's who you were referring to) and Rush whenever someone makes a remark that's against your points of view? Do you believe that conservatives (or anyone who disagrees with you) can't think for themselves and must blindly follow what someone else tells them? That's a very condescending attitude that makes me believe you don't look at all sides in an argument before making your own decisions, but you instead take it for granted that the folks you choose to believe are always right, and anyone disagreeing is always wrong.

[Bigvivec]

At least believing those random supporting internet articles absolves some of the guilt about driving that big thing around...whatever gets you though the night like the song goes...

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Why the fixation on Gore...I thought we were talking about global warming!?!?

Did Sean Hannity put you up to this!?!?

If Al Gore said the building was on fire, would you still check links via the conservative fathers to find the articles on the net that support their feeling that while it was hot, it was more likely a leftist attempt to grab a little pub and counter with the stance that fire is natural so what's the problem!?!?

It's a shame that Al Gore is leading the global warming debates...it is too easy for a large portion of the populationto find an excuse, any excuse, not to believe anything that comes out of his mouth...be it truth or not...

Al Gore is simply hawking global warming to make a buck with his "carbon credits". He wins awards for his fictional movies, books, hypotheses...whatever. That's why his name is associated with this topic. If he weren't hawking the subject, this whole thing would have died out like the "global cooling" did in the 70's, but he won't let it die because it means more money to him if he can convince people to buy his carbon credits.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

At least believing those random supporting internet articles absolves some of the guilt about driving that big thing around...whatever gets you though the night like the song goes...

As opposed to believing an Al Gore movie?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Why the fixation on Sean Hannity (I assume that's who you were referring to) and Rush whenever someone makes a remark that's against your points of view? Do you believe that conservatives (or anyone who disagrees with you) can't think for themselves and must blindly follow what someone else tells them? That's a very condescending attitude that makes me believe you don't look at all sides in an argument before making your own decisions, but you instead take it for granted that the folks you choose to believe are always right, and anyone disagreeing is always wrong.

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Why the fixation on Sean Hannity (I assume that's who you were referring to) and Rush whenever someone makes a remark that's against your points of view? Do you believe that conservatives (or anyone who disagrees with you) can't think for themselves and must blindly follow what someone else tells them? That's a very condescending attitude that makes me believe you don't look at all sides in an argument before making your own decisions, but you instead take it for granted that the folks you choose to believe are always right, and anyone disagreeing is always wrong.

Because the entire argument smacks of conservative talk showesque rhetoric...I actually vote republican but checked the website and found out that I was allowed to think for myself

As for the "argument", like I said, I spent a good portion of my life involved in envionmental science...not crusading, but in the actual nuts and bolts study of it, hundreds of hours logged underwater measuring coral and taking water temperatures, analyzing it againt similar data gathered over decades...collecting rainfall and testing for acidity and again comparing that to similar data collected over a number of years...I am not making an argument, I am just saying that you guys are wrong, and that a large part of your insistence is based on political leanings rather than scientific data...the earth is not healing itself, the big suv's are damaging the envionment, but not nearly at the rate that the millions of vehicles in unregulated parts of the world with much larger populations are, we have never lived in an age that has produced so much non biodegradable materials with chemical waste byproducts that do not disappear from the environment and that the effects on the ozone layer from pollution occuring today are not seen for approximately 30 years time, which considering the industralization of the world over that time period streching back from today accounts for a considerable amount of damage already "in the bank"...water temperatures are rising, marine ecosystems are being altered because of it, and the breadth of the total effects of minute climatic changes in the marine environment are startling and not easily reversed...there is no "other" side of the argument Savage...we are killing the planet and we are a long way past the crying indian on the side of the road looking at the trash on the shoulder of the highway...

BTW, thanks for the personal attack...keep it civil please and don't involve past discussions where we have had differences of opinion...

I'm done here guys, go ahead and have the last word...

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Because the entire argument smacks of conservative talk showesque rhetoric...I actually vote republican but checked the website and found out that I was allowed to think for myself

Hence GolfSavage's comment:

Do you believe that conservatives (or anyone who disagrees with you) can't think for themselves and must blindly follow what someone else tells them? That's a very condescending attitude

You just did it again in your response to him saying that. A discussion or debate is where two or more people provide their POV/opinion on the subject in order to persuade the other. Those snide comments don't help your argument...they are condescending and arrogant and suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is indeed a moron.

You followed it up with actual factual data that you've personally discovered that has led you to believe the way you do. That is MUCH more persuasive than "you must be an idiot conservative who can't think for himself." I still may not agree with you, but I at least understand your reference for your POV.

Hey...maybe I'm wrong and global warming is man-made and all the crazy scenarios Gore propagate will come true. I simply choose to read articles about the subject from all sides and all points of view on the topic. My opinion is that some broad assumptions have been made and that we don't really KNOW what's going to happen. I read of a climatologist the other day that suggested we are about to do an about-face on the warming trend and within 10 years we will be entering full-on into a global cooling stage that could last for 50+ years. I'm not saying he's right...but there are a lot of scientific opinions out there that don't agree on the global warming issue.

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Because the entire argument smacks of conservative talk showesque rhetoric...I actually vote republican but checked the website and found out that I was allowed to think for myself

I don't follow politics or any of this nonsense but I have to agree w/ you on this.

Every forum I go to, you can pretty much guarantee that there will be a few of these members. Their "arguments" are almost exactly word-for-word identical.

It's gotta be coming from somewhere. And your mention of "conservative talk showesque rhetoric" makes sense.

[GolfSavage]

Past discussions? Personal attack? Sorry if you read something into my post that wasn't there. I was simply trying to point out that whenever a conservative point of view is proffered, you and others are quick to assume the idea came from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (at times even O'Reilly), and that the person posting their opinion could not have come to those conclusions on their own. Making remarks such as "Did Sean Hannity put you up to this!?!?" appear to be much closer to a personal attack than anything I've posted in this thread.

[xnavyct]

I'm as Republican as they come, and I like Sean Hannity (although he overwhelms the TV show on FoxNews, Colmes is no match for him. I'd like to see James Carville in that spot - "Hannity and Carville" - now that would be some good sparring! ).

I don't think the environment is a Republican or Democratic issue, we all gotta live here, and our kids will be here still after we're gone. I don't think Al Gore being the one beating the drum on this is really of any consequence when it comes down to it. The debate should be if we're affecting the environment or not, not over politics, no?

[essurfer]

I do not know if you sw the CBS special last night. IT is pretty hard to argue wioth the argument they made that it is not only a man aided phenomena but is happening very quickly. Pretty east to draw a conclusion when you see the evidence with your own eyes......

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by pick-it-up

I don't follow politics or any of this nonsense but I have to agree w/ you on this.

Every forum I go to, you can pretty much guarantee that there will be a few of these members. Their "arguments" are almost exactly word-for-word identical.

It's gotta be coming from somewhere. And your mention of "conservative talk showesque rhetoric" makes sense.

Please provide some original thoughts from the global warming crowd. Prior to Gore's movie, it was all about the ozone layer and how we're depleting it and everyone's going to die from skin cancer, yada-yada-yada. Now it's CO2 emissions and the buying of carbon credits. The words have changed a bit, but it's the same tune.

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Please provide some original thoughts from the global warming crowd. Prior to Gore's movie, it was all about the ozone layer and how we're depleting it and everyone's going to die from skin cancer, yada-yada-yada. Now it's CO2 emissions and the buying of carbon credits. The words have changed a bit, but it's the same tune.

Just sharing my observations, friend....

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by pick-it-up

Just sharing my observations, friend....

Just pointing out what you overlooked!

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Just pointing out what you overlooked!

I know, "Gore's movie...blah blah blah"

I didn't overlook it, I chose not to acknowledge it!

[Wazmankg]

So to support this -

" Originally Posted by Texas Wedge View Post
*I* dismiss global warming because there are just as many (actually more) scientists who say it's not true as there are who say it IS true."

you cite the following article -

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Which states that -

45% accept the global warming consensus explicitly (7%) or implicitly (38%)
48% are neutral
and a whopping 6% reject the consensus outright


and you derive from these findings that more scientists say that it's not true..

must be that New Math I've heard so much about.



More on the author of that article later, don't have time to research it now. The dentist chair awaits.

[GolfSavage]

For anyone who is still open-minded enough to consider all the facts, I'd suggest reading the information on the following site:

Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics

From what I can tell the author is a respected scientist, serving on IPCC studies, government agencies, UN committees, etc. All facts he presents are supported by links and references. If something is his opinion, he states it as such.

The one thing that struck me the most was a question he raises:

Is global warming really that bad?

Read the info on the site and see why that question is asked. Especially those of you up north (or down south in the Southern hemisphere), where each winter cities clammer for ways to keep the homeless and shut-ins from freezing to death.

Here's something else to consider:
The extra CO2 is coming from us using fossil fuels. The same people warning about the dire consequences of global warming are also telling us we're running out of fossil fuels, with maybe 20 years left of current known supplies used at currently increasing rates. The global warming alarmists are basing their calculations on a continued use of fossil fuels for another 50 years or so. Where are we getting those extra 25-30 years of fossil fuels? Aren't we running out? So if all else fails, won't we run out of fossil fuels before we can reach that terrible level of destruction predicted to occur in 50 years? Plus, as supply decreases, prices will increase. Market conditions will slow the use of fossil fuels significantly as we go along, forcing us to change habits and find alternative fuels and energy. So trying to project out what will happen in 50-80 years based on something being caused by a resource expected to only last 20-30 years is also a bad piece of math and analysis.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

So to support this -

" Originally Posted by Texas Wedge View Post
*I* dismiss global warming because there are just as many (actually more) scientists who say it's not true as there are who say it IS true."

you cite the following article -



Which states that -

45% accept the global warming consensus explicitly (7%) or implicitly (38%)
48% are neutral
and a whopping 6% reject the consensus outright


and you derive from these findings that more scientists say that it's not true..

must be that New Math I've heard so much about.



More on the author of that article later, don't have time to research it now. The dentist chair awaits.

My fault. Poor choice of words. I should have said, "there are just as many (actually more) scientists who did not say it's true as there are who say it IS true." Simple mistake...but it did confuse the situation....

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

So in MY math...
7% explicitly support
48% are neutral
6% explicitly reject

That leaves roughly 39% who voiced no opinion and were given an absentee yes on the support side simply because they did not directly reject the hypothesis. Yet, even if you want to give the 45% to the support side, that still leaves 55% who do NOT accept or reject the hypothesis. Are you suggesting that because they didn't explicitly reject the hypothesis that they must support it? I'm not saying they reject it, either. I'm saying they have not accepted it. Therefore only 7 (or 45 if you wish) percent of the scientists involved have supported the hypothesis. That's less than half.

Add this...

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

And I choose to believe that mankind is NOT the primary factor for whatever warming we're experiencing. Are we having an influence? Most likely, yes. Is it a major influence? Most likely, no, IMO. Is global warming going to turn the planet into a fiery rock? It wouldn't appear so...unless you believe Al Gore's movie and presentations. According to Schulte...

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

I'm not saying I'm right. I just saying I'm not going to be swept up in the belief of a catastrophic event if we don't start walking or biking everywhere and shut down all industrialized nations.

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

As for the "argument", like I said, I spent a good portion of my life involved in envionmental science...not crusading, but in the actual nuts and bolts study of it, hundreds of hours logged underwater measuring coral and taking water temperatures, analyzing it againt similar data gathered over decades...collecting rainfall and testing for acidity and again comparing that to similar data collected over a number of years...I am not making an argument, I am just saying that you guys are wrong, and that a large part of your insistence is based on political leanings rather than scientific data...the earth is not healing itself, the big suv's are damaging the envionment, but not nearly at the rate that the millions of vehicles in unregulated parts of the world with much larger populations are, we have never lived in an age that has produced so much non biodegradable materials with chemical waste byproducts that do not disappear from the environment and that the effects on the ozone layer from pollution occuring today are not seen for approximately 30 years time, which considering the industralization of the world over that time period streching back from today accounts for a considerable amount of damage already "in the bank"...water temperatures are rising, marine ecosystems are being altered because of it, and the breadth of the total effects of minute climatic changes in the marine environment are startling and not easily reversed...there is no "other" side of the argument Savage...we are killing the planet and we are a long way past the crying indian on the side of the road looking at the trash on the shoulder of the highway...

You bring up good points, BigV. My own personal view from the start has been that global warming is not the problem we should be concerned about...while the earth cannot heal itself, ecosystems are set up in such a way that unless they're negatively impacted in a catastrophic manner, one creature's loss is another's gain, so to speak. That being, that if the resources are there, something will flourish...it may not be for our own personal benefit, but all the earth is not about humans' benefit all the time, is it?

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the effects of pollution on our world's homeostatic balance are far more drastic than the melting of ice caps, glaciers, etc..that has all happened before, but the earth was not littered with garbage during the last drastic warming period about 1000 years ago.

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Here's something else to consider:
The extra CO2 is coming from us using fossil fuels. The same people warning about the dire consequences of global warming are also telling us we're running out of fossil fuels, with maybe 20 years left of current known supplies used at currently increasing rates. The global warming alarmists are basing their calculations on a continued use of fossil fuels for another 50 years or so. Where are we getting those extra 25-30 years of fossil fuels? Aren't we running out? So if all else fails, won't we run out of fossil fuels before we can reach that terrible level of destruction predicted to occur in 50 years? Plus, as supply decreases, prices will increase. Market conditions will slow the use of fossil fuels significantly as we go along, forcing us to change habits and find alternative fuels and energy. So trying to project out what will happen in 50-80 years based on something being caused by a resource expected to only last 20-30 years is also a bad piece of math and analysis.

Livestock are another big source of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere....any way you look at it, an increasing population is bound to produce more byproducts such as CO2, NO2, CH4, etc.

Curious about the fossil fuels thing though...I thought that was 300 years? Maybe I read wrong...

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by stlcard_25

Livestock are another big source of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere....any way you look at it, an increasing population is bound to produce more byproducts such as CO2, NO2, CH4, etc.

Curious about the fossil fuels thing though...I thought that was 300 years? Maybe I read wrong...

I'm sorry, I should have just went back and quoted the site I linked to instead of relying on memory and paraphrasing:

From the site Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics

Resource alarmists believe we will soon run out of fossil fuels. As soon as this happens, it seems, prices will rise and the CO2 problem will simply go away as plants clear out the CO2, that seems to be getting ahead of their ability to remove it. For reason to prevail, as depicted in the GCMs, somebody must know of magnificent petroleum reserves hidden from the prophets of doom. Different parts of certain NGOs ought to get together to get their story straight. If we were to take the IPCC approach, we would look at the literature and note the range of projections and include all these impacts. Doing so would show that the US Energy Information Agency seems alone in showing a growth in oil and gas production for 20 years (limit of projection), driven by increased prices as demand outstrips supply. This is not unreasonable. Other energy advisors in the private sector see a 25% drop in production in about the same period. The projection to the end of the century ranges from sharp reductions to zero output of oil and gas. The reserves of coal are much greater and production will peak later, but soon, within 10 years being often proposed. For most coal producing countries, coal output is in steady decline. Shortages will drive prices making recovery of presently marginal sources and types of fossil fuels feasible. But, it is all a matter of time before CO2 production from all fossil sources declines. The upheaval to society will likely surpass even the most extreme visions of global warming impacts.

If my brief interpretation (in my previous post) of the above quote is flawed, I apologize. I was trying to summarize what I got from reading it, but doing it from memory after one reading.

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

If my brief interpretation (in my previous post) of the above quote is flawed, I apologize. I was trying to summarize what I got from reading it, but doing it from memory after one reading.

No, I think what you surmised from that passage would be correct. I guess I'd just always read that the supply was projected to last longer...but then again, I tend to believe it will last longer, anyway. Lots of untapped reserves out there...

[Wazmankg]

I just thought I'd point out that the option I added to the poll


"Global Warming is a real, naturally occurring phenomenon, but is being increasingly influenced by man"

is the GRW consensus by a pretty good margin. So what do I win ?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I just thought I'd point out that the option I added to the poll


"Global Warming is a real, naturally occurring phenomenon, but is being increasingly influenced by man"

is the GRW consensus by a pretty good margin. So what do I win ?

Suntan lotion!

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I just thought I'd point out that the option I added to the poll


"Global Warming is a real, naturally occurring phenomenon, but is being increasingly influenced by man"

is the GRW consensus by a pretty good margin. So what do I win ?

Is that enough?

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

No. Would you like a link to MULTIPLE stories of MULTIPLE scientists who disagree with the whole theory of man-made global warming? Well, here it is anyway...

debunking_global_warming

This is what humors me about this - generally it takes less than 5 minutes to lay waste to the credibility of 99% of "scientists" cited by the right in this argument. Take this instance: I opened your link, chose the first article, and did a google search about its author. Here is what I found:

Timothy Ball: Ball is a climatologist who is also the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian environmental think tank whose three-person board of directors includes an executive of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in 'energy, environment and ethics." Timothy Egan, High Park Advocacy Group president, is "a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association," in addition to serving on Natural Resources Stewardship Project's board. Ball was previously an adviser to the industry-funded Friends of Science, which, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported in August 2006, was supported by "a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals." Additionally, according to ExxonSecrets.org, Ball has contributed to Tech Central Station. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Tech Central Station Daily is a website that from 2000 to October 2006 was operated by the Republican lobbying firm DCI Group, which, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is also a "registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm."

So basically he works for ExxonMobil. Gee, I'm shocked, shocked to find out he doesn't believe global warming is real!

My thing is this: I'm not a blind believer in anything. When I see an article on this subject, regardless of the position taken, I'll check out the author. In this case I pretty much knew what I would likely found, and indeed, I did. Again, what I don't understand (or actually I do) about the right with regards to this issue: their interest has nothing to do with what is correct - Al Gore said it, it's wrong. That's the extent of the argumentation required to get the sheep nodding in agreement.

And you can point out the conflicts of interest of the "scientists" cited in their anti-cause, and they still don't care. It's all about "Al Gore" and "liberal."

[halk]

Have any of you seen the show on the History Channel "Life After People" it depicts what the earth would be like if all mankind was wiped of the face of the earth. Goes all the way to 10,000 years into the future serenno. It has been on twice this week if they have on again it is well worth a watch. Per this show nature would reclaim all the of earth, cities would disappear into forest and after 10,000 years there would be no trace of modern man on the earth.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by tour_insider

This is what humors me about this - generally it takes less than 5 minutes to lay waste to the credibility of 99% of "scientists" cited by the right in this argument. Take this instance: I opened your link, chose the first article, and did a google search about its author. Here is what I found:

Timothy Ball: Ball is a climatologist who is also the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian environmental think tank whose three-person board of directors includes an executive of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in 'energy, environment and ethics." Timothy Egan, High Park Advocacy Group president, is "a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association," in addition to serving on Natural Resources Stewardship Project's board. Ball was previously an adviser to the industry-funded Friends of Science, which, as the Toronto Globe and Mail reported in August 2006, was supported by "a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals." Additionally, according to ExxonSecrets.org, Ball has contributed to Tech Central Station. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Tech Central Station Daily is a website that from 2000 to October 2006 was operated by the Republican lobbying firm DCI Group, which, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is also a "registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm."

So basically he works for ExxonMobil. Gee, I'm shocked, shocked to find out he doesn't believe global warming is real!

My thing is this: I'm not a blind believer in anything. When I see an article on this subject, regardless of the position taken, I'll check out the author. In this case I pretty much knew what I would likely found, and indeed, I did. Again, what I don't understand (or actually I do) about the right with regards to this issue: their interest has nothing to do with what is correct - Al Gore said it, it's wrong. That's the extent of the argumentation required to get the sheep nodding in agreement.

And you can point out the conflicts of interest of the "scientists" cited in their anti-cause, and they still don't care. It's all about "Al Gore" and "liberal."

You think MEDIA MATTERS is going to be unbiased?

Just like you check out the author of anything anti-global warming, people already know where Al Gore stands so they don't have to check it out. Researching Al Gore is a moot point. They all know he stands to profit from his alarmist stories. You can also do the same research and find the scientists that "concluded" the theory of global warming are going to be linked to the leftists, but you don't care about that, right? Only the people on the "right" lie. Liberals are all saints and honorable people who wouldn't lie? And you'll never find anything skeptical about global warming by researching MEDIA MATTERS...aka the Liberal Lobbyist Group. Try researching somewhere other than liberal websites for information.

See, here's our problem. You're not likely to believe anything that doesn't come from a liberal site and I'm not likely to believe anything that comes from a liberal site. And anyone who claims to be neutral will be linked to the other side somehow, by the opposite side.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

See, here's our problem. You're not likely to believe anything that doesn't come from a liberal site and I'm not likely to believe anything that comes from a liberal site. And anyone who claims to be neutral will be linked to the other side somehow, by the opposite side.

Correct, but I still win right ?

[Wazmankg]

Al Gore was born rich. I suppose the fact that, including his stint in the Army, he's spent his entire life devoted to public service instead of the pursuit of more wealth was all just a clever ruse to cover up for this late life grab for money and world conquest.

[gocubs]

It seems to me that both sides of this issue are basing their positions on computer models, estimates or guesswork made by scientists who are experts in their respective fields. If I believe the experts on global warming who say CO2 is causing GW based on computer models and their estimates, shouldn't I also believe the vulcanologists(sp?) who's estimates say that the last three major volcanic eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankinds actions? Should I not believe the biologists who estimate that decomposition of organic matter releases 10 times more CO2 into the atmosphere in 1 year than humans do? How accurate are these estimates from both sides? All I'm hearing is alot of argument over something nobody is sure of. If anyone, on either side, can show me something that isn't based on estimates, I'll listen. Otherwise, it's just hot air, which will contribute to global warming. If all of this arguing does nothing more than get us to do more research on clean renewable energy, it will be worth the effort.

[Texas Wedge]

Here's a little info on Gore's house.

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern 'snow belt,' either. It's in the South.

And Al Gore is going to try to tell ME to consume less to leave a smaller carbon footprint? Is he really all that concerned about global warming and the environment? He would be a little more believable if he walked the walk instead of just talking the talk. Do as I say, not as I do, right?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by gocubs

It seems to me that both sides of this issue are basing their positions on computer models, estimates or guesswork made by scientists who are experts in their respective fields. If I believe the experts on global warming who say CO2 is causing GW based on computer models and their estimates, shouldn't I also believe the vulcanologists(sp?) who's estimates say that the last three major volcanic eruptions put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankinds actions? Should I not believe the biologists who estimate that decomposition of organic matter releases 10 times more CO2 into the atmosphere in 1 year than humans do? How accurate are these estimates from both sides? All I'm hearing is alot of argument over something nobody is sure of. If anyone, on either side, can show me something that isn't based on estimates, I'll listen. Otherwise, it's just hot air, which will contribute to global warming. If all of this arguing does nothing more than get us to do more research on clean renewable energy, it will be worth the effort.

Thank you! I agree. Especially since they can't even accurately predict the weather for next week...how can they possibly know what next year or the next decade holds in store? Computer models can be made to simulate anything you want...I think we all know that.