Global Warming - Reality or Myth?

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

You think MEDIA MATTERS is going to be unbiased?

Show me that it isn't, and while you're at it, show me that their information on him was incorrect.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

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.

Al Gore is irrelevant to the discussion - I don't believe and/or not believe in global warming because of his involvement.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

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?

I don't talk in generalities - I took the person you cited.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

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.

A) It's not a lobbying group, and B) they report on what ties people have to what groups/people; you wouldn't find anything either supportive or skeptical about global warming on Media Matters.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Try researching somewhere other than liberal websites for information.

I assume you can show that what they said about your source is incorrect then?

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.

Absolutely untrue. I believe what can be shown to be true.

[Texas Wedge]

Baliunas Says Global Warming Related To Sun

A Harvard lady who doesn't believe in global warming. And yes, she is "used" by the anti-global warming crowd as a "poster child" so to speak, but her opinions are hers. She was against global warming before she was paid by the anti-global warming people to speak out against it. But what does she know, right?

excerpt from article...

She also said civilizations have always looked for the cause of climate changes.

In 16th and 17th century Europe, thousands were executed for what was called "weather cooking," where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor growing periods or storms.

Now we just blame everyone who drives a vehicle.

[Wazmankg]

Harvard, Shmarvard... my opinion is still winning by a landslide. I think it's time to close the polls and officially declare myself GRW's Global Warming Super-Genius in residence.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Harvard, Shmarvard... my opinion is still winning by a landslide. I think it's time to close the polls and officially declare myself GRW's Global Warming Super-Genius in residence.

Well, at least now we have someone new to blame for all the hot air!

HEADLINE:

GLOBAL WARMING INCREASED BY WAZMANKG DECLARATIONS

[CG8]

As cold as it has been in Michigan I am starting to wonder

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by CG8

As cold as it has been in Michigan I am starting to wonder

The other night on "Late Show with David Letterman", Dave showed a copy of Al Gore's new book, "Everything I Said About Global Warming Is A Load of ****!", with a photo of a miserable Al Gore on the cover in a wool hat, scarf, and ear muffs. Good stuff!

[CG8]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

The other night on "Late Show with David Letterman", Dave showed a copy of Al Gore's new book, "Everything I Said About Global Warming Is A Load of ****!", with a photo of a miserable Al Gore on the cover in a wool hat, scarf, and ear muffs. Good stuff!

That sounds funny . Why is it so cold in the Midwest Al ? Global warming my

[Texas Wedge]

Just another interesting read...

Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold - Telegraph

[Leaguegolf]

I'm still scraping "global warming" from my vehicles, sidewalks, and driveway every day.

[Texas Wedge]

Here's an interesting thing...

Global Warming skeptics are getting the cold shoulder from news organizations that have decided the global warming is a fact and any dissenting arguments are to be squashed.

On those increasingly rare instances where opposing opinions are expressed, they are almost always de-valued and undermined with negative buzz words like "cynics" and "deniers."

In a new Special Report, "Global Warming Censored," the Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about "global warming" or "climate change" between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007.
They discovered that for every global warming skeptic appearing on air, an average of 13 proponents (CBS led the way with a ratio of 38 to 1) were mentioned or interviewed.

Just as amazing, only 20 percent of Global Warming stories ever bothered to mention opposing arguments!

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Here's an interesting thing...

Global Warming skeptics are getting the cold shoulder from news organizations that have decided the global warming is a fact and any dissenting arguments are to be squashed.

On those increasingly rare instances where opposing opinions are expressed, they are almost always de-valued and undermined with negative buzz words like "cynics" and "deniers."

In a new Special Report, "Global Warming Censored," the Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about "global warming" or "climate change" between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007.
They discovered that for every global warming skeptic appearing on air, an average of 13 proponents (CBS led the way with a ratio of 38 to 1) were mentioned or interviewed.

Just as amazing, only 20 percent of Global Warming stories ever bothered to mention opposing arguments!

Well there's an unbiased source.

From the Business & Media Institute website -> about BMI, 1st paragraph -

“Finally there is an organized effort to put an end to the embarrassing media bias against the free market – and we can thank the folks at BMI for it. From oil price reality checks to the underreported success of the most recent tax cuts, Business & Media Institute gets it done.”



and this

"Before the Media Research Center (MRC) launched the Business & Media Institute (BMI) in 1992, there was no entity in America devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media. With the BMI in operation, that void has been filled."


Their entire premise is that there's an "embarrassing media bias against the free market" and their mission is "solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media".

And from the website of its parent company Media Research Center whose masthead reads :

The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutrallizing Liberal Media Bias.


Sound as if they're almost as fair and balanced as The Fox News Network.


Good one TW.


That took about 5 minutes. For me to add anything else would be just piling on.

[CG8]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

I'm still scraping "global warming" from my vehicles, sidewalks, and driveway every day.

Yeah . Lastnight the guy I was working with said something like volcanos erupting have something to do with the earths climate

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Well there's an unbiased source.

From the Business & Media Institute website -> about BMI, 1st paragraph -

“Finally there is an organized effort to put an end to the embarrassing media bias against the free market – and we can thank the folks at BMI for it. From oil price reality checks to the underreported success of the most recent tax cuts, Business & Media Institute gets it done.”



and this

"Before the Media Research Center (MRC) launched the Business & Media Institute (BMI) in 1992, there was no entity in America devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media. With the BMI in operation, that void has been filled."


Their entire premise is that there's an "embarrassing media bias against the free market" and their mission is "solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media".

And from the website of its parent company Media Research Center whose masthead reads :

The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutrallizing Liberal Media Bias.


Sound as if they're almost as fair and balanced as The Fox News Network.


Good one TW.


That took about 5 minutes. For me to add anything else would be just piling on.

So, being upfront and honest in what their goals are is a bad thing? Or would it be better for them to act like the MSM and pretend they are giving us all the information?

Strange how it's okay for the liberal side to only give their opinions and "facts" that bolster their beliefs, but if a conservative organization does the same it means they have no credibility.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

So, being upfront and honest in what their goals are is a bad thing? Or would it be better for them to act like the MSM and pretend they are giving us all the information?

Who's MSM ? Do you mean MSN as in MSNBC ? While I appreciate the honesty I'd have to question anything they claim to be an "analysis" given their stated mission.

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

Strange how it's okay for the liberal side to only give their opinions and "facts" that bolster their beliefs, but if a conservative organization does the same it means they have no credibility.

I admit I don't have the scientific background to assess who is right or wrong on this subject. What I try to do is research the background and source of funding for those who DO, who promote scientific opinions for one side or the other and everything in between. I think that those who would like to discredit global warming are a lot more powerful, have more at risk and more money to spend to do what they must to maintain the status quo and protect their interests. I just don't see the financial upside for those warning of the man-made effects of global warming ... certainly not in the short term anyway. Are the windmill companies really that much of an economic force ? Follow the money. The financial stake of those would like to ignore global warming is clear. The financial stake of those on the other side ? ... not so much. I'm willing to be enlightened though.

[Diane]

There was an interesting Op/Ed piece in Tuesday's NYTimes which said in part the following:
Even more startling for an administration that has spent seven years in denial, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” that man-made emissions are largely responsible and that the consequences could be devastating — more wildfires, more droughts, rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more outbreaks of insect-borne diseases.
Mr. Johnson is an administrator to the EPA. I've attached the link for your reference.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/op...yt&oref=slogin

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Who's MSM ? Do you mean MSN as in MSNBC ? While I appreciate the honesty I'd have to question anything they claim to be an "analysis" given their stated mission.



I admit I don't have the scientific background to assess who is right or wrong on this subject. What I try to do is research the background and source of funding for those who DO, who promote scientific opinions for one side or the other and everything in between. I think that those who would like to discredit global warming are a lot more powerful, have more at risk and more money to spend to do what they must to maintain the status quo and protect their interests. I just don't see the financial upside for those warning of the man-made effects of global warming ... certainly not in the short term anyway. Are the windmill companies really that much of an economic force ? Follow the money. The financial stake of those would like to ignore global warming is clear. The financial stake of those on the other side ? ... not so much. I'm willing to be enlightened though.

MSM = Main Stream Media, i.e. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

Political control, increased taxation, control the energy and control the economy - there's plenty of room for gain both economically and in the balance of world power to make it worthwhile for certain elements to propagate the "global warming" scare. Even certain corporations are jumping on the "green" bandwagon to make sure they can profit from this movement before enough people realize they have been had.

[atm_73]

Originally Posted by Diane

There was an interesting Op/Ed piece in Tuesday's NYTimes which said in part the following:
Even more startling for an administration that has spent seven years in denial, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” that man-made emissions are largely responsible and that the consequences could be devastating — more wildfires, more droughts, rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes, more outbreaks of insect-borne diseases.

And we conservatives are "fear-mongers".

As I said in the "Is there a God" thread - on issues like Global Warming, Creation/Evolution, etc, it is nearly impossible to find unbiased facts and find the truth (As Waz alluded to earlier). It bothers me that we are being warned of all of these "possible" dangers, when there are many scientists who assert that this just isn't true. In fact, some research group (in support of GW BTW) concluded the other day that the warming of the earth's temperature could actually LOWER our risk of devastating hurricanes (was on the road at the time, didn't write down source - sorry). Point is, after Katrina was blamed on Exxon and GM, we had predictions of record hurricane years the past two years with no fulfillment, so now the "conclusion" is drawn that maybe it will have the opposite effect... WHO KNOWS for sure??

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Well there's an unbiased source.

From the Business & Media Institute website -> about BMI, 1st paragraph -

“Finally there is an organized effort to put an end to the embarrassing media bias against the free market – and we can thank the folks at BMI for it. From oil price reality checks to the underreported success of the most recent tax cuts, Business & Media Institute gets it done.”



and this

"Before the Media Research Center (MRC) launched the Business & Media Institute (BMI) in 1992, there was no entity in America devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media. With the BMI in operation, that void has been filled."


Their entire premise is that there's an "embarrassing media bias against the free market" and their mission is "solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media".

And from the website of its parent company Media Research Center whose masthead reads :

The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutrallizing Liberal Media Bias.


Sound as if they're almost as fair and balanced as The Fox News Network.


Good one TW.


That took about 5 minutes. For me to add anything else would be just piling on.

I'm well aware of who they are and what they do. Are you saying that because they expose LIBERAL bias that what they say is not true? What LIBERAL company would bother to point out LIBERAL bias and lies? There are none. The only way anyone is going to point out the liberal lies would be for them to NOT be liberal to begin with. Just because someone is dedicated to pointing out liberal bias does not mean they are lying or making up stories. It simply means they see the liberal bias and point it out. Now if they said their mission was to eradicate liberal media and replace it will all conservative media, THEN you would have an argument. As it is, the only thing you can point to is the fact that they shine a spotlight on the liberal bias in the media and attempt to NEUTRALIZE the liberal media bias.

If you said Michigan was the greatest state ever and I pointed out to everyone that you live there and your statement is biased, would that mean I'm lying or making it up? Would my NOT living in Michigan mean I'm not qualified to point out that fact? I didn't think so.

I'd go on, but I don't want to give you a headache.

[Texas Wedge]

BTW, I heard an interesting factoid the other day.

Al Gore was worth 2 million dollars when he left office in 2000. Now, thanks to his Carbon Credit company...he's worth 200 milliion. I'm sure that has nothing to do with why he's hyping his global warming alarmism.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

BTW, I heard an interesting factoid the other day.

Al Gore was worth 2 million dollars when he left office in 2000. Now, thanks to his Carbon Credit company...he's worth 200 milliion. I'm sure that has nothing to do with why he's hyping his global warming alarmism.

Jay Leno made the observation the other night that Republicans are supposed to be the "rich guys", but their sex scandals are in public restrooms, while the Democrats pay tens of thousands to have theirs!

There's plenty of money and power up for grabs in the global climate change debate for both sides to be in it for personal gains. I'm more concerned about my personal freedoms, and won't be dictated to by the UN or other international bodies.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

BTW, I heard an interesting factoid the other day.

Al Gore was worth 2 million dollars when he left office in 2000. Now, thanks to his Carbon Credit company...he's worth 200 milliion. I'm sure that has nothing to do with why he's hyping his global warming alarmism.

Factoid.. good one. Is that anything like a humanoid ... in that it resembles a fact... sort of fact-like or fact-ish ? Who connected those dots ? Newsmax ? Fox ? BMI ?

Um, you suppose the fact that he got in on the ground floor with Google back in Feb. 2001, which included pre-public offering stock options, had anything to do with that his good fortune ?

He's been invested and involved with Apple since 2003, also. I'm going to assume you're familiar with Google's numbers. I've linked to Apple's 10 year chart. I'll let you do the math.

Of course I pulled these little facts from those notorious bastions of liberal bias Forbes and the Bloomberg report. You guys really need to get out more.

[GolfSavage]

Ever heard of Generation Investment Management (GIM), a company specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming? Guess who founded it and serves as Chairman?! Good ol' Mr. Gore. So, as someone who founded a company (incorporated in the UK, not the USA for some reason) that bases its whole money-making strategy on global warming, what position do you expect that person to take? Since the company was formed in 2004 (so I assume it was in formation prior to that), and "Inconvenient Truth" was released in August 2006, are we to assume the whole intent of the movie was altruistic?

And guess where Gore buys his carbon credits? Why, through GIM, of course. How convenient! We have an inconvenient truth, and a convenient way to profit from it!

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Factoid.. good one. Is that anything like a humanoid ... in that it resembles a fact... sort of fact-like or fact-ish ? Who connected those dots ? Newsmax ? Fox ? BMI ?

Um, you suppose the fact that he got in on the ground floor with Google back in Feb. 2001, which included pre-public offering stock options, had anything to do with that his good fortune ?

He's been invested and involved with Apple since 2003, also. I'm going to assume you're familiar with Google's numbers. I've linked to Apple's 10 year chart. I'll let you do the math.

Of course I pulled these little facts from those notorious bastions of liberal bias Forbes and the Bloomberg report. You guys really need to get out more.

Nope...I'm betting the majority of his money is coming from his "carbon credits" scam. One day I hope to see the world realize what a con man he is and totally turn on Gore and point out what a charlatan he is and has been. I wonder if there's ever been a class-action lawsuit filed where every person in the world was involved against one person who tried to scam the entire world population...

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atm_73

And we conservatives are "fear-mongers".

As I said in the "Is there a God" thread - on issues like Global Warming, Creation/Evolution, etc, it is nearly impossible to find unbiased facts and find the truth (As Waz alluded to earlier). It bothers me that we are being warned of all of these "possible" dangers, when there are many scientists who assert that this just isn't true. In fact, some research group (in support of GW BTW) concluded the other day that the warming of the earth's temperature could actually LOWER our risk of devastating hurricanes (was on the road at the time, didn't write down source - sorry). Point is, after Katrina was blamed on Exxon and GM, we had predictions of record hurricane years the past two years with no fulfillment, so now the "conclusion" is drawn that maybe it will have the opposite effect... WHO KNOWS for sure??

But there have been atlantic and gulf storms that just didn't mature into hurricanes. It does take the right scenerio for hurricanes to happen. Warmer waters do increase their potential intensity though.

[Wazmankg]

TW & GS, Gore's a private citizen so he doesn't have to reveal the source of his income. My only argument is with the claim that his increased wealth is due to his promotion of the dangers of global warming , when it's a documented fact that he's been with Google & Apple, paid in stock options(though they won't get specific). Both companies stock has increased exponentially since 2001, more than enough to account for a couple hundred million.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

TW & GS, Gore's a private citizen so he doesn't have to reveal the source of his income. My only argument is with the claim that his increased wealth is due to his promotion of the dangers of global warming , when it's a documented fact that he's been with Google & Apple, paid in stock options(though they won't get specific). Both companies stock has increased exponentially since 2001, more than enough to account for a couple hundred million.

You're right. He doesn't have to reveal the source of his income and I'm okay with that. However, I remain skeptical of where the wealth originated from simply because I see the hypocrisy in his actions versus his words. "Live a carbon neutral life!" and then fly all over the world on a jet creating more "global warming" than a family of 4 would in a year with every trip. Does he really need to be in each location where he speaks? Do they not have computers and the ability to teleconference with video? He could be MUCH more green if he tried, but he's not trying, so I can't help but to doubt his worries are real.

I know if *I* was worried about dooming the planet like Gore claims, *I* would be the most green person on the planet. *I* would lead by example. The fact that Gore is one of the least green people makes me feel like even HE doesn't believe the hype he's selling. But an explanation for why he's hyping global warming can be found, IMO, by the humongous profits he's going to make selling carbon credits to the people who believe him.

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

You're right. He doesn't have to reveal the source of his income and I'm okay with that. However, I remain skeptical of where the wealth originated from simply because I see the hypocrisy in his actions versus his words. "Live a carbon neutral life!" and then fly all over the world on a jet creating more "global warming" than a family of 4 would in a year with every trip. Does he really need to be in each location where he speaks? Do they not have computers and the ability to teleconference with video? He could be MUCH more green if he tried, but he's not trying, so I can't help but to doubt his worries are real.

I know if *I* was worried about dooming the planet like Gore claims, *I* would be the most green person on the planet. *I* would lead by example. The fact that Gore is one of the least green people makes me feel like even HE doesn't believe the hype he's selling. But an explanation for why he's hyping global warming can be found, IMO, by the humongous profits he's going to make selling carbon credits to the people who believe him.

Congratulations, TW. This post hits the nail squarely on the head. This entire Global Warming thing is just a huge scam.

I live and work in the "Entertainment Capital Of The World," where we are constantly bombarded, by the Hollywood Left, on the dangers of climate change. These wackos incessantly preach to the little man as to all the ways he can change his lifestyle in an effort to save the environment, yet they all continue an obscenely extravagant way of life which does more to pollute the environment than 100 little guys combined.

Does anyone here have any idea of the environmental impact from making just one movie? It's quite disgusting.

And one last word. I have yet to read or hear one scientist present facts that Man, alone, is the sole cause of this current climate change. Not one scientist is even sure of the precise impact Man has had.

But, with all that stuff aside, I see zero indication that Man is ready or willing to do anything other than what he has been doing all along.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

You're right. He doesn't have to reveal the source of his income and I'm okay with that. However, I remain skeptical of where the wealth originated from simply because I see the hypocrisy in his actions versus his words. "Live a carbon neutral life!" and then fly all over the world on a jet creating more "global warming" than a family of 4 would in a year with every trip. Does he really need to be in each location where he speaks? Do they not have computers and the ability to teleconference with video? He could be MUCH more green if he tried, but he's not trying, so I can't help but to doubt his worries are real.

I know if *I* was worried about dooming the planet like Gore claims, *I* would be the most green person on the planet. *I* would lead by example. The fact that Gore is one of the least green people makes me feel like even HE doesn't believe the hype he's selling. But an explanation for why he's hyping global warming can be found, IMO, by the humongous profits he's going to make selling carbon credits to the people who believe him.

Well I'm skeptical of your skepticism, because his increased wealth is easily accounted for by his long-standing and widely-publicized investments in Google & Apple and yes he's now worth a couple hundred million. The alternative you suggest is not supported by any evidence other than the suspicions of right-wing bloggers. He buys carbon offsets whenever he flies and his home is as green-powered as it could possibly be without tearing it down and starting over. If money were Gore's primary motivation in this (and I realize that it's hard for Republicans to comprehend that money is not the SOLE motivation for everyone's actions) he never would have chosen politics. He was proverbially "born on 3rd base" and could have made far more money over the past 40 years in the private sector. But he chose public service where he amassed the princely net worth of $2 million over 4 decades. But now all of the sudden he's turned into some sort of greed head robber baron, who BTW has already increased his fortune 100 fold since leaving the public sector through smart investments in the tech giants already mentioned(but you already know that if you've done even a little bit of poking around). I guess until Al is living in a log cabin, traveling by bicycle in a grass skirt we'll be treated to this conspiratorial nonsense.

[coralpro]

Well if you don't believe there is global warming then ya'll need some help. Making judgements by people taking advantage or people not helping after they have stated it exists proves nothing. Using Gore's plane travels are trivial in comparison to getting the word out to the majority through lectures. Most scientists know there is global warming and they've known it for years but have only been able to document the history of it recently with the study of the ice cores. Earth has seen it before but what they imply now is that human intervention is accelerating the normal process the earth has seen through its past. You've always had sulfur dioxide and co2 emitted but we also had much more ocean algae to deal with absorbing it as well as forests to collect and use it. Wildfires whether natural or man made increase the co2 levels heavily. Increased population means more fossil fuel burning which adds and removes more of the vegetation that uses it. If any or all of you think it is a money making ploy then I feel bad for your kids or grandkids to come. Personally I'd like to see it continue the way it is going now so the earth has a chance to purge and restart in the next few centuries which is probably the extent of time left.

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Well if you don't believe there is global warming then ya'll need some help.

CP, I think most people acknowledge the fact that Earth's climate has warmed a bit, recently.

[300Yards]

I'm torn on the subject.. On the one hand, I can see how some things are changing, and how humans may be affecting those changes, but then on the other hand I know I can't believe everything I hear..

So I really don't know..

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by droogy33

CP, I think most people acknowledge the fact that Earth's climate has warmed a bit, recently.

Not just talking about a bit. I'm talking about the trend and the results of that trend. Ice sheets in the himalayas that are more than have been dwindling away in the last 30-40 years, Ice caps in the bearing straight receeding drastically, Iceland melting away, Greenland slowly losing most of its glacier look as well as the oceans temp rising slowly. Most of the scientist specializing in this field are claiming it is a fact and are stating it may be too late to change the inevitable outcome. Some are predicting 200 years to an ice age possibly with some saying major catastrophes could happen within 30 years. You have others saying it might not happen for a 1,000 years but the majority I've listened to say that would be more than wishful thinking at the current rate. I don't think there will be much done because the almighty dollar rules and all one has to do is check out the Amazon rain forest area and the Amazon tributaries to see that man is creating his own demise. I think what brought here will take it all away and future generations will pay the ultimate cost for it.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by 300Yards

I'm torn on the subject.. On the one hand, I can see how some things are changing, and how humans may be affecting those changes, but then on the other hand I know I can't believe everything I hear..

So I really don't know..

You don't have to hear. You can see it. There have been studies done for over 50 years generally addressing issues that people really knew very little about but wanted to learn now they have pictures of ice flows in the Himilayas taken 40-50 years ago that are over a 1,000 foot from where they filmed them originally ages ago. The ones I saw were probably over 300 foot tall and over a mile wide. As these start to disappear we lose the cooling effect plus the water runoff from their normal edge thawing so you begin to get droughts which in turn causes extinction of certain species that live in that area. A chain of events sets in motion which can't necessarily be corrected. I do know that if the ocean current shuts down you will definitely see man fall not much longer from that time period. It was stated on one of the science channels that marine algae utilizes many more times its volumn of co2 than trees do yet farmers are overharvesting it and pollution is causing other areas to die off as well yet they continue. There are numerous scientific studies they have been showing on this subject so one has only to watch and absorb their studies and make your own decision as to how one think it effects the global warming issue. FYI for those doubters. Global warming doesn't mean you can't have record cold temps or record rainfalls in some areas. It is the areas of concern that will lead to the final results that will eventually be seen everywhere.

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Not just talking about a bit. I'm talking about the trend and the results of that trend.

Again, CP, I think most everyone acknowledges that the Earth's climate is, in fact, changing. What most people can not be sure of is the extent of Mankind's contribution, or his ability to do anything about it.

Even if the whole of Mankind were to instantly and dramatically reduce all environmental pollutants, it is not certain this would have a significant impact on the changes taking place.

I have not read or heard one prominent or respected scientist contend that Man, alone, can change the Earth's climate significantly.

And you are correct on this: It is economically not feasible for the Earth's nations to come together, as one entity, and institute the changes most environmentalists contend must be made. It's just not going to happen until, or unless there is unarguable evidence that Man, alone, is responsible for Climate Change, and can "repair" it.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by droogy33

Again, CP, I think most everyone acknowledges that the Earth's climate is, in fact, changing. What most people can not be sure of is the extent of Mankind's contribution, or his ability to do anything about it.

Even if the whole of Mankind were to instantly and dramatically reduce all environmental pollutants, it is not certain this would have a significant impact on the changes taking place.

I have not read or heard one prominent or respected scientist contend that Man, alone, can change the Earth's climate significantly.

And you are correct on this: It is economically not feasible for the Earth's nations to come together, as one entity, and institute the changes most environmentalists contend must be made. It's just not going to happen until, or unless there is unarguable evidence that Man, alone, is responsible for Climate Change, and can "repair" it.

No one thing is responsible but man is accelerating the changes and this I believe most scientist definitely agree on. I would also agree they don't know for sure if it can be stopped either. The only thing is noone will know if they don't do the best now instead of hashing around what they think they can get by without until it is too late and the earth can't have a chance to repair the problems. Don't even know if that is possible now anyway but giving up just means it ends that much quicker.

[300Yards]

Even if there is no such thign as Global Warming,(and I'm not saying it doesn't exist.) then we as man, should still have enough respect for our planet to at least attempt to make the environment cleaner. But if Global Warming does exist, then we are probably contributing to our own downfall.

I heard somewhere, that is everyone drove Hydrogen cars, then in 10 years, the air would be so clean, that they would to build smoke stacks just to balance it out. So I ask why do we not have them yet? Seems like that would help to stop Global Warming.

[coralpro]

It is still all controlled by the almighty dollar. Too many lobbyists in Washington to get the right solution solved. Fossil fuels are basically trapped until man releases them or volcanic activity releases them. Forest fires release carbon as well but probably more than half are set by man instead of nature. Deforrestation doesn't help either as well as hydrocarbon emmisions from all the factories or the pollution from runoff. I don't see a slution happening because too many of the powers will lose and too many of the worlds population will have to make too many sacrifices. Just won't happen.

[mr3856a]

Actually, I want to retract what I just wrote, as I don't want to go in that direction. What I will say is this: can we say conclusively either way that the earth is warming or not? Not 100%. Can we say conclusively that man is part of the cause? Not 100%. It seems the consensus is yes, but we can't say absolutely without question for sure. So why is there anything but an interest in finding out?

It seems there are a lot of people who would prefer to spite Al Gore, even if it would literally mean the destruction of the planet. I think if Al said shooting yourself in the head was bad for you, there would be a significant and vocal minority of the American public who would insist Al was embellishing, that it really wasn't.

What nobody can deny is the extreme changes in weather patterns we've seen over the last several years, from extreme cold to extreme heat, severe drought, severe flooding, massive hurricanes, unusual tornadic activity, etc. etc. etc. I'm curious as to why, and I should think everyone else ought to be interested as well.

[coralpro]

Here's an interesting article for those that want to read it.

Geoengineering - TIME

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Actually, I want to retract what I just wrote, as I don't want to go in that direction. What I will say is this: can we say conclusively either way that the earth is warming or not? Not 100%. Can we say conclusively that man is part of the cause? Not 100%. It seems the consensus is yes, but we can't say absolutely without question for sure. So why is there anything but an interest in finding out?

It seems there are a lot of people who would prefer to spite Al Gore, even if it would literally mean the destruction of the planet. I think if Al said shooting yourself in the head was bad for you, there would be a significant and vocal minority of the American public who would insist Al was embellishing, that it really wasn't.

What nobody can deny is the extreme changes in weather patterns we've seen over the last several years, from extreme cold to extreme heat, severe drought, severe flooding, massive hurricanes, unusual tornadic activity, etc. etc. etc. I'm curious as to why, and I should think everyone else ought to be interested as well.

Well said!

Science has been able to accurately assay climate patterns going back as far as the last 600,000 years. Yes the climate goes through warming and cooling cycles naturally and there have been catastrophic changes at least three or four times over the eons and none of those had anything to do with man.

But the climate is changing rapidly. More rapidly than has ever been scientifically recorded and the era of the most rapid change in climate (warmer) has occured in the same time frame in which the Industrial Revolution has occured and since I don't believe in coincidences, there can be only one conclusion: that mankind is effecting the climate.
Global warming isn't just about CO2 emissions, but it also has to do with such things as deforestation (and the resulting oxygen loss) as well as the thousands of other chemicals we introduce into the atmoshphere on a daily basis. It has been estimated that worldwide carbon emissions just from power generating plants alone exceed 27 million tons PER DAY. That translates into over 10 billion tons per year.
The total worldwide CO2 emmissions from all sources is estimated to be in excess of 26 billion tons per year or over 71 million tons per day. And these figures do not include all of the hydrocarbons and other chemicals we release into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

Does anyone really believe that this has no effect on the climate whatsoever?

Concern over global warming and climate change has many people working towards alternative fuels, more energy efficiency, more fuel efficiency, conservation of resources, protection of environment, restoration of environment and overall better environmental stewardship. - all of which are good ideas. But let's play devil's advocate for a moment and assume that Al Gore has it all wrong. If we do all of those things and it turns out that Al Gore was wrong, would we be any worse off?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to do those things anyaway?

As much as many people seem willing to try, science and the facts it produces simply cannot be politicized. In centuries past, science threatened seats of power - namely the church and people suffered and were often killed for believeing that the earth revolved around the sun or that it was round instead of being flat. But no matter how much the church disapproved, no matter what the politics of the day claimed to be the truth, and no matter how many people were persecuted for questioning those truths, the world is round and it does indeed revolve around the sun and there was nothing they could do about that.

So politicize global warming if you will, but do so at your peril. To deny that mankind has affected the climate of this planet and that that climate is warming and will produce dire consequences for the life which exists upon it is tantamount to believing that this earth still exists as the center of the universe and that it's as flat as a pancake. You think Al Gore is wrong because you don't like him and that climate change is a myth.

But what if he's right?

Do you really wanna roll those dice?




-JP