Global Warming - Reality or Myth?

[Texas Wedge]

Okay, the discussion on another topic got sidetracked toward Global Warming so I thought I would see what other people think about this topic. Here's your chance to vote your opinion on the matter.

[Texas Wedge]

Personally, I think the climate changes on its own and has since the planet existed. I don't think our being here has had more than a miniscule effect on the planet's temperature. The Earth has proven it goes through cycles...ice ages have come and gone without us...over it's history. We are but a blip on the Earth's radar. I think Gore is just trying to capitalize on the situation to get rich.

[Wazmankg]

I didn't vote because none of the options cover my position on the subject, which would be a combination of the first 2 choices. My choice would be I don't know except that the last option is absurd and supported only by flacks funded by powerful interests who have a lot to lose if we were to change the status quo with respect to emission control and our energy sources.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I didn't vote because none of the options cover my position on the subject, which would be a combination of the first 2 choices.

Is there a way to add that option to the poll? I'm assuming your opinion is that Global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon that the people are speeding up or making worse? Whatever your opinion, can you add it to the poll?

(and while you're at it, can you correct the spelling of occurring in the poll, too)

[Wazmankg]

Done , occurring always gets me too.

[Diane]

I believe in global climate change and that the changes are happening with more frequency due to man's actions and influence on our environment.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Diane

I believe in global climate change and that the changes are happening with more frequency due to man's actions and influence on our environment.

So do we have to change global warming to global climate change to get you to vote ?

[atm_73]

I voted #2. Gore's "documentary" is really being criticized at the moment for at least some mis-representations of the truth (lies where I'm from).

A British judge found at least nine faults with the film:

The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")


4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")

I honestly think that we may have some minute impact on the climate, but not to the extent that many claim. What about our below-average hurricane seasons since Katrina? They predicted very devastating seasons the past two years, yet they have not occurred. One of the warmest times in recent history, called the "medieval warming period" was between 800-1300 AD, but the GW scientists are now trying to debunk that.

Unfortunately, on any issue like Global Warming, or Evolution, it seems that those on both sides are so intent on making their points that facts get stretched, truths get left out, and the general public ends up grossly misinformed and divided.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by atm_73

I voted #2. Gore's "documentary" is really being criticized at the moment for at least some mis-representations of the truth (lies where I'm from).

A British judge found at least nine faults with the film:

The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")


4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")

I honestly think that we may have some minute impact on the climate, but not to the extent that many claim. What about our below-average hurricane seasons since Katrina? They predicted very devastating seasons the past two years, yet they have not occurred. One of the warmest times in recent history, called the "medieval warming period" was between 800-1300 AD, but the GW scientists are now trying to debunk that.

Unfortunately, on any issue like Global Warming, or Evolution, it seems that those on both sides are so intent on making their points that facts get stretched, truths get left out, and the general public ends up grossly misinformed and divided.

Thank you for posting that! I've read them, but didn't want to go find them and post them (I'm too lazy). I think Gore counts on the public's gullibility factor in order to make money. He is set to get rich off his "carbon credits" and yet he's flying all over the world telling people to conserve. Huh? He wastes more in one year than I'll use in 10 and he's telling ME I need to conserve? What a shining example of hypocrisy.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Diane

I believe in global climate change and that the changes are happening with more frequency due to man's actions and influence on our environment.

For the record...that is what is meant by global warming. The global warming alarmists have changed the term from global warming to global climate change because it allows them to continue to use the term when the weather changes and we start seeing colder temperatures consistently. Then they'll be able to point their fingers and say, "See! It's global climate change!" Temperatures fluctuate and have for hundreds and thousands of years...from hot to cold and back again. By using the term global warming they realized they were painting themselves into a corner and would lose marketability when the temperatures starting decreasing (like they did in the 70's). So they decided to use a catch-all phrase ... global climate change. Now they're covered no matter what happens...unless the average yearly temperature across the planet remains steady year after year after year...then they're hosed. What I would give to see that happen for just 3 or 4 years in a row!!

[atm_73]

Like I said, we may never know the truth, but I think Al is wrong in using fear to promote his film. The statement he made about Katrina is the one that is truly radical. How many devastating hurricanes occurred before carbon emissions? - Many! The devastation in New Orleans was the unfortunate merging of a major storm with an over-crowded, unevacuated city, and shotty levees.

[Wazmankg]

"High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it. While accepting the broad arguments of the film, the judge"

Originally Posted by atm_73

{Identified the 9 errors of ommission and exaggeration detailed by atm_73's post}

[Darth Fader]

When i was at school we were told that the earths weather systems move in a cycle,when the romans invaded Britain they were able to grow grapes and olives in the south of England,there are vineyards agin on the south coast. the earth is more capable of looking after itself than we think.

[atm_73]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

"High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it. While accepting the broad arguments of the film, the judge"

Like I said, both sides will use the same info to "prove" their point

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by atm_73

I honestly think that we may have some minute impact on the climate, but not to the extent that many claim. What about our below-average hurricane seasons since Katrina? They predicted very devastating seasons the past two years, yet they have not occurred. One of the warmest times in recent history, called the "medieval warming period" was between 800-1300 AD, but the GW scientists are now trying to debunk that.

How do you think Greenland got its name? It sure wasn't because the Vikings had a dry, ironic sense of humor.

The polar bear thing is actually kind of funny...their numbers have exploded since the 1970s, mostly due to less hunting.

That said, I would say my stance would be somewhere between #1 and #2, shaded toward #2.

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by atm_73

I voted #2. Gore's "documentary" is really being criticized at the moment for at least some mis-representations of the truth (lies where I'm from).

A British judge found at least nine faults with the film:

What on earth does a judge know about the subject?

I think there is no question anymore that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe, however, what mystifies me completely is the "anti-global warming" crowd's outright willful ignorance. You could have every scientist on earth saying it was happening, and because it was highlighted by Mr. Gore and considered to be a left-wing cause, they would deny it anyhow because it doesn't gel with their overall political outlook.

The science is far from inconclusive.

[xnavyct]

All I know is that winters sure seem a lot warmer over all here in Indiana than what I remember as a kid back in the 1970's.....I'm sure it's a natural cycle, that is seeing some magnification from all the carbon dioxide we're shooting into the atmosphere.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

So do we have to change global warming to global climate change to get you to vote ?

There should be another choice - other and you specify.

[pick-it-up]

I'm no environmental scientist...


So if the scientific community as a whole says 'Global Warming' is caused by humans, I'll trust their findings.

Why wouldn't I?

[JPsuff]

.


All I can say is that all of the things we've done to the land and water along with all of the crap we've pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has to have had some effect on the natural processes of this planet.

To deny this would be incredibly naive.


-JP

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by tour_insider

What on earth does a judge know about the subject?

Probably no more than a hack former vice president looking to line his pockets with fool's money.

Originally Posted by tour_insider

I think there is no question anymore that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe, however, what mystifies me completely is the "anti-global warming" crowd's outright willful ignorance. You could have every scientist on earth saying it was happening, and because it was highlighted by Mr. Gore and considered to be a left-wing cause, they would deny it anyhow because it doesn't gel with their overall political outlook.

The science is far from inconclusive.

You're so right. Over half the published scientists have agreed that global warming is not man-made. The number of people who blindly follow Gore simply because he gels with their overall political outlook surprise me.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

All I know is that winters sure seem a lot warmer over all here in Indiana than what I remember as a kid back in the 1970's.....I'm sure it's a natural cycle, that is seeing some magnification from all the carbon dioxide we're shooting into the atmosphere.

I'm no scientist, so maybe you can explain to me what melted all the ice during the last ice age? Were the dinosaurs building factories and driving SUVs?

Also, there are a few places in the US right now that are over 70 inches ahead of normal SNOWFALL for this time of year. I thought global warming would mean LESS snow...

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by pick-it-up

I'm no environmental scientist...


So if the scientific community as a whole says 'Global Warming' is caused by humans, I'll trust their findings.

Why wouldn't I?

Because you've been lied to about the number of scientists who really believe global warming is a man-made problem. Even some of the scientists who were on the panel that received to nobel joke award have since removed themselves from the award as they have decided that the conclusions drawn were not true. The reason you've been lied to is so Al Gore can make money off you and everyone else on the planet. Like JP said in another thread (the conspiracy thing)...who stands to benefit? If Gore can spin this to sound like an armageddon end-of-the-world scenario, he stands to make more money than imaginable.

[xnavyct]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

I'm no scientist, so maybe you can explain to me what melted all the ice during the last ice age? Were the dinosaurs building factories and driving SUVs?

Also, there are a few places in the US right now that are over 70 inches ahead of normal SNOWFALL for this time of year. I thought global warming would mean LESS snow...

Relax, TW - I agree with you in that we are not THE cause of global warming, we're just 'helping it along' so to speak - maybe compressing a normal 100 year 'warmer' cycle down to 75, something along those lines.

I know though that overall, here in the midwest, the winters are a lot milder than they were 30 years ago (anyone else remember the blizzard of 78?) - probably part of a cycle, that's all, but normally we may not have seen this warm stretch for another 20-25 years. I think things are being compressed, that's all. We're building up the CO2 faster than it would have occured naturally.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Relax, TW - I agree with you in that we are not THE cause of global warming, we're just 'helping it along' so to speak - maybe compressing a normal 100 year 'warmer' cycle down to 75, something along those lines.

I know though that overall, here in the midwest, the winters are a lot milder than they were 30 years ago (anyone else remember the blizzard of 78?) - probably part of a cycle, that's all, but normally we may not have seen this warm stretch for another 20-25 years. I think things are being compressed, that's all. We're building up the CO2 faster than it would have occured naturally.

I didn't mean to sound harsh. I was just trying to make a point about how the earth has cycled through rises and falls of temperatures without a single gas-guzzling vehicle on the planet. So if it's not cyclical...then how did all those events occur before? Overall, our winters have probably been a little milder than normal, but I don't plan on looking that gift horse in the mouth. I don't like cold weather, so I'm liking it. A few years ago we got 12 inches of SNOW on Christmas day! My parents said they had NEVER seen snow on Christmas day and their parents had NEVER seen snow on Christmas day (in our area of Texas, of course). I think Gore has successfully made a mountain out of a molehill.

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Probably no more than a hack former vice president looking to line his pockets with fool's money.

Al Gore doesn't need to hype some make-believe scenario to make money.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

You're so right. Over half the published scientists have agreed that global warming is not man-made. The number of people who blindly follow Gore simply because he gels with their overall political outlook surprise me.

I know I am - 99 times out of 100 when you see a scientist who outright dismisses it, they're associated with some right-wing cause.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

The number of people who blindly follow Gore simply because he gels with their overall political outlook surprise me.

I don't know anybody who believes in global warming because of Al Gore, people believe in it because of the science that proves it true; and the number of people who blindly dismiss the science simply because Al Gore doesn't gel with their overall political outlook don't surprise me, frankly.

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Even some of the scientists who were on the panel that received to nobel joke award have since removed themselves from the award as they have decided that the conclusions drawn were not true.

Name them.

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

The reason you've been lied to is so Al Gore can make money off you and everyone else on the planet. Like JP said in another thread (the conspiracy thing)...who stands to benefit? If Gore can spin this to sound like an armageddon end-of-the-world scenario, he stands to make more money than imaginable.

How, specifically?

[Bigvivec]

I think its awesome that a bunch of laymen with minimal scientific training, research or evidience can simply disprove a vast portion of the scientific community with a wave of their pro conservative wand...

Anyone who thinks that the world is not headed for environmental disaster is sticking their heads in the sand...there have never been as many people on the planet as today, the number is multipling exponentially, and we have never been as industralized as we are currently...countries with mammoth populations like China, India, Indonesia and the like over here are building factories as fast as they can with little or no environmental controls...there is no historical reference for an earth "cycle" when taking these things into consideration...the resources that the earth has to heal itself are quickly disappearing due to massive global deforestation and irrepairable damage to groundwater supplies...

Just because Rush said so doesn't make it true guys...

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

I think its awesome that a bunch of laymen with minimal scientific training, research or evidience can simply disprove a vast portion of the scientific community with a wave of their pro conservative wand...

Anyone who thinks that the world is not headed for environmental disaster is sticking their heads in the sand...there have never been as many people on the planet as today, the number is multipling exponentially, and we have never been as industralized as we are currently...countries with mammoth populations like China, India, Indonesia and the like over here are building factories as fast as they can with little or no environmental controls...there is no historical reference for an earth "cycle" when taking these things into consideration...the resources that the earth has to heal itself are quickly disappearing due to massive global deforestation and irrepairable damage to groundwater supplies...

Just because Rush said so doesn't make it true guys...

:c lap:

-JP

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Anyone who thinks that the world is not headed for environmental disaster is sticking their heads in the sand...there have never been as many people on the planet as today, the number is multipling exponentially, and we have never been as industralized as we are currently...countries with mammoth populations like China, India, Indonesia and the like over here are building factories as fast as they can with little or no environmental controls...there is no historical reference for an earth "cycle" when taking these things into consideration...the resources that the earth has to heal itself are quickly disappearing due to massive global deforestation and irrepairable damage to groundwater supplies...

And just what is this disaster? If the earth is heading for a disaster, it certainly has nothing to do with global warming. Alarmism, based on something we truly don't, cannot, and never will understand....that is not to say that the unchecked environmental degradation in undeveloped and even developed countries is a good thing, but anyone who truly believes that the end of civilization is coming because of a three atom-configuration in the atmosphere has their single head in the snow.

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by stlcard_25

And just what is this disaster? If the earth is heading for a disaster, it certainly has nothing to do with global warming. Alarmism, based on something we truly don't, cannot, and never will understand....that is not to say that the unchecked environmental degradation in undeveloped and even developed countries is a good thing, but anyone who truly believes that the end of civilization is coming because of a three atom-configuration in the atmosphere has their single head in the snow.

I can't for the life of me understand why a person would want to poke holes in the theory of global warming...assuage their guilt connected to their excessive consumption of energy and the effects on future generations perhaps, or just maybe because Al Gore is the global warming posterboy...hate the man; I am by no means the biggest fan, but to deny that the planet is on track to be overpopulated, overpolluted, continued damage to the ozone layer resulting in an increase of uv exposure and continuation of the "greenhouse effect" which results in higher mean temperatures worldwide also known as global warming...the ensuing chain reaction will not end civilization as it was dramatically suggested but will have consequences...very real consequences enviornmentally speaking for our future generations...

Now as far as being able to "feel" the differences, you probably won't...the rate of warming is quite slow, so for all of you who say that the world is warmer because you don't have to wear a jacket in the winter are mistaken...over the next 100years temperatures are expected to rise 5.8*C on average worldwide...not a change that would be easily noticed...except by things much more sensitive to the environment than we are (if it's too hot for me I go inside, turn on the a/c and crack a beer...icebergs can't do that)...

Green pastures may look beautiful in countrysides around the globe, but it isn't alarmist to say that the worldwide human population is putting the squeeze on mother nature at a rate and in ways not imagined 200 years ago...where we will stand 200 years from today is the question on the table, and from where I stand it isn't looking too good...

I'm going to go have a cigarette now and continue to contribue to our collective impending journey in a handbasket...

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

I can't for the life of me understand why a person would want to poke holes in the theory of global warming...assuage their guilt connected to their excessive consumption of energy and the effects on future generations perhaps, or just maybe because Al Gore is the global warming posterboy...hate the man; I am by no means the biggest fan, but to deny that the planet is on track to be overpopulated, overpolluted, continued damage to the ozone layer resulting in an increase of uv exposure and continuation of the "greenhouse effect" which results in higher mean temperatures worldwide also known as global warming...the ensuing chain reaction will not end civilization as it was dramatically suggested but will have consequences...very real consequences enviornmentally speaking for our future generations...

It is....but none of that has to do with global warming. The warming of the planet may, and probably will, affect climates in different places in different ways. The earth has been warmer in many different time periods than it is now, and life managed to still exist...

I'm not going to argue with you about pollution, ozone depletion, etc...because those are different issues and IMO have a more direct effect on the human populace. My own opinion is that we will do ourselves in in some other fashion before mother nature has a chance to squash us....

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by tour_insider

Al Gore doesn't need to hype some make-believe scenario to make money.

And yet he does...

Originally Posted by tour_insider

I know I am - 99 times out of 100 when you see a scientist who outright dismisses it, they're associated with some right-wing cause.

Says all the liberals who don't want to admit Al Gore might be wrong. Care to source that made-up fact? Oh wait the made-up part tells me where that fact came from...
Try to get through the entire article. I know you'll want to puke, but just try...
2,500 Scientists Do Not Agree « A View From the Cheap Seats

From another source...

John Christy and Roy Spencer, who won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites, agree that Earth has warmed. "The thing that we dispute is, is it because of mankind?" Spencer says.

Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun, or ocean currents, or changes in cloud cover, or other things we don't understand. If it's all man's fault, why did the Arctic go through a warm period early last century? Why did Greenland's temperatures rise 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they are rising now?

The media rarely ask such questions.

The media also treat the IPCC as impartial scientists, but (Paul) Reiter and Christy, who were members of the IPCC, say it is not what the public thinks it is. Many of the people involved in writing its report "are not scientists at all," Reiter says. "They were essentially activists." Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. Skeptics were often ignored.
...Adds Reiter, "I resigned."
But the IPCC still listed him as part of the so-called consensus of scientists.

Originally Posted by tour_insider

I don't know anybody who believes in global warming because of Al Gore, people believe in it because of the science that proves it true; and the number of people who blindly dismiss the science simply because Al Gore doesn't gel with their overall political outlook don't surprise me, frankly.

So you're telling me that Al Gore's movie and constant insistence that the world is coming to an end because of mankind has had absolutely NO EFFECT on anyone's opinion on global warming?
And it doesn't surprise me how leftists will follow Al Gore and believe anything he says simply because their political outlook is the same.
I'd like to meet someone who actually dismisses Global Warming simply because it comes from Al Gore. *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. No, they weren't on the IPCC...probably because they didn't agree with Gore. Regardless of why...they are still trained scientists who have no more reason to lie than the members of the IPCC (who actually got $1.5 million reasons to stretch the truth).

Originally Posted by tour_insider

Name them.

After a quick search, this is the only name I can find at the moment. Although as I pointed out earlier, Reiter resigned and his name was not taken off the list of "supporters" of global warming.

A United Nations scientist has refused the Nobel prize that he (as part of the IPCC) is supposed to share with Al Gore, and for the most damning possible reason.

The scientist (IPCC member John R. Christy) claims that the prize was based on a misunderstanding of science:

Originally Posted by tour_insider

How, specifically?

Ever hear of "carbon credits"? That's Gore's scheme to make money off this whole alarmist scheme. I tell you what, whatever Gore is charging, I'll charge you 1/2 that amount and you can buy all the carbon credits you want from me. Then you can do whatever you want and not worry about the planet ending because you paid someone to "offset" your carbon emissions.

What I find odd is...if Gore is so worried about carbon emissions ending the world as we know it, why does he constantly fly all over the world in a jet? Most of the people he meets with probably have computers and would be willing to watch a web-cam presentation or something. He doesn't HAVE to fly everywhere to talk to everyone. He WANTS to. And nobody seems to care that he expends 10 to 20 times (or more) carbon emissions than a normal person while supposedly telling the world that carbon emissions are killing the planet. If I thought I would die by chewing gum...I would stop chewing gum. Duh! He's not just chewing gum...he's chewing a pack at a time and 10 packs a day! Typical do as I say, not as I do politician.

Just came across this...couldn't help myself...
YouTube - Scare Tactics in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

I think its awesome that a bunch of laymen with minimal scientific training, research or evidience can simply disprove a vast portion of the scientific community with a wave of their pro conservative wand...

Or by not being a lemming and actually reading and making an informed decision even though it may not be what Gore is force-feeding the people who would rather follow than read.

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Anyone who thinks that the world is not headed for environmental disaster is sticking their heads in the sand...there have never been as many people on the planet as today, the number is multipling exponentially, and we have never been as industralized as we are currently...countries with mammoth populations like China, India, Indonesia and the like over here are building factories as fast as they can with little or no environmental controls...there is no historical reference for an earth "cycle" when taking these things into consideration...the resources that the earth has to heal itself are quickly disappearing due to massive global deforestation and irrepairable damage to groundwater supplies...

Just because Rush said so doesn't make it true guys...

Yep. Brilliant argument. "If you disagree you're sticking your head in the sand and listening to Rush." You must have been the pride of the debate team.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

I can't for the life of me understand why a person would want to poke holes in the theory of global warming...

What would happen if I and 2000 other IT guys suggested that computers are getting so smart that they will soon gain conscious thought and become actual sentient beings and take over the world in 5 years? And I started a company selling computers guaranteed not to come to life and kill you...
Do you think people would say, "OMG! I need to listen to those guys and destroy my computer now before it kills me and buy one of their computers!" Or do you think they might start poking holes in our killer robot theory. They might even point out what I stand to gain by promoting my theory (money from selling "safe" computers). The Japanese (I think it was the Japanese...) have already created robots shaped like people that can interact (marginally) with people. The debate would not simply end because I said, "The debate on robots is over." And if over 2000 IT guys said I was crazy...who would you believe?

The consensus is never as unanimous as you're led to believe it is. I think there is a possibility of a slight temperature increase in the future, but I wouldn't point to mankind as the major contributor. And I also don't discount the possibility that our warming trend has peaked and we may be headed into a cooling period soon. If we can't predict the weather for next week, what makes people think we can predict what's going to happen 20+ years from now? It's all hypothetical guesswork right now.

[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?

[pick-it-up]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Am I right?

Obviously....

[stlcard_25]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Am I right?

No...not sure about TW though.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

*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.

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

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

No, they weren't on the IPCC...probably because they didn't agree with Gore. Regardless of why...they are still trained scientists who have no more reason to lie than the members of the IPCC (who actually got $1.5 million reasons to stretch the truth).

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

[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...