Artic Sea Ice

[GaS]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

Then again, I guess it's much easier to whip out who is right/wrong lists, blame everyone else but you. When its just as easy to do what is right instead of complaining.

Blame and complain? Guilty as charged if you are referring to the fact that I am blaming and complaining about those who are trying to perpetrate this scam.

I simply cannot suffer those who try to push the idea that man made global warming is a slam dunk scientifically, when much of the current evidence suggests otherwise.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by GaS

Blame and complain? Guilty as charged if you are referring to the fact that I am blaming and complaining about those who are trying to perpetrate this scam.

I simply cannot suffer those who try to push the idea that man made global warming is a slam dunk scientifically, when much of the current evidence suggests otherwise.

That's fine and all but you cannot deny that humans have had a negative effect on nature and the planet in general. In the long run, even if global warming is not true, we are going to make this planet uninhabitable to humans. Nature will eventually rebound after we are long gone but we can very easily go extinct if we continue with our current trends. If that's ok with you, then by all means, don't worry.

[GaS]

Originally Posted by mikejet

That's fine and all but you cannot deny that humans have had a negative effect on nature and the planet in general. In the long run, even if global warming is not true, we are going to make this planet uninhabitable to humans. Nature will eventually rebound after we are long gone but we can very easily go extinct if we continue with our current trends. If that's ok with you, then by all means, don't worry.

Not sure what sources of pollution will make the earth uninhabitable but go talk to Russia or China, they are your main culprits.

Like I said previously, I am all for a clean planet. Just do it for the right reasons and not for junk science.

[plowmanjoe]

no one is for pollution here. i just don't like when people try to convince me how to live my life (commercials).

[quexos]

Originally Posted by GaS

We all know huh? Care to share some more of your omnipotence?

Do I believe we will get to the point where there is no polar ice? No, because I am not a global "climate change" lemming. But if it should, how is this a bad thing? Life flourishes in warmer climates, stuggles for survival in cold ones.

Because there is a delicate balance in this incredibly complex ecosystem on our planet. And what's omnipotence got to do with anything here ?
Changes could be good for some lifeforms but not for others and how is that bad for us ? well when the stuff that happened in New Orleans will happen 10 times a year and twice as bad, you'll see how all this climate change stuff can be bad. Or maybe you won't cause it could be 50 years before such extreme changes. It's all a reckoning, without a recorded precedent we can only reckon.

[mikejet]

Or the Mayans could be rigth and the world will end in 2012!

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Mars is also being affected by global warming. My only question is this: Can Al "Mr. Nobel" Gore, explain how my SUV's gluttonous use of fossil fuel is causing that to happen?

maybe we should get Man Bear Pig on the case!

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by GaS

Blame and complain? Guilty as charged if you are referring to the fact that I am blaming and complaining about those who are trying to perpetrate this scam.

I simply cannot suffer those who try to push the idea that man made global warming is a slam dunk scientifically, when much of the current evidence suggests otherwise.

This type of stuff is what causes problems to begin with. It's all the talk and no action. It's the talking about what could be, what might change, who might be causing it and blah blah blah. In all essence - it does not matter.

The fact of the matter is - would you rather do nothing and see what happens, or do something and see what happens? That's where it is right now.

Do nothing - we continue on the path with a very bleak outcome.
Do something - we just might change things for a better future. Even if nothing happens, we tried right?

Do you know what a least common denominator is?

[GaS]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

This type of stuff is what causes problems to begin with. It's all the talk and no action. It's the talking about what could be, what might change, who might be causing it and blah blah blah. In all essence - it does not matter.

The fact of the matter is - would you rather do nothing and see what happens, or do something and see what happens? That's where it is right now.

Do nothing - we continue on the path with a very bleak outcome.
Do something - we just might change things for a better future. Even if nothing happens, we tried right?

Do you know what a least common denominator is?

Are we talking pollution or global warming? If it's global warming you are talking about, then yes I say we do absolutely nothing. There is no sense in going overboard to stop a minut increase in an atmospheric trace gas.

I am all for getting off oil/coal. I would love to tell the Middle Eastern tyrants where to stick it, but currently there is no substitute. Environmentalists won't let us build nuclear, and no matter what people tell you there is no way that solar/wind/whatever will replace the 50% of electric power this country gets from coal. Heck, Arnold last night on 60 minutes says the environmentalists won't let California build solar fields in the mojave because of some squirrel.

[plowmanjoe]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

This type of stuff is what causes problems to begin with. It's all the talk and no action. It's the talking about what could be, what might change, who might be causing it and blah blah blah. In all essence - it does not matter.

The fact of the matter is - would you rather do nothing and see what happens, or do something and see what happens? That's where it is right now.

Do nothing - we continue on the path with a very bleak outcome.
Do something - we just might change things for a better future. Even if nothing happens, we tried right?

Do you know what a least common denominator is?

that's like saying:"i don't know if monster is right, or if the monster haters are right. but even if their hdmi cables don't improve anything, i tried right?"

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by plowmanjoe

that's like saying:"i don't know if monster is right, or if the monster haters are right. but even if their hdmi cables don't improve anything, i tried right?"

No it's not. Even if we try and nothing changes, we improved many ways of doing things and may even come up with some major technological advantages. Or, you can sit on your ass and do nothing. I guess it's your choice. I will do what I can, contrary to what may or may not be correct. How can changing your ways be bad?

Oh well, believe what you will. You just better never complain if/when things become grim.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Rob71

I see your scientists, and raise you with other scientists.

There is nowhere near a consensus on this subject, in fact more and more scientist are coming out against it every day.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e10...ts_dissent.pdf

First off, there has been reports that the Bush Administration put political pressure on scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Here's another government report that admits global warming is a real problem: OUR CHANGING PLANET: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. (This was a supplement to the President's Fiscal Year 2004 & 2005 Budgets.)

Here is also an article on Climate Change Denial from Wikipedia.

It states in part: "Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 'strategy memo,' set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.' The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication 'leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature.'" (Emphasis added.)

"Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,' and to sow doubt about climate research."


"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan 'to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.' As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to 'maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences...'"

So increased solar radiation doesn't have an effect on temperature?

That theory's been debunked by a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." (Emphasis added.)

Also, from Grist.org:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."

I don't have a problem with reducing pollution, I would just like to see less hypocrisy from it's advocates.

The hypocrisy comes from the other direction, from those who deny climate change exists. Finally, some of them are starting to admit that it is real, like Newt Gingrich, for instance. Even President Bush has mentioned the problem in speeches.

He only "rents" one. Why can't Mr. Environment fly coach, or even 1st class?

How is flying coach better for the environment? It still uses lots of fuel.

(Here is a site that debunks the urban legend that Gore is an energy hypocrite.)

Even if it were true that Gore were a hypocrite, would that invalidate his message as false? If your doctor told you that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health, would you ignore his advice if you knew that he lit up once in a while? Would his hypocrisy mean that smoking is healthy?

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

First off, there has been reports that the Bush Administration put political pressure on scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Here's another government report that admits global warming is a real problem: OUR CHANGING PLANET: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. (This was a supplement to the President's Fiscal Year 2004 & 2005 Budgets.)

Here is also an article on Climate Change Denial from Wikipedia.

It states in part: "Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 'strategy memo,' set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.' The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication 'leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature.'" (Emphasis added.)

"Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to 'reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,' and to sow doubt about climate research."


"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan 'to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases.' As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to 'maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences...'"


That theory's been debunked by a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures." (Emphasis added.)

Also, from Grist.org:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."


The hypocrisy comes from the other direction, from those who deny climate change exists. Finally, some of them are starting to admit that it is real, like Newt Gingrich, for instance. Even President Bush has mentioned the problem in speeches.


How is flying coach better for the environment? It still uses lots of fuel.

(Here is a site that debunks the urban legend that Gore is an energy hypocrite.)

Even if it were true that Gore were a hypocrite, would that invalidate his message as false? If your doctor told you that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health, would you ignore his advice if you knew that he lit up once in a while? Would his hypocrisy mean that smoking is healthy?

Well said. I do here some but's coming though

[quirkmanly]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

How is flying coach better for the environment? It still uses lots of fuel

I'm guessing that one person flying in a high performance jet alone is less ecologically efficient than 300+ people sharing the emissions between them.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by DrinkMore

No it's not. Even if we try and nothing changes, we improved many ways of doing things and may even come up with some major technological advantages. Or, you can sit on your ass and do nothing. I guess it's your choice. I will do what I can, contrary to what may or may not be correct. How can changing your ways be bad?

Oh well, believe what you will. You just better never complain if/when things become grim.

I agree that we should all do our part to help lessen our negative impact on the environment (I receycle, keep my house comfortable, but not overly so, car pool when I can, use CF lights, etc.), but I draw the line when the chicken-little lemmings want to stifle our country's growth and posperity based on a hypothethis that has not been proven. If they had their way, they'd tax and regulate everything remotely considered non-green to the point that people would not be able to survive financially. And for what? Regardless of what WE do in North America, it will have little to no impact as long as China, Russia, India, Central and South America continue to do as they please with absolutely no regulations whatsoever.

[My_Two_Cents]

Here is also an article on Climate Change Denial from Wikipedia.

LOL. I'll take credible scientific (with peer review) reports as listed above by Rob and Blu-Ray Neo over the ALWAYS factual Wikipedia or all of the left-wing tree-hugging gloom-and-doom websites (including the never-biased mainstream media). Believe what you will, that's your right, but don't use an unproven hypothesis to make policy changes that will cost this country more than you can imagine.

[petenad]

You know after reading these posts which are all very good by the way. I find it hard to believe some STILL believe that it's not really happening......live in a more northern climate and you will see the effects. I've been here for 45 years and have noticed a change plain and simple.

[Blu-ray Neo]

Originally Posted by petenad

You know after reading these posts which are all very good by the way. I find it hard to believe some STILL believe that it's not really happening......live in a more northern climate and you will see the effects. I've been here for 45 years and have noticed a change plain and simple.

Where is the unbiased, objective scientific evidence for Global Warming?

What are you using as a baseline for your study/theory that Global Warming is occurring? The last 100 years? Hardly enough time or data to prove anything.

While I'm not against lowering emissions and whatnot, I'm not going to accept something as fact without conclusive scientific evidence. Isn't that what science is? The search for truth?

Has anyone ever thought that the Earth may be on a natural cycle like Mr. Coleman's data suggests?

This planet has been through plate-techtonics, hurricanes, tornados, ice ages, etc, etc. Do you really think that we could do all of this damage? See, I do a real taboo thing in the country.....

It's called "THINKING" and using all of the available evidence to educate myself. I don't take everything that Al Gore and a lot of these other scientists say as scripture. Not when you have some of the top INDEPENDENT scientists and others in the field saying that Global Warming is a farce.

Keep in mind, the power of suggestion is a very valuable/powerful tool if used correctly.


This is the US Government's way of regulating private industry, job creation, and control. It's as simple as that......

[camper]

Aliens cause global warming:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

camper

[DrinkMore]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Neo

Where is the unbiased, objective scientific evidence for Global Warming?

What are you using as a baseline for your study/theory that Global Warming is occurring? The last 100 years? Hardly enough time or data to prove anything.

While I'm not against lowering emissions and whatnot, I'm not going to accept something as fact without conclusive scientific evidence. Isn't that what science is? The search for truth?

Has anyone ever thought that the Earth may be on a natural cycle like Mr. Coleman's data suggests?

This planet has been through plate-techtonics, hurricanes, tornados, ice ages, etc, etc. Do you really think that we could do all of this damage? See, I do a real taboo thing in the country.....

It's called "THINKING" and using all of the available evidence to educate myself. I don't take everything that Al Gore and a lot of these other scientists say as scripture. Not when you have some of the top INDEPENDENT scientists and others in the field saying that Global Warming is a farce.

Keep in mind, the power of suggestion is a very valuable/powerful tool if used correctly.


This is the US Government's way of regulating private industry, job creation, and control. It's as simple as that......

Oh man, that is downright hilarious! A government conspiracy to keep you down? BWAHAHAHA! Please, don't share that with anyone else. Nobody will take you seriously afterwards.