Global Warming: Is it real or is it not?

[EyezForYou]

I once believed it was a concoction of the human imagination...

Until I read this in the papers:

ExxonMobil paid to mislead public

Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET

ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming

[Ramplate]

It was #1 on the list of seven ways the world could end

[Doomsday]

For every study done to prove global warming, you can find one saying how it's completely overblown. I'm not too educated in the area, but I don't like touching on any environmental issues because no one really knows for sure how things really are. People who think the world is going to end because of global warming are the same people who said that birds were going to be completely wiped out because of DDT, that oil was going to be completely used up by the late 70s, that the ozone was going to give everyone skin cancer, and that global warming was going to raise ocean levels and create more storms even worse than Katrina on a more frequent basis. As you can tell, most of that is completely bogus. I just try to take everything said about the environment with a huge grain of salt, maybe two grains.

[Ramplate]

How do you know they are the same people? Do you have their names? Or are you just throwing out generalizations?

[Doomsday]

I'm describing the general environmentalist movement, which for the most part uses scare tactics to get their point across. You can say I'm being ignorant or stubborn, but almost everything they run on.....doesn't exist. Global warming is the latest craze. Again, I don't know much on the topic, but already some predictions are off. "2006 will be an even worse hurricane season than 2005, and it will continue to get worse." Well, the number of recorded hurricanes was actually below the average, not the maximum, the average. That's just an example. I don't hate environmentalists or their cause, I just think people need to look for the facts and do their own research instead of letting people tell them (Al Gore).

[Steve from Indy]

I don't have a clue. It has been warmer around here in the winter. But it's also been cooler in the summer. At any rate, I'm not complaining, generally speaking the weather's been pretty docile around here the last couple of years. But if it happens, it happens. Their's any number of ways mother nature can kill you, so why worry about it? If she wants you dead, you're dead. I hate that b-i-t-c-h! :)

[Ramplate]

The program I was watching that named it the earth's number one possible demise had several scientists that I have seen before on other programs.
Even Stephen Hawking says it is something of grave consern and his is an opinion I trust
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-22-hawking-warming_x.htm

''It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species,'' Hawking said. ''Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.''

[Angelixx]

the fact that it took till mid january for my area of canada to get a snow and that up till a week before then it was walk outside in light jacket weather makes me believe that there is no doubt...global warming is happening people.

[Ramplate]

The program I watched showed that the earth goes in natural cycles of high and low amounts of CO2 - but since the industrial revolution and invention of cars, the levels are higher than they've ever cycled to and have not gone down much in the regular way.
We're doing it to oursleves and sooner or later the earth will right itself by getting rid of the problem - us.

[Steve from Indy]

Actually, I don't think any of our local weather figures into the equation. I think scientists look at from more of a global perspective over a certain amount of time. We could get freezing blizzards here for the next 5 years, and the planet could still be getting warmer. I doubt that we'll no for sure that this is a permanent thing an not just a cycle for a number of years. I don't know, but maybe the earth could get warmer for several more years, and the cool off for many years after that. Time will tell.

Whatever the case, it's probably a good thing to continue to do what we can to minimize the dangerous effects of what's going on. No matter what, maybe we'll learn how to live more efficiently because of all of this--which can only be a good thing.

[Ramplate]

yeah we should start thinking about stuff like Hybrid cars anyway - screw the oil cartels :D

Yeah it may just be a longer cycle but one thing for sure is - it's different than the pattern - and that is what scientests look at - the big picture and how patterns go.

One thing they did say is that Greenland's ice is melting at a faster rate - and that could lead to a 20 foot rise in sea and ocean levels around the world.
Add that to the polar ice cap and theres another 20 feet - goodbye NYC, London, and a whole bunch of other coastal cities - think New Orleans evacuation was messed up think of that on a much larger scale.

[Steve from Indy]

Yeah, that would suck. Maybe I should be buying up future beach front property in Pennsylvania. :D

Seriously though, I'm not sure we could recover from something like that. We're better equipped that any creatures before us that had to adapt to ice ages and such, but still, our coastal areas are so vital to us that something like that might be our undoing. We certainly wouldn't be the same country afterwards.

[JBond]

If anyone is unsure, they should really watch "An Inconvientent Truth". You'll rethink things. "Cycles" baloney, you'll see.

I just wonder how long it'll take for people to finally stop saying "you can't be sure it won't go back down". I'll hear people just passing by at work say something like "Damn, it was so cold today. Global warming, my ass!" It's sad, really.

[Steve from Indy]

If anyone is unsure, they should really watch "An Inconvientent Truth". You'll rethink things. "Cycles" baloney, you'll see.

I just wonder how long it'll take for people to finally stop saying "you can't be sure it won't go back down". I'll hear people just passing by at work say something like "Damn, it was so cold today. Global warming, my ass!" It's sad, really.

Was that a slap at me?

[JBond]

No, I only skimmed through this thread. Did you say somethign along those lines? Sorry.

[Steve from Indy]

No, I only skimmed through this thread. Did you say somethign along those lines? Sorry.

Sorta. I just made the statement that I thought we didn't yet know if this was a permanent warming or not--or words to that effect. But I could be under informed. It wouldn't be the first time. :)

I must say though, I think someone less polarizing than Al Gore would be a better choice to spread the word.

[JBond]

Polarizing, nothing. Facts are facts and the fact that Al Gore clearly CARES about the environment is reason enough for me to believe that he's done his homework. He's not attacking the Replublicans by releasing this documentry.

[Steve from Indy]

Polarizing, nothing. Facts are facts and the fact that Al Gore clearly CARES about the environment is reason enough for me to believe that he's done his homework. He's not attacking the Replublicans by releasing this documentry.

I agree. I'm not denying anything, but it would still be better, don't ya' think? I don't feel strongly about it, it's just an observation.

[Ramplate]

I agree. I'm not denying anything, but it would still be better, don't ya' think? I don't feel strongly about it, it's just an observation.

ok - is Stephen Hawking less polarizing?

He's got twelve honorary degrees, was awarded the CBE in 1982, and was made a Companion of Honour in 1989. He is the recipient of many awards, medals and prizes and is a Fellow of The Royal Society and a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences.

After leaving the Institute of Astronomy in 1973 Stephen came to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and since 1979 has held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. The chair was founded in 1663 with money left in the will of the Reverend Henry Lucas, who had been the Member of Parliament for the University. It was first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1663 by Isaac Newton.

And since contracting ALS - the man has nothing to do all day every day but think :cool:

[Steve from Indy]

ok - is Stephen Hawking less polarizing?

He's got twelve honorary degrees, was awarded the CBE in 1982, and was made a Companion of Honour in 1989. He is the recipient of many awards, medals and prizes and is a Fellow of The Royal Society and a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences.

After leaving the Institute of Astronomy in 1973 Stephen came to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, and since 1979 has held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. The chair was founded in 1663 with money left in the will of the Reverend Henry Lucas, who had been the Member of Parliament for the University. It was first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1663 by Isaac Newton.

And since contracting ALS - the man has nothing to do all day every day but think :cool:

Yes, he would be a better choice.

I gotta tell ya', I'm not feeling the love right now. What did I do?

[Skinny]

Global Warming is for real, folks. It is the #1 reason why the great polar bear is being proposed to get placed on the endangered species list, and even at this time, they have already been given 'threatened' status. Because the artic regions are becoming ever so slightly warmer, the warming climate is slowly melting away their habitat and their only platform for hunting their primary prey, the seal. Without the icecaps, they cannot hunt and they will likely get stranded to be left for dead. Like Ramplate said, because these caps are melting, the sea levels are increasing which in turn can also cause the intensity and frequency of extreme weather, especially floods.

[Ramplate]

Yup heard that their habitat is vanishing

[Ewok Droppings]

Polarizing, nothing. Facts are facts and the fact that Al Gore clearly CARES about the environment is reason enough for me to believe that he's done his homework. He's not attacking the Replublicans by releasing this documentry.
OK, not to burst your bubble at all, but there are 2 concerns with Al Gore's video and Global Warming.

1) The science behind it is not sound.
2) How can anyone say that the earth is warming up so much when we only have a little over 100 years of data collecting.

People can only THEORIZE about what temperatures where like 500 years ago, 1000 years ago etc. How do we know that they weren't more hot than today's average temperatures? The simple answer is that we don't, and no matter what people theorize, there is no way to factually support the theory which is critical for scientific research. A 100 year sample in the MILLIONS of years history of the world is not enough to make any true conclusions.

Al Gore's video was more of a sensationalized hype than something that the science community could possibly take as credible. IT'S A MOVIE, and intended somewhat to be so. Here's a little reading that better explains the real science in a neutral way (easy to read for dummies like me). :)

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[JBond]

Have you watched the movie? It doesn't spend 90 minutes guessing that it hasn't been this hot before. If you have seen it, you would see that there IS data on the atmosphere going back HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS by taking core samples of the ice in Antartica. Not temperture, but a measure of greenhouse gases which shows it at an all time high in recent years. It doesn't take a leap of faith to think that if we have screwed up the planet this much...something is happening. All this argument about global warming really goes down to "Are we capable of changing the air on a planetary bases?" and the answer is clearly, yes. That's all the matter, really. (And frankly, saying that we don't know what the temperture was like over 100 years ago doesn't disprove a thing.) Because if it's cyclical and we all die, then I guess there was nothing we could have done about it. If it's "global warming", then maybe we can help it by lowering emmisions, right?

[Ramplate]

Scientists take deep core samples to give them a fairly good indication of rainfall and other signs of weather trends throughout the centuries - they can measure the rings on trees, take a deep core sample of ice or soil to see what they look like under a microscope.
Those cover a lot more than just the past 100 years of record keeping.

EDIT - yeah what he said :D

[Ewok Droppings]

Have you watched the movie? It doesn't spend 90 minutes guessing that it hasn't been this hot before. If you have seen it, you would see that there IS data on the atmosphere going back HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS by taking core samples of the ice in Antartica. Not temperture, but a measure of greenhouse gases which shows it at an all time high in recent years. It doesn't take a leap of faith to think that if we have screwed up the planet this much...something is happening. All this argument about global warming really goes down to "Are we capable of changing the air on a planetary bases?" and the answer is clearly, yes. That's all the matter, really. (And frankly, saying that we don't know what the temperture was like over 100 years ago doesn't disprove a thing.) Because if it's cyclical and we all die, then I guess there was nothing we could have done about it. If it's "global warming", then maybe we can help it by lowering emmisions, right?
Dude, read the article on Junk Science.

[JBond]

I did. I saw some reclarifications of definitions and a part about how carbon Dioxide is good because it feeds trees.

Have you seen the movie?

[Ramplate]

Who is behind the Junk science site?

[smokiechimp]

What a work colleague said to me today about global warning, very sincerely:

"Global Warming is horrible, where will all the Polar Bears live when that Ice melts"

I found it freakin' hillarious! haha! :funny:

(Guess you had to be there) ;)

[Ewok Droppings]

In the article they talk about how Green House gases are not this big mysteriously evil looming threat. They clarify the hype behind greenhouse effects and gases. Basically, I agree that we should take care of the earth and the environment, I wouldn't argue there. That's just like not taking a dump on your own doorstep IMO, but I don't believe that Global Warming is what many claim it to be.

If that's all the anticipated greenhouse effect, where do the big warming estimates come from?

Ah, this is where it gets rather contentious because the big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists -- but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture (current climate models do not model "natural" climatic variation very well), but there is no evidence yet that they can predict the future with any greater certainty than a pack of Tarot cards. Moreover, humans do a lot besides emitting greenhouse gases, changing vegetation and transpiration rates through agriculture, for example, and many effects expected to both increase and decrease regional temperatures are not included in these models.

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of "positive feedbacks" (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner.


No, I haven't seen the movie, and frankly I don't think Al Gore who is politically charged and motivated is someone I would listen to on the environment anyways. Politicians (from any party) are not people I listen to on serious science and debate simply because they are motivated by hype and getting votes.

[JBond]

You know what I see in that quote of yours? I see one man's opinion. To paraphrase, it says "We can't be sure of anything." "An Inconvientent Truth" has numbers, science and facts. If people want to ignore science, or say that it can be skewed to support one man's views, whatever, but I don't see how that article gets even close to trumping it by saying "It's wrong".

And to not trust it (not to mention, without viewing it) because he's a politician sounds like a bad excuse. Do you think he's only been interested in this stuff for the presidential races? He's been ecologically minded since high school or so. I'm sure he doesn't mind the tree-hugger votes, but that doesn't make his work any less credible. He wants to be president to help.

[Ewok Droppings]

You know what I see in that quote of yours? I see one man's opinion. To paraphrase, it says "We can't be sure of anything." "An Inconvientent Truth" has numbers, science and facts. If people want to ignore science, or say that it can be skewed to support one man's views, whatever, but I don't see how that article gets even close to trumping it by saying "It's wrong".

And to not trust it (not to mention, without viewing it) because he's a politician sounds like a bad excuse. Do you think he's only been interested in this stuff for the presidential races? He's been ecologically minded since high school or so. I'm sure he doesn't mind the tree-hugger votes, but that doesn't make his work any less credible. He wants to be president to help.

Man, you are really sold on this movie. Well, the quote was just one simple paraphrasing of the data, so if you want the rest you'll have to read the article. There is plenty of science behind it.

[Ramplate]

I ask again - from who?

[Ramplate]

Gore wasn't looking for votes, he was looking for Oscars :D
http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/fs/20061212/959.html

[Ewok Droppings]

I ask again - from who?

http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html

[Ramplate]

Ahh, ok thank you for that link.
I think I'd still rather put my faith in the opinion of Hawking :)

[chillinvillin]

who cares? its not gonna happen while we're alive so go ahead & hold that gas pedal down to the floor of your 1984 Monte Carlo SS or go light a field on fire. youll feel better

[Ramplate]

who cares? its not gonna happen while we're alive so go ahead & hold that gas pedal down to the floor of your 1984 Monte Carlo SS or go light a field on fire. youll feel better

Good attitude - you don't plan on reporducing either I hope :rolleyes: :D

[Ewok Droppings]

Ahh, ok thank you for that link.
I think I'd still rather put my faith in the opinion of Hawking :)
Well, in Hawking's case, it's just his opinion. I have read his views on it, and although he is a physicist/cosmologist and said he's afraid the earth could become like Venus. Not that he isn't a brilliant scientist in his own field, but he doesn't lend much proof or data to his fear by just stating an opinion. It's not his area of expertise in other words which is important IMO.

[Ramplate]

B.A. in Natural Sciences, Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics

Those would help yes. the other half of his education seems to be law.
but
I would have to say Cosmology and physics would grant one a great understanding on how the environment works as well.

[Ewok Droppings]

B.A. in Natural Sciences, Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics

Those would help yes. the other half of his education seems to be law.
but
I would have to say Cosmology and physics would grant one a great understanding on how the environment works as well.

There is a far cry from Cosmology and Meteorology. I agree, the law degrees don't lend credence, and I have no idea what a Masters of Health Sciences in Biostatistics would cover, but he has been heavily involved with, testified before congress and lectured on projects such as Superfund. He's also been interviewed by numerous news groups concerning this. This is his area of knowledge that he has chosen, regardless of whether or not he got a law degree. That seems a bit more credible to me than someone stating their opinion as I've said before. If they are actively working in the field, I would listen over someone who isn't.

[JBond]

http://www.junkscience.com/Junkman.html

...and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Haha, why am I not surprised.

who cares? its not gonna happen while we're alive so go ahead & hold that gas pedal down to the floor of your 1984 Monte Carlo SS or go light a field on fire. youll feel better

There can be disasterous consequences in our lifetime, easily.

[chillinvillin]

Good attitude - you don't plan on reporducing either I hope :rolleyes: :D



sorry already did. haha on you.


hey jbond i was kidding about fires & what not but it happens all the time. just like down here some guy had a compost pile the size of 5 houses & someone lit it on fire & its been burning for 2 months now. i can smell it every morning & the fires in another county.

its still kool to hold the gas pedal down though

[Ramplate]

Hawking has been as active as anyone in the scientific realm. and as active as anyone with his ALS and Motor Neurone Disease can be.
His mind is still very sharp and his opinion backed by looking into the intricacies of how exactly the universe works.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/about/about.html

In any event - an immediate threat or a long term one - now is the time to act upon the problem.

[Ewok Droppings]

Hawking has been as active as anyone in the scientific realm. and as active as anyone with his ALS and Motor Neurone Disease can be.
His mind is still very sharp and his opinion backed by looking into the intricacies of how exactly the universe works.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/about/about.html

In any event - an immediate threat or a long term one - now is the time to act upon the problem.

It's not whether or not he's active in the scientific realm. My father is a PhD chemist and very active, but I wouldn't take his word on the environment because that's not his field of expertise; neither is it Hawking's.

[Ramplate]

well, i guess that's just one of these things we'll have to disagree on :)

[Alien]

Global Warming: Is it real or is it not?
It hasn't really snowed here in years and you have to ask...

[Ramplate]

Could be a combination o things - the moon is moving an inch and a half away each year - not that we'd notice drastic effects untill it goes significantly away, but it could contribute eventually

[Malcontent]

In the article they talk about how Green House gases are not this big mysteriously evil looming threat. They clarify the hype behind greenhouse effects and gases. Basically, I agree that we should take care of the earth and the environment, I wouldn't argue there. That's just like not taking a dump on your own doorstep IMO, but I don't believe that Global Warming is what many claim it to be.




No, I haven't seen the movie, and frankly I don't think Al Gore who is politically charged and motivated is someone I would listen to on the environment anyways. Politicians (from any party) are not people I listen to on serious science and debate simply because they are motivated by hype and getting votes.

Now, I'm not usually one to take the government's word at face value, but in this case I am inclined to lend more credibility to the EPA report linked to here(itself backed by multinational research papers- see resources) than to the junkscience.com website. The multiplier effects contested by junkscience certainly seem to hold up by the EPA's standards, and are what imbue this topic with the appropriate immediacy.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

[Ewok Droppings]

* There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years.
* Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.
* Very little confidence can be assigned to estimates of hemisphere average or global average temperature prior to A.D. 900 due to limited data coverage and challenges in analyzing older data.


Basically what they are saying is that they BELIEVE this to be true, but can't be sure and the farther back they go the more unclear the probability is. My point is not to say JunkScience.com is the end all/be all of knowledge, but they point out the very simple truth that global warming is still a THEORY and is not proven scientifically.

[JBond]

You know, gravity is also a theory because it can't be proved. Are you saying for you to be convinced you would need a time machine? Do you realize the lack of 100% of proof doesn't debunk the entire idea of global warming? If you can't convince someone there is no God by telling them they can't prove it 100%, do you think you're going to convince them of anything?

How about this; polar bears are facing extinction from loss of habitat. If there is a cycle, say every 500 years, where have the extinct polar bears been coming back from every time? The hand of God?

[Ramplate]

Yeah there are a ton of things in the universe that can't be proven 100%
Science doesn't even know how cats purr but they do.

[Ewok Droppings]

You know, gravity is also a theory because it can't be proved. Are you saying for you to be convinced you would need a time machine? Do you realize the lack of 100% of proof doesn't debunk the entire idea of global warming? If you can't convince someone there is no God by telling them they can't prove it 100%, do you think you're going to convince them of anything?

How about this; polar bears are facing extinction from loss of habitat. If there is a cycle, say every 500 years, where have the extinct polar bears been coming back from every time? The hand of God?
Possibly... What would your argument in the Polar Bear example be for dinosaurs? Maybe people were driving their cars and using hairspray to a point that caused a massive change in climate and forced them out of their natural habitats. There can be a MILLION different reasons for this and linking it to global warming has not been proven.

Look, this is the way scientific method works - if you have a hypothesis, then the burden of proof lies on the one with the hypothesis to test for the null hypothesis (or in other words to disprove their own hypothesis). If within a reasonable test sample the tester is not able to disprove their own hypothesis (usually after countless tests) then you can say to a degree of certainty that it is a credible theory at that point. And to answer your question, no gravity cannot be proven using this methodology. What you would say is something like "To a 99.9999...% probability, if I throw this object in the air it will fall to the ground". But at some point the hypothesis becomes a theory which can become a law and global warming hasn't made it past the hypothesis stage yet due to many questions.

Therein lies the discredit of the global warming hypothesis. It has NOT been proven, and has very reasonable doubt on several key areas of the data collected. This is not an argument against or for, it simply is the way that it is. Strip out the hype and simply looking at the data and methodology of the test samples, it can reasonably be concluded that global warming might not be accurate (as stated above by the EPA). This simply states that it is still a HYPOTHESIS and not a fact.

You can get upset and defend Al Gore's movie if you want, I'm not arguing for or against Global Warming. I'm just arguing the fact that it is not a fact, and drawing conclusions like the Polar Bear example completely discredits all outliers in the data collection process (which all outliers must be accounted for in the theory testing process). There could be a multitude of factors that lead to the Polar Bear's habitat shrinking. This is just how it's done. If you don't agree with that, take it up with the scientific community. I'm just stating it how it is. This is what we had to go through in grad school and it seems a little silly that some people just spout out data and lend whatever "proof" they want without credible research or methodology. It's just bad science unfortunately if you don't properly test a hypothesis and consider all outlier possibilities which global warming doesn't do.

[Steve from Indy]

Yeah there are a ton of things in the universe that can't be proven 100%
Science doesn't even know how cats purr but they do.

I shan't lower myself to interject the remark that Mr. Ramplate has so temptingly left me to make. :D

[Ramplate]

Meteorologists aren't even 100% correct on the weather - they are taking their best educated guesses based on their research.

[Steve from Indy]

Meteorologists aren't even 100% correct on the weather - they are taking their best educated guesses based on their research.


Maybe you should lower that 100% bit just a little. ;)

[JBond]

Possibly... What would your argument in the Polar Bear example be for dinosaurs? Maybe people were driving their cars and using hairspray to a point that caused a massive change in climate and forced them out of their natural habitats.

My argument would be a huge asteroid killed them, but I wouldn't say that because I don't have the asteroid in my pocket.


There can be a MILLION different reasons for this and linking it to global warming has not been proven.

Only so many things can make ice melt.

I'm just arguing the fact that it is not a fact

Fair enough.

[sshuttari]

as Bush put it in the state of the union "Global climate change"

I didnt have anything else to add to that honestly

I just thought it was interesting he said that instead of Global Warming hehe

[Ramplate]

yeah that's the new and more accurate term for it

thats the term scientists are using now, but most people more commonly still recognize the old term.

[Ewok Droppings]

My argument would be a huge asteroid killed them, but I wouldn't say that because I don't have the asteroid in my pocket.
Again a theory

Only so many things can make ice melt. But there is no proof that my car is causing it specifically.

Fair enough. So can wii kiss and make up now? I promise I won't tell Frizzo. ;)

[JBond]

I don't hate you or anything, I enjoy debating.

I just wish I could turn you. ;)

[Ewok Droppings]

I don't hate you or anything, I enjoy debating.

I just wish I could turn you. ;)

I'll never turn to the dark side. You've failed your highness. ;)

[JBond]

If only you knew the POWER of the d-, no, I'm not doing this.

*closes self in room and cries*

[Ewok Droppings]

If only you knew the POWER of the d-, no, I'm not doing this.

*closes self in room and cries*

It's ok, don't cry. It could be worse... you could be surrounded by naked little midgets who are all singing the Canadian national anthem while throwing little pickles at you. ;)

[Cloud Buster]

This is the MOST RIDICULOUS thread I've ever seen.

I can't believe there's anyone who thinks for a second that Global Warming isn't real. Ewok keeps claiming "everything is just an unproven theory" - when in reality the scientific data is quite extensive. But no matter how extensive it gets, you keep saying "but it's not 100% conclusive!! Therefore it's all wrong!".

NOTHING is 100% iron-clad conclusive in the world, NOTHING. It takes common sense to know that when something has so much irrefutable evidence it is something to be concerned about.

See, the people who "believe" (and I can't believe there's a difference) in Global Warming are using scientific data to support their belief. But the people who "don't believe"? They have NO data whatsoever to refute the concept of Global Warming, just themselves saying "Oh yeah? Well that data COULD be wrong!" - which is true, but it's also stupid.

It's like taking all the data on the saftey of seatbelts and deciding to wear one because of it. But someone claims that all the data collected could potentially be faulty, or in certain circumstances wearing a seatbelt may not fit into the collected data - which is certainly true, but not intelligent. So you don't wear a seatbelt. What then?

Here's my question - even if you can't "prove" the effectiveness of a seatbelt, shouldn't you wear it anyway? Just to be safe instead of sorry? I realize this is a poor analogy, but it's only supposed to be a loose analogy so please don't spend entire replies tearing it apart endlessly.

The real point is this - the causes of Globar Warming (or the "alleged" causes I suppose) are real dangers regardless of whether "Global Warming" is one of the ultimate consequences. Therefore I think the argument it ultimately moot. We should be eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels as a primary source of energy.

It seems to me that the Global Warming skeptics, while spending all this time arguing about whether or not it's real, just don't want to take the effort to take care of the environment. Because whether you choose to admit it or not, the same things that "allegedly" cause Global Warming are definetly damaging to our environment in multiple ways.

Besides, all the skeptics in this thread have one thing in common - no one is saying "Global Warming is absolutely false", they're saying "Global Warming MAY be false". If that's the case, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? See, if those of us who believe in Global Warming take action and are wrong, no harm no foul. We were wrong, but in the mean time we cleaned up energy production drastically and are making more efficient use of our resources. But for those of you who are skeptical, if we all choose to do nothing at all, and it turns out later that it was YOU who were wrong, then we're in a lot of trouble.

[RiddleMeThis?]

Cloudie, you're my kind of poster. You provide such a great atmosphere for discussion. (Not that I want you, or anything deranged like that:eek: )

But the "theory" of global warming is irrefutable at best. Some big business fat cats see global warming as a threat to their profit margins. Fossil fuels have been obsolete for some time now. The only reason we haven't abandoned them all together is the financial repercussions it will have on certain businesses.

Now you can argue that simply shutting down the crude oil industry will have dire economic repercussions across the globe, but there's no denying the environmental repercussions mass oil use will have. A lot of decision makers who favor oil use are not only exceedingly wealthy as a result of oil dealings but also run a high risk of dying before any severe problems occur from global warming.

Either they ignore it or they just don't care or simply don't believe. There's nothing wrong with pursuing new alternatives to crude oil. Recalling a few thousand electric cars because gas prices are going up is neurotic, greedy, and stupid.

[Ewok Droppings]

This is the MOST RIDICULOUS thread I've ever seen.

I can't believe there's anyone who thinks for a second that Global Warming isn't real. Ewok keeps claiming "everything is just an unproven theory" - when in reality the scientific data is quite extensive. But no matter how extensive it gets, you keep saying "but it's not 100% conclusive!! Therefore it's all wrong!".

NOTHING is 100% iron-clad conclusive in the world, NOTHING. It takes common sense to know that when something has so much irrefutable evidence it is something to be concerned about.

See, the people who "believe" (and I can't believe there's a difference) in Global Warming are using scientific data to support their belief. But the people who "don't believe"? They have NO data whatsoever to refute the concept of Global Warming, just themselves saying "Oh yeah? Well that data COULD be wrong!" - which is true, but it's also stupid.

It's like taking all the data on the saftey of seatbelts and deciding to wear one because of it. But someone claims that all the data collected could potentially be faulty, or in certain circumstances wearing a seatbelt may not fit into the collected data - which is certainly true, but not intelligent. So you don't wear a seatbelt. What then?

Here's my question - even if you can't "prove" the effectiveness of a seatbelt, shouldn't you wear it anyway? Just to be safe instead of sorry? I realize this is a poor analogy, but it's only supposed to be a loose analogy so please don't spend entire replies tearing it apart endlessly.

The real point is this - the causes of Globar Warming (or the "alleged" causes I suppose) are real dangers regardless of whether "Global Warming" is one of the ultimate consequences. Therefore I think the argument it ultimately moot. We should be eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels as a primary source of energy.

It seems to me that the Global Warming skeptics, while spending all this time arguing about whether or not it's real, just don't want to take the effort to take care of the environment. Because whether you choose to admit it or not, the same things that "allegedly" cause Global Warming are definetly damaging to our environment in multiple ways.

Besides, all the skeptics in this thread have one thing in common - no one is saying "Global Warming is absolutely false", they're saying "Global Warming MAY be false". If that's the case, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? See, if those of us who believe in Global Warming take action and are wrong, no harm no foul. We were wrong, but in the mean time we cleaned up energy production drastically and are making more efficient use of our resources. But for those of you who are skeptical, if we all choose to do nothing at all, and it turns out later that it was YOU who were wrong, then we're in a lot of trouble.
Well, even if you think you have it all figured out and that you are convinced that global warming is real, I find it funny that even the EPA states that the data is highly questionable the further back in time you go. Apparently you know better than them though right? I don't care if you want to jump on the bandwagon - go for it. Just know that no matter how much hype is generated, in the nature of science it's still shakey data and just a hypothesis.

[JBond]

I wish I was articulate as you, Cloud Buster. ;)

Once again, Ewok, you're hugging onto the idea that we can't know anything because we've only been recording temperatures for 100 years. (A big talking point against global warming, I might add) And that's exactly what Cloud buster just got finished mentioning. Now all you're doing is quoting someone ELSE whose main argument is that "We can't know about such and such for sure". And yet, there is so much more evidence for global warming...I won't mention the movie again, but you see where I'm going with this. ;)

[Ewok Droppings]

I wish I was articulate as you, Cloud Buster. ;)

Once again, Ewok, you're hugging onto the idea that we can't know anything because we've only been recording temperatures for 100 years. (A big talking point against global warming, I might add) And that's exactly what Cloud buster just got finished mentioning. Now all you're doing is quoting someone ELSE whose main argument is that "We can't know about such and such for sure". And yet, there is so much more evidence for global warming...I won't mention the movie again, but you see where I'm going with this. ;)

No, you're missing the point. What I'm saying is that there is plenty of "skeptical" data supporting the hypothesis of global warming, but there is not proof. Why do you think there is such a massive argument both ways for it? There is some data that says one thing, and then THE MAJORITY of data that hasn't been collected. I know you like the Al Gore movie, but it's just based off bad science. It would be like polling your neighborhood to see who will be elected president. That's a small sample and not an accurate look. Likewise, you wouldn't want your doctor giving you a new drug that has only been tested on a few people to see how it will turn out and he's telling you "it will probably be OK, but maybe not". That's why looking farther back than 100 years of accurate data samples to see the Earth's true trends is more important than just simply drawing a conclusion of global warming.

I don't know why you think I am so against the idea of global warming. I'm not per se, I'm against the idea of people running around with doomsday predictions off of sketchy science and they already have it all figured out like Cloud thinks he does. You simply can't in all reality make a statement that global warming is a FACT when it's not, and not because it hasn't been 100% proven and tested, but because the hypothesis is full of holes. The hypothesis (because like it or not that's all it is still at this stage) has theories that must be more thoroughly tested before the conclusions are drawn and people should run around screaming the sky is falling like some are doing now. I personally think some people want global warming to be real for whatever reason.

[JBond]

First of all, don't mention the movie to me anymore until you've seen it.

Second of all, we are arguing that there is MUCH more than "skeptical" data. There is strong data. But it seems you're just reading from websites like "junkscience" to sway you to that side of the argument.

And as I've already mention SO MANY TIMES already, there is more data than 100 years of temperatures. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Ewok Droppings]

First of all, don't mention the movie to me anymore until you've seen it.

Second of all, we are arguing that there is MUCH more than "skeptical" data. There is strong data. But it seems you're just reading from websites like "junkscience" to sway you to that side of the argument.

And as I've already mention SO MANY TIMES already, there is more data than 100 years of temperatures. You don't know what you're talking about.

OK, since I don't know what I'm talking about and you are an expert on the matter after having seen Al Gore's movie, I'll make a deal with you. If you can show me 1 credible (being a govt. agency or highly touted scientific source) that states that global warming is a fact and is not a theory and has the data to back it up, I'll believe you. Sound fair?

Just to restate - it has to say something like global warming is no longer a theory and is a proven fact AND must be from a credible source. Just 1.

[JBond]

Ugh, I never said it was a fact. I'm saying there is much more hard evidence than you are aware of.

But there is no reason to believe Al Gore made up the facts in his book/movie.

[carnage4u]

weather patterns always trend over time

..Right now it doesnt get very cold and much snow to late January (wisconsin) it been this way for a few years now.. Things will change and it will start to get cold again in a few years ealier

We will have an ice age before we have global warming issues.

I base this on exact data I pulled from my huge pair of pants,.

[Ewok Droppings]

Ugh, I never said it was a fact. I'm saying there is much more hard evidence than you are aware of.

But there is no reason to believe Al Gore made up the facts in his book/movie.

And there is no reason to believe that global warming is a disastrous fact either.

[JBond]

Yes...there is. ;) But I guess that's where we're stuck.

But I did find this:

Gore's basic claim—that global warming is real and largely human-caused—is supported by current research.

Gore presents specific data that supports the film's thesis, including:

-The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs (see Retreat of glaciers since 1850).

-A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctic presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years. [6]

-A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.[7]

The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Although at the time before the film's general release, when many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.

RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.".

[Ewok Droppings]

I found this:

"There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."


Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

and...

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

from: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[JBond]

"There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."


Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

That quote is so vague, I can't respond to much. But if it it's a fact that the temperture won't go down, it would seem that's because the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do anything to remove what we've already done over the last 200 YEARS. (Not that I'm saying I know how to fix that)

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

Same thing. If you're eating cookies left and right and start to feel sick, then you slow down on your cookie consumption by 30%, are you going to feel better?

[Ewok Droppings]

That quote is so vague, I can't respond to much. But if it it's a fact that the temperture won't go down, it would seem that's because the Kyoto Protocol doesn't do anything to remove what we've already done over the last 200 YEARS. (Not that I'm saying I know how to fix that)



Same thing. If you're eating cookies left and right and start to feel sick, then you slow down on your cookie consumption by 30%, are you going to feel better?
30% is a huge reduction. The point of the posts is that you can find data and statements to support both arguments but NOTHING that conclusively shows the smoking gun that global warming is a fact and we are the cause because of our SUVs.

[JBond]

That quote has nothing to do with what we've done to the planet. All that says is a plan that has been put into effect isn't going to work.

And as I have been saying over and over, all you're doing is saying it's not 100% fact when nothing is. I thought Cloud Buster made it quite clear why your arguments are doing nothing to support the other side.

This is really getting tedious...

Also, it's not just "SUV's". Consider all of the smoke stacks that have been going for so long.

[Ramplate]

That's what it all boils down to - Ewok has a SUv and he'll defend to the end his right to drive one :D

[masterful misha]

isnt el Nino a factor too. like in virginia it was 20 degrees and then the next day it was 47

[Ewok Droppings]

That quote has nothing to do with what we've done to the planet. All that says is a plan that has been put into effect isn't going to work.

And as I have been saying over and over, all you're doing is saying it's not 100% fact when nothing is. I thought Cloud Buster made it quite clear why your arguments are doing nothing to support the other side.

This is really getting tedious...

Also, it's not just "SUV's". Consider all of the smoke stacks that have been going for so long.
I'm not so sure why you are so adamant about proving to me or anyone else that global warming exists when it clearly cannot be proven.

Cloud Busters argument didn't sound to me like he had actually read through our posts, rather just skimmed them and tried to make a conclusion (wrongly) that I was somehow supporting fossil fuel consumption or that I was against environmental cleanup and protection somehow. I stated very clearly that:

Basically, I agree that we should take care of the earth and the environment, I wouldn't argue there. That's just like not taking a dump on your own doorstep IMO, but I don't believe that Global Warming is what many claim it to be.

Apparently he missed that in his ridiculous argument of seat belt analogies which was way far fetched. More or less, my point isn't, nor has it ever been that we shouldn't take care of the environment. That's a no-brainer. My argument has been all along that the data and proof of global warming isn't enough to cause this mass hysteria and hype and is skeptical at best. If you don't agree with that, then prove me wrong with credible sources. That's all I'm saying.

That's what it all boils down to - Ewok has a SUv and he'll defend to the end his right to drive one. Nope, no SUV for me... sorry. I just have a regular car.

[JBond]

Sorry, I never meant to imply that I thought you were against the environment. I'm sure you're not.

[sshuttari]

dont you people understand Katrina and Tsunami happened because God was angry :eek:

[JBond]

We should have listened to Pat Robertson :(

[Ewok Droppings]

We should have listened to Pat Robertson :(

No, he's angry because Comcast is raising their already high prices AGAIN and still providing a crappy signal. ;)

[RiddleMeThis?]

No, he's angry because Comcast is raising their already high prices AGAIN and still providing a crappy signal. ;)


:lol: ZING! I have to give Ewok props for that one!

Seriously, no one's against the environment, we live there. There are just some folks who don't give a rat's ass if it gets messed up, like living with a sloppy roommate (I share that problem)

And maybe SUVs aren't one of the strongest causes of global warming, but they sure aren't helping either.

[Ramplate]

Factory emmisions are probably higher - but overall, vehicles need to be transformed into hybrids - not just the big rigs but all of em :)

Court TV didn't like the price of Satelite either :(

[sshuttari]

Dont we have the technology to drive non gasoline cars but the manufacturers dont want to make them because theres so much money in the cars that use gasoline?

or is it just one of those conspiracy theories...

[Ewok Droppings]

Dont we have the technology to drive non gasoline cars but the manufacturers dont want to make them because theres so much money in the cars that use gasoline?

or is it just one of those conspiracy theories...
It's getting better, but there are some up and coming cars that look really cool. Check this out:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

[Ramplate]

there are some companies that are starting to produce hybrids

[sshuttari]

It's getting better, but there are some up and coming cars that look really cool. Check this out:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

ohhhhh looks really cool, I wish I had the money to get one

[Steve from Indy]

there are some companies that are starting to produce hybrids

That's nice, but how will this effect emissions from power plants? We won't need to refine as much oil into gasoline, but won't this require an enormous increase in electricity to power electric cars? Is there a technology that won't require increasing power consumption in another area? Is hydrogen such a technology?

What's the straight poop on all of that?

[sshuttari]

That's nice, but how will this effect emissions from power plants? We won't need to refine as much oil into gasoline, but won't this require an enormous increase in electricity to power electric cars? Is there a technology that won't require increasing power consumption in another area? Is hydrogen such a technology?

What's the straight poop on all of that?

one thing at a time

lets have cleaner cars first ;)

[Ramplate]

That's nice, but how will this effect emissions from power plants? We won't need to refine as much oil into gasoline, but won't this require an enormous increase in electricity to power electric cars? Is there a technology that won't require increasing power consumption in another area? Is hydrogen such a technology?

What's the straight poop on all of that?

Electricity doesn't produce CO2 gasses though

There are also lots of other things you can do right now to go green with more than just cars
http://www.nbm.org/Exhibits/greenHouse2/goGreen/greenTips.html

[LOTRNUT04]

Alright...I'm not about to pretend that I know anything about the Global Warming issue. However, I do think that whether you believe it's true or whether you believe it to be a huge hoax we should all be acting as if it is real. It's like those stupid bumper stickers say: If you don't believe in God, you'd better be right. If we continue to pollute the atmosphere as if nothing could possibly go wrong, then nothing had better go wrong.

[Steve from Indy]

Electricity doesn't produce CO2 gasses though

There are also lots of other things you can do right now to go green with more than just cars
http://www.nbm.org/Exhibits/greenHouse2/goGreen/greenTips.html

I didn't actually mean the electricity itself, but the plants that generate the electricity. How would this affect the rate of pollution from power plants? In other words, would we just be changing one kind of pollution for another, or would the lack of dangerous emissions from vehicles and such, offset any increase that might be required at power plants to supply recharging stations? Or do electric cars not need to be "filled up" with electricity like normal cars do with gas?

[Ewok Droppings]

Well, I think if we could somehow turn all future humans into midgets, we wouldn't consume as much and that could help the environment.

[sshuttari]

Well, I think if we could somehow turn all future humans into midgets, we wouldn't consume as much and that could help the environment.

or we can all carpool from now on ;)

[Ewok Droppings]

or we can all carpool from now on ;)

But the midget idea is more fun.

[Steve from Indy]

Maybe we'll grow wings and learn to fly. That would be sweet. I'm always having flying dreams. Man would that ever be cool. Of course maybe the birds are thinking the same thing about us when they see us running or riding bikes. ;)

[JBond]

I'm more jealous of birds who get to poop on people rather than fly.

[Ramplate]

I didn't actually mean the electricity itself, but the plants that generate the electricity. How would this affect the rate of pollution from power plants? In other words, would we just be changing one kind of pollution for another, or would the lack of dangerous emissions from vehicles and such, offset any increase that might be required at power plants to supply recharging stations? Or do electric cars not need to be "filled up" with electricity like normal cars do with gas?

There's always solar batteries - windmills to generate electicity - Hydro electric power - those are all under used or under developed as of yet and would not add to the problem.
Yes the car batteries do need recharging

[RiddleMeThis?]

We could also abolish all Annual Chili Cook-Offs. That would significantly reduce methane emissions. :)

[sshuttari]

hey what if it rains acid?

we should try to think about that more:P

[masterful misha]

hey what if it rains acid?

i thought it already did. acid rain?? but i have no idea what happens though

[JBond]

Maybe there ARE some people who want to destroy the environment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/?GT1=8921

It just makes me sick.

[sshuttari]

Maybe there ARE some people who want to destroy the environment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/?GT1=8921

It just makes me sick.


that should on the list of 10 things thats goin to end the world

[Ewok Droppings]

I thought this was interesting:

According to The Miami Herald, the NFL hired scientists to compute how much carbon will be emitted by its fleet of vehicles during Super Bowl week. The answer was 260 tons. Another study showed that one acre of trees, over their lifetime, will soak up 75 tons of carbon. Since last summer the league has spent $2,500 for seedlings and donated 500 trees.I'd be curious to see what all is in their fleet of vehicles as they state.

[smokiechimp]

i thought it already did. acid rain?? but i have no idea what happens though

Acid rain is effecting the Earth "constantly" It can be undetected for years in some regions because the levels of acidic value in the water creep up cradually. It's something that's only going to increase in our lifetimes due to the amount of fossil fuels being burnt, especially coal. It's very sad really.

[sshuttari]

Acid rain is effecting the Earth "constantly" It can be undetected for years in some regions because the levels of acidic value in the water creep up cradually. It's something that's only going to increase in our lifetimes due to the amount of fossil fuels being burnt, especially coal. It's very sad really.

Isnt there anything being done about it?

[Cloud Buster]

...I find it funny that even the EPA states that the data is highly questionable the further back in time you go. Apparently you know better than them though right? I don't care if you want to jump on the bandwagon - go for it. Just know that no matter how much hype is generated, in the nature of science it's still shakey data and just a hypothesis.

...I'm against the idea of people running around with doomsday predictions off of sketchy science and they already have it all figured out like Cloud thinks he does. You simply can't in all reality make a statement that global warming is a FACT...

OK, since I don't know what I'm talking about and you are an expert on the matter after having seen Al Gore's movie, I'll make a deal with you. If you can show me 1 credible (being a govt. agency or highly touted scientific source) that states that global warming is a fact and is not a theory and has the data to back it up, I'll believe you. Sound fair?

Ewok, I take great exception to your attitude concerning my post, and I would ask that you step outside, take a deep breath - maybe have a smoke, and read it again calmly. When you do, forget about the fact that I disagree with you. Wash away notions that I'm trying to "prove you wrong" - because that is beside the point.

I have noticed that when someone differs in opinion from you, and especially when they offer up some data or well thought out arguments to back up their views, you react with a hostile comment to the effect of "Oh, well I'm just a humble citizen, I'm not a Mr. Smarty Pants like you who thinks you're smarter than me!"

My post actually dealt very, very little with whether or not Global Warming can be proven as "fact" - I didn't present any data, I didn't bother to make an obscure mention of "these smart guys said that" as you have - what little matters concerning the legitimacy of the claims of Global Warming was mostly emotional outbursts of my own, meandering opinion.

By now, you've certainly had time to have your 'calm down' moment, have returned from your brief walk or smoke, and have read my post plainly. Therefore, it's redundant for me to mention that the point of my post was regarding whether or not there is any relevance to the argument at all. We know that the same activities that "allegedly" cause Global Warming are, indeed, harmful to our environment in one way or another, so why do we not make a concerned effort to stop doing them? Since we can't prove whether or not temperature means will increase in the next 100 years until 100 years from now, wouldn't it be better to take steps to improve our environment and use of energy so that in 100 years we can still argue about whether or not Global Warming was ever legitimate - rather than potentially facing the dreadful consequences?

In brief, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Regarding your reactions to which, as I said, I take exception - specifically to the implication that I "have it all figured out" or that I "know better" than anyone else. I don't believe I gave you cause to say things like that and I truly find them offensive. My post did start charged with emotion, but ultimately it asked a fundamental question about the nature of the entire argument (which, since you seemed to miss it, I have posed again).

You cannot expect your posts to be taken seriously when you only take a small aspect of someone else's and then build your own demeaning spin onto them.

(That said, it would be best if you focused any replies on the issue and keep the topic cohesive. I'd rather not get into a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid, so please stick to the main argumentative point of my post.)

[Cloud Buster]

Isnt there anything being done about it?

I believe that is the crux of the entire debate we're having.

[sjp1966]

I personally think its for real from the things i have heard and the things i have seen.

However whether the world will end in a catastrophic manner i have no idea people can only speculate. but it was be very arrogant of everyone to just assume it will not happen and i think it better to err on the side of caution.

People in the western world (including me) take too much for granted like water on tap, and food in the supermarkets. for the sake of turning lights off and being careful with the water you use and your power consumption, by not leaving TVs on standby for example its not much to ask.

After all can you imagine your kids sitting with you when you're 80 something, the world a desolate, freak weather torn rock and all you can say would be "oh yeah, that global warming thing was for real after all".

But as will all things, there are arguements for and arguements against, i also think that people are too damn lazy to change and IF the global warming issue is for real then we wil see its full force, simply becuase people are too lazy to change.

Additionaly shame on anyone that mentions money as a reason for not doing something, i dont mean individuals i mean governments here, its a no brainer isnt it? Hmmm spend x billion or have no planet left, i wonder what i should choose

and yes as you can see from my signature i am trying to do my bit :)

[RiddleMeThis?]

Ewok, I take great exception to your attitude concerning my post, and I would ask that you step outside, take a deep breath - maybe have a smoke, and read it again calmly. When you do, forget about the fact that I disagree with you. Wash away notions that I'm trying to "prove you wrong" - because that is beside the point.

I have noticed that when someone differs in opinion from you, and especially when they offer up some data or well thought out arguments to back up their views, you react with a hostile comment to the effect of "Oh, well I'm just a humble citizen, I'm not a Mr. Smarty Pants like you who thinks you're smarter than me!"

My post actually dealt very, very little with whether or not Global Warming can be proven as "fact" - I didn't present any data, I didn't bother to make an obscure mention of "these smart guys said that" as you have - what little matters concerning the legitimacy of the claims of Global Warming was mostly emotional outbursts of my own, meandering opinion.

By now, you've certainly had time to have your 'calm down' moment, have returned from your brief walk or smoke, and have read my post plainly. Therefore, it's redundant for me to mention that the point of my post was regarding whether or not there is any relevance to the argument at all. We know that the same activities that "allegedly" cause Global Warming are, indeed, harmful to our environment in one way or another, so why do we not make a concerned effort to stop doing them? Since we can't prove whether or not temperature means will increase in the next 100 years until 100 years from now, wouldn't it be better to take steps to improve our environment and use of energy so that in 100 years we can still argue about whether or not Global Warming was ever legitimate - rather than potentially facing the dreadful consequences?

In brief, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Regarding your reactions to which, as I said, I take exception - specifically to the implication that I "have it all figured out" or that I "know better" than anyone else. I don't believe I gave you cause to say things like that and I truly find them offensive. My post did start charged with emotion, but ultimately it asked a fundamental question about the nature of the entire argument (which, since you seemed to miss it, I have posed again).

You cannot expect your posts to be taken seriously when you only take a small aspect of someone else's and then build your own demeaning spin onto them.

(That said, it would be best if you focused any replies on the issue and keep the topic cohesive. I'd rather not get into a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid, so please stick to the main argumentative point of my post.)

http://www.tribute2nique.net/dunk4.gif
:applaud: SLAM DUNK!:applaud:

Obviously, there isn't nearly enough being done about it. Especially when those who have to power to effect the most change in the matter look the other way.

Denouncing the reality of global warming is both obstinate and irresponsible.
Maybe it can't be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I'd rather attack the issue head on than take the government's word for it.

Conspiracy theories aside, you have to admit that politicians and their constituents are constantly focusing on what is most cost effective, to which the reduction of global warming is not.

I honestly don't think anyone can willfully effect sufficient change to reduce global warming much less reverse it. Only through a miracle of science can this be achieved. I say this because as a society we've grown far too dependent on daily necessities which contribute to global warming. Not to mention the vast number of financial industries that rely heavily on crude oil refining and deforestation. It's not feasible from an economic standpoint.

[Ramplate]

Talks are going agonizingly slow in Paris

[Ewok Droppings]

Ewok, I take great exception to your attitude concerning my post, and I would ask that you step outside, take a deep breath - maybe have a smoke, and read it again calmly. When you do, forget about the fact that I disagree with you. Wash away notions that I'm trying to "prove you wrong" - because that is beside the point.

I have noticed that when someone differs in opinion from you, and especially when they offer up some data or well thought out arguments to back up their views, you react with a hostile comment to the effect of "Oh, well I'm just a humble citizen, I'm not a Mr. Smarty Pants like you who thinks you're smarter than me!"

LOL - are you serious? What I have a problem with is people who make rude remarks and then try to pretend like they didn't. **sigh** :rolleyes: OK, apparently I'm going to have to quote what you said because apparently you don't remember (imagine that). You weren't "mister nice guy" and YOU were the one that was claiming anyone that disagreed with the notion of global warming was "stupid". Let's take a look at your inflammatory remarks since apparently you don't seem to remember making any as such an innocent poster:

This is the MOST RIDICULOUS thread I've ever seen.

I can't believe there's anyone who thinks for a second that Global Warming isn't real. Ewok keeps claiming "everything is just an unproven theory" - when in reality the scientific data is quite extensive. But no matter how extensive it gets, you keep saying "but it's not 100% conclusive!! Therefore it's all wrong!".

NOTHING is 100% iron-clad conclusive in the world, NOTHING. It takes common sense to know that when something has so much irrefutable evidence it is something to be concerned about.

See, the people who "believe" (and I can't believe there's a difference) in Global Warming are using scientific data to support their belief. But the people who "don't believe"? They have NO data whatsoever to refute the concept of Global Warming, just themselves saying "Oh yeah? Well that data COULD be wrong!" - which is true, but it's also stupid.

So apparently in this quote when you're saying I'm stupid for not presenting data to backup my claim that Global Warming is not a scientific proof is a calm and poised way of arguing right? WRONG! Maybe you should have taken a step outside for a cigarette as you suggested I do before you posted those comments. Let me explain this to you, since you don't get it. IF SOMEONE MAKES A CLAIM OF SOME THEORY, IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DISPROVE IT, IT IS UP TO THEM TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THEIR SHOULDERS. That's how science and law for another example work. I don't have to prove anything, rather the person making the claim has to present the proof. Why is that so hard to understand? OK, got it? Let's move on to more of what you said. There is NOT so much irrefutable evidence as you have suggested. It's all highly skeptical and theoretical, EVEN AS STATED BY THE EPA. You can fanboy the data all you want, but it's simply not an accurate statement.

The real point is this - the causes of Globar Warming (or the "alleged" causes I suppose) are real dangers regardless of whether "Global Warming" is one of the ultimate consequences. Therefore I think the argument it ultimately moot. We should be eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels as a primary source of energy.

It seems to me that the Global Warming skeptics, while spending all this time arguing about whether or not it's real, just don't want to take the effort to take care of the environment. Because whether you choose to admit it or not, the same things that "allegedly" cause Global Warming are definetly damaging to our environment in multiple ways.

Again, if you have read through the earlier posts, you would see that NOBODY is saying anything about not wanting to take care of the environment. This is just an inflammatory statement that suggests something that isn't true. Am I allowed to take offense at your posts as you claim you have been so offended? :rolleyes:

Regarding your reactions to which, as I said, I take exception - specifically to the implication that I "have it all figured out" or that I "know better" than anyone else. I don't believe I gave you cause to say things like that and I truly find them offensive.
Be offended, but you said what you said. Don't try to hide from what you believe and don't take exception and cry about it when people point out that what you posted sounds like a global warming fanboy who doesn't understand the data and just wants to make derogatory comments and then play innocent later. No, in fact, your remarks were rude and I could have easily been offended as well. :rolleyes: I just chose to in large part ignore your original post as it really lent nothing to the argument other than screaming out your opinion and calling others who disagreed with it "stupid". That's what fanboys do. ;)

Ask yourself, if someone would have posted the things you posted with zero facts and calling their remarks stupid, how would you have responded? I think all things considering, just ignoring your remarks was the best thing to do.

Denouncing the reality of global warming is both obstinate and irresponsible.
There is not enough data to suggest that it is a reality, even though you have it made out as a reality in your own mind. It's simply just a theory still, and again if you think I am wrong I would offer both you and Cloud Buster the same offer I made before. If you can find 1 CREDIBLE (because usually your sources are anything but credible), 1 credible source such as something from the EPA, or somewhere else that is highly reputable that shows that global warming is no longer a theory and is now a fact and has been proven, then I'll believe.

[nayner1138]

Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is a FACT. The earth's average temperature is rising. You can argue the cause and the eventuall outcome. But you don't have to take my word for it. Visit the EPA's website on climate change. It's filled with all kinds of interesting information. Some of you really need to visit the site before you continue to use the EPA to support your arguments.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

[LOTRNUT04]

IF SOMEONE MAKES A CLAIM OF SOME THEORY, IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DISPROVE IT, IT IS UP TO THEM TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THEIR SHOULDERS.
This isn't a lawsuit. It's simple, the temperature of the earth has risen, whether that means nothing or whether that means impending global annihilation is unknown to everybody but everybody should take preventive measures just in case.

Other countries are passing new vehicle EPA standards while the US sits around in the stoneage because they believe these standards will hurt business (which, ironically, is the opposite of what's happening). As I said a page or so ago and as many other people in this thread have said: Better safe than sorry. How can you disagree with that?

[sshuttari]

Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it is a FACT. The earth's average temperature is rising. You can argue the cause and the eventuall outcome. But you don't have to take my word for it. Visit the EPA's website on climate change. It's filled with all kinds of interesting information. Some of you really need to visit the site before you continue to use the EPA to support your arguments.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

good man,

Global Warming is real and theres enough evidence too show it.

Stop arguing about our planet isnt in danger or that were not hurting the enviroment.

Whoever thinks other wise needs to educate himself/herself more.

[Ewok Droppings]

This isn't a lawsuit. It's simple, the temperature of the earth has risen, whether that means nothing or whether that means impending global annihilation is unknown to everybody but everybody should take preventive measures just in case.

Other countries are passing new vehicle EPA standards while the US sits around in the stoneage because they believe these standards will hurt business (which, ironically, is the opposite of what's happening). As I said a page or so ago and as many other people in this thread have said: Better safe than sorry. How can you disagree with that?

I never said it's a lawsuit, but in ANY scientific theory the burden of proof lies with the theorist to show that their theory is credible. If I was a scientist and I made a claim that people were originally from Venus, would it be up to someone else to disprove me? No, it would be up to me to bring forth evidence and to go through the scientific method to push my hypothesis towards what could be considered fact. In this case, nobody has to disprove global warming, rather it's up to the claimants to bring for the evidence that will ultimately show it's a fact. As stated before, even the EPA agrees that the further back the data goes, the more unclear the assumptions.

If you actually read my posts, you would see that I am not, nor have I EVER disagreed that we shouldn't push for more environmentally friendly policies. I don't know how this ever got into a "you don't support the environment because you don't agree that global warming is a fact" argument. Read the posts.

[Cloud Buster]

Look, Ewok bro, just *RELAX* man. I don't know why you turn everything into a personal attack - but I suspect that for having said that you'll write me a treatise complete with bold type and emoticons expressing your disdain for me on why I'm "more that way" and "did it first".

It's very, very late and I've had a long day. In fact that's an understatement, I've had a horific day. In any case, I'm not devoting any effort to this right now. To be perfectly honest, I think I've made my point - a point you blatantly ignored in your heated schoolyard rebuttal, and after reading that last post of yours I don't think I'm in the mood to jump in the mud with you just to get you to respond to it. I'm replying because I have two things to say.

Don't try to hide from what you believe and don't take exception and cry about it when people point out that what you posted sounds like a global warming fanboy who doesn't understand the data and just wants to make derogatory comments and then play innocent later.

Did you seriously just call me a "global warming fanboy"? I mean, you're suggesting that I just love the concept and defend it with my heart and soul for no other reason than because I idolize it? This - though one of many - is the most clear-cut indication to me that you are too wrapped up in the concept that we have to "argue" or that I'm trying to "prove you wrong" to hold a serious discussion - for example, on the question I had posed rather than constantly going back and forth saying "Oh YEAH?" in 500 words or more.


There is not enough data to suggest that it is a reality, even though you have it made out as a reality in your own mind. It's simply just a theory still, and again if you think I am wrong I would offer both you and Cloud Buster the same offer I made before. If you can find 1 CREDIBLE (because usually your sources are anything but credible), 1 credible source such as something from the EPA, or somewhere else that is highly reputable that shows that global warming is no longer a theory and is now a fact and has been proven, then I'll believe.

I'm sure no matter what anyone says you'll have a clever answer for why it doesn't count.

In any case, front page news for today - making the top story at several news sites for the duration of the day, should suit you well:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070202/ts_nm/globalwarming_dc_18


U.N. climate panel says global warming man-made

PARIS (Reuters) - The U.N. climate panel issued its strongest warning yet on Friday that human activities are heating the planet, adding pressure on governments to do more to combat accelerating global warming.
ADVERTISEMENT

The IPCC, the most authoritative group on warming grouping 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more severe rains, melting glaciers, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels, especially if Antarctica or Greenland thaw.

The final text said it was "very likely" -- or a probability of more than 90 percent -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

That is a toughening from the last report, in 2001, when the IPCC said the link was "likely," or 66 percent probable. Signs of change range from drought in Australia to record high January temperatures in Europe.

"February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether (people) are to blame for climate change," Achim Steiner, the head of the U.N. Environment Program, told a news conference.

He urged governments to inject more momentum into stalled talks on long-term cuts in emissions. Greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have not been higher in 650,000 years.

"We are in a sense doing things that have not happened in 650,000 years, based on the scientific evidence," Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, told a news conference.

A 21-page summary of scientific findings for policy makers outlines wrenching change such as a possible melting of Arctic sea ice in summers by 2100 and says it is "more likely than not" that greenhouse gases have made tropical cyclones more intense.

The report predicts a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) in the 21st century, within a likely range from 1.1 to 6.4 Celsius.

Temperatures rose 0.7 degrees in the 20th century and the 10 hottest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994.

U.N. officials hope the report will prompt governments -- led by the United States, the top emitter -- and companies to do more to cut greenhouse gases, released mainly by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

CORAL ATOLLS

Many backers of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, a plan binding 35 industrial nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012, want outsiders to get more involved. The United States and China are not bound by Kyoto targets.

The head of the U.S. delegation said that
President George W. Bush's policies, braking the rise of emissions rather than cutting them, were working.

"The President has put in place a comprehensive set of policies to address what he has called the 'serious challenge' of climate change," Sharon Hays, Associate Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy, told Reuters.

Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying caps would harm the economy and that Kyoto unfairly omitted developing nations from a first period to 2012. He focuses instead on big investments in technologies such as hydrogen and biofuels.

The President of Kiribati, a group of 33 Pacific coral atolls threatened by rising seas, said time was running out.

"The question is, what can we do now? There's very little we can do about arresting the process," President Anote Tong said.

The report projects a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59 centimeters (7 and 23 inches) in the 21st century -- and said that bigger gains could not be ruled out if ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland thaw.

Some leading scientists had criticized an earlier draft for cutting the range after the 2001 forecast a rise between 9 and 88 cms by 2100. Rising seas threaten countries such as Kiribati and cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires.

Other articles on this topic:

Global warming man made, will continue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_38;_ylt=AnxYAouN_5iqTjkF7W_3 JvVg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--)
U.N. Blames People for Global Warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/wl_afp/unclimate_070202102732;_ylt=AjDCbEOaEDOF3HaoQBP4Oj xrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

For full list of articles from Yahoo! news, click here (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/climate_change;_ylt=Avy2GimxiiEkbRv25J14iQJxieAA;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--).

At the time of this posting, 4:00 AM Pacific time on the morning of February 2nd, 2007, this is also the top story on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/), FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com), and several others. Each story has one common theme - and I'm not making this up, read them for yourself - that Global Warming is real, and we caused it. I hope these sources, as well as the first hand sources of the U.N. scientists in Paris, are credible enough for you.

[smokiechimp]

Other articles on this topic:

Global warming man made, will continue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_38;_ylt=AnxYAouN_5iqTjkF7W_3 JvVg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--)
U.N. Blames People for Global Warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/wl_afp/unclimate_070202102732;_ylt=AjDCbEOaEDOF3HaoQBP4Oj xrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

For full list of articles from Yahoo! news, click here (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/climate_change;_ylt=Avy2GimxiiEkbRv25J14iQJxieAA;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--).

At the time of this posting, 4:00 AM Pacific time on the morning of February 2nd, 2007, this is also the top story on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/), FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com), and several others. Each story has one common theme - and I'm not making this up, read them for yourself - that Global Warming is real, and we caused it. I hope these sources, as well as the first hand sources of the U.N. scientists in Paris, are credible enough for you.

I was just gonna mention the U.N. convention. They spent over 6 years researching this issue and there are some catagorical facts in their findings. It's very sad. The weather in Europe is already changing dramatically.

[Ramplate]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.N. climate panel says warming is man-made By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
35 minutes ago



PARIS (Reuters) - The world's top climate scientists said on Friday global warming was man-made, spurring calls for urgent government action to prevent severe and irreversible damage from rising temperatures.

ADVERTISEMENT

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.

The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

That is a toughening from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) last report in 2001, which judged a link as "likely," or 66 percent probable.

Possible signs range from drought in Australia to record high winter temperatures in Europe.

"February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether (people) are to blame for climate change," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program.

"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," French President Jacques Chirac said. "We are in truth on the historical doorstep of the irreversible."

The Kyoto Protocol is the main plan for capping emissions of greenhouse gases until 2012 but it has been severely weakened since the United States, the top source of greenhouse gases, pulled out in 2001. Emissions by many backers of Kyoto are far over target.

ARCTIC MELT

A 21-page summary of IPCC findings for policy makers outlines wrenching change such as a possible melting of Arctic sea ice in summers by 2100 and says it is "more likely than not" that greenhouse gases have made tropical cyclones more intense.

The report predicts a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) in the 21st century, within a likely range from 1.1 to 6.4 Celsius.

Temperatures rose 0.7 degrees in the 20th century and the 10 hottest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994. Greenhouse gases are released mainly by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Many backers of Kyoto, binding 35 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12, want outsiders led by the United States and big developing nations such as China and India to get involved.

The head of the U.S. delegation defended Bush's policies that brake the rise of emissions rather than cap them. Democrats who control both houses of Congress want tougher action.

"The President has put in place a comprehensive set of policies to address what he has called the 'serious challenge' of climate change," said Sharon Hays, Associate Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.

Bush pulled out of Kyoto, saying caps would harm the economy and that Kyoto should include developing nations. He focuses instead on big investments in hydrogen and biofuels.

The President of Kiribati, a group of 33 Pacific coral atolls threatened by rising seas, said time was running out.

"The question is, what can we do now? There's very little we can do about arresting the process," President Anote Tong said.

The report projects a rise in sea levels of between 18 and 59 centimeters (7 and 23 inches) in the 21st century -- and said bigger gains could not be ruled out if ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland thaw.

Some leading scientists had criticized a draft for cutting the range from a 2001 forecast of a rise between 9 and 88 cm. Rising seas threaten low-lying islands, coasts of countries such as Bangladesh and cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires

[RiddleMeThis?]

If you can find 1 CREDIBLE (because usually your sources are anything but credible), 1 credible source such as something from the EPA, or somewhere else that is highly reputable that shows that global warming is no longer a theory and is now a fact and has been proven, then I'll believe.

I would love to spend one hour in church with you. I would laugh my ass off.

"Reputable" is the key word. The question is whom do you believe? The Government? I wouldn't. History has shown that Governments believe that the less the people know, the better. The EPA? Possibly. Concerning global warming they seem like the authority you can trust. But I believe in the age-old saying, "Money Talks". I don't not trust the EPA, I'd simply be more comfortable if I knew that other credible sources supported their claims. The Press? I think not. The Press divulges news, not facts. The U.N. climate Panel? More likely. I would sooner trust the mutual words of the collective minds of the entire world. That way I know that politics and money aren't having any influence on the credibility of the information I'm being given.

In the end, I can supply plenty of sources I deem credible. That doesn't mean you'll feel the same way about them and vice-versa.

I believe Prince said it best:
Who do ya trust if U can't trust God?
Who can U trust - who can ya?

[Ewok Droppings]

Look, Ewok bro, just *RELAX* man. I don't know why you turn everything into a personal attack - but I suspect that for having said that you'll write me a treatise complete with bold type and emoticons expressing your disdain for me on why I'm "more that way" and "did it first".

It's very, very late and I've had a long day. In fact that's an understatement, I've had a horific day. In any case, I'm not devoting any effort to this right now. To be perfectly honest, I think I've made my point - a point you blatantly ignored in your heated schoolyard rebuttal, and after reading that last post of yours I don't think I'm in the mood to jump in the mud with you just to get you to respond to it. I'm replying because I have two things to say.Well, excuse me if I'm mistaken, but it was YOU that said you were all offended and you took it personally. I just chose to ignore you for the most part. Why are you blaming your complaints on me? Again, let me quote you:
Regarding your reactions to which, as I said, I take exception - specifically to the implication that I "have it all figured out" or that I "know better" than anyone else. I don't believe I gave you cause to say things like that and I truly find them offensive. Am I mistaken, or are you the one that took it personally? Sounds like you to me. ;)



Did you seriously just call me a "global warming fanboy"? I mean, you're suggesting that I just love the concept and defend it with my heart and soul for no other reason than because I idolize it? This - though one of many - is the most clear-cut indication to me that you are too wrapped up in the concept that we have to "argue" or that I'm trying to "prove you wrong" to hold a serious discussion - for example, on the question I had posed rather than constantly going back and forth saying "Oh YEAH?" in 500 words or more.Yes, I called you a fanboy, but not because you are "trying to prove me wrong" but because you were so adamantly defending it without any reason other than to say people who disagreed are stupid. That's what fanboys do, and that's what you did. ;)




I'm sure no matter what anyone says you'll have a clever answer for why it doesn't count.

In any case, front page news for today - making the top story at several news sites for the duration of the day, should suit you well:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070202/ts_nm/globalwarming_dc_18



Other articles on this topic:

Global warming man made, will continue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_38;_ylt=AnxYAouN_5iqTjkF7W_3 JvVg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--)
U.N. Blames People for Global Warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/wl_afp/unclimate_070202102732;_ylt=AjDCbEOaEDOF3HaoQBP4Oj xrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

For full list of articles from Yahoo! news, click here (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/climate_change;_ylt=Avy2GimxiiEkbRv25J14iQJxieAA;_ ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--).

At the time of this posting, 4:00 AM Pacific time on the morning of February 2nd, 2007, this is also the top story on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/), FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com), and several others. Each story has one common theme - and I'm not making this up, read them for yourself - that Global Warming is real, and we caused it. I hope these sources, as well as the first hand sources of the U.N. scientists in Paris, are credible enough for you.
What irritates me about your smug statements is that you are convinced that I'm trying to prove global warming wrong. I have never made any statement along those lines, rather I've said that they have not proven it yet. This news today, I have watched closely only states pretty much the exact same thing the EPAs website says. Scientists strongly believe global warming is man-made. Fine, using the formula that I stated above which you discredited because you have no idea what I was saying or never bothered to actually read the posts, this is what they have said in your article:

The final text said it was "very likely" -- or a probability of more than 90 percent -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.

That is a toughening from the last report, in 2001, when the IPCC said the link was "likely," or 66 percent probable.

HHmmm.... wasn't I saying that they would say "to a certain probability this theory is likely"? Wow, imagine that. People actually follow the scientific method unlike you who gives a dumb example of a seat belt. Brilliant.

All this article says is that they have bumped up their estimated probability that global warming is man made. What's so amazing about that? Well, a large panel of scientists claim to a certain probability that they are increasing the probability from 66% to 90% in their estimates that it is man-made. But where is the data to support their reasoning? All they cite is "record high temperatures". What does that mean? According to what records? If the Earth is millions of years old and we can "estimate" back temperatures less than 2,000 years - what kind of sample is that? It's about the data, and not the Kyoto hype.

This still doesn't say it's a fact. They say the same thing every year, only this year they bumped the probability, and in science a 90% probability is still not enough to consider it a fact or scientific law.

[Ewok Droppings]

I would love to spend one hour in church with you. I would laugh my ass off. :confused: So you think I need proof and data for everything? I do when people claim that they have scientific proof. Nice way to divert the question. Here's another question for you - did you get picked on a lot in school for being a smartass?

"Reputable" is the key word. The question is whom do you believe? The Government? I wouldn't. History has shown that Governments believe that the less the people know, the better. The EPA? Possibly. Concerning global warming they seem like the authority you can trust. But I believe in the age-old saying, "Money Talks". I don't not trust the EPA, I'd simply be more comfortable if I knew that other credible sources supported their claims. The Press? I think not. The Press divulges news, not facts. The U.N. climate Panel? More likely. I would sooner trust the mutual words of the collective minds of the entire world. That way I know that politics and money aren't having any influence on the credibility of the information I'm being given.

In the end, I can supply plenty of sources I deem credible. That doesn't mean you'll feel the same way about them and vice-versa.
Have you ever had to write term papers for college courses? They harp extensively on the source of citations and information for research papers. Credible sources can be academic sources from scientists who write research papers and they can be found on Lexus Nexus and other places. Turning on your TV is never a credible source of truth or fact, neither is picking up the paper. You are right about that, but there are PLENTY of places to look for credible scientific research.

[Ramplate]

The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heatwaves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.

And you still would rather believe one guy at Junksience?;) :D

[Boro]

The solution to this is quite obvious. Blow up a portion of the moon and send a small chunk spiraling towards the earth, covering it in a giant dust cloud which blocks the suns light--putting an end to this global warming nonsense.

[JBond]

This is just pathetic...

Ewok, how can you state global warming as a fact? If the Earth boiled us into crispy critters in 100 years, and you were still alive, you could still argue it's not a fact, and that it will come down some day. What you don't get is, it doesn't MATTER if it's a fact, it just doesn't matter. We don't care and never will if THEE human being representitive declares global warming a fact and writes it with a gold pen onto a scroll. The POINT of saying "global warming is real" is to get PAST that point so we can discuss other things, whether it's what was the main cause, what's being done about it, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT AND HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH IT? Don't you see if we we're all walking around like you saying "It's not a fact" that we couldn't get to these important issues and questions before we seriously **** up our only planet? Don't you see the smart thing to do is to consider it real while we still might be able to? Do you need to know it's a fact that you're going to get sick if you eat a cookie that you dropped on the floor of a Motel 6? Do you only believe it after you eat it? No, you throw it away. No cares if it's a fact you'l get sick, and frankly, global warming is a HELL of a lot likely then getting sick from a dropped cookie.

[JBond]

The solution to this is quite obvious. Blow up a portion of the moon and send a small chunk spiraling towards the earth, covering it in a giant dust cloud which blocks the suns light--putting an end to this global warming nonsense.

I know you're kidding, but you realize that would cook us all to death, right? Ever heard of Venus? ;)

[Cloud Buster]

I just chose to ignore you for the most part.

At least you're honest with yourself, but for this reason, I'm not going to continue playing your game. I made what I believe to be a reasonable point, apparently is was too reasonable for your style of irrational argumentation. You have proven, with your own words no less, that you would rather insult people than have a discussion. Not a fight, not a debate, but a discussion. Quite frankly, for someone as intelligent as you, I'm very surprised you made the above statement, and whatever respect for your opinions on this matter I had are now gone. I'm certain, of course, that you will reply and quote this block of text with a series of "Oh, yeah? Well, YOU....", etc. Because this cycle will continue to no end, and you refuse to recognize the simplest things - such as the question I posed to you, or claiming that no proof is enough for you - it is not worth it to me to waste the energy continuing this, and as such this will be my last post on this topic that is a direct reply to you.

You claimed in one post that in my original post I threw out the personal insults first. Yet as your evidence, you quoted me making general claims about "people that think Global Warming isn't real" - and in your last post, you've gone so far as to say that you're not even one of those people.

However, I haven't ever said "Ewok is stupid", or "Ewok is a know-it-all that makes dumb analogies". Regardless of how you are choosing to interprety it, I have not made any personal attacks against you - although I'm sure you'll quote my statements about relaxation or what not, and claim there's a comparison to some of the things you've said about me. Again, I'm certain this will illicit a reply with this text quoted, emoticons rolling their eyes and all, that will ironically prove my point even further as you directly insult my intelligence.

In any case, you posts have become beyond facetious to the point of absurdity when it relates to this topic. You keep saying things like "I challenge you to show me one shred of credible evidence", and when we do, you rebuke with "Well the scientists only said 'it's 90% certain' - it's not 100% so that's not credible".

NOTHING, and I mean, NOTHING can be proved with 100% certainty. Since you claim to understand the scientific method, you know that the resultant final step in the scientific method is THEORY - NOT fact or law. In fact, the only "laws" that exist in science deal with the nature of testing and understanding, and even those are not infallible. Consider the law of conservation of matter - which states (or once stated), in brief. matter can not be created nor destroyed. However, when a new understanding of nuclear science was developed during the Manhattan Project - a project that was to build a weapon, not reach new understanding - the "law" had to be amended to state that matter can not be created nor destroyed, except in a nuclear reaction. Even then, as any person of science will tell you, the term "law" does not mean "fact" - it is simply a guide rule for use when performing other research. We do not know whether or not matter is created or destroyed elsewhere in the universe by other natural processes (it is, in fact, the crux of one of the debates surrounding the expanding universe theory).

90% certain is about as certain as anyone can possibly be. I'm sorry that we can't deliver what you want, along with a jewel-encrusted chalice, to make you consider the reasonable alternatives to this debate which has become mindless. Everyone else in this thread is trying to move on to other concerns - such as what the point of the debate is - but you continue to tear each post to shreds, in exceedingly irrational ways, and even admit that you choose to ignore the well thought out, intelligent parts.

I truly thank you for the effort you put into this debate (although I'm sure you will spit on my gratitude and say I'm being "smug"), but I simply see no reason to continue it with you if you are going to make statments like the one I've quoted. I've seen you get into fights before, but never have I participated in one with you, and in each I have seen the same - you take the discussion as a personal vendetta. In as friendly a tone as I can convey using the typed medium, I seriously believe that this is something that you may want to work on. You don't need to make the assumption that people are out to get you - or whatever it is that motivates you to react so strongly and in such a personal way, and in all honesty I think people tend to not take you seriously when you speak the way you often do. Try to think about it from another person's perspective, for example, and read the one line I have chosen to quote - if you had put a great deal of effort into writing a post (as I know you do), and someone said that to you, would you take them seriously? So please, try to just calm down a little and enjoy the discussion. An intelligent discussion does NOT have to be a fight.

Peace out!

[Ewok Droppings]

At least you're honest with yourself, but for this reason, I'm not going to continue playing your game. I made what I believe to be a reasonable point, apparently is was too reasonable for your style of irrational argumentation. You have proven, with your own words no less, that you would rather insult people than have a discussion. Not a fight, not a debate, but a discussion. Quite frankly, for someone as intelligent as you, I'm very surprised you made the above statement, and whatever respect for your opinions on this matter I had are now gone. I'm certain, of course, that you will reply and quote this block of text with a series of "Oh, yeah? Well, YOU....", etc. Because this cycle will continue to no end, and you refuse to recognize the simplest things - such as the question I posed to you, or claiming that no proof is enough for you - it is not worth it to me to waste the energy continuing this, and as such this will be my last post on this topic that is a direct reply to you.

You claimed in one post that in my original post I threw out the personal insults first. Yet as your evidence, you quoted me making general claims about "people that think Global Warming isn't real" - and in your last post, you've gone so far as to say that you're not even one of those people.

However, I haven't ever said "Ewok is stupid", or "Ewok is a know-it-all that makes dumb analogies". Regardless of how you are choosing to interprety it, I have not made any personal attacks against you - although I'm sure you'll quote my statements about relaxation or what not, and claim there's a comparison to some of the things you've said about me. Again, I'm certain this will illicit a reply with this text quoted, emoticons rolling their eyes and all, that will ironically prove my point even further as you directly insult my intelligence.

In any case, you posts have become beyond facetious to the point of absurdity when it relates to this topic. You keep saying things like "I challenge you to show me one shred of credible evidence", and when we do, you rebuke with "Well the scientists only said 'it's 90% certain' - it's not 100% so that's not credible".

NOTHING, and I mean, NOTHING can be proved with 100% certainty. Since you claim to understand the scientific method, you know that the resultant final step in the scientific method is THEORY - NOT fact or law. In fact, the only "laws" that exist in science deal with the nature of testing and understanding, and even those are not infallible. Consider the law of conservation of matter - which states (or once stated), in brief. matter can not be created nor destroyed. However, when a new understanding of nuclear science was developed during the Manhattan Project - a project that was to build a weapon, not reach new understanding - the "law" had to be amended to state that matter can not be created nor destroyed, except in a nuclear reaction. Even then, as any person of science will tell you, the term "law" does not mean "fact" - it is simply a guide rule for use when performing other research. We do not know whether or not matter is created or destroyed elsewhere in the universe by other natural processes (it is, in fact, the crux of one of the debates surrounding the expanding universe theory).

90% certain is about as certain as anyone can possibly be. I'm sorry that we can't deliver what you want, along with a jewel-encrusted chalice, to make you consider the reasonable alternatives to this debate which has become mindless. Everyone else in this thread is trying to move on to other concerns - such as what the point of the debate is - but you continue to tear each post to shreds, in exceedingly irrational ways, and even admit that you choose to ignore the well thought out, intelligent parts.

I truly thank you for the effort you put into this debate (although I'm sure you will spit on my gratitude and say I'm being "smug"), but I simply see no reason to continue it with you if you are going to make statments like the one I've quoted. I've seen you get into fights before, but never have I participated in one with you, and in each I have seen the same - you take the discussion as a personal vendetta. In as friendly a tone as I can convey using the typed medium, I seriously believe that this is something that you may want to work on. You don't need to make the assumption that people are out to get you - or whatever it is that motivates you to react so strongly and in such a personal way, and in all honesty I think people tend to not take you seriously when you speak the way you often do. Try to think about it from another person's perspective, for example, and read the one line I have chosen to quote - if you had put a great deal of effort into writing a post (as I know you do), and someone said that to you, would you take them seriously? So please, try to just calm down a little and enjoy the discussion. An intelligent discussion does NOT have to be a fight.

Peace out!

Dude, I like how you keep making yourself out to be the good guy and I'm the bad guy. YOU WERE THE ONE THAT INSULTED ME AS STUPID!!!! Why does that make me the bad guy and you the good guy trying to peacefully argue? Honestly, is this difficult for you to understand? YOU STARTED IT AND YOU CONTINUED IT. I tried ignoring you and you keep crying about it.

Concerning the 90%... it's certainly NOT set in stone. Would you go to a doctor that says 90% of the time the medicine he gives you won't cause brain damage? Would you take the pill? No, and the reason is that you deserve a better percentage than that with the risks involved.

Look, JBond can insult me and call me stubborn, Cloud can whine and cry and say I'm being mean to him, Ramplate can make silly little comments, but the point is that I have been trying to argue the scientific method is how it is done. You guys want hype, hysteria and bad science to try to claim fact where there is not a fact presented. EVEN THESE GUYS FROM THE U.N. COUNCIL ARE NOT SAYING IT IS A FACT!!! You can say I need proof or whatever floats your boat, but I'm telling you that in a true scientific method you must follow the laws set forth. That is why they said to a 90% probability. They are not saying it's a fact, and there is a reason for that. They understand this principle but for some reason everyone on this thread seems to want to argue it like somehow they know better. If those making the claims are even following this method - shouldn't you guys (including myself) who really know nothing about the science follow this method? I mean honestly, why do you guys think you have some inside scoop on how science should be conducted and proven? 90% is a terrible rate, sorry that somehow you think this is now a proven fact when even those making the claim don't. Apparently you are even smarter than they are.

Now, just for the record, to reitterate my position, I'm not opposed to keeping the environment clean, enacting tougher pollution laws, studying ways to cleanup the environment, etc. What I am opposed to is the dumb hysteria that people want to use to push agendas and quote things as factual such as global warming when it's not factual even as claimed by those making the statement. If you want to talk about cleaning up the environment, fine, I'm all for it, but if you want to be a radical and say "global warming is a fact and is going to kill us all" then I would say you're being irrational given the data.

[smokiechimp]

I've just read through these last few posts and I agree with JBond's point. If we spend all our time arguing over the unimportant things as to whether Global warming is fact our not where in huge danger of missing the bigger picture. I'm not going to try and be poinyant and make a long retoric about who's right and wrong It doesn't matter who is. All that matters is that where moving forward in protecting our planet for future generations and making the world more aware of the "obvious" problems where making for our childrens children.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"

Peace Out

[Ewok Droppings]

true - but the question for this thread was whether or not global warming was real, not whether or not we should do something to protect the environment which I don't think anyone will argue we shouldn't.

[JBond]

Wow, you completely ignored my post.

[LOTRNUT04]

Concerning the 90%... it's certainly NOT set in stone. Would you go to a doctor that says 90% of the time the medicine he gives you won't cause brain damage? Would you take the pill? No, and the reason is that you deserve a better percentage than that with the risks involved.
The pill and condoms are only about 90% effective; should we, because they aren't 100% effective, not use them...your logic makes no sense.

[smokiechimp]

true - but the question for this thread was whether or not global warming was real, not whether or not we should do something to protect the environment which I don't think anyone will argue we shouldn't.

I don't think you quite understood my point mate. Read my post again....

[Ewok Droppings]

The pill and condoms are only about 90% effective; should we, because they aren't 100% effective, not use them...your logic makes no sense.
That's not even a decent example. Would you buy a brand new car that was only guaranteed to work 90% of the time? Would you place a loved one in the care of someone who isn't violent or crazy 90% of the time? There's a lot of things that 90% just doesn't cut it, and in most science 90% isn't good enough to move a hypothesis to a theory or fact.

[Ewok Droppings]

Wow, you completely ignored my post.

Because you keep saying the same thing over and over again. What am I supposed to say that I haven't already said? Honestly, you know my position and you expect something different each time. I don't know what you really want me to say? I still don't think we need to be screaming evil corporation and SUV drivers are ruining our environment with the data we have. That's not to say we shouldn't work to clean them up. What else do you want from me?

[Ewok Droppings]

Thought this was interesting:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes

This should fuel the fire of debate for awhile. :)

[JBond]

You don't think that helps your cause, do you? Quite the opposite.

[Boro]

I know you're kidding, but you realize that would cook us all to death, right? Ever heard of Venus? ;)

I was thinking more of the dust cloud that caused the dinosaurs to freeze and die out, but I see your point. We'll have to make the moon rock big enough that we wont have to deal with that sort of problem. The dust will be so think no light will be able to penetrate it, so we won't have to worry about what happens on Venus. Go big or go home. Am I right? (never mind that we are pretty much ****ed whether it does or doesn't work to solve global warming).

[sshuttari]

wow... your all losing the point of this thread.

Even if you dont believe in global warming and keep saying theres not enough evidence to the theory it still doesnt change the fact that just because we cant prove doesnt mean it isnt real and if it is, wouldnt it be better to take those cautious steps for our future?

I mean just think about what the idea of Global Warming is. Its that were hurting our planet in such a way that if theres a chance it is true that we cant go back and fix the problem. It will be too late and the results would be catastrophic.

Thats all Global Warming is saying

am i right?

[Ewok Droppings]

You don't think that helps your cause, do you? Quite the opposite.

Contrary to your popular belief - which I've posted several times - I'm not trying to DISPROVE global warming. I'm a skeptic of the data, true, but I am not saying it's false, I'm just saying it hasn't been proven. I have no "cause" like you guys do.

[Ewok Droppings]

wow... your all losing the point of this thread.

Even if you dont believe in global warming and keep saying theres not enough evidence to the theory it still doesnt change the fact that just because we cant prove doesnt mean it isnt real and if it is, wouldnt it be better to take those cautious steps for our future?

I mean just think about what the idea of Global Warming is. Its that were hurting our planet in such a way that if theres a chance it is true that we cant go back and fix the problem. It will be too late and the results would be catastrophic.

Thats all Global Warming is saying

am i right?Nobody's saying you can't take the steps to clean up the environment. I don't know why people keep saying that. It's getting old.

[Cloud Buster]

The pill and condoms are only about 90% effective; should we, because they aren't 100% effective, not use them...your logic makes no sense.

There's actually not ONE single pharmaceutical on the market that is 100% effective. Not one medical procedure, not one treatment, nothing. Medicine is a very poort example to use in the "what if is wasn't 100% certain", because it never is. I've had 3 surgeries on my back in the last year, and each one had a 5% chance of causing potentially serious spinal damage. Medicine doesn't even have an answer for how most pharmaceuticals even work, they only know that they work on "a good portion" of patients, and have a general hypothesis about why, but ultimately we know very little.

[Cloud Buster]

Wow, you completely ignored my post.

Yeah, he does that. :)

I'm still huddling in the corner crying.

[Ewok Droppings]

Yeah, he does that. :)

I'm still huddling in the corner crying.
I like your sarcasm. And then I like that you try to point out that you never demean anyone in your posts? :rolleyes: You just proved my point. Way to go. Maybe if you think about it you can add something positive to the debate instead of just being an a**hole in every post. How about joining the debate instead of being a prick?


Just to sum it up, sine it's the same argument over and over again and nobody seems to really listen anyways, this is the general rebuttal so far on this thread:

If you don't agree that global warming is a proven fact and is man made and we should run around screaming that the Earth will explode in the next few years as a result, then you:

1. Support big business and their pollution of the planet
2. Don't want to save the environment in the slightest
3. Drive an SUV
4. Are completely ignorant because you disagree that global warming is not a proven fact

:rolleyes:

[masterful misha]

ive seen 2 more advertisments on TV about the global warming issues.....and they also shut down the eiffel tower's light the other day to save the the earth?!

[RiddleMeThis?]

"1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat and 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow". -Tommy Lee Jones (Men in Black)

[JBond]

I was thinking more of the dust cloud that caused the dinosaurs to freeze and die out, but I see your point. We'll have to make the moon rock big enough that we wont have to deal with that sort of problem. The dust will be so think no light will be able to penetrate it, so we won't have to worry about what happens on Venus. Go big or go home. Am I right? (never mind that we are pretty much ****ed whether it does or doesn't work to solve global warming).

Of course, you're right, think big! So anyway, this is how I propose we blow up the moon. We steal ALL of Earth's nuclear warheads and aim them at this point I have located on "Google Moon" and...what? You didn't want to blow up the moon?

Contrary to your popular belief - which I've posted several times - I'm not trying to DISPROVE global warming. I'm a skeptic of the data, true, but I am not saying it's false, I'm just saying it hasn't been proven. I have no "cause" like you guys do.

I just meant that the argument in this thread has been awfully one-sided so far and that article wouldn't exend any conversation too mcuh. After all, I posted something pretty similar a week ago and no one seemed to care much.

It's pretty clear people would rather argue against something. ;)

[Boro]

Of course, you're right, think big! So anyway, this is how I propose we blow up the moon. We steal ALL of Earth's nuclear warheads and aim them at this point I have located on "Google Moon" and...what? You didn't want to blow up the moon?

As long as a big enough piece descends onto our planet I don't see why not.

[Cloud Buster]

"1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat and 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow". -Tommy Lee Jones (Men in Black)

Solid.

I agree completely, hindsight is 20/20.

[sshuttari]

So whats being done besides turning off the Eiffel Tower lights for 5minutes every night.

I mean if were all concerned about it. Then it should be more the just NFL players planting trees... which i still find quite funny

[squeekness]

Well, they say the sale of American cars is plummeting. I was thinking that some of that probably has to do with the fact that most of not all foriegn cars get much better miliage. I know that that will be one of my main concerns with the next car I buy. Driving cars with better miliage is one of the many things we can do to slow global warming.

[petergriffin246]

Have you noticed the media only talks about global warming when a movie about it comes out. When The Day After Tommorow came out all everyone talked about is global warming!!! If you ask me global arming is an advertising gimmick

[JBond]

Everything is an advertising gimmick. When's the last time you heard someone say "Save the rainforest"? I used to hear that so damn much as a kid, now, nothing. Either it's not interesting anymore or they're all gone.

[Cloud Buster]

Have you noticed the media only talks about global warming when a movie about it comes out. When The Day After Tommorow came out all everyone talked about is global warming!!! If you ask me global arming is an advertising gimmick

Remember when Deep Impact and Armageddon came out? Every day it was "Asteroids will kill us" on the "news".

[RiddleMeThis?]

Remember when Deep Impact and Armageddon came out? Every day it was "Asteroids will kill us" on the "news".

Maybe they should remake the movie WARGAMES. Then maybe they'll finally pull our troops out of Iraq.

[Tony Montana]

Our kids... or their kids will laugh at us for being so stupid and then they will curse us for being so stupid.

[JBond]

Yeah, but they'll have a PS7.

[Sculder]

Yeah, but they'll have a PS7.
Lucky bastards ;) I heard it will be amazing :)

[Steve from Indy]

I could do with a little city warming around here. Damn it's cold!

[RedVader 2004]

We as man have lived on earth for a fraction of the dinosaurs and yet we are as intelligent as Gilligan as knowing how our planet really works. Consider this idea. True we do drill to much and put harmful smock and gases into our own oxygen which can be the cause of the effect of the Ozone layer getting holes and the planet thus heating up.

But do consider this aspect as well has Earth warmed up before. Ask your selves this was there Ice when the world was created. In the dinsours days even in Adam and Eve days in the bible it was hot. Tropical. But then i little thing occured the Ice age.
Me thinks warming up and a big cool down is how earth works or perhaps heals its self. So ask your selves how far fetched was Day After Tomarrow. We may be warming up but could also face a major cool down.

[Cloud Buster]

But do consider this aspect as well has Earth warmed up before. Ask your selves this was there Ice when the world was created. In the dinsours days even in Adam and Eve days in the bible it was hot. Tropical. But then i little thing occured the Ice age.
Me thinks warming up and a big cool down is how earth works or perhaps heals its self. So ask your selves how far fetched was Day After Tomarrow. We may be warming up but could also face a major cool down.

I'm sorry to say, but this is about as logical as the "big sky theory" in aviation, and it's an uninformed opinion. I don't have time to write to much, so I'll sum it up in two points:

1) Yes, the global climate has changed a great deal over the past several million years - however, these were all due to natural causes and effects. The term "Global Warming" referrs to an unnatural warming effect caused by imbalances in the planet due to pollutants that we have introduced into the atmosphere, and overmining of natural resources.

2) Meterologists have a very accurate picutre of the history of global weather from, among other things, taking core samples from ice shelves around the world. As such, we know that there is an abnormality in current climate changes when compared to the history of climate patterns.

[LOTRNUT04]

We as man have lived on earth for a fraction of the dinosaurs and yet we are as intelligent as Gilligan as knowing how our planet really works. Consider this idea. True we do drill to much and put harmful smock and gases into our own oxygen which can be the cause of the effect of the Ozone layer getting holes and the planet thus heating up.

But do consider this aspect as well has Earth warmed up before. Ask your selves this was there Ice when the world was created. In the dinsours days even in Adam and Eve days in the bible it was hot. Tropical. But then i little thing occured the Ice age.
Me thinks warming up and a big cool down is how earth works or perhaps heals its self. So ask your selves how far fetched was Day After Tomarrow. We may be warming up but could also face a major cool down.
My goodness, use a comma.

[thebtskink]

I believe the debate has to shift from whether or not it's happening to what to do about it. Even if, best case scenario, the phenomena we see around us are caused naturally and not manmade, isn't it better to at least be cautious about the matter? Perhaps what is happening now is only a drop in the bucket and worse things could happen if we continue on the current course. So what do we do about it?

I am a thorough opponent of the Kyoto Protocol. The restrictions are not practicable. Already, many countries have announced that they cannot meet pollution reduction requirements. The reason is simple: as nations go through their developmental/industrializing stages, it becomes harder to maintain a high level of growth need to compete in global economics while placing restrictions on nations' industries.

Nations , industriesm, and corporations--like people--respond to incentives. The best solution in my eyes is a tradable pollution permit, much like those already in California (one of the greenest states in the union). If a corporation wants to maintain its growth without hindering its business by implementing environmental standards, it can pay for the right to do so, in a permit allowing them X amounts of CO2 per year over the current industry average. All proceeds from the permits go to state or government implemented environmental projects.

Limit the number of these permits at, for example, 50,000 per year. That means 50,000 times X amount of C02 over the average will be released. There's 150,000 companies wanting the right to pollute. Demand increases the price of the permit, allowing the state or nation to get more money for environmental projects. Next year, cap the number at 40,000 permits, and so on and so on. Keep demand high enough to the point where it becomes more profitable in the long term for a corporation/industry/industrializing nation to: become more energy efficient, pollute less.

[Cloud Buster]

I believe the debate has to shift from whether or not it's happening to what to do about it. Even if, best case scenario, the phenomena we see around us are caused naturally and not manmade, isn't it better to at least be cautious about the matter? Perhaps what is happening now is only a drop in the bucket and worse things could happen if we continue on the current course. So what do we do about it?

Precisely my point. I tried hammering that into this thread a few pages back. People ignored it.

[Tony Montana]

Yeah, but they'll have a PS7.

Well, I guess its not that bad at all...

[squeekness]

I think we all have to try and do what we can to help out. Awareness is the most important thing and I thing Al Gore has done a decent job of doing that. You can't fix something if you don't even know it's broken.

[Andrey83]

We as man have lived on earth for a fraction of the dinosaurs and yet we are as intelligent as Gilligan as knowing how our planet really works. Consider this idea. True we do drill to much and put harmful smock and gases into our own oxygen which can be the cause of the effect of the Ozone layer getting holes and the planet thus heating up.


Erm... CFC gasses and such caused holes in the ozon layer but that has nothing to do with global warming. But rather UV-B/UV-C radiation which is very dangerous for humans and other life. CFC was later banned in all production.

The US (and the EU for that matter) did the same thing that time though. "Its no proof this is bad...bla bla bla, money, money, money", then 10 years later : "ops damn, there is a hole in the ozone layer. We messed up, sorry, we ratify the agreement".

Anyway, CO2 doesnt make holes in the ozon layer but quite the opposite, makes it thicker which in turn reflects the sunlight several times - in theory making the earth warmer.

[RiddleMeThis?]

Erm... CFC gasses and such caused holes in the ozon layer but that has nothing to do with global warming. But rather UV-B/UV-C radiation which is very dangerous for humans and other life. CFC was later banned in all production.

The US (and the EU for that matter) did the same thing that time though. "Its no proof this is bad...bla bla bla, money, money, money", then 10 years later : "ops damn, there is a hole in the ozone layer. We messed up, sorry, we ratify the agreement".

Anyway, CO2 doesnt make holes in the ozon layer but quite the opposite, makes it thicker which in turn reflects the sunlight several times - in theory making the earth warmer.

Hate to correct you, but I think you mean "it makes it thicker which in turn magnifies the sunlight several times". You had the right idea, but if your statement were miss-read it could lead to unnecessary confusion and nay-saying. And I think we've all had about enough of that for one topic.;)

[Andrey83]

Hate to correct you, but I think you mean "it makes it thicker which in turn magnifies the sunlight several times". You had the right idea, but if your statement were miss-read it could lead to unnecessary confusion and nay-saying. And I think we've all had about enough of that for one topic.;)

No, you are wrong. The thicker layer makes less sun escape (after being reflected away from the earth surface), and hence more sunlight is reflected back to the earth, then the process is repeated. Its not magnified in any sense. Its the same sunlight in both instances, but in the latter (when the ozone is thicker) more is reflected back.

[RiddleMeThis?]

No, you are wrong. The thicker layer makes less sun escape (after being reflected away from the earth surface), and hence more sunlight is reflected back to the earth, then the process is repeated. Its not magnified in any sense. Its the same sunlight in both instances, but in the latter (when the ozone is thicker) more is reflected back.

So,you're saying that the thicker the atmosphere, the less chance of sunbeams escaping the atmosphere, thus are reflected back at the earth and raising it's temperature.

That doesn't sound right. If a thicker layer is causing less sun (which is reflected by the Earth) to escape our atmosphere, wouldn't it stand to reason that less sunbeams emitted from the sun would penetrate the atmosphere, cutting off the Earth's supply of sun and in effect freezing the planet?

If it's too thick to get out, logically it's too thick to get in.

[Cloud Buster]

So,you're saying that the thicker the atmosphere, the less chance of sunbeams escaping the atmosphere, thus are reflected back at the earth and raising it's temperature.

Actually, Andrey is absolutely right about that point - best example is the planet Venus, where the atmosphere is so thick that zero direct sunlight ever actually hits the planet's surface, but the thich atmosphere also acts as a nearly one-way heat exchanger that traps all heat below cloud layers and into what would be considered the "biosphere" were there life.

However, I don't think this is considred the cause of Global Warming - I'm not going to go into too much detail about the exact science of what I think it is before doing more research, but I remember being taught that carbon dioxide bonds with the Ozone molecules, causing them to become heavy and sink to lower altitudes, thereby thinning out the Ozone's protective layer and reducing its effectiveness to block out more harmful spectrums of light coming from the sun. (I may be incorrect about it being carbon dioxide, though, it may be another chemical pollutant, but I do recall the issue of bonding with the O3 molecules).

[RiddleMeThis?]

Actually, Andrey is absolutely right about that point - best example is the planet Venus, where the atmosphere is so thick that zero direct sunlight ever actually hits the planet's surface, but the thich atmosphere also acts as a nearly one-way heat exchanger that traps all heat below cloud layers and into what would be considered the "biosphere" were there life.

However, I don't think this is considred the cause of Global Warming - I'm not going to go into too much detail about the exact science of what I think it is before doing more research, but I remember being taught that carbon dioxide bonds with the Ozone molecules, causing them to become heavy and sink to lower altitudes, thereby thinning out the Ozone's protective layer and reducing its effectiveness to block out more harmful spectrums of light coming from the sun. (I may be incorrect about it being carbon dioxide, though, it may be another chemical pollutant, but I do recall the issue of bonding with the O3 molecules).

You're both probably right. I can't really support my statements with scientific fact (As my High School science classes are long behind me.) Either way, we're all bound to wind up roast chickens with skin cancer so there's little point in debating the technical aspects of our inevitable doom.http://www.htmlforums.com/images/smilies/Burning.gif

[Andrey83]

Well, this picture illustrates it very well:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Greenhouse_Effect.png

The point is here: the yellow arrow on the left is the amount of energy directly coming from the sun. However, the white arrow in the middle shows how much additional energy is absorbed due to heat being recycled because of the greenhouse effect.

In essence, if the layer is thicker less sun would come in, but the added greenhouse effect more then makes up for the loss of the direct sun effect.

Thats a very short version though, but it makes it more comprehendable.

[Ewok Droppings]

OK, I hate to stir the pot on this issue because so many people have already made up their minds one way or the other, but I was just reading this in the Washington Post and thought I would share (Gray's had some more recent articles this week). Thought you guys might find it interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

Here's a more recent article:
http://www.physorg.com/news95137021.html

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about,"

Interesting....

The skeptics point to the global temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No -- it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?

Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

There are all these . . . anomalies.

The skeptics scoff at climate models. They're just computer programs. They have to interpret innumerable feedback loops, all the convective forces, the evaporation, the winds, the ocean currents, the changing albedo (reflectivity) of Earth's surface, on and on and on.

Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "mel****er" and "volcanoes."

"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no damn good!"

[JBond]

Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Wow, not every single piece of ice in Antarica is getting smaller? What about as a whole? When summer is on the way, do the tempertures go up steadly one degree a day, or does it fluctuate on a local level and go up month by month?

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no damn good!"

This guy is clearly...stupid. It's the same thing I said about local examination and large scale. Can't predict the weather in two weeks? Who the **** could do that under any circumstances? That's not how models work.

[LOTRNUT04]

This guy is clearly...stupid. It's the same thing I said about local examination and large scale. Can't predict the weather in two weeks? Who the **** could do that under any circumstances? That's not how models work.
I agree. Except I think he's smart. He has already made up his mind about Global Warming and is trying to promote his views to the rest of society. He's clearly catering to the uneducated who would read that and say, "Hey, he's right. My weatherman can't predict the weather next week, how could anybody say what will happen in the next half-century?" As JBond said, that is clearly not how these things work. Again, I haven't made any decisions on whether GW is real or not; I'm not educated enough to be able to make any decisions and I'm not one to pretend that I am. I simply know that common sense should tell us to take preventative measures in case GW is real.

Ewok, I know that you've stated that you are not arguing against the environment and I think that your position is necessary (it's definitely more beneficial than mine), but I think that you have taken the extreme side of this argument. I certainly don't think that people should take an Al Gore documentary and view it as gospel, but I also don't agree that you should take garbage quotations from unknown "doctors" and try to promote them for your ends either. Take just one small step back from your end of the spectrum; I think you'll find yourself to be far more persuasive.

[Kritish]

There's too much evidence to suggest that it's real to ignore.

[Ewok Droppings]

He has already made up his mind about Global Warming and is trying to promote his views to the rest of society. He's clearly catering to the uneducated who would read that and say, "Hey, he's right. My weatherman can't predict the weather next week, how could anybody say what will happen in the next half-century?"
What's funny about this logic is that it can be applied equally to those people who are firm believers in global warming as well. They already have their minds made up and they cater to the lesser educated in society, etc.. :)

The difference is that he is considered by many to be an expert in his field and has been highly renowned for his work for decades. But you guys just dismiss him as "stupid" because apparently somehow you would know better than someone like him I suppose? Just curious why people dismiss someone as "stupid" when clearly they have much much more knowledge on the subject. But then again, this is the same type of treatment people give to Bush, so go figure. I would at least listen with an open mind if he was as highly regarded in his field as this guy is, but then again that's just me. I believe in credibility and not hype and hysteria. :)

Instead of just reading my quotes - honestly go back and READ the articles. Remember, this is from THE WASHINGTON POST which is generally regarded as a fairly liberal paper. Just read the article before you make snap judgments. Then if you disagree, it's welcome, just not to discredit someone who clearly has more knowledge on the subject than all of us put together here as stupid.

[JBond]

I'll read it when you watch "An Incovientent Truth", buddy. ;)

And he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't care if he's an "expert". I say that as not someone who is caught up in the hype, but as a product as everything I know as a person.

[LOTRNUT04]

What's funny about this logic is that it can be applied equally to those people who are firm believers in global warming as well. They already have their minds made up and they cater to the lesser educated in society, etc.. :)

The difference is that he is considered by many to be an expert in his field and has been highly renowned for his work for decades. But you guys just dismiss him as "stupid" because apparently somehow you would know better than someone like him I suppose? Just curious why people dismiss someone as "stupid" when clearly they have much much more knowledge on the subject. But then again, this is the same type of treatment people give to Bush, so go figure. I would at least listen with an open mind if he was as highly regarded in his field as this guy is, but then again that's just me. I believe in credibility and not hype and hysteria. :)

Instead of just reading my quotes - honestly go back and READ the articles. Remember, this is from THE WASHINGTON POST which is generally regarded as a fairly liberal paper. Just read the article before you make snap judgments. Then if you disagree, it's welcome, just not to discredit someone who clearly has more knowledge on the subject than all of us put together here as stupid.
You're right - this guy is probably smarter than all of us and certainly has more knowledge on GW than we do, however, that quote about immediate future vs. long-term future is just ridiculous. You must see that, right?

[Ewok Droppings]

I'll read it when you watch "An Incovientent Truth", buddy. ;)

And he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't care if he's an "expert". I say that as not someone who is caught up in the hype, but as a product as everything I know as a person.

And you're able to discredit him because???? why is that again??? Oh - you saw Al Gore's move. :) OK, I'll watch it, and then you'll have to read the article - deal? But honestly, no offense, I'm just amazed at how you completely disregard highly touted experts on the matter and say he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's just plain ignorant. Don't you see the flaw in that? I wouldn't do that to an expert if he offered a different opinion than mine, I's look at his data - mainly because I don't study this issue per se, I just don't buy into hype. I'm more of a numbers cruncher sort of guy, so when I see hard data I like that reasoning better than emotion because it's unbiased.


You're right - this guy is probably smarter than all of us and certainly has more knowledge on GW than we do, however, that quote about immediate future vs. long-term future is just ridiculous. You must see that, right?
He's drawing an analogy which I don't actually think is too much of a stretch. He is however, comparing short term with long term; I see the problem there. I think he's right in that, the weather and climate are not necessarily "predictable" like most global warming enthusiasts scream about and he's using the analogy of not being able to predict 2 weeks out accurately to illustrate that point.

[masterful misha]

I just read an article in TIME saying 52 ways to help the earth. Now I am all for it but I wasn’t impressed about the article. It said the same thing every time. It points out that whatever you do or buy puts CO2 into the air. I will give you an example. It said that we shouldn’t eat meat because it uses a machine to chop up the cow that then releases CO2 into the air. But some of them did make sense like not using plastic bags and change your light bulbs because it has 5% mercury in them when you throw them out. The other day gave me more reason for global warming. It snowed in Virginia when the day before it was 75 degrees.

[RiddleMeThis?]

Is global warming real or not? Hmmm... I dunno. Ask the Cleveland Indians.:)

[JBond]

And you're able to discredit him because???? why is that again??? Oh - you saw Al Gore's move. :) OK, I'll watch it, and then you'll have to read the article - deal? But honestly, no offense, I'm just amazed at how you completely disregard highly touted experts on the matter and say he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's just plain ignorant. Don't you see the flaw in that? I wouldn't do that to an expert if he offered a different opinion than mine, I's look at his data - mainly because I don't study this issue per se, I just don't buy into hype. I'm more of a numbers cruncher sort of guy, so when I see hard data I like that reasoning better than emotion because it's unbiased.


He's drawing an analogy which I don't actually think is too much of a stretch. He is however, comparing short term with long term; I see the problem there. I think he's right in that, the weather and climate are not necessarily "predictable" like most global warming enthusiasts scream about and he's using the analogy of not being able to predict 2 weeks out accurately to illustrate that point.

First of all, I like teasing you about the Al Gore movie at this point. In my head, I'm not thinking "That's not what my buddy Al Gore told me" every time you post somethign on the other side. But I'm also not going to blindly believe what experts or people with "Dr." or "President" in front of their name tell me.

And no, the analogy is horrible. Global Warming is not "weather". It's not a storm on it's way.

[lordofthenerds]

After watching "An Incovientent Truth" I find it absurd to not even take global warming into consideration. Just looking at how clearly the increased production of greenhouse gases and weather correspond should be convincing enough that global warming is real.

[Ewok Droppings]

First of all, I like teasing you about the Al Gore movie at this point. In my head, I'm not thinking "That's not what my buddy Al Gore told me" every time you post somethign on the other side. But I'm also not going to blindly believe what experts or people with "Dr." or "President" in front of their name tell me.
It's not just the fact that he has Dr. in front of his name - it's that he's considered by many on BOTH sides of the argument to be the foremost respected authority in his field. To me, that says something.

Honestly, I think this can easily be settled with a duel at dawn between us. Just as long as Riddle makes sure to stand in between us when we start firing, it should settle it once and for all. ;)

[LOTRNUT04]

This is my favorite thread on the site.

[masterful misha]

This is my favorite thread on the site.

its my 3rd

[Ewok Droppings]

its my 3rd

What's your first 2? :)

[RiddleMeThis?]

Honestly, I think this can easily be settled with a duel at dawn between us. Just as long as Riddle makes sure to stand in between us when we start firing, it should settle it once and for all. ;)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p48/ProfessorMegaman/Grudge.gif?t=1176121305

[Ewok Droppings]

:funny:

[pixiness]

Okay - I'm going to jump in here with another perspective somewhat similar to Ewok's - but with some departures.

1. "No Proof" - I agree that global warming is happening... to the extent or speed that it's been claimed, I'm not sure I agree with. Why? Well, the most alarmist views say Miami and Miami Beach will be 25 feet underwater by 2040. That would mean that we'd either be losing coastline here where I live at a rate of 9 inches a year or that it's gonna come in one big boost. If you've never been to Miami Beach, and especially if you've never lived here, you might not know just how close of an eye the city keeps on things like water levels. There's tons of marinas etc. all over Miami Beach, the beach itself is a huge economic asset that they're always keeping track of and historic Ocean drive is maybe 10 feet off the sand. So far - no figures even close to 9 inches have been reported for water levels rising. And before anyone says "it's only 9 inches" - that's 3/4 of a foot. Not something a very coastal community would sneeze at.
* So is it likely water levels will rise - entirely.
* Do I think people are exaggerating for effect - quite possibly.

2. "The Cycles Debate"
I don't think anyone disagrees that the earth goes through cycles. I think what's important to understand is that a cycle only comes back to its starting place when no other variables have been introduced. Obviously a world population of close to 6.5 billion is a huge variable. Forget about fossil fuels and pollution and all that other stuff just for a second, the amount of pure CO2 produced from breathing, and methane produced from digestive gasses, and uric acid produced from going wee-wee and the amount of vegetation and animals being consumed for food alone is a huge impact when multiplied by 6.5 billion. So even if the whole earth today went back to an uber-hippy lifestyle, it still would never be completely "eco-friendly".
Would it be a cleaner world to live in? In some ways, yes... it'd certainly be less polluted. But this too is up for debate. A lot of those modern conveniences we've grown attached to like water purified to remove microbiotic organisms so we don't get sick - those would have to go bye bye. Stuff like basic sanitation would change drastically in western civilizations (think back to the old west and beating your clothes against river rocks to get them clean - sorry everyone that wants that fresh & clean smell... soaps made from the fats of animals that have been killed for food - sorry PETA, this is the most "eco-friendly" solution).
* So do I think the damage needs to be reversed? Yes.
* Do I think it really can be reversed all the way? Not by a long-shot
* Do I think that any amoutn of reversal will happen in a quick and timely manner? No - I just don't see thousands of cultures across the world coming together to say clean laundry sucks or screw sewage lines - we want to compost our poo. And honestly, I believe that's the kind of committment it's going to take to make the kinds of changes that are necessary to turn back the clock on global warming.

Long story short: It's taken us 2000 years of recorded history to get things into this kind of shape - let's not be naive about how long it will take to get things better (and I emphasize better because I strongly believe "setting things back to zero" is an impossibility at this point)

[Andrey83]

I wouldn't do that to an expert if he offered a different opinion than mine, I's look at his data - mainly because I don't study this issue per se, I just don't buy into hype. I'm more of a numbers cruncher sort of guy, so when I see hard data I like that reasoning better than emotion because it's unbiased.

Easy now mate. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that you posted that simply because it supported your view. If the same article (which there are tons of, by equally good/respected scientists) said otherwise you wouldnt be the "numbers crusher" that you claim. I'd say you read his article with great enthusiasm simply because you want the sceptics to be right, and the whole phenomenon to be nothing at all. So lets not point fingers about who's being biased ;)

Apart from that I think many of his points are idiotic and seems more like an attempt to gather support from the ignorant people - or the less informed i might add. He throws in simple comparisons to day to day things like weather forecasting for one purpose only - he obviously want to "convert" people who believe (what you refered to as guided by emotion) in the phenomenon to sceptics. It doesnt really matter what he is considered as I can only comment on the article you posted. Its not bad all the way through, and he brings interesting things to the table. But most of it has nothing to do with "science". Its politics.

[FranklinTard]

read this one paper saying it was all craziness but it used political factors which lead me to believe it was biased....

however they did bring up a good point with them saying the world has been getting warmer only in reference to what we know. there was a mini ice age in new york that froze the entire bay and the world has just been leveling out so to speak. not saying they are right but if they know what causes it global warming why not just do whatever it is, i mean we wear seatbelts cuz the numbers are pretty telling.

[Ewok Droppings]

Easy now mate. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that you posted that simply because it supported your view. If the same article (which there are tons of, by equally good/respected scientists) said otherwise you wouldnt be the "numbers crusher" that you claim. I'd say you read his article with great enthusiasm simply because you want the sceptics to be right, and the whole phenomenon to be nothing at all. So lets not point fingers about who's being biased ;)

Apart from that I think many of his points are idiotic and seems more like an attempt to gather support from the ignorant people - or the less informed i might add. He throws in simple comparisons to day to day things like weather forecasting for one purpose only - he obviously want to "convert" people who believe (what you refered to as guided by emotion) in the phenomenon to sceptics. It doesnt really matter what he is considered as I can only comment on the article you posted. Its not bad all the way through, and he brings interesting things to the table. But most of it has nothing to do with "science". Its politics.
Negative - see here's the fallacy about this argument... I DON'T have a view one way or the other. My only view is that I definitely don't like the bullcrap hype dredged up by doomsday predictors for dramatic effect to their cause. If global warming is real - fine, I believe we should clean up the environment anyways regardless. I just really really dislike dramatic political statements for personal gain which I believe global warming has become recently. If there was science behind it - great, bring it on, I'm OK with it. If there isn't, then fine too, but I want FACTS, DATA, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, ETC. and not someone who wants to gain personally from the hype.

Global warming is funny just simply because there's a lot of people who actually believe that it's a proven fact when it's not. Really what they should focus on instead of this mass-hysteria scare tactic and buzz phrase of "global warming" is simply finding ways to clean up the environment regardless. It just makes sense. :)

[JBond]

If there isn't, then fine too, but I want FACTS, DATA, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, ETC.

No you don't.

[Ewok Droppings]

No you don't.

I don't in the form of Al Gore's movie - you're right. :) That's about as scientific understanding why Jennifer Aniston would date Vince Vaughn over me.

[JBond]

Man, you're funny.

[Diablo]

Funnier than Vince Vaughn?

[JBond]

Funnier than Vince Vaughn?

No one, and I mean NO ONE....is funnier than Kevin Nealon.

[Ewok Droppings]

Man, you're funny.

Thank you, thank you, next show's at 8. :)

[Diablo]

No one, and I mean NO ONE....is funnier than Kevin Nealon.

I thought so.. hey wait a minute!

I see what you did there! lol, inside joke.

[Boiiinng]

The Earth is too big and our science and computers too small for us to prove global warming a fact any time soon. We're wasting time trying. I remember in the late 80s and early 90s everyone was talking about the ozone layer going bad. What happened to that talk? It slowed depletion after the worldwide CFC ban/lowered use. Not something that can be proven, but that's a pretty good reason for people to realize that it MAY be real because something we changed had pretty good results. It seems people think that with today's level of technology we can just easily prove things any time we want, but it would take a loooooong time to program that amount of information to give us an answer that our own good senses should be able to tell us anyway.

"Apparently President Bush doesn't think that there's global warming because he doesn't have any SKIN!!!" -Lewis Black

[Ewok Droppings]

The Earth is too big and our science and computers too small for us to prove global warming a fact any time soon. We're wasting time trying. I remember in the late 80s and early 90s everyone was talking about the ozone layer going bad. What happened to that talk? It slowed depletion after the worldwide CFC ban/lowered use. Not something that can be proven, but that's a pretty good reason for people to realize that it MAY be real because something we changed had pretty good results. It seems people think that with today's level of technology we can just easily prove things any time we want, but it would take a loooooong time to program that amount of information to give us an answer that our own good senses should be able to tell us anyway.

I remember when Big Macs and other burgers used to come in styrofoam containers, but then they stopped using those due to environmental reasons. Makes sense.

[RiddleMeThis?]

I remember when Big Macs and other burgers used to come in styrofoam containers, but then they stopped using those due to environmental reasons. Makes sense.

Yes. God forbid any unforeseen chemicals attached to the styrofoam containers would rub off onto our otherwise clean, nutritious, all-natural Big Macs.:funny:

[Ewok Droppings]

Yes. God forbid any unforeseen chemicals attached to the styrofoam containers would rub off onto our otherwise clean, nutritious, all-natural Big Macs.:funny:

Well, I think it's more the fact that styrofoam (polystyrene) had problems in the 80's due to it's production methods releasing CFCs into the air and not to mention it has a tremendously long decomposition rate, meaning it stays in a landfill for a helluva long time before breaking down. I think this was really attributable to styrofoam from DOW instead of Extended Polystyrene (EPS) which I believe was what most of the containers that McDonalds used were made of. Basically, back then in the 80's it was a lot of generated hysteria about it killing the ozone, etc. etc. sort of like global warming in general is now. Really, what it amounted to I believe is that EPS and polystyrene products really suck in a landfill, but don't really rip apart the ozone like once hysteria claimed. But it's a good example of the scare tactics.

[pixiness]

Well, I think it's more the fact that styrofoam (polystyrene) had problems in the 80's due to it's production methods releasing CFCs into the air and not to mention it has a tremendously long decomposition rate, meaning it stays in a landfill for a helluva long time before breaking down. I think this was really attributable to styrofoam from DOW instead of Extended Polystyrene (EPS) which I believe was what most of the containers that McDonalds used were made of. Basically, back then in the 80's it was a lot of generated hysteria about it killing the ozone, etc. etc. sort of like global warming in general is now. Really, what it amounted to I believe is that EPS and polystyrene products really suck in a landfill, but don't really rip apart the ozone like once hysteria claimed. But it's a good example of the scare tactics.


I agree with you that people "overbill" problems for effect in order to get attention, gain support, etc. But that doesn't mean their claims are groundless. CFCs deplete ozone - that much is fact. But are we all sitting here with SPF1000 on everytime we walk out the door because we killed all the ozone? No. We took some measures, we made some changes, we made a small - possibly minute - difference (because let's face it - developing nations don't give a crap about CFCs). I think in the end, with all this global warming stuff, the same thing will happen. A bunch of people - granted, unfairly motivated by fear, will get off their behinds, take some steps to clean up the planet, and try to make a difference. Do I believe they'll be saving us from a fate of floating around with Kevin Costner and Dennis Hopper while we check out Tommy Lee's tattoos for maps to dry land? No - of course not - but if they help us keep polar bears and harp seals and blue whales around for my kids and grandkids to see them, that's a good enough reason for me.

[Ramplate]

is this still going after the two months I've been dying? :lol

by the way - you might be funny, but looks arent everything rofl

[JBond]

Do I believe they'll be saving us from a fate of floating around with Kevin Costner and Dennis Hopper while we check out Tommy Lee's tattoos for maps to dry land?

:omg:

No - of course not

:(

[The Knight]

its definitely real, i did a research paper on it, and it made me better understand what it is all about. Yyou have to do research first before you say its not real, because it most certainly is. the argument is over, its fact

[LOTRNUT04]

^Wow, excellent argument. Your information and sources really show how how well researched your school paper was. I'm most impressed. The power of persuasion at its finest.

[SuperRyan]

The Earth is getting hotter. The real question lies in what the outcome of that heat influx will be.

[JBond]

Yeah, but it's a dry heat.

[squeekness]

Anyone read Collapse by Jared Diamond? I am about a third of the way through the book and it's been very inciteful. It doesn't deal with global warming per se, but it talks about how ancient civilizations -- Easter Island and some Southwest Indian tribes --contributed greatly to their eventual collapse by misuse of enviromental resources. Diamond shows in interesting ways how we could be heading on similar paths now with damming and deforestation and the use of pesticides. The people long ago didn't have historians and scientists to point out their mistakes before it was too late, we do. It's time to at least listen to what some of these guys have to say. :)

[JokerNick]

The Earth is getting hotter. The real question lies in what the outcome of that heat influx will be.

not where I live... it just snowed and it's APRIL!!!!

[Ramplate]

And Leon's getting LARGER

[Ewok Droppings]

I agree with you that people "overbill" problems for effect in order to get attention, gain support, etc. But that doesn't mean their claims are groundless. CFCs deplete ozone - that much is fact. But are we all sitting here with SPF1000 on everytime we walk out the door because we killed all the ozone? No. We took some measures, we made some changes, we made a small - possibly minute - difference (because let's face it - developing nations don't give a crap about CFCs). My point about CFCs and the styrofoam containers was that most containers were actually made out of EPS which did not create CFCs from what I understand, so basically everyone was freaking out about the CFCs due to styrofoam containers when really they were EPS containers and not the DOW styrofoam ones. Just thought I'd clarify my point. :)

But you're absolutely right about the hysteria. It's the scare tactics that I don't like that people use to promote their agendas. Don't shove trash science and hysteria down my throat for your own political gain. If you want us to clean up the environment - hey, I'm all for that. Just cut the bullcrap.

By the way, it's been pretty frickin' cold for April - should I use SPF 1000 still? ;)

[DeadFlagBlues]

Thats kind of the problem, though. You have to realize that people these days will not listen. Even if you were to shove facts in their face, would they still listen? No, probably not. So, I see the 'scare tactics' are sometimes justified. It's also strange how we need something like the threat of Global Warming in order for us to clean up the environment -- having said that it seems entirely unlikely anyone is going to do anything. If it doesn't fit into their schedule, they disregard it. Whether Global Warming is real or not is really not the question. The real question is: do people even care?

[Ewok Droppings]

Thats kind of the problem, though. You have to realize that people these days will not listen. Even if you were to shove facts in their face, would they still listen? No, probably not. So, I see the 'scare tactics' are sometimes justified. It's also strange how we need something like the threat of Global Warming in order for us to clean up the environment -- having said that it seems entirely unlikely anyone is going to do anything. If it doesn't fit into their schedule, they disregard it. Whether Global Warming is real or not is really not the question. The real question is: do people even care?

Have you ever seen Idiocracy? This is the future. ;)

[pixiness]

Ewok (and others who think global warming may be just a "phase" the planet is going through):

1. Please try to be even minded about "sources". Ewok, you've repeatedly asked for evidence from reputable agencies such as the EPA... How about: "The science," says Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (epa), "now is getting to the point where it's pretty hard to deny. Indeed it is. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were 379 parts per million (p.p.m.) in 2005, higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years. Of the 12 warmest years on record, 11 occurred between 1995 and 2006." - Now despite this, I'm willing to say that the EPA has its own agenda and perhaps can't be taken at face value. But at the same time, you might need to admit that the Washington Post is probably about as reputable as Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth". Why? Well, because the WP article you quoted as evidence against global warming was written by a journalist. That journalist may have done research, but has compiled it their own way. Al Gore hasn't claimed to have discovered new research, he's just using his voice to present the research of scientists in the field... much like our WP journalist. So let's be fair okay? Let's at least CONSIDER both sides of the argument.

2. Let's consider the alternative - that global warming has little to do with humanity and that it's just a scare tactic dreamed up by environmentalists to try and get people to clean up the earth. That means that the rise in temperatures over the past 50 years or so... (please see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's analysis here - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/022.htm), is really just a natural cycle of the earth and temperatures, etc. will all go back down in time. Let's run with that idea for a minute. So, let's say that we're at the peak of a 50 year cycle (that means this is the worst it gets, there's nowhere to go but down from here). In all likelihood, it's a cycle that will take about 50 years to return back to "zero" or "normal". Now, I'll be 80 in 50 years... and during that slow shift back to normal, I'll still be effected by increased severe weather patterns, etc. That kinda sucks. Now let's say that it's not the peak of the cycle yet... meaning there's more bad on the way... I might not live to see the return to normal... my kids might not either (depending on how long it goes on). This is all assuming that the temperature increases over the past 50 years have nothing at all to do with humanity. I think even the biggest skeptic can agree we've had some impact on our environment... so it's safe to assume that at least some tiny fraction of the current trend is the result of our actions.

I think what people "in favor" of the global warming issue are trying to say is that some yucky stuff has been happening, and while we can't control whether or not the earth spins into the sun, we CAN control how much we contribute to the problem. It might not STOP or REVERSE anything, but it can at least make the situation to come more bearable. So why not do those things? An excellent example: There's a floodgate on the River Thames that was put there after severe flooding in the 1980s. When it was built, it was intended to be used once every 10 years or so. Since it was constructed it's been used 3-4 times a year, every year, for about 25 years. They're now going to extend the height of the floodgate so that if the flood waters continue to rise, as they have been for the past 25 years, that they're not underwater in 25 more. They're not necessarily saying anything about global warming, they're just being intelligent people that said, "Hmm... flooding's becoming a big problem for us right here in this one area, let's make sure we're ahead of the game just in case this continues." Not a bad idea for any of us.

Because if (and I think it's a BIG if) global warming has NOTHING to do with humans, we need to be prepared for the consequences. If it's just inevitable that polar ice caps are going to melt and there's nothing that can be done about it, then I want to make sure there's some sort of levee system all around Miami beach - I like living there. But if there's even a little bit that humanity can do to make even a minute difference, that'd be great too. To use the example above... I'm sure the UK would rather not have to extend their floodgate on the Thames. But it's far cheaper in the long run than saying "well - maybe everything will be fine and we're just in a particularly high flood cycle." and then getting a big flood that causes millions of $ worth of damage.

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, I strongly urge everyone to visit http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601070409,00.html (hopefully Time Magazine is a reputable enough source for everyone here), and read the 3 feature articles on Global Warming. It's very even-handed and doesn't seek to lay blame for global warming as much as say, let's accept it as fact and see what we can do to make a difference. They even have a great section on what we can do, how much of a difference it really makes, and how quickly it has an effect. And they also address the "how to prepare for the consequences issue". Check it out - it's really worthwhile for anyone that's been involved in this thread.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Ewok (and others who think global warming may be just a "phase" the planet is going through):

1. Please try to be even minded about "sources". Ewok, you've repeatedly asked for evidence from reputable agencies such as the EPA... How about: "The science," says Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (epa), "now is getting to the point where it's pretty hard to deny. Indeed it is. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were 379 parts per million (p.p.m.) in 2005, higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years. Of the 12 warmest years on record, 11 occurred between 1995 and 2006." - Now despite this, I'm willing to say that the EPA has its own agenda and perhaps can't be taken at face value. But at the same time, you might need to admit that the Washington Post is probably about as reputable as Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth". Why? Well, because the WP article you quoted as evidence against global warming was written by a journalist. That journalist may have done research, but has compiled it their own way. Al Gore hasn't claimed to have discovered new research, he's just using his voice to present the research of scientists in the field... much like our WP journalist. So let's be fair okay? Let's at least CONSIDER both sides of the argument.

2. Let's consider the alternative - that global warming has little to do with humanity and that it's just a scare tactic dreamed up by environmentalists to try and get people to clean up the earth. That means that the rise in temperatures over the past 50 years or so... (please see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's analysis here - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/022.htm), is really just a natural cycle of the earth and temperatures, etc. will all go back down in time. Let's run with that idea for a minute. So, let's say that we're at the peak of a 50 year cycle (that means this is the worst it gets, there's nowhere to go but down from here). In all likelihood, it's a cycle that will take about 50 years to return back to "zero" or "normal". Now, I'll be 80 in 50 years... and during that slow shift back to normal, I'll still be effected by increased severe weather patterns, etc. That kinda sucks. Now let's say that it's not the peak of the cycle yet... meaning there's more bad on the way... I might not live to see the return to normal... my kids might not either (depending on how long it goes on). This is all assuming that the temperature increases over the past 50 years have nothing at all to do with humanity. I think even the biggest skeptic can agree we've had some impact on our environment... so it's safe to assume that at least some tiny fraction of the current trend is the result of our actions.

I think what people "in favor" of the global warming issue are trying to say is that some yucky stuff has been happening, and while we can't control whether or not the earth spins into the sun, we CAN control how much we contribute to the problem. It might not STOP or REVERSE anything, but it can at least make the situation to come more bearable. So why not do those things? An excellent example: There's a floodgate on the River Thames that was put there after severe flooding in the 1980s. When it was built, it was intended to be used once every 10 years or so. Since it was constructed it's been used 3-4 times a year, every year, for about 25 years. They're now going to extend the height of the floodgate so that if the flood waters continue to rise, as they have been for the past 25 years, that they're not underwater in 25 more. They're not necessarily saying anything about global warming, they're just being intelligent people that said, "Hmm... flooding's becoming a big problem for us right here in this one area, let's make sure we're ahead of the game just in case this continues." Not a bad idea for any of us.

Because if (and I think it's a BIG if) global warming has NOTHING to do with humans, we need to be prepared for the consequences. If it's just inevitable that polar ice caps are going to melt and there's nothing that can be done about it, then I want to make sure there's some sort of levee system all around Miami beach - I like living there. But if there's even a little bit that humanity can do to make even a minute difference, that'd be great too. To use the example above... I'm sure the UK would rather not have to extend their floodgate on the Thames. But it's far cheaper in the long run than saying "well - maybe everything will be fine and we're just in a particularly high flood cycle." and then getting a big flood that causes millions of $ worth of damage.

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, I strongly urge everyone to visit http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601070409,00.html (hopefully Time Magazine is a reputable enough source for everyone here), and read the 3 feature articles on Global Warming. It's very even-handed and doesn't seek to lay blame for global warming as much as say, let's accept it as fact and see what we can do to make a difference. They even have a great section on what we can do, how much of a difference it really makes, and how quickly it has an effect. And they also address the "how to prepare for the consequences issue". Check it out - it's really worthwhile for anyone that's been involved in this thread.


Excellent post and information. Thanks! I must say I agree with everything that you've stated. Thanks for the link, as well.

[RiddleMeThis?]

http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/george-carlins-planet-is-fine.php

[Boiiinng]

http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/george-carlins-planet-is-fine.php

One of my favorite rants of his. Plastic!!!

[pixiness]

That reminds me of a george carlin quote:

"We don't need to save the planet... the planet has been here for a few billion years, and will probably be here a few billion more. WE might not be... but it's indeed possible that the only reason we're here is that the earth wanted some plastic for itself"

:)

[Steve from Indy]

Jesus will fix the earth when he returns!!!

[squeekness]

Yes, lol. ^^ But that's no excuse not to try our best before he gets here. ;)

[Necross]

Have you watched an Inconvenient truth yet Ewok? Sorry to ask but I don't have time to read all the pages.

[RiddleMeThis?]

Have you watched an Inconvenient truth yet Ewok? Sorry to ask but I don't have time to read all the pages.

The truth behind An Inconvenient Truth is undeniable, but if we don't cut back on how often we bring it up, the Eco-haters will start to downplay it's crediblity. Not because it isn't true, but because we "always use that movie to justify our arguements".

[Necross]

Oh I know, but I'm just asking, I saw at the beginning he was quoting articles and stuff refuting the movie or the science behind it, but when asked said he hadn't bothered to watch it, I was just asking to see if I should give any of his arguments credit or not. This may come out will me sounding like a jerk, but its the truth. When someone refutes your opinion and posts their own facts and science at you expecting you to read and accept it but won't bother doing the same for you in an argument, then theres no point in debating with them as they have a one sided view. I'm not saying he HASN'T, and I'm not saying thats what I think he's doing, hence why I asked, to find out :)

[HaDoKen]

Earths doomed so lets not bother

[Necross]

Well its really, ya know, not, if people stopped being lazy, but ok, your points good too :P Mmmmm fuel on a fire.

[Ewok Droppings]

The truth behind An Inconvenient Truth is undeniable, It's statements like this that I find laughable. It's completely deniable in Al Gore's hokey science.

To answer your question - no I haven't seen it yet. My problem with the film is that Al Gore is politicizing the argument for personal gain. The biggest laugh is that some disregard EXPERTS on the matter (world renowned regardless of leaning on the issue) in favor of Al Gore's politically charged movie. Some people will believe anything if they want to regardless. Al Gore is a POLITICIAN and not a scientist.

Again - I'm all for a clean environment, I'm just not sold on Al Gore's motives especially when he has a mansion the size of Texas that consumes 20 times as much energy as the average household. Sorry, but Al Gore will never be a credible source of scientific data IMHO. And for the record, you can easily find information about some of the junk science used for hype in his movie if you google around a bit. Again, I would refer back to Dr. Gray's comments on his science - but then again, you guys will just reject it because for some reason Al Gore knows best. :rolleyes:

[Necross]

There ya go, haven't seen it, your arguements have no merit. Sitting here "He's a politician! He's a politician!" The fact of the matter is, he was an environmentalist BEFORE he ever became a politician. I've seen both sides, those disagreeing with the film, the science behind it, and those for it along with the film itself. With both sides in my mind, I know where I stand, you blatantly refuse to even bother with the other side of the issues science and points. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously on a subject you only know half of? You can't make an educated decisions with half the arguement, only an ignorant one. Not to mention its chosen ignorance.

I will say, this is not some Gore love fest. I'm for the science in the film. I don't care who presented it. It could've been Carrot Top, because again, Gore is just a presenter of the science done and results achieved. To ignore that because of one man? Thats just, sad.

[pixiness]

It's statements like this that I find laughable. It's completely deniable in Al Gore's hokey science.

To answer your question - no I haven't seen it yet. My problem with the film is that Al Gore is politicizing the argument for personal gain. The biggest laugh is that some disregard EXPERTS on the matter (world renowned regardless of leaning on the issue) in favor of Al Gore's politically charged movie. Some people will believe anything if they want to regardless. Al Gore is a POLITICIAN and not a scientist.

Dude - seriously - this statement is exactly why so many people keep asking you the same question about the movie. NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED AL GORE IS A SCIENTIST - NOT EVEN AL GORE! He is simply acting as the "spokesperson" for several scientists that share the view that global warming is a serious problem. He is simply putting a voice behind the research of these scientists. He is NOT, repeat NOT basing his claims on his own speculations.

Further - no one's trying to say "Al Gore knows best". It seems like perhaps the only one who seems to think that may be you. Have all the problems with Al Gore you want - heck, I think we can all agree maybe he's not the most carbon-friendly life form on this planet. But then again, he's not the only one putting a voice behind the science of global warming.
1. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/expert-issue-results.html?issue_type=global_warming_science
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/
3.http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903 (among many other pages on this site)
4.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089

Take a bit of your own advice and "google around" - there's lots more just like this. And wow - look at that! Not a single mention of Al Gore or affiliation with him amongst them. I'd suggest you get real about what Al Gore's role within the global warming debate is before you off-handedly dismiss everything regarding the subject. Come on, one guy you don't trust tells you global warming is a problem and so automatically it must be fiction? That's ridiculous. I know you're not that nearsighted.

[Ewok Droppings]

There ya go, haven't seen it, your arguements have no merit. Sitting here "He's a politician! He's a politician!" The fact of the matter is, he was an environmentalist BEFORE he ever became a politician. I've seen both sides, those disagreeing with the film, the science behind it, and those for it along with the film itself. With both sides in my mind, I know where I stand, you blatantly refuse to even bother with the other side of the issues science and points. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously on a subject you only know half of? You can't make an educated decisions with half the arguement, only an ignorant one. Not to mention its chosen ignorance.

Well, here's the problem with this argumentative line of reasoning... when I presented a renowned scientist's views on the matter, it was quickly rejected by you guys as "He is an idiot and doesn't know anything". So, why should I waste my time with Al Gore's movie when you won't even waste your time listening to other experts? It's not that I "only know half of the argument" unless the argument is whether or not Al Gore's movie is true. The door swings both ways here - you guys don't want to listen either, so why should I?

[Ewok Droppings]

Oh - and I like how you discredit people as ignorant on the subject if they haven't seen Al Gore's movie. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

[RiddleMeThis?]

So, why should I waste my time with Al Gore's movie when you won't even waste your time listening to other experts? The door swings both ways here - you guys don't want to listen either, so why should I?

How about for the sake of your own knowledge? Read/Watch/Listen to be informed. You're refusing to watch An Inconvenient Truth because a few anonymous posters aren't willing to credit your own sources on the argument. That's pretty stubborn, and pointless.

[Ewok Droppings]

How about for the sake of your own knowledge? Read/Watch/Listen to be informed. You're refusing to watch An Inconvenient Truth because a few anonymous posters aren't willing to credit your own sources on the argument. That's pretty stubborn, and pointless.

No, I don't want to watch it because frankly I don't really give 2 *****s about what Al Gore has to say concerning global warming. I prefer information that comes from scholarly sources, not Al Gore, unlike most here. I just think it's completely silly that you guys somehow think you have it all figured out because you saw Al Gore's movie. :rolleyes:

[RiddleMeThis?]

Again, Al Gore is a poster child. Nothing in the movie is Al Gore's word-of-mouth-opinion. Most everything in that movie is derived from scholarly sources, but you haven't seen it so you don't really know. Presumptuous, much? And who said anyone had anything all figured out about anything? An empty statement of rebuttal.

In the long run, people aren't going to listen to scientists. It almost never happens. To get people to actually care about anything, you need a spokesman who appeals to the masses. It's shallow, but that's the way this stupid country is. Unless someone goes out of their way to make things more relevant for us, we don't give a s#!t.

That's why movies have more of an impact than scientific journals.

[Necross]

No, I don't want to watch it because frankly I don't really give 2 *****s about what Al Gore has to say concerning global warming. I prefer information that comes from scholarly sources, not Al Gore, unlike most here. I just think it's completely silly that you guys somehow think you have it all figured out because you saw Al Gore's movie. :rolleyes:

Jesus, do you just ignore everything we said about the damn movie? Al Gore presents it, YES, but its NOT his opinion, its scientific studies that come from the scholarly sources you seek. He just presents it, I've said this, others have said it, your just totally ignoring it and you continue to yell about it being Al Gore, Al Gore! Like Riddle said, you need a spokesperson, but regardless of who that is, it doesn't make the science incorrect. If Al Gore did a movie on the health risks of smoking, I guess the science behind it would be flawed since he presented it? Al Gore feels passionate on the subject, yes, some of the movie focuses on his passion? Yes. But the cold hard science in the movie is not his personal agenda or opinion.

[pixiness]

No, I don't want to watch it because frankly I don't really give 2 *****s about what Al Gore has to say concerning global warming. I prefer information that comes from scholarly sources, not Al Gore, unlike most here. I just think it's completely silly that you guys somehow think you have it all figured out because you saw Al Gore's movie. :rolleyes:

Dude! Seriously - nobody's asking you to give to *****s about Al Gore. AGAIN, no one's saying Al Gore's the leading authority on the subject - far from it. They're asking you to at least CONSIDER the science that Al Gore highlights.

Go back and read post #239... I don't feel like repeating myself.

[Ewok Droppings]

Jesus, do you just ignore everything we said about the damn movie? Al Gore presents it, YES, but its NOT his opinion, its scientific studies that come from the scholarly sources you seek. He just presents it, I've said this, others have said it, your just totally ignoring it and you continue to yell about it being Al Gore, Al Gore! Like Riddle said, you need a spokesperson, but regardless of who that is, it doesn't make the science incorrect. If Al Gore did a movie on the health risks of smoking, I guess the science behind it would be flawed since he presented it? Al Gore feels passionate on the subject, yes, some of the movie focuses on his passion? Yes. But the cold hard science in the movie is not his personal agenda or opinion.

OK, look seriously, you are starting to piss me off. I DON'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT THIS MOVIE. WHETHER OR NOT I WATCH IT, IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL DECLARATION THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING. Seriously, get over yourself and learn to be more scholarly than a damn movie. Go read some other literature about global warming and stop preaching the *****ing movie. If you want to present something worth while then go for it, otherwise, stfu.

Seriously, this is retarded. Al Gore's movie has been SLAMMED HARD by scientists and critics, and you guys act like it's gospel truth. I DON'T GIVE A ***** - THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!! GO START YOUR OWN THREAD ON AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH IF YOU WANT.

And Pixie, I have presented arguments from experts that said that Al Gore doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I don't feel like repeating myself either. Go back and read the earlier posts. :(

[pixiness]

And Pixie, I have presented arguments from experts that said that Al Gore doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I don't feel like repeating myself either. Go back and read the earlier posts. :(

Then you've obviously missed the point of what I've tried to say, or I've done an ineffective job of expressing it. I'll try again.

1. I have never said that anything in An Inconvenient Truth is "truth". I've said only that Al Gore didn't base the movie upon some groundless opinion. He acted as a voice for the science that was brought to his attention.

2. There are literally hundreds of scientists on both sides of the issue - many of whom have absolutely nothing to do with An Inconvenient Truth or Al Gore. I've given you several links to such scientific reports, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion regarding whether or not that science is complete "BS" as well.

3. It's unclear what your resistance to the whole debate is. Do you believe global warming is not happening? Or do you believe that it's not caused by people? Or is there some other part of the skeptical side of the debate that we're all missing? I've guessed before that you think it's an environmental scare tactic to clean things up. But I have to admit, I've never been able to discern as to whether or not you believe the whole idea of global warming is BS or just blown out of proportion. Which is it?

[DeadFlagBlues]

It seems to me the plethora of evidence for Global Warming is apparently not enough. I think Ewok Droppings had his mind set on something, and is completely unwilling to change his mind at this point. Not seeing the film is an obvious sign of this. I'm not sure what kind of 'evidence' can possibly substantiate the validity of Global Warming, but it also seems that 'scientific evidence' happens to simply be repeated experiments and speculation. Ewok Droppings, you are clearly under the apprehension that Al Gore is specifically using this to gain a wider audience and to spread his ideals. This is also purely conjecture.

So if you would, please reference us to the evidence that may support your claims that Al Gore is using this for his own gain. I'd love to hear the 'evidence'. Let's face it, since he is a politician we must assume that he is using this for his own selfish desires. I'd say the same goes for many environmentalist groups and the like. And as Pixiness said, these are ideals shared by other scientists. He never once claimed to be a scientist. Let us also not forget that being objective comes with being a scientist -- as we should all be objective -- but unfortunately, we're not. If you refuse to accept the 'evidence', then that is certainly your prerogative. But, like I said, scientists are supposed to be objective. I'm not saying your evidence against Global Warming is a fallacy, but you are failing to be objective. Calling everything "insubstantial" and the like is not being objective, it's being closed-minded. I'd say you have read over some 'evidence' in a cursory manner and called it conjecture and insubstantial. No matter what amount of evidence one might provide, it may never really be enough.

[RiddleMeThis?]

IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL DECLARATION THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING[/B]. Seriously, get over yourself and learn to be more scholarly than a damn movie. Go read some other literature about global warming and stop preaching the *****ing movie. :(

I told you all this was coming, and frankly I had a feeling he'd be the one to say it.

I hope you weren't serious when you said this argument was pissing you off. Anyone with any actual emotional investment in the pointless words of a message board really needs to step out into the world once in a while.

I can't figure out if you denounce Al Gore's movie because it's either:

a.) associated with Al Gore, a known Democrat.

b.) a very trendy aspect of a topical issue.

c.) you simply refuse to budge on the issue.

d.) all of the above.