I have been a global warming believer since I first heard the concept so many years ago. My talents are not scientifically-oriented, so I’ve always relied on what I heard about the trends and the causes and never questioned it.
That changed about six months ago when I read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear (2004), in which he challenges many commonly-held notions and assumptions about global warming. I realize Crichton is a fictional writer, but there is a big difference between his fiction and the fiction by John Grisham, Stephen King, or Danielle Steele. Crichton has a scientific background, and his books are filled with hardcore scientifica to the point some people skip ahead to the action scenes.
The book’s main character is presented with evidence that contradicts global warming, and allegations are made that global warming paranoia is actually being perpetrated by people with various agendas. When the main character expresses disbelief, he is presented with evidence that conflicts global warming theories. When the main character alleges the evidence was produced by the energy industry, it’s pointed out that he is the one rejecting his own objective standards.
One thing that reached me in the book was Crichton’s statements refuting global warming were backed up with real-world scientific journal citations so readers could follow up. If you want to read State of Fear, our local library has about 10 copies (even a large-print version) and most are checked in right now.
Ever since reading this book, I am left wondering how we can tell if global warming is a real threat or not? If I can believe our government and corporations have consistently lied to us, why not the environmental movement?
Some of Crichton’s environmental assertions include:
- Science actually understands very little about the environment.
- Predictions of future extreme global warming are based upon computer models that have proven wrong so far.
- The computer models vary by 400%, proving scientists do not know what will happen to our climate.
I recently watched 2/3 of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I stopped because too much of it portrayed Gore’s personal and political life. I felt he was clouding the issue by trying to play too hard on emotions tied to his circumstances.
They showed glacier pictures around the world from various years ago and in present day, seemingly showing alarming melting in each case. Is this really happening, or is there some kind of trick they’re using like photographing winter vs. summer? Is glacial melting really a sign of environmental disaster or is it part of Earth’s normal cycle?
Gore claims scientists can measure ice core samples to determine CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures for all years available in the sample. Is this true? Is this measurement method solid, or is it a guesstimate?
Gore showed a Co2 and temperature timeline for a 650,000 year span. It blips along, then jumps astronomically in the last 100 years, then he demonstrates the project going exponentially higher in the next 50 years. Two questions: Is the 650,000 year data reliable? Gore says the method to project the level in 50 years is not under any controversy, but Crichton says those projections are all under controversy, which is correct?
Gore says ten of the hottest record years in Earth’s history were in the last 14 years, but is that really enough to say we’re on a path to doomsday and it’s not a normal cyclical warming trend that will cool eventually?
Finally, I just watched the Discovery Channel’s Global Warming: Need to Know that I recorded on DVR a month ago. Tom Brokaw hosts, and the description reads: The journalist separates fact from fiction about global warming. I thought great, this is what I need: an objective discussion of both sides’ viewpoints and I can draw my own conclusions.
Unfortunately, the entire two-hour program was slam-dunk propoganda for the environmental movement. I noticed Tom Brokaw even used a lot of the same graphs and figures that Al Gore did. Either that confirms the information is not being doctored, or it confirms a single source is feeding their data.
Here is what I observed in Brokaw’s documentary (and my questions about those allegations):
- “… the vast majority of scientists believe in global warming …” & “… the global scientific community no longer questions how we got to this point …” (What scientific community has polled their members and produced this evidence?)
- “… Montana’s Glacier National Park may soon lose all their glaciers … those glaciers are 5-8,000 years old …” (When I visited 10 years ago, it could only open for 3 months each year due to severe winters, has that time increased? If ice core samples are analyzed for hundreds of thousands of years of data, what conclusions can we draw on 8,000 year old evidence?)
- Acknowledged that Earth’s temperature rose only 1 degree in the last 100 years and abrupt climate changes have happened before.
- There was little presentation of fictional claims and much presentation of global warming doomsday stories, both events like Hurrican Katrina and future possibilities. Used many doomsday terms like “catastrophe”, “disaster”, “dire consequences”, and my favorite: “apocalypse of water”. (Why resort to typical mass media scare tactics if the data is on your side?)
What really echoed in the Discovery Channel special from Crichton’s book was when Tom Brokaw asked a scientist why a ‘persistent minority’ of people refuse to believe global warming is a fact. The scientist’s reply was essentially that either those people were frightened or were protecting their financial interests. There was no mention of differences in data interpretation.
What is the volcano factor in this? I’ve heard a single volcano eruption pollutes Earth more than all human pollution. Which is true, or how does it factor?
I admit I am thoroughly confused about global warming now. Is it something I really need to be concerned about, or is it a normal global cycle? Will we be harmed more by environmental action or innaction?
Finally, there are many predictions of coastal cities being flooded by rising oceans. Anyone have predictions of what could happen in the Snake River valley?
Popularity: 45%
Related posts:
{ 394 comments… read them below or add one }
I read State of Fear like I read the Da Vinci Code. It was pure fiction in every way.
That’s just my view.
We can ignore that we are killing our planet and argue about it all day, but in the end, it’s our children that will pay the price.
JPlo sure can say a lot in a few words. Nailed it again. I recommend National Geographic for a more factual and somewhat objective viewpoint, Joe.
Although there are many methods (ice, tree, soil samples, deduction, written history,etc.) for recognizing the patterns of the past, the fact is that humans have only recorded temperatures accurately for a short time. And the programs and technology being used to create future models are primitive, to be sure. Sort of like hurricane forecasting. Getting better, but 100s of thousands of years when we can’t get a single storm within a few hundered miles?
The facts are clear that the globe is warming but we have also seen the first progress on the ozone hole this year as well. The human effect is real, but so is our ability to physically adapt, and green up technology. Or build giant sun shields.
As for the future here, who knows? I guess all of those melting glaciers evaporated into the atmosphere and fell into our rivers’ basins, filling our resivoirs with the precious water we have needed for so many years. It’s scary watching chunks of the poles disappear, but the water is in cycle somewhere.
The real thing everyone is worried about is not the real end of our planet, but the end of humankind. Even protection of endangered species comes across with a taste of “what does it mean for us” more than real concern for the critters.
Humans are a speck in the timeline of this planet, and are outpopulating themselves quickly. When we kill ourselves off, or the habitat becomes unlivable, evolution will continue or begin anew and the planet itself (unless we physically destroy it – possible..) will not be at an end.
I agree with Jeremy that our bigger concerns should lie with what we are going to leave future generations, in general.
Looking to the past to see if it’s ever been this hot before may give us clues about the future, but we need to look forward to survive. For all of our cushy comfort we are still hairless, clawless, etc. fragile creatures.
Just some thoughts.
I think there are several ways for the end to really happen. Nuclear war, Biological war, chemical war,and the newist twisted warfare sound wave war fare, and fiber optic cloaking, a global pandemic that wipes out all life forms. Or a giant asteroid the size of texas plowing into earth (planet killer)
Or an alien invasion. or just loss of to many plant life on earth so we run out of oxygen. Or even the end from God almighty himself. So my point is why worry about it. Everyhting has a begining and also and end. the show must end sometime. Lifes to short to worry about it all. But i do agree with Jeremy that yes we should atleast prevent known issues and drop the threat by 1% . if 1 thing doesnt destroy mankind there is always infinite things that will.
Global warming is a threat. But I think if we stop polution to the earth it will take a very long time for it to get better. We need someone to create a way to unpolute the air and Ozone layers and rebuild them. Solar Power, Wind Power, water power and nuclear power are the solutions. I think we need to stop combustion formed enrgies now or we are doomed. And if the 1 threat is gone we still have unimaginable ones to deal with next. the fact is the world will always face doom. The doom of all things on earth is coming the question is when and how.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang,
But with a wimper.
My bets are on an alien invasion. Or the apocalypse. One in the same in a way.
When the end comes make sure you have lots of guns,ammo,food,water,fuel,warm clothes,anti biotics,bandages, and a good place to hide, lol you might last a bit longer till the ammo is depleted, then u can use a sword, or a bow, its hard to decide what to prepare with. The end could just be so big that there is nothing one can do to live. Dawn of the dead would be a cool way to go. Or an alien invasion. lol maybee someone reading this will be the one to bring doom to us all someday. I just will go with empty depleated clips and smoking barrels when it does come.
Okey dokey, my question was if global warming is an unnatural trend, is it man-caused, is it just a normal natural cycle and some people are hyping it for their own purposes, are the computer models accurate?
Any INL scientists or local geologists or climatologists have opinions or facts?
well I do not know all the facts. And I do not believe mankind does at all. our technology still isnt advanced enough. I think mankind most likely contributed to the warming issue. and also think there is a natural course the earth takes as its axis shifts. I think the man made effects the earth in large ways and we need to put a top to it some how. I will do some research when i get a chance to and come up with a real good comment in reguards to the issue of global warming.
See, I believed that ever since I first heard of global warming, and Crichton’s book points out many people do.
There’s a point where someone presents to the main character data contrary to global warming theories, with notations from scientific journals. The main character says something like ‘that study must’ve been funded by an energy company’ and the person presenting the material stops talking and packs up the materials.
The main character asks what the problem is, and the person makes the point that they are presenting scientifically published data from independent scientists that does not match common global warming perceptions, yet the main character is dismissing it with an emotional response.
That’s what I’m saying, I don’t know anymore. All the responses have been ’sure duh global warming is our fault’ but nobody points to data proving it. Nobody points to contrary data. Nobody analyzes one set of data or another to see why the storeis conflict.
But this book does, which is why I encourage you to read it. Maybe Crichton’s wrong, or maybe the public is wrong.
I think Kewl makes an important point – nobody has all the facts. So what we have are the people on either side of the issue cherry-picking the evidence to support their camp … just like with any other issue.
As I’ve said before – the truth, I’m sure, is somewhere in the middle.
I believe what I see, and worldwide weather trends along with melting ice bridges and warming ocean currents tell me that man is doing something to negatively affect this world.
In the 1960s and the 1970s, global warming was not the fear du jour. Time Magazine was then reporting that scientists were predicting a coming ice age. Time Magazine wrote that it might be 10s of thousands of years away, or it might be 10s of years away.
So what happened to this scientifically predicted ice age? Who knows? Certainly not the scientists!
Perhaps this predicted ice age was inadvertently averted by we humans and our devil-may-care attitude toward pollution. Perhaps this predicted ice age is being held at bay, much like a vampire that is confronted with a crucifix, with our production of “greenhouse gases.” And, like the vampire when the crucifix is jolted from the hero’s hand and falls through a crack in the floor, the ice age will leap upon us when Kyoto is implemented fully.
Ice Age sources:
Time Magazine, 1963: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828031,00.html
Time Magazine, 1972: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
That has got to be the worst thought-out argument against Kyoto I have ever heard.
“If we ratify Kyoto, an ice age will hit America! Only by continuing to pump lethal gases into our atmosphere can we save the world!”
Come on, 8B. With all due respect, how stupid do you think we are?
I believe the point 8B and Michael Crichton were making is that global climatology is more complex than we can currently grasp.
Everybody has data and everybody has opinions, but nobody has real answers. Crichton demonstrated numerous climate theories made over several of the last decades have proven incorrect.
Have we advanced so far that our collective egos won’t admit we still don’t grasp something as simple as the weather above us?
Mars just happens to be heating up also. To me that points to solar activity causing the heating. The earth is in constant change, at one time this valley was covered in lush forrests. There were no SUV’s 15,000 years ago.
Thanks, Jeremy, for the compliment. I appreciate being recognized for excellence even when that excellence is on the negative end of the scale.
There is a alternative to my previous hypothesis but it seems so unbelievable that I hesitate to even mention it. I may even be labeled a heretic for writing it. Do you suppose that the scientists back in the 1960s and 1970s could have been wrong? (gasp! shudder! tremble! quake!) And if they were wrong about the ice age, do you suppose they could be wrong about global warming and/or its cause?
Yup! Scientists being wrong is just too hard to fathom! There has to be a more rational reason like the vampire analogy.
A recent quote from the Geographic states (I think this applies to Gore’s sleeper) “…global warming is both a scientific and political topic, and science and politics don’t mix well. Science deals with tentative conclusions, and politics in absolutes. Science is invariably an enterprise built on uncertainty, and people who make policy decisions see uncertainty as a reason to do nothing at all (or to demand more studies).” The meat is in the question at the end, ” At what point in the evolution of uncertainty does one choose to act?” That’s May 06 pg. 30. Joel Ashenbach of the Washington Post.
There was also a recent edition which featured an entire article on the subject. One of the images that sticks in my head is that of Acres of reflective white blankets being used in an attempt to preserve high altitude glacial ice that is melting away. Maybe CO 2 filters are a better solution: look to the cause.
So, 8B, do you mean to say that your original reply to the topic was meant to dispell the belief that scientists can be wrong, rather than discredit Kyoto and propose a hypothesis that human pollution on Earth is fending off a second Ice Age?
If so, you really do need to work on your satire skills.
If not, then I will return to my original reply that your theory is utterly ridiculous.
Anyway, I don’t need a scientist to tell me the way the world is changing. An ice bridge used by seal hunters in Alaska for hundreds of years is almost gone, and in the last 50 years! The average temperature of the globe is up by one degree recently. Human action in the world is causing all of these things, even if there is a doubt as to how we are doing it, and I think it’s damned idiotic that we’re reducing the future of the Earth to silly, shallow political discourse like Al Gore’s movie.
Jeremy, there have been at least eight ice ages. Between each of these ice ages, and beginning again at the end of the last ice age, there have been periods of global warming.
Just a side note: Keep the personal insults coming! I enjoy them, and as I am already quite aware of my shortcomings, I consider your insults a bit of comic relief. And I know my mother wears combat boots – I bought ‘em for her. And, yes, I do have a license to be this ugly. And, no, I haven’t quit my day job.
Don’t get so offended, I never insulted you. I’m pointing out that your initial post was vague and your point was not made clear. So, I was asking for a clarification.
And saying your point is ridiculous is not insulting, it’s a fact.
lol I agree with jeremyPlo. Its a fact jack. lol
Jeremy, I was not refering to comments about my point, but I think you know that. I don’t think that you are truly that obtuse.
Arguing points is what it’s all about. Say what you want to about my ideas.
If we really want to move the discussion away from global warming and into the realm of critiquing my writing skills, well, what can I say – such sleights-of-keyboard that distract from the discussion at hand tend to speak for themselves.
Back on subject…
The Tom Brokaw/Discover channel special mentioned the 1 degree increase in average global temperatures, but said it has occurred gradually over the last 100 years, not just recently.
I can emphathize with thinking the world is warming up from the signs we observe.
However, the condor was observed feeding on cow carcasses and so early ranchers thought the large birds were actually killing the cows. It seemed logical, so the next logical thing was to kill the condors.
Crichton’s data definitively demonstrates the world is not in as great a global warming danger as it is hyped up by environmental groups and the political left.
I’d always sympathized with the global warming camp myself until I read this book, now I’m questioning lots of the emotional pleas and scare tactics I hear on the subject.
If you are so convinced that man is causing harmful global warming, I CHALLENGE you to read the Crichton book (there’s about 10 checked in copies at our local library) and refute what he has to say in it.
Maybe you can refute his evidence better than I can. I can’t!
After believing in the global warming stuff for so long and now reading his book, I feel weird like just finding out about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
I think it’s clear that the warming is going on, just not so clear as so what the trends will be or how they relate to past trends. I will carve a space into my reading and take a look. Have you checked out the National Geographic? I can find the particulars, if you would like. They also have a special on it, I believe.
I just like their science.
Good analogy with the Condor, JPlo.
Gore is a crusader and cannot be trusted. 20+ years ago, I could not finish his book, Earth in the Balance because it was full of nonsense. On the other hand, basing policy on a book of fiction – State of Fear – is unwise. I read it. Crichten makes a few good points, but so does James Lovelock in his new book Revenge of Gaia, which is very pessmistic – not only is there climate change but we are probably too late to stop it.
There are many uncertainties throughout the issues of climate change and ecology. The problem is, we have to live with uncertainty, and make decisions despite it. The data interpretations going back 650,000 years are a bit flaky and involve combining different sets of data and using complex statistical analyses. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
My bottom line: I think the earth is warming over the lats 100-200 years. What fraction of that warming is due to humans vs natural cycles, i don’t know. We better hope it is us, because if warming is dominated by natural cycles, our ability to do anything about it is nil.
The wise thing to do is to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can – use all the alternatives available – nuclear, low head hydro, wind, etc. We should also start preparing for the impact of climate change.
Thank you for balanced viewpoint!
I suspect the truth is something more in the middle of what the extreme left and right make it out to be.
That was what I mostly took from Crichton’s book: that we just don’t know for sure right now.
To Joe Vandal -
Like you, I’ve been trying to glean the truth from both sides of this controversial issue. I’ve come to the conclusion that we are in a period of warming that is natural and may not last. There seems to be a great deal of pressure being exerted to make us believe that man is bad for the earth – an almost vengeful view that seems to want to eliminate man or tear down the benefits of what he has achieved, as if beinging man back to pre-industrialized society is the cure, or worse, the elimination of man would be good for the environment. That seems to be at the heart of the issue for some anyway. But that aside, it does seem that we are in a warming trend. And it never hurts to be a conservationist, cutting back on electric use and sunday drives in the country, and recycling. And that’s what we’re already doing: alternative fuels and more efficient cars, wind power, solar power, so why the alarmist view? Why the rush to create punitive taxes that will definitely hurt the economy and citizens – especially at a time when we’re already borderline? Most of the cries for action seem to be coming from those with something to gain. Your money from taxes rather than from the benefits of everyone pitching in for a cleaner earth. Follow the money and you never need to second-guess your instincts about any issue.
My point exactly!!! Props to Russ S for hitting the nail on the head! “follow the money and you never need to second guess your instincts about any issue”. Such is the case with global warming and the doomsayers! Global warming has been happening since the beginning of time and is just the natural cycle of the earth. Get over it already! It definately won’t stop me from driving my suv, taking “Sunday afternoon drives in the country”, or keeping all the lights on in my house if I so choose. I’m all for keeping the enviroment clean,but I won’t stop living life because someone is telling me I’ve created a hole in the ozone. That hole has been there for millions of years and has grown and shrunk in size since the beginning of time. And I surely won’t fall for the governments fear mongering tactics regarding global warming!
I can appreciate Russ’ advice for us all to do our own part.
I cannot appreciate eclipsIt’s blustering bravado and bold challenges (which is then not followed up on).
I’ll take facts and logic over rhetoric, thanks.
I still don’t know what to think. I heard the UN is releasing a supposedly ‘definitive’ report on global warming this week.
Is the UN still a reliable source when it comes to providing truthful facts/information?
Excellent question!
My humble opinion on the subject: I think that man kind really gets off on believing that we humans can affect this earth. The earth has ben around for millions and millions of years. It has survived catastrophic events that we can only imagine. Ane we think that we are going to “ruin it” with our Chevrolet 350 electronic fuel injected 4×4. Yeah right. In case you forgot, the earth’s climate is constantly changing. Ever heard of the Ice Age? Clinmates change. What was once desert is now ocean and what was once ocean in many case is now desert. We just like to fletter ourselves by trying to believe we are more significant than we really are. We should watch our air quality, and we should conserve energy and everything else possible for our future generations. We do need to think about our children, and their children. But lets get real. Is the climate changing? Sure it is. Show me a time in history when it wasn’t changing. Does the warming of the earth possibly endanger man kind? I bet it does. Just like the sun burning out in 10 bazillion years, possible strikes on the earth’s surface from meteors the eruption of yellowstone’s sleeping volcanic system and nuclear weapons in the hands if Iran. We should spend more time worrying about the ones we can have an influence on — instead of those we can’t.
Maybe this is one of those issues where the truth is somewhere in the middle. My own conviction tells me that one Chevy 350 or gas guzzling SUV won’t have much effect. On the other hand, billions of them surely will. You can talk about how the Earth has evolved for millions of years but constantly filling the atmosphere with burnt hydrocarbons and poisons has only happened recently.
If a person today does not think that our air and water quality are worse than a few generations ago I believe they are blind to the truth. Even if you don’t believe global warming is real and that man can affect the Earth it’s a selfish attitude to boast about wasting resources. If nothing else, try to help out our coming generations a little bit more. Dumping the problem on future generations seems to be the attitude with more than just the environment, like the way we have been running up the national deficit. Someday we’ll have to pay the piper.
I believe “Guest” know’s what he’s talking about. How can we possibly think we can put a dent in this earth when it’s been here for millions of years and has warmed and cooled down naturally throughout history. But nooooo….it’s GOT to be US with our SUV’s and hairspray!
As George Orwell once wrote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.†There is no greater hero in the revolution for climate change truth than Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He has truly demonstrated the power one honest individual can wield.
Last year Sen. Inhofe gave two explosive speeches on the floor of the Senate in which he attacked and exposed the unfounded claims and scare tactics being employed by the Global Warming crowd. The speeches were literally unprecedented in the decades-long climate change debate. And their effect was like a lightening bolt. Almost immediately some scientists began coming out of hiding to side with the Senator.
On December 6th, just as the Rockefeller/Snowe letter was being exposed across the Internet, Inhofe held a hearing on Capitol Hill exposing the “alarmist media.†Said Inhofe, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.†His attacks have already forced 60 Minutes, CNN and other major media to at least give lip service to the “skeptic†point of view. More importantly, the Senator’s efforts are putting the Global Warming crowd into near cardiac arrest.
There are lots of lies surrounding the Global Warming mantra. The biggest one claims there is “consensus†among scientists that human-caused global warming is a fact. There is no such consensus.
The global warming message is literally everywhere. It indoctrinates our children in the classroom. It flows from the advertising messages of corporations, in their corporate social responsible ad to sell their environmentally-responsible products (for which research and development was probably paid for with federal tax dollars). Huge numbers of Hollywood stars and international political leaders have endorsed the mantra of the church of global warming. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent to influence literally every corner of the earth to accept global warming as a fact.
When in fact it’s all propaganda that’s all about the all mighty dollar!!
I’m sorry so many of you are SO afraid that the world is changing….but guess what??? It’s been changing since the beginning of time, and you & I will never be able to stop that. That’s life.
Do your homework guest 3333. Volcanos put more poisoneous gases into the air then all the Chevy 350’s out there ever have. And they’ve been around since the beginning of time.
Sure, we could all do a little better in keeping our world cleaner, but don’t presume to think that if we all stop driving cars, the problem will go away. That just isn’t the case.
I admit I don’t know the facts about volcanoes vs. millions of engines burning oil.
However, doesn’t the smog over our biggest automotive areas (namely Los Angeles) give us clues.
For those who don’t believe cars cause significant pollution, how do you explain that smog?
Am I wrong, or is eclipseit spouting just one tired cliche after another?
Meso: at least I’ve done some research on the subject. I don’t see ANYTHING of substance coming out of your mouth!
I agree, LA is one smoggy place! But one of the main reason’s for it’s smog, aside from the 8 million motor vehicles, is that LA sits in a “basin” resulting in poor atmospheric ventilation. One of the reasons you’ll never see smog in Miami, because of the tropical jetstream that creates a constant breeze down there. Also, there’s almost as much traffic and industry polluting the air in San Diego, but their closer to the water, so it’s rarely smoggy in there. Same with New York City. It’s hardly ever smoggy their either. LA will always have the dirtiest air in the country becuase of this reason.
So eclipselt, please enlighten me with your wisdom. Since LA’s smog is a result of poor ventilation from being in a basin, and volcanoes are the real cause of air pollution, then wouldn’t LA have already been smoggy before people started driving cars there? I admit I haven’t done as much research as you so please tell me how to think.
Oh, I did see on the news today that scientists are in agreement that humans are causing many of the Earth’s climate changes. Should I believe that?
I NEVER said volcanoes were the real cause of air pollution. You should read the post’s thouroughly before you try to quote someone!
I did not try to quote you. Here is what you said: “Do your homework guest 3333. Volcanos put more poisoneous gases into the air then all the Chevy 350’s out there ever have”. You said it, not me.
And you didn’t answer the second part of the question. What about the news reports on global warming? You are obviously so smart, tell me what to believe.
Don’t call me lazy and I won’t call you an idiot.
They do, but that’s not saying vehicles don’t pollute the air! I never said they didn’t. I agree we could all do our part to keep our planet cleaner, I just don’t believe we cause global warming. The earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time.
And no…I don’t believe everything I hear on tv. and if YOU do…your REALLY naive!
It boils down to you have YOUR opinion and I have MINE. I don’t believe there’s a global warming problem and you do. We’ll just agree to disagree. That’s what this website is all about. I’ve done MY research…you’d rather take the lazy way out like MOST people and believe everything you see on the news.
Sorry for taking the low road Joe but I got a little defensive when someone accuses me of being lazy because nothing could be further from the truth. I guess when Eclipslt starts losing a debate they have to resort to name calling. Anything but the issue and the facts.
I understand that the reason this new report is news is because it is a consensus between most of the world’s scientists that humans are “definitely” responsible for global warming. The last time they discussed it and put out a public opinion was in 2001. At that time they only said that humans “may be” responsible.
ding! to your corners.
So that new report came out today about global warming. I see the media saying it is definitive, but what is the overwhelming evidence claimed?
Is it just the same evidence we’ve seen before? Have any scientists (not marketing firms) come out to dispute it yet?
That’s right meso. The news reports that came out today said that even if we changed our ways right now that parts of the environment are on the path to degradation and will stay that way for a long time.
As you read through the posts on this topic you can imagine how hard it will be to actually change some people’s thinking. They would rather deny there is a problem than to the hard work required to fix it. Sometimes I think that deep down inside they know what’s right, but their laziness causes them to deny the problem on the outside. Not acknowledging the problem means not having to deal with it.
Let’s suppose that there is a 75% concensus amongst leading scientists that global warming is the effect of fossil fuel burning. Isn’t that enough to give us pause for concern? If the Greenland ice sheet melts and ocean levels rise 10 to 20 feet, millions of folks will be displaced and trillions of dollars of property will be underwater. This is within the realm of possibility for many of us in our lifetime. Will we or our children then look back at our folly?
I always try to play the odds when gambling on anything and this seems to be a very big gamble indeed. So what if we listen to the scientists, develop green energy sources and wean ourselves from fossil fuel. Even if we find out 50 years down the road that they were wrong, at least we would have breathed cleaner air in the interim. The expense of converting to cleaner energy has to be borne sometime; why not now?
Once again Gues3333….you fail to read correctly! I didn’t say your were lazy per se’….I said you took the “lazy way out”…by only getting your information off the tv…that my friend…IS the lazy way out. I have no idea if you’re lazy or not…but if it hit such a nerve…..hmmmm
But I digress…I’m not here to offend anyone, only to put my thoughts and feelings out there like everyone else. I guess if they say ON TV that global warming is a problem…we BETTER believe it because it came from the TV!!! Oh my!!
What happened a few years back, when they said….on TV mind you….that eggs were bad for you? Then a year later….oh no….eggs aren’t as bad for you as we thought!! And coffee is bad for you…..then a year later….oh well, I guess coffee isn’t as bad for you as we thought, and it has some great health benefits! There are dozens of cases like this that have been reported ON TV….that have turned out to be BS!
So you go right ahead and keep believing in everything the TV tells you, and I’ll take it with a grain of salt and weight ALL the options from a number of different sources to make my OWN mind up. Why do you think they call it the “boob tube”???
Yeah Guest3333 — we disbelieve this hype about what causes Global Warming not based on the fact that the earth has been changing temp. constantly for millions of years, but because we are “lazy.” Ok. And just to make sure you are clear — when you say “They would rather deny there is a problem than to…” No one has denied there is a problem. The earth is warming. Many do not believe that it is caused by man — so get your points straight…
CORRECTEMUNDO Guest!!!
Look, here’s the way it is: The debate over global warming continues because there is a massive amount of information out there, some of which supports the case for global warming, some of which does not. Depending on which information you choose to pay attention to, you will either accept or deny the existence of global warming – that’s your right. There will never be a conclusion, because there is no human mind capable enough of handling all of the information, compiling it, and coming to a conclusion.
So, it comes down to what you believe. Do you believe that mankind is affecting the global environment or do you not?
So, make your decision, make it in an informed way, and take your beliefs to the voting booth.
Oh, and while you’re at it, stop calling each other lazy and stupid. Keep the lines of communication open.
Guest3333 bad news for you my friend. Your quote:
I understand that the reason this new report is news is because it is a consensus between most of the world’s scientists that humans are “definitely†responsible for global warming. The last time they discussed it and put out a public opinion was in 2001. At that time they only said that humans “may be†responsible.
Way off base especially on your putting quotes “definitely”, here is the real wording of the report:
“The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries, also predicts a temperature rise of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2099—with a “best estimate†of between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius—and a sea level rise of between 18 and 59 centimeters. ……..
The volume also says it’s “very likely†the global warming is primarily the result of human activities, due to greenhouse gases from the use of fossil fuels, land-use change, and agriculture. The term “very likely†indicates a 90 percent probability, while the last IPCC report characterized it only as “likely,†which indicates a 66 percent probability.”
So you see guest3333 this is no definite here is there? This is why others are accusing you of being spoon fed by the media and not doing your own research. I hardly think that 2500 scientists many of whom derive either income or professional prestige because of their advocation for man caused global warming hardly constitute ‘most of the worlds scientists’ as you allege.
I am going to be in the future providing this thread with information regarding solar activity and it’s effect on the earth’s tempetures and how many scientists are coming to believe this to be the most likely culprit in the latest and I mean latest temp increases we are seeing.
i dont believe in global warming… the warming of the earth is just a cycle, soon it will be cooling again. It has been heating and cooling since the beginning of time. Before anyone makes their decision whether global warming is real or not, you should research both sides. Many people believe in it from tv, movies, and teachers, but on tv they never put the other side, the side that its not real and i think everybody should know both sides.
I’m not sure that global warming is something you can “believe in” or not. It is either happening or it isn’t. The most recent article that I saw said that climate warming is “likely” caused by humans. Sounds to me like we should get our heads out of the sand.
Steve Smede here from IF mag…
Sorry to distract from the central discussion, but I just have a quick message directed at “eclipseIt”:
I couldn’t help but notice your dramatic improvement in grammar, style and sentence fluency between posts 28 and 33. I went ahead and googled some key phrases from the latter. It appears that you are actually Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center in Warrenton, VA!… OR perhaps you just cut and pasted Mr. DeWeese’s comments from his bylined column at http://www.capmag.com.
It’s no big deal, eclipseIt–I forget to cite sources on occasion, too, and sometimes my own byline ends up placed on a page where it should not be. However, in your case it is a bit ironic that you had this to say in Comment 44:
“I’ve done MY research…you’d rather take the lazy way out like MOST people and believe everything you see on the news.”
Those are strong words for a person who plagiarizes from a national op-ed piece.
I do applaud the rest of you, however, for your well articulated points on both sides of this complex issue. Again, my apologies for the distraction.
Steve Smede, Editor
Idaho Falls Magazine
542-2254
steve@harrispublishing.com
To Steve:
Yes, I did cut and paste some information from a website, and if you’ll notice in the 2nd paragraph on comment 33, I noted that. “so and so” once said.
So I get my information online, from newspapers, magazines, books and TV. Which was the point I was trying to make, I don’t believe everything I see on the news. I look at ALL points of view and not by just watching the news.
Interesting that a “magazine editor” should make a comment about someones views, yet leave none of his own on the subject.
But thank you for your opinion. I made my day!
It’s also interesting that Stevieboy comes in here to criticize a poster, yet I see he’s never made a comment regarding ANY of the issues on this site! Nor has he ever posted a topic himself. Hmmmm…now that IS interesting! Why not talk about some of the issues at hand Steve, instead of criticizing someones point of view and/or opinion?
Don’t sweat it eclipsit….at least Steve admits he forgets to cite his sources too so don’t feel bad. We understand you were just stating your point of view, and didn’t need a “magazine editor” to point it out to us.
At least your active in discussions here, instead of sitting behind the scenes waiting to critique other posters!
I think that Steve was just pointing out that Eclipsit failed to quote his source. And, “As George Orwell once wrote…” doesn’t even come close to adequately covering the source of his material. Personally, I am grateful that he brought Eclipsit’s plagarism to my attention (I failed to catch it), as it further solidied my opinion of the information contained in Eclipsit’s comments.
Anyone ever consider the fact that Steve doesn’t comment on topics or post topics because he has a forum of his own to do so?
But, back to the topic: what are everyone’s thoughts on the report released Friday, Feb 2 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the panel was created by the United Nations in 1988)? (Note: this is the report I alluded to in comment #56) These are the main findings of the report (points below cut and pasted from this article by Seth Borenstein, AP science writer):
–Global warming is “very likely” caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That’s the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.
–But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control — something scientists say they hope can be done — the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.
–Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
So, if you still “don’t believe in” global warming, perhaps you should reevaluate your thought process. But, then again, they are only “more than 90% certain” that we (humans) are the cause of global warming, so there is a less than 10% chance that I am wrong.
Well, for those of you that are SO upset because I forgot to cite my sources, than I truly apologize. I in no way meant to “plagerize” anyone’s material. I was only pointing out some other information I thought relevant to the discussion. Next time i will do a better job of making sure everyone here is aware of who’s quotes, I’m quoting.
It still doesn’t change the fact that the warming and cooling of the earth has been going on for millions of years. And it still isn’t conclusive that WE are fully to blame. 90% still doesn’t convince me. If their so sure of themselves, why isn’t it 100%? And why do they continue to stress “very likely”? I don’t buy it. But then again, that’s MY opinion. Everyone here is entitled to theirs, that’s the beauty of this forum.
As for Steve, just because he’s got his own site, doesn’t mean he can’t post opinions on this one. It seems to me he just likes to sit in the background and criticize others. And for him to state his occupation of being a magazine editor…what’s that about? Was that supposed to impress me?? Yeah OK!
Nobody else that posts here, starts their replies or posts by stating their full name and occupation. I guess his need to impress people online, shows a lack of confidence in other areas of his life.
So next time, instead of pointing out others mistakes, (and it WAS a mistake) why not just enter your OWN opinion.
Have a great day!
Thanks Steve for pointing that out.
It is very relevant because I could receive a take-down notice from that website for that comment if it was misused or not cited properly. It is important to cite the source because it can be considered intellectual property and because it appears bad form to try making oneself sound smarter.
I don’t mind that Steve only commented that piece. Some only contribute jokes, and it all blends with the flavor. I appreciate any and all participation from the owners of other local forums, because I never get the time to participate on theirs’.
I’m glad that it was brought to light that EclipseIt was copying and pasting propaganda without due credit. I knew from the tone of their comments that they couldn’t be trusted. No big surprise there.
I believe there’s validity on both sides here. But I for one lean towards the minority on this issue. Sure we all need to do more to reduce the pollution we’re pumping into the atmosphere, but to actually think we’re going to ruin the earth because of it is proposterous. Anyone who’s gone to college and has taken any core courses, would have learned that the earths surface has changed dramatically over the years. Who did the people blame back when the ice age happened or when what is now south america broke away from africa? Bet there were some crazy discussions around the campfires when THAT was happening!
But isn’t it all the natural cycle of the earth? Glaciers melt, land masses dissapear, new land appears, what’s so new about that? Sure we’ve got a ton of pollution being pumped into the air, and I think we should definately try to minimize that, but stop and think of all the billions of dollars that are being made each day with the whole “global warming” issue. Whenever there is massive amounts of money to be made, people will go to any length to line their pockets to get a piece of the global warming pie.
I’m not saying that global warming isn’t happening, but like some of the others have said, it’s happened throughout history even before our factories and billions of vehicles started emitting carbon dioxide into the air.
There may be ways to control our pollution, but there is no way to control nature. All we can do is learn to adapt to it, like our ancestors have done before us. I’m with everyone that wants to help minimize all the pollution, but to think you can change the natural cycle of the earth, that’s just not going to happen.
Chrisr671 says folks are in a rush to line their pockets and get a piece of the global warming pie. What exactly does that mean? How does one benefit monetarily from global warming?
Hey Chrisr671,
It appears to me that the people benefitting the most monetarily are the ones contributing to the status quo, i.e., the oil producing nations and the coal companies. If entrepreneurs can make a profit from the global warming issue by producing “green energy” then…more power to them.
It has been estimated that if we were to factor in the cost of keeping the oil spigot open in the Middle East with our military presence there, the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump would be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per gal. That’s equal to 1 trillion dollars a year we’re spending at the gas pump! We’re sending that incredible amount of wealth to folks who don’t give a rat’s ass for us or our way of life. I would sooner see that money go to developing alternate energy sources and lessening our harmful effect on the planet in the process.
If one were to think of this war on terror as WWIII then perhaps we need to institute a “Manhattan Project” similar to the one that helped end WWII. We spent $1.89 billion ($20B in today’s dollars) on that endeavor. Convening our best scientists and brightest minds on a project of that magnitude seems justified now if we are to ward off environmental calamities or avoid future wars that take the lives of our young men and women in quagmires like Iraq. Remember, that war has already cost us over $750 billion, to say nothing of the cost of the ruined lives involved.
This thread was intended to discuss global warming. It is hard to stay confined to just that when our addiction to petroleum/fossil fuels and the price we pay for same is such an important factor in that (global warming) theme.
Re: Meso’s question: How does one benefit monetarily from global warming?
Are you kidding me?
According to Grist.org, which is a non-profit independent journalism website, they state….
AND I QUOTE
“Climate change drew in more dollars and cents than ANY other issue concerning the world today. And that’s surely attributable at least in part to the fact that climate solutions — be they energy-saving technologies or fossil-fuel alternatives — have ENORMOUS profit-making potential. Companies like General Electric, which is pushing its climate-friendly innovations, know this full well. GE’s “Green is green” motto says it all: Good environmental strategies fatten the bottom line.” UN-QUOTE….
Wake up and smell the smog Meso….people…companies…scientists and our government are making billions of dollars each year, from this global warming “issue”.
Money has everything to do with global warming. Money has everything to do with the war in Iraq. Money has everything to do with the health care issues in this country. It’s all about the money, the clams, the cabbage, the greenbacks, the benjamins, the bling-bling. Don’t try to convince me the world is changing. I know it is, but I’m not worried about it, because it’s been going on since the beginning of time.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a cleaner enviroment for our children, I’m all for that. Just don’t try to tell me we’re ruining the planet so you can make me feel bad so I’ll buy your electric cars and your energy efficient light bulbs and line your pockets with cash! I’m not THAT naive’!
So Chris, let me see if I have this right. You would rather send your dollars to the Middle East than see General Electric make a profit on electric cars; you would not use efficient light bulbs because the company that produces them is making a profit. Wow. It’s hard to argue with logic like that.
Excuse me…but did I say ANYTHING about sending dollars to the middle east? I don’t see that said OR implied in ANY of my posts. I just love the way people try to put words in my mouth by reading into my post what wasn’t said or rather what THEY perceive to be said.
You have your opinion on the issue and I have mine. We are both entitled to that and this is what this forum is all about. Don’t get so upset because I or anybody else has a different view than you. Life would be pretty boring if we all thought the same.
Cheer up…the worlds not coming to an end!
And just to make a point….I’ve put money into BOTH the middle east…buy purchasing fuel for my vehicles each week…AND General Electric, for the two Corvettes I’ve owned, the light bulbs, blender, refrigerator, dishwasher, washer & dryers……damn…come to think of it…I’ve made BOTH pretty damn rich over the years!
Such is life
Logic is lost on meso from all his many posts this is obvious. How can anyone discount the grant money that gets thrown around for the newest alarmist fad. Meso this is how scientists make money hello??? … Meso anyone there???? If your a atmospheric/climatologist science type you want what??? A predictible income for as long as you can get it.
The United Nation members want nothing more then to bring about policies that will make the United States economy less efficient then it is because their Socialistic economies are stagnant at best and in most cases in decline. So why not if your in their shoes find ways to knock the legs out from underneath your largest competitor in an effort to give your own economy a competitve advantage.
That’s what is driving this whole issue, a bunch of money hungry scientists looking for anyway to stay attached to the government tit, and a bunch of failed economies that wish they could hold a candle to ours.
Wake up meso put down the koolaid, you will see life is much better.
So, Fly,
That government tit is still controlled to great part by a Republican president. Seems to me that if you wanted to manufacture favorable science for sheer profit, that would be by suckling up to that Republican bosom. You know the one…the one who’s president utters such scientific jewels as, “The jury is still out” (regarding evolution).
No, Chris and Fly, if monetary gain were the uppermost priority of most scientists, they would be out in droves inventing science to support this sophomoric administration and it’s policies. A few politically correct ones are doing just that by foisting the ethanol from corn scam on the citizens. Bob Dole, who became a lobbyist for ADM upon leaving government, helped pass favorable legislation for subsidising corn, it’s sugar (high fructose corn syrup) and most of all it’s use as the fuel, ethanol (51 cent per gal. subsidy). Never mind that it takes 1.29 gal. of petroleum fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Exxon is laughing all the way to bank over that one. The only country to make ethanol work, Brazil, makes enough polution free ethanol from sugar cane (eight times more efficient than corn) to run the country and have enough left over for export. We could be using that ethanol if if weren’t for the 54 cent per gallon tariff imposed on it by this administration to protect Archer Daniels Midland and their petroleum-dependent corn ethanol monopoly.
Yes, Fly, you’re right we have a thriving economy. Exxon is posting record profits and Archer Daniels Midland is anticipating big rewards when Ford and GMC come on board with engines to burn it’s ethanol.
And in the mean time let’s just keep sending our kids into that Middle East meat grinder to keep that big oil spigot open. Oh, and Chris, your nicotine addiction pales in comparison to this country’s addiction to petroleum. It will be a tough addiction to break but break it we must.
I believe humankind DNA life will end by year 2500, year 3000 at latest , due to global warming.
we need to start planning for our end as a species, maybe build polar cities to house 100,000 possible survivors who can last 100,000 years underground and then resurface on Planet Earth> But basically, as we speak, it’s a done deal. Humankind is on its last legs, due to our stupidity plus our great IQ, plus our greed for convenience and speed.
So, in essence, there are about 30 generations left to live out this DNA evolution experiment which is failing. But plants and some animals and fish and bacteria will survive. We are not needed. We had our chance, we blew it. But for now, we are okay, enjoy every moment, i mean, SAVOR life.
So danny did man cause all the ice ages and warmings that have happened over the past millions of years?
‘our stupidity’ as you put it… the only stupidity I see is a quick posting with nothing to back it up.
Hey Chrisr671,
In reference to your post #65, you state, “Who did the people blame back when the ice age happened or when what is now south america broke away from africa. Bet there were some crazy discussions around the campfires when THAT was happening.” Just prior to that you said something to the effect that anyone who’s been to college (apparently that means you have) would have learned about changes in the earth’s surface.
Did anyone at the college you attended ever take the time to point out to you that South America and Africa started splitting apart during the early Cretaceous period some 130 million years ago. Now just how many folks do you suppose were around to witness this event? Unless you got your education at a fundamentalist religious institute that believes the world to be but 6000 years old, I would say you probably sluffed too many science courses in your education.
OMG! Martians have destroyed their environment too!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
Nobody is saying Global Warming isn’t real. What myself and others believe it that it’s not caused by us. Our world has been warming and cooling for millions of years. But now all of a sudden it’s our fault. That’s what the doomsayers want you to believe. Fear for your lives!! OMG!
I don’t think so.
While I agree that regular heating and cooling cycles occur on our planet (and most likely on EVERY planet), I disagree that this time, it’s just natural. Plenty of evidence shows that humans are doing plenty to accelerate this climate change.
But that’s okay, just buy a hybrid car, right? Actually… check out this article LINK it shows that a Toyota Prius is actually WORSE for the environment than a GMC Hummer…
Whatever we think we are doing for the environment is still motivated by big business, so be careful when considering ‘alternative’ fuels, too. For example, ethanol production is barely a ‘break even’ environmental prospect, it isn’t the end all be all answer to our dependence on oil. But, ethanol production is being driven by government subsidies.
The only solution is to stop the massive deforestation of the whole planet(trees scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, and generate oxygen…) and reduce consumption (a concept completely foreign to us Americans…) Whether or not global warming is happening isn’t debatable, the only issue now is what to do about it…
Speaking of deforestation did you see the news on the recent report from Europe. The EU is now worried that a switch to bio -fuels will actually cause more deforestation. They are afraid that the increased need for ethanol producing crops will lead to increased slash and burn logging in the worlds rain forest to provide land to grow the crops leading to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Rain forest are one of the planets main recylers of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sometimes it seems like this is a losing battle no matter which side you are on.
Interesting to see ads on this site stating that Global Warming is a myth. conservativebookclub.com/Join/SingleBookJoin.asp?sour_cd=sb242az&prod_cd=c7020
Gotta love it!
Global temp. changes are a fact.
I will not dispute that.
I WILL dispute that people aren’t greatly affecting the latest one.
COME ON people, we have belched toxic filth into the air for a century now. We’ve deforested, we live tightly packed in cities and create all kinds of cozy warmth among us.
If anybody thinks climate changes are NOT affected by human beings, then how about you turn on your heater full blast and open the doors and windows in the winter? You won’t be heating up the outdoors, right? None of that heat will escape, merge with the cold air around it, and cause a slightly warming.
Now let’s have everybody on earth who heats their home do the same thing. It won’t affect the outdoor temperature @ all, right?
Anybody who belives human activity is not affecting global warming is couching themselves in sweet, sweet denial.
Even Arnold Schwartzzenager – a Republican, a Conservative, said that If ninety-eight drs. told him his son needed medication for an illness and two drs. tell Arnold his son doesn’t – it would be foolish for Arnold to WANT to believe the two drs. so badly that he would hold on to what those two say”.
I call it denial.
But, if some don’t want to belive – have @ it. Eventually (hopefully before we create tragedy for half the world’s species) those of us who DO see global warming as largely human inflicted will be saying “I told you so” (kind of like how a lot of us now are looking @ our friends who voted for W and saying “I told you so” – we knew it was all about the oil).
Just because we WANT something to not be true, won’t make it so, any more than covering our eyes won’t make us “hidden from view”.
Wow Gypsy! I usually agree wholehardely with much of what you say on this site, but this comment just made me do a double take! Let me get this straight: You think that part of the global warming going on is due to the fact that people are using heat in their homes and that is causing climate change? That just made me LOL. Tell me what does the SUN do each and every day? I guess that’s different though huh?
I personally belive that global warming is just another scare tatic being used by governments around the world in order to line their pockets with more money.
Even if global warming caused by humans were true, there’s is absolutely nothing we can do about it, so why worry? Sure we can all do our part to keep our enviroment clean and less polluted. I’m all for that. And all the deforestation that is happening around the globe, people don’t realize that there are actually more new tree’s being planted each and every day than whats being cut down. Granted, I don’t believe in cutting down our rainforests the way we are, but i don’t see an end to that anytime soon. Once again it’s big business and until we learn to become more of a paperless society, like was predicted 10 years ago, I don’t see an end to it.
I’m all for less pollution, but I don’t buy the politicians story’s about global warming. This world is a lot stronger than people think. It’s been around for millions of years and will be around for millions of years after we’re all gone.
I’ve heard a great many scientist say that even if global warming were caused by earths inhabitants, there would be no way for any of us to reverse the process, no matter what we did. You can’t change the course of nature no matter how hard you try. And anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
I think this is a topic much like religion, whereas people are going to believe what they believe. And nobody is going to sway another person into changing their beliefs.
But don’t get me wrong Gypsy, I do enjoy and agree on many of your views! Keep up the great work!
Once again, just like all the talk with the war: Everybody is just “talking” and no action is being taken. This topic has been being discussed for the past 20+ years and we’re no closer to change than we were back then.
Suggestions?
Then go ahead and laugh, anonymous.
The point of the “open your doors and windows” argument was not to say that global warming is CAUSED by our heaters, it was to suggest that our thoughtless behaviors CONTRIBUTE to it.
Like I said, those who refuse to consider global warming a (@ least partly) human interference condition simply WON’T consider it a partly human interference condition.
I do agree that we can’t reverse the process, but we can certainly slow it down – which could help enough to keep our planet relatively healthy until such time that we come up with a host of “long-term healthier lifestyle” processes.
Those who have kids – I would not want to be one of you – there is a whole lot of crap we’ve left for futrure generations, global warming is just the tip of the fastly-eroding iceberg.
Gypsy, I, too, agree with you sometimes, but um … you really need to study up on the science of climate change. If temperatures mixing caused global climate change, then wouldn’t the world be a steady 98.6 degrees right now? It doesn’t work that way. The earth is essentially a massive biosphere (actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is!) which regulates its own temperature very efficiently.
Most of the evidence I’ve seen seems to indicate that global climate change is natural.
Weren’t there news reports this or last week about Mars also experiencing global warming?
Is our sun heating up the entire solar system? Is our entire solar system spinning towards a larger star neighborhood that is causing all planets to heat up?
Maybe instead of concentrating on glorifying Al Gore, we should focus on space travel, establishing bases on the moon and Mars, forging ahead with human space habitation.
It sounds far-fetched, but imagine a day that survival of the fittest comes down to the societies that can get establish colonies on other planets?
Global warming theorists/advocates/alarmists want us to focus on the larger issue of our planet. Maybe we should focus on the larger issue of our galaxy.
Now that’s an interesting concept!
Joe,
Our emphasis should not be so much in space travel to the moon and Mars but instead to understanding and quantifying gravity. The hundreds of billions of dollars necessary for interplanetary travel in our own solar system would be better spent in projects that explain the forces of nature, i.e., gravity, electromagnetism etc.
Nobel laureate, Leon Lederman, who has a home in Driggs, headed up the Fermi Lab and spearheaded the super conducting super collider project in Texas before funding was cut off. His book, “The God Particle”, was a great read.
The nearest solar system to our own is Alph Centauri, over 4 light years from us. Even if we could design a space craft to travel at 10% the speed of light, it would take a couple generations of our species just to get there..assuming we could withstand the G-forces involved in attaining the necessary speed and slowing down once we got half way there.
Our species may well be confined to this planet forever. We should do what we can to make it last for generations to come. The billions necessary to put a man on Mars would be better spent in solving the conundrums we face everyday here on our own planet…The energy crisis, global warming, fanatical religious terrorists, exploding populations, etc., etc.
Jeremy -
you wrote -
you really need to study up on the science of climate change.
I write -
“um” (your word, I’ll use it because I think it sounds funny) – I HAVE studied up on it.
I have a family member who is a climactic scientist (on the east coast) – this guy has traveled the world, studied with the best of them, EVEN been on panels that were funded by Big Oil who asked him (and the other scientists) to “prove global warming is a farce”.
He couldn’t do it.
I’m not saying none have, but I AM saying most have “um” – NOT.
Yes, the earth WILL compensate for global warming. The question which should be important to living creatures like us is – “how will it do that – and what might change for us?”
Um.
Yeah. It’s like that.
meso, those are excellent points.
I agree we should not ignore all of our Earth-bound problems, else we will repeat history and repeat those mistakes on any new space colonies. That would be the biggest human tragedy ever.
I believe “never say never”, so I would not say we are doomed to be confined to Earth forever.
It’s just a matter of discovering the new technologies that will make long-distance space travel faster.
Nay, it is just a matter of prioritizing science research and funding like Eisenhower did in the 50’s, which gave a big boost to America’s technological achievements.
Unfortunately presidents afterwards, both Democrat and Republican, have failed to adhere to that philosophy. Now we live in an age where open-ended research to further general understandings loses out to profit-driven research that needs to produce product-outcomes.
The only two presidents who came close to what Eisenhower did with his emphasis on science and technology research funding, in my opinion, were Kennedy with his NASA moon challenge, and Reagan with his military technology research funding.
Of course it doesn’t help Idaho when choir and clubs are prioritized over science and math requirements.
Okay.
This is for all of those who either entirely “naysay” global warming, or for those who think it’s a “natural” phenomenon.
I have a uestion for yous all. I’ll let this thread go for a half dozen replies in hopes that @ least a couple of them will answer this question.
Based upon your answers, since I want to know what YOU personally beleive – I’ll give you my thoughts based upon what I personally believe.
Are you ready?
What is / are the reason/s you personally think important that we not worry about global warming (whether it’s human activity based and / or not)?
I hope that isn’t too incomprehensible of a question – to clarify, what I mean is – please offer reasons you have for not being concerned about global warming and why.
Thanks for your replies!
Hey, what is that song by Prince? Party like it’s 1969? The guy who said even if global warming is true…there is nothing we can do about it….well, let’s just sit around and smoke some you know what…………….
….Wait a minute…wouldn’t that extra smoke change the climate and add to global warming?…see we have another argument in favor of the war on drugs….just like PETA did with meat when they accused everybody who wasn’t a vegetarian as a polluter! Some of the arguments of the global warming crowd are getting ridiculous. Save the planet but do it rationally.
Mike -
My thinking on this is that EVERYBODY can do something.
Not all of us are going to be vegan, ride a bike to work, use one square of TP when we go to the potty (thanks for the idea Sheryl Crow), or have zero children (I DID manage that one) – but – everyone can do SOMETHING.
Awareness is key here – people who REFUSE to enlighten themsleves, who dig in their heels – they are the ones I’m going to say “I told you so” to, here in the not-too-distant future.
No, not everybody wants to or CAN be vegan, but everybody can either be vegan OR change their light bulbs, OR use canvas bags in stead of paper or plastic OR ride their bike to work, OR – you get the idea. If everybody does a few things that they can, the world WILL be a better place.
Yeah, I liked the idea Gore came up with in that book with Crow….put a brick in your toilet and don’t flush it for three days. I am sure that Gore practices what he preaches….I do agree with you though…small efforts by each person can add up to big results that make it better for all of us. This hysteria exhibited by nut jobs is not helpful to “convert” those on the fence that could be persuaded to do better…..the left wing is using some of the same scare tactics that get used on the right and it turns people off. The perversion of science for political benefit really ticks me off.
But the fact of the matter IS Gypsy:
People are NOT switching to a vegan lifestyle ( I personally dont blame them!), people WILL continue to use paper AND plastic in the grocery stores until the grocery stores themselves get rid of both options and give everyone a “canvas sack” as you put it, people WILL continue to have as many child as they like, especially here in Idaho & Utah. (after all this isn’t China!)
AND…people will not switch to the 7 dollar light bulbs until either the price comes down, or their old bulbs burn out and they stop offering the old 6pk of bulbs for a dollar.
Sure you have good ideas, but lets get real…they just aren’t realistic. Not to mention people (at least here in the US) will not give up their 200+ horsepowered gas guzzeling vehicles in order to “bicycle” to work. Especially since most people work more than a mile from home. Who wants to ride their bike to work each morning and arrive to the office all sweaty or wet if its raining. (That is the least realistic idea you have.) Certainly it’s more realistic in a big city, but not here in small town where everything is so spread out.
That pretty much shoots down every idea you had. Got any more for me to fire away at? Like somebody pointed out earlier: we’ve been talking about the whole “enviroment thing/global warming problem” for 20+ years now and nobody has done much of anything to solve it. Even the whole recylcing business is a bust. Most cities have stopped the whole recycling process because it costs too much.
I’m not saying people should “give up”, but people aren’t going to turn their lives upside down and be inconvienenced to save a few trees. Especially when there are more trees being planted each year, than what are being cut down.
But hey…thats just my 3 cents worth.
Hey Joe,
I think a few ‘conservatives’ are coming out of the woods on the global warming deal…haha
Okay guys.
I am not going to try to convince ANYBODY any further that altering your lifestyle a little bit can help conserve our resources, it can teach kids to be more responsible and thoughtful when they grow up, it can get everybody moving on a track to healing a sick planet.
Let’s all keep on messing in our own nest.
I’m finished discussing this topic on this forum. Let reality convince you guys in a few years when perhaps water is so darned rare in the heartland that carrots jump to 10.00 a bag.
THEN – when the truth really DOES get inconvenient, maybe then some people who don’t want to bother with a 7 dollar light bulb will indeed start seeing some of the light shedding.
Good night!
Give me a break! They said that about water 20+ years ago! Give me a new topic of “fear” to worry about! The doomsayers have really done a number on some of you!
The problem with the environmental movement is that it has become to elitist. When Al Gore preaches constantly about global warming and conserving energy but then it comes out that his gas and power bill at his mansion is over $30,000 a year that says something. He made excuses that he buys wind and other renewable power sources and is planning on installing solar panels. The message I get from that is if you are rich and can afford it go ahead and waste electricity and blame all the problems on the poor who can’t afford the extra cost for alternative power sources. There is no way the kind of electricity use exhibited by Gore would be sustainable if everyone used that much energy, even if it were all alternative power sources. Most of the country would have to be covered by solar panels and windmills.
Gore and the rest of these celebrities need to get off their high horses and quit making excuses that it’s okay for me to do it I’m rich and start leading by example.
Oh I just remembered another example. John Travolta was going off recently about climate change while doing press around the world for his latest film. He talked about the need for the average American to make changes in the ways they consume power. How did he get around the world to talk about this important issue? He flew one of his FIVE private jets, and not little small ones either one is a 707. It was estimated that by doing this he produces about 800 tons of carbon emissions a year by himself, the average American produces about 7 tons. He to made excuses. Once again the rich and famous think that they are above the standards they hold other people to, and they wonder why we aren’t tripping all over our selves to follow their counsel.
Personally I do think we all need to make changes. Gypsy had some good suggestion of little things we can each do. You don’t have to do all of them but pick one small thing at a time, even slow change is better than no change. It is an issue that needs addressed but we need leaders who actually lead instead of shouting at us from atop their giant piles of money that we need to change so they won’t have to.
I think global warming’s biggest advocates have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites in their own carbon footprints.
That makes them even bigger hypocrites than Republican lawmakers who dismiss global warming theories while accepting oil company campaign donations and paid vacations.
Yes, they are even bigger hypocrites.
The global warming movement needs to drop the hypocritical celebrities that are harming the movement more than helping and put out more science-based information. Stop inviting these celebrities to speak at these conferences, and ask them to stop proselytizing global warming while they live extravagant lifestyles.
If you want us to believe in global warming, overwhelm us with scientific data that can withstand scrutiny. Hit us with the facts.
Keep the hypocritical pretty people pursuing their own agendas (it’s plain to everyone that Gore is using his global warming celebrity to pursue the presidency again) out of the global warming spotlight, and you may notice more sympathy for the global warming movement.
Does anybody know anything about the story of Gore purchasing carbon credits from a company that he supposedly is 51% owner of….so, he is paying himself to look good to the global warming crowd?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19058588
we the people should suspect a problem when a Government Official cannot even have an opinion without causing political upheavel. If you think about all of the reasons that our Government and the political leaders of the world have to MAKE this issue about the use of oil — you have to wonder. Its BS. Plain and simple.
I’m certain that the NASA administrator would not want to see a reduction in the amount of money spent on his pet projects, i.e., manned flights to Mars and the moon. It seems that we could go a long way towards solving some vexing problems, not only in this country but the world at large, regarding our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and the related global warming issue if NASA weren’t siphoning off so many billions of taxpayers dollars for their worthless projects. Let’s clean up our messes on this planet before we try to further investigate uninhabitable barren rocks in our solar system. Who knows, we may become one of those barren planets ourselves if we don’t get a handle on global warming.
Oh please, meso. The money spent by NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to so many other line items in our nation’s budget. One month in Iraq covers their costs for a whole year. I usually agree with what you say, but you’re way off on this one.
And yes, I have a horse in this race. My hubby works for NASA; he’s a safety specialist who makes sure no UAVs drop on your head, should something go wrong.
ooh_child,
Actually NASA’s yearly budget (15B) is closer to what we spend in Iraq in 2 months and yeah, I suppose 120B dollars–spent by 2020 (includes building a launch site on our moon) doesn’t sound like much, especially if you say it fast. We spent about 2 billion dollars on the Manhattan Project that developed the A-bomb (about 20B in todays dollars). Surely we could spend a like amount to develop alternate sources of energy that would free us from our addiction to fossil fuel and the enormous costs involved in keeping that Mid-East fuel spigot open. If that money were to come in lieu of a (pie in the sky) scheme to put a man on Mars then I say let’s do it. It all boils down to priorities I suppose and it seems to me that our most pressing priority is getting our kids the hell out of that bloody quagmire called Iraq. If that means pulling money from NASA, using energy efficient light bulbs or driving a Prius to work in order to resolve our energy crisis then so be it. It’s high time we made some sacrifices in the civilian sector to get our troops back home, to say nothing of saving our own planet from the global warming threat.
You all need to watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” google it, it is out there…..dispels much of what was in the Goracle’s movie, and does it with many of the world’s leading climatologists, who all seem to agree that if the globe is warming, it is a cyclical event, has happened before, will happen again, and is more about the position of the sun and the ocean than anything else.
That said, I think recycling has merit for other reasons and will continue to reuse and limit energy use.
Hey Babs,
It’s the worlds leading climatologists who are telling us there’s a 90% chance that we are causing the global warming cycle by burning hydrocarbons. I don’t know where you come from but in the business world where I make my living, those odds constitute a slam dunk. But forget that…my point was that we need to bring our troops home, and the best way to insure that we don’t have to go to that part of the world to protect our strategic oil supplies is to ween ourselves of their oil. Did ya kinda miss my point?
If you don’t give a damn what we’re doing to our planet, at least think about our kids in Iraq who are getting slaughtered every day. Or think about the 7+ billion dollars a month it is costing us to keep them there. Factored into a gallon of gasoline that would make it’s real cost 15 bucks a gallon!
The point Babs is trying to make Meso, is that this earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. LONG before humans inhabited this planet with their gas guzzeling SUVs. Something so many of you seem to forget OR choose to ignore!
You keep believing the doomsayers and people like myself and Babs will continue living our lives the way we want, without all the fear and propaganda the governments around the world keep shoving down our throats so they can continue to line their pockets with our hard earned money!
Apparently, Meso, you didn’t read the end of my post; I agree that reusing and reducing and recycling are great ideas and will continue to do so; I don’t agree that a full “90%” of all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made entity; watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” ; bad name, good facts from another “90%” of world scientists ha ha….this issue is far from settled; the world has gone through these cycles before and will continue to do so, no matter how much money Al Gore gives to “carbon credits” at companies he owns.
Babs & Joe,
I’ll bet you both drive big SUV’s with support our troops stickers plastered all over them. It’s a bit hard to get through to folks like you, and God forbid you should ever “line the pockets” of anyone attempting to change the status quo.
So now its our fault that George W lied to the world about Iran having WMD’s so we could occupy another country for their oil? Alrightythen!
I care about the enviroment as much as the next guy and do my part just like everyone else. But I refuse to be bamboozled by a government that has a long history of planting fear in the minds of its citizens all in the name of the almighty dollar.
Babs & Joe – 3 Meso – 0
Thanks for the support, Guest and Joe…it is nice to know I am not alone in wondering if “man-made global warming” isn’t just this year’s “new ice age” (as several posters have commented on) or bandwagon of choice..again, if people haven’t seen it, the “Great Global Warming Swindle” is definitely worth a watch..the IPCC is not in agreement on this issue, as some have suggested…Penn and Teller’s “bull$%&*” series also has a segment on global warming and other such issues bandied about by politicians that is absolutely hysterical….watch all the people line up to sign a petition banning the use of…”dihydrgen chloride”…..
Apparently, Meso doesn’t read whole comments; I don’t drive an SUV and, as I have already stated, I do recycle and reduce….good idea for the planet, NOT because I think it will counteract the natural phenomenom of global warming…….
No answer from meso about why it is okay for Gore to tell all us “little people” to shell out money for hybrid cars and solar panels, when he consumes energy to the tune of $30,000 a month just in energy use in his houses (plural). I don’t dislike Gore, but isn’t that a little hypocritical, meso? I think everyone needs to look into this for themselves and not just buy the party line because it is trendy right now to talk about “global warming”……..
Babs, could you explain what you mean when you say “if the globe is warming, it [...] is more about the position of the sun and the ocean than anything else.”
Thanks.
ooh_child, sure: I(like Al Gore) am not a scientist; I can’t give an opinion about anything scientific that isn’t a distillation of what climate scientists have said. That is why I qualified it with an “if”. In the “Great Global Warming Swindle” several scientists present data suggesting that there is not a true unending period of warming occuring which will inevitably lead to the end of the world, but rather a cyclical geothermic phenomenom, related to the heat of the sun and the level of the oceans….that this same cycle has been repeated over the past billions of years (ie Medieval Warm Period, a period in the 40’s of warmer temps, the period before the last Polar Ice Age, etc…); the documentary is fascinating and gives a balanced view to scientists from all over the world and from all different disciplines…..lots of information backed up with hard science….
Before anyone attacks me, I am stating this is my opinion based on information I have reviewed; I am not a scientist!
Hmm, I’m still confused by your mention of the position of the sun. What exactly do you think is different about its position? That’s why I was asking for clarification.
IAC, are you aware of participants in the project who were very displeased with their portrayal? For instance, an excerpt of a letter sent to the producer of the film:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm
“I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.”
-Carl Wunsch, MIT
Doesn’t seem like this film is as fair & balanced as you’ve been led to believe, I’m afraid.
If you would have gone over the complete article Babs mentions, you would have also seen that carbon dioxide is produced in much larger quantities by nature itself, than what we can produce! ie: volcanoes, decaying matter, etc. And much more than our SUV’s and factory’s produce.
Global warming is just the “story of the hour” (or decade if you will) in order for scientists, governments and “so called” non-profit organizations, to make huges sums of money and instill fear into the general public.
And, if you would have continued reading that documentary, you would have read that this warming and cooling of the earth has gone on since the beginning of time. Of course sea levels will rise and fall over time. People can’t be so naive as to think that our current sea level is supposed to remain constant throughout time! Seriously! Anyone who has read just a little bit of history will tell you that whole civilizations have been wiped out because of changes in the weather. And it wasn’t because of their SUV’s or even the dung from their donkeys decomposing and releasing carbon dioxide into the air!
People are so quick to believe the worse or better yet, an ex president that has no clue. This earth will continue on…CHANGING….just as it has since the beginning of time. And there is nothing we can do about it. Get over it, stop worrying so much, and live your lives!
According to Sir John Houghton, co-chair of IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002, and Director General of the UK Meteorological Office, that’s not true.
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
“Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning – NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
As I said, when professors involved in the production claim they were taken out of context, I tend to wonder about the balance of the program.
This is just like the “religion” debate. You will believe what you want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to believe. And if a person feels strongly enough about a subject, nobody will ever change anothers mind, no matter how much propaganda….I mean “scientific studies” you put before them.
Its bascially one scientist’s therory against anothers. I’m leaning more towards the “others”….global warming is bunk!
ooh_child, I get it now; I thought you had a legitimate question; I didn’t realize I had said ‘position of the sun’; if you re-read it, clearly what I meant was position of the ocean and the sun (understood, relative to each other…)….you are just trying to make me look silly….I didn’t catch the sarcasm the first time around;
anyway, you keep repeating “scientists” (plural) and then refering to one….are there others?
if you watch the entire documentary, instead of just googling it for negative reactions thereto, you will see what I am talking about….climatologists who have measured sunspots have found great variation in the sun’s temp over the millenia; that is what a significant number believe is behind the cyclical warming and cooling of the planets; moreover, and since you didn’t mention this and I am assuming you didn’t watch it, TGGWS also references the “science” relied upon by Gore, including some data which was read backwards!!!! oops!!!
So I guess we are all entitled to review the science and come to our own decisions, hey?
how about without the nastiness?
also, ooh_child, just checked your “source” regarding the scientist who allegedly backed out of GGWS; do you know what the John Ray Institute is? “Reconciling Christianity With Science?” no offense, but that is what you are relying upon to tell me that GGWS is false?????? A Christian Intelligent Design site? I am not questioning your apparent religous devotion, just wondering why you are using that as support for a scientific premise?
ooh_child, one more thing: I am not allowed, apparently, to reference what “source” you are using for your scientific beliefs (it got flagged and banned because it mentioned the chri—an word) but let me just ask, do you know what the John Ray Institute, the basis of your position on this issue, is? An “intelligent design” site? This is your source for science on global warming?
okay, what is going on? All my responses to ooh-child are being blocked? is it because I mentioned the “John Ray Institute” relied upon by ‘ooh child?’ google it and see what I mean….not a scientific site at all; in fact, quite the opposite!!!! guess I can’t mention why!!!
[site admin: our comment spam scripts uses a complex mathematical algorithm to keep 99.999% of the spam out of here, but unfortunately also occasionally "retro-spanks" fairly new people. just let me know via the chatbox if it happens to anyone.]
also, I know you are deliberately misreading my “position” comment, when clearly I meant the relation between the position of the sun and the earth’s oceans…..
as I stated, I think we are all entitled to review the science, including TGGWS and see what we think; Al Gore is no scientist, nor he is an environmentalist; I would much rather recieve info via an unbiased forum such as UK’s channel 4 (GGWS)…….
thanks!
I’m new to IF, but am an energy industry professional with a lot of “stock” in this topic.
Quoting JoeSmith “This is just like the “religion” debate. You will believe what you want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to believe”
I respectfully disagree. The debate over global warming (GW) is inherently different than the religion debate, because there IS a right answer in the case of global warming. One day (perhaps sooner than we think), we WILL figure out without a doubt whether humankind did or didn’t tip the carbon scale. Threads like this, along with appropriately funded research are the only way to know for sure before it may be too late. Of course some of you might think there IS a right answer to religion, but the human race probably won’t figure that one out any time soon.
Now – as far as my views on GW are concerned – I believe in sustainability. Sure the Earth’s climate has ebbed and flowed over time, but I argue that none of those “natural” changes have been the result of human free will. Now, humans have come along, and for their own benefit, created an unsustainable pattern. We take carbon fuels out of the earth, burn them for energy, and put the carbon up in the atmosphere. The argument to the effect of “volcanoes or decaying matter pumps out a lot more” is bunk for this reason. We are unnaturally upsetting the BALANCE of carbon, tipping the scale between that which is below ground and that which is above. Humans have learned time after time that if we alter nature enough, she cuts us hard (recently, trying to control rivers/lakes during Katrina). Why should we expect there to be no repercussion to upsetting the carbon balance?
These are conclusions based on a belief in sustainability. Think of it as “the ultimate golden rule” between humans and our environment.
[edited by site admin for putting down other guests]
ooh child and everyone,
didn’t mean to post the same thing so many times; as you can see by the above, my posts got accidentally deleted so I kept resending, thinking I had used a word that was being filtered out or something…..
I didn’t believe I put anybody down here, but since site admin edited for my comment, answer me this question. What exactly is an “energy industry professional” and how can YOU prove people are the true cause of global warming? Even the scientists who are FOR global warming, say they only believe 90 percent. Why wouldn’t THEY believe it 100% and what makes you think we’re 100% at fault? What do you propose we do about it? You can’t change nature or the natural cycle of this planet. Perhaps everyone should stop driving altogether? I’m sure you drive to work each day yes? We should just stop advancing as a species? Perhaps we should all live like the Quakers with no electicity and horse drawn carriages?
Babs, respectfully, there was no nastiness intended with my questions or responses. I’m still unclear why you think the relative position of the sun & ocean(s) is different.
I have a limited amount of time in my life & would rather not watch a documentary if the people involved were not clearly informed of the intent of the production. The producer of this film has been shown in the past to be less than truthful with his intentions to inform, that’s all.
As far as sources go, I read materials from all sides & spectrums. Since I am not a scientist either, I look to experts in their respective fields for facts. Fact: Wunsch was misled & quote-mined for his contribution to the production. Fact: Sir John Houghton is a respected professional in this particular area of science; an “expert” if you will. Fact: not all of the planets in our solar system are “warming & cooling.”
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
Yes, we can all “believe” whatever we want to believe, but the equal balance of this “Global Warming Swindle” show is far from established for my tastes.
I’m sorry if questions upset you, Babs. I intended no offense.
Hi Ooh child!
Not upset at all…just not sure why you keep bringing up the same point; have you watched the video of GGWS yet? Don’t want to keep repeating myself re: the ocean/sun issue….
Also, you didn’t address my point about the JRI (christian think tank); I think that relying on this source to refute the GGWS position might be misleading to people, at best;
I don’t agree with Al Gore’s “science” and you don’t agree with the science set forth in GGWS….We are all free to disagree with each other and have valid opinions that might not be held by everyone (JRInstitute as “science”,for example)…it is what makes this country great!!!
JimmyJam, thank you for you questions. I did take slight offense to your edited comment, but I believe it was withdrawn simply because it did not add value to the discussion.
An energy industry professional can actually be just about anyone that dedicates their vocation to the energy industry, whereas the energy industry is comprised of gas, coal, ethanol, uranium, wind, etc markets – as well as the researchers and investors in new markets such as geothermal. As Idaho grows, we have to import much of our power from other states, such as the state with the highest carbon output per capita in the world, Wyoming. Therefore, I don’t blame you for not knowing what an “energy industry professional” is, because Idaho has a lot fewer of them than surrounding regions. Suffice to say I am in the research category, and the federal gov’t pays most of my check.
How can I prove people are the cause of global warming? Well I am not professionally researching that topic, but here is my logic:
Are humans upsetting the balance of the earth’s carbon cycle by burning carbon-rich fuels, therefore outputting more CO2 than trees can suck in? Yes – I have seen measurements that prove this and if you like I will try to find them.
Where is this carbon going? To the upper atmosphere in the form of CO2 – research the structure of our atmosphere for proof here.
What is the effect of extra CO2 up there? The “greenhouse effect,” which used to be a good thing because it keeps us at a relatively constant temperature, is now keeping us too warm (i.e. “global warming”). Research the greenhouse effect for proof on how this works.
The 90 percent you are referring to comes from a worldwide panel of scientists that gathered at Paris in February (their exact words were “greater than 90%”). It is the nature of science to place such conservative numbers on analyses. When you do an experiment, you do it more than just once. You figure out how many times you have to do that experiment before you’ve exhausted all possible uncertainty. Well, in systems with a large amount of variables that are interdependent (such as the earth’s atmosphere), this number of experiments can be ridiculously huge – more than the most powerful computers can do in 100 years. But, there is hope, because if you start to see trends in your experiments, most scientists agree that you can stop a little early. Say, if I was planning on doing 1000 experiments, but every single one of the first 300 backed my hypothesis, it is extremely likely (if I did them in the right manner) that my hypothesis is correct. But you are right, not 100% likely. In this case, 90% likely, is enough to make some pretty sure assumptions and go on to the next experiment, which is “what do we do about it?”
This brings up a joke that engineering students learn in college: A mathematician and an engineer are both put in a room with the girl of their dreams. They are both told that they can move half the distance toward the lady, and then half the remaining distance, and so on. The mathematician, thinking that the remaining distance can never equal exactly zero throws his hands up in disgust and leaves. The engineer, however, does a calculation in his head… 12 feet, 6 feet, 3 feet, 1.5 feet, 0.75 feet, a few inches… and says “close enough for me!!”
The engineers of the world will be happy with the “greater than 90%” and try to figure out what to do about it, while the mathematicians will spend 50 more years trying to get it certain. Both tasks are important.
What am I going to do about it? You are incorrect in assuming I drive to work – I walk or bike. All the lighting in my home is compact fluorescent (they DO save energy AND money). My vehicle is both 4WD and gets 30mpg (a subaru). We have already proven that you can get a lot of energy without burning fossil fuels. In short, we can solve this problem if we all change just a little. There’s no silver bullet. If everyone tried to live closer to work, our town would thrive MORE because downtown would be a bustling place and 17th st would just be the road to Ammon instead of the road to Circuit City. If more of us demanded carbon-free power, our legislators would have to do something about it. USA has arrived as the greatest power on earth for two overlying reasons – oil as easy energy, and a national determination to be the best. The former is going away, so we have to make the latter prevail. We made it to the moon using a giant bottle rocket – don’t you think that if the nation (with the cooperation of the world) made a concerted effort at global warming we could solve it too? I have dedicated my life to solving this problem – it’s what I do for a living and even if they didn’t pay me it’s still what I’d be doing.
Thank you BobbyDigital. I appreciate your comments, and your good advice and tips. I have watched this thread all along but gave up on commenting long ago. In my opinion many of the people who don’t believe in global warming have been mean-spirited during this discussion. [edited by site admin]
For those of you who don’t believe global warming, do you believe that air pollution is real? Maybe not, but if you do, don’t you think it’s a good idea to prevent air pollution whenever possible? That would require a lot of the same solutions as the global warming problem. But since you don’t believe in global warming, just pretend you’re doing it to help the air pollution problem.
Just for the record, to no one in particular, I do think “global warming” is occuring; I don’t think it is man-made….that is a distinction, in this case, with a difference. Be careful in labelling people who don’t agree with you; some of us do believe in global warming, just not man-made. Like millions of others, I believe the best evidence we have supports the idea of a cyclical warming/cooling period.
You’re welcome. Joe, hats off to you – this site is a diamond for discussion on important IF topics.
One of the most talked about market-based solutions to the GW problem is the idea of a carbon tax or carbon credits. For those of us who want to do something about GW, maybe we should open a new thread to discuss IF/Idaho/USA/the world’s options for curbing it.
Nobody said they didn’t believe global warming wasn’t occuring. I certainly didn’t. I just don’t think it’s happening because of man either. Sure there’s pollution and we can all do our part to lessen that, but we’ll never stop this planet from warming and cooling itself. And for people to think they can, well I’ll just keep my opinions to myself on that one.
As for digital, for you to expect everyone to move closer to their jobs to be able to walk or bike to work, well thats neither reasonable or feasible in most cases.
Number 1, most people don’t make the amount of money to allow them to choose exactly where they want to live.
Number 2, nobody’s job is secure these days. Nobodys. Do you actually expect people to move everytime they get a new job so they can walk or bike to work? I don’t think so.
Number 3, Idaho Falls (and Idaho in general) is not a pedestrian friendly city/state. There aren’t many sidewalks to use to get back and forth to work and it would just be downright dangerous.
Number 4, most people live more than a couple of miles from work, which wouldn’t make it ideal to walk or bike.
Number 5, who wants to walk or bike to work in the summer and be all sweaty by the time they got there? Certainly not me. And same goes for winter. Who is going to trudge a mile or more in the snow and or rain to go to work? Not me again.
So you see, your suggestions just aren’t realistic and I don’t see anybody giving up their vehicles to do such things anytime soon. Sure, everyone can do their part to cut back on polluting this planet. I do and I’m all for that. I just don’t think you’re going to be able to reverse, stop or even slow down global warming as its been happening since the beginning of time. But hey, good luck trying to solve that problem.
IF is already changing with respect to all those points. They are finally catching up to the 90’s idea of co-locating commercial and residential. Also, the idea of a revamped downtown places a lot of jobs in a single area. No having to move because you changed jobs. The town is attempting to create a bike-friendly path from the southeast to the downtown corridor. And finally, biking up to 15 miles to work is not ridiculous, especially on bike-friendly paths. You’ll actually get there faster, and get your exercise for the day. And IF is about the least “sweat-inducing” town I’ve ever lived in.
Sorry if that was off-topic, but the point is we can change and still have a great quality of life. Now if people just want to sit back and say “we didn’t create global warming and we can’t do anything about it,” all I ask is that you folks stop getting in the way of people who do want to do something about it. We won’t destroy the economy, I promise
I’ll have to side with Jimmy on this one. You honestly expect people to ride their bikes 15 miles to work? I work out regularly and am in pretty decent shape and even I would be covered in sweat by the time I rode my bike 15 miles to work. I don’t know about you, but my dress code is business casual and that isn’t the most comfortable thing to wear riding a bike. Who wants to work 8 hours in sweaty smelly clothes? Ok, so you bring a change of clothes…..that still doesn’t help you from the wind, the rain, the snow, etc. He was right in saying its just not feasible. Plus, I dont see Idaho Falls building bike paths throughout the city within the next year or two. It’s taking them 8 months to lay down a 2 mile stretch of blacktop on Sunnyside!
I would think with you being a “energy industry professional”, and most likely having a decent education, you would know that our earth goes through this cycle of warming and cooling. I’d be interested to know just exactly what company you work for and what your role there is. You know, just to better help the people here understand where you’re coming from with your point of view. I mean an “energy industry professional” could be any number of things.
Regardless, I think we can all do our best to keep pollution down. But if you haven’t noticed, we’ve made great strides over the last couple of decades. I don’t know when the last time you’ve been to LA, but the smog there is nothing compared to what it was back in the early 80’s. I’d have to say I agree with those that say you’re not going to change mother nature. I don’t care how many light bulbs you change, or fossil fuels you stop burning. The earth has a cycle it goes through, and nothing we do is going to stop that. What we can stop though, is all the over-hyped drama regarding this subject. Lets all take care of the planet for the next generation, but lets be reasonable about it all. Asking a population that’s 75-80% overweight to ride their bikes to work each morning, just isn’t reasonable. Sure it would help everyone loose weight, but I just don’t see this as being their new weight lose regimen.
So CR67, you say energy efficient light bulbs and fossil fuel conservation efforts (or just about anything else) won’t make any difference anyway so why bother? MMMM…..kay!
Yes, the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. [edited by site admin] believe that today’s human population has nothing to do with it? Don’t worry though, you have a lot of people who agree with you. [edited by site admin] I just feel sorry for future generations.
No Carson,that’s not what I said. Why don’t you go back and re-read it before putting words into my mouth. I said, none of those things are going to change MOTHER NATURES COURSE. It’s a cycle the earth goes through and has gone through for billions of years. So no, I don’t think WE are causing these changes. Now listen carefully….I’m not saying changes aren’t occuring…. THEY ARE. But such is life. This is what happens.
Are you a scientist Carson? I didn’t think so. So lets not start calling names ok? You have your opinion and I have mine.
AND…do YOU ride your bike to work?
Yes I do! Not every day, but quite a bit. And yes, you said the things I pointed out. Why don’t YOU re-read it. Are YOU a scientist? Who’s calling who names? I can see why this site is going downhill.
With regards to my profession, I have an M.S. in high-power electrical engineering, and I now do research into the next generation of power distribution systems. I’d like to go back to school for physics and chemistry so I can do more sustainable energy research.
Now, if you disagree with the logic I posted in (131), please state why. Simple “warming and cooling” arguments do not cut it. The difference between, say, the mini-ice age of the 1500’s-1700’s versus the trend we’re looking at today: it’s going too fast. Scientists believe the earth has been warmer than today, but the amount we have warmed since about 1950 usually takes 100-500 years for natural earth cycles. I recommend this site for a lot of good science with zero bias: http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/index.htm
Riding bikes is only one of my suggestions. How about demanding that we cut oil usage? It is doable – anyone remember the last big demand for a rise in vehicle fuel efficiency standards? From 1978 to 1985 avg. fuel efficiency went up by 10mpg, and avg. bhp increased as well.
Of course efficiency can’t do it all. Some folks think ethanol could be an answer. Because ethanol works best at high compression ratios and has a higher octane rating than gasoline, you can get around 40mpg in a 250 hp engine for about $1000 more dollars than the equivalent gas engine. With economies of scale, it could be much cheaper than that very soon. But what isn’t cheap is the ethanol infrastructure, and making ethanol from corn is not very smart. Good thing a cellulose-based ethanol plant should be coming to Shelley in a few years which will make ethanol out of farm waste products.
And y’all, there’s a difference between debating and being downright negative. It is very difficult to display emotion on a forum, so please keep to the facts and keep quarreling to a minimum.
Hey CR67,
It has been estimated that if everyone of us in this country replaced one standard light bulb with an energy efficient fluorescent bulb it would be the equivalent of preventing the pollution of one million cars.
In a previous post (#68) you made the statement that “There’s nothing wrong with wanting a cleaner enviroment (sic) for our children, I’m all for that. Just don’t try to tell me we’re ruining the planet so you can make me feel bad so I’ll buy your electric cars and your energy efficient light bulbs and line your pockets with cash! I’m not THAT naive!”
[edited by site admin] you want a cleaner environment for your kids you just don’t want to make an effort to bring it about. Apparently anything that takes an effort on your part is simply out of the question…or am I, like others, putting words in you mouth?
Funny how grown men bicker like kids on this site and the women have pretty mature conversations majority of the time. At least those who I figure to be male or female.
Anyway, I think we call can do something, no matter how big or small, to make the world better and safer for our grandchildren. I won’t expect anyone to do more or less than me as long as they do what they are capable of and can afford. Don’t judge me and I won’t judge you.
Please refrain from calling other people names or putting them down.
As much disagreement on this issue by intelligent folk on both sides, it’s not as black and white an issue as either side would have you believe.
What’s the general opinion on purchasing carbon credits?
I think it’s a generally good idea to plant new forests.
Unfortunately it appears to be a sale of indulgences, and I doubt the amount of carbon those infant forests really makes a dent in our emissions.
What do you think about carbon credits?
(i think it’ll be the next poll topic)
Joe – thanks for the carbon credit post. Why did my last post not make it through? Said something about spam…? I did have a link in there, was that the problem?
Anyway, it’s my opinion that a carbon tax might get us a bit farther than a carbon credit. That way you could tax tons CO2 a dollar amount across the board. Carbon credits, however, will result in localized heavy pollution. This is because a company will build a clean plant in California, so that they can rack up credits and build all their dirty plants in Wyoming.
For the record, I am providing intelligent discussion, AND I’m a dude. Yay for no bickering.
Its amazing how, suddenly, all these people are riding their bikes to work when this topic heats up. I seriously doubt people are riding their bikes or walking to work as much as they claim they are.
Somebody noted earlier that this topic is just like the religion topic and I’d have to agree with that statement. Everybody has their own opinion but NOBODY knows for sure so why is their so much arguing going on? Everybody else thinks they have the answer or what THEY believe is what is right, when NONE of us really know for sure so lets stop bickering. The world isn’t coming to an end so lets get out there and enjoy what we have.
Make sure you get on your bike this morning! haha
Good observation Guest….how true that is….we get bickering on this issue just as much as religion.
Ditto, Guest 2486, you said that perfectly…….
Guest_2486, Mike, and Babs, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but I am writing this from work. I rode my bike here. Please don’t insinuate that I’m lying when I say I often ride my bike to work. I will try to return the favor by being more respectful of others’ rights to their opinions in the future. Thank you.
Personally, I try to live my life based on my own standards and my own conscience. I realize that not everyone thinks the same. And we get fed so much misinformation and hysteria that sometimes it’s hard to know what to believe. It would be great if this discussion would stick to the issues and not personal attacks. I promise to do my part, but I think this topic may have run its course.
BTW, I think a carbon tax is a great idea.
Hi Carson, I didn’t personally attack you or say you were lying about riding your bike; in fact, good for you! I believe we should all do our part to cut down on pollution; I actively recycle and try to reduce my use of natural resources in every way possible….
I do not believe that global warming is man-made; I do believe it is occuring as part of a normal atmospheric cycle, one which has been ongoing for probably millions of years.
So don’t take offense at everyone who doesn’t agree that global warming is man made; that is what makes this country great; we are all free to disagree with one another’s opinion, yet we are all entitled to have them……
have a great day!
It looks like if you disagree with the regulars here you get your post edited by site admin. I didn’t say anything that needed edited. And I think I was a lot more tactful than the ones who disagreed with me.
Carson,
you won’t get edited just for disagreeing. But you will if you use foul language, put down other posters, etc. I’m not sure what you said that was edited so I can’t comment directly on your statement. Only that you’re free to disagree with anyone on this site. Trust me…I disagree with many of the posters here, but thats is the fun of it all. Having a different opinion than others is what make each one of us unique and different. So feel free to keep posting your thoughts and opinions. Just keep it clean and you should be ok.
I know what I wrote, and I did keep it clean. I know better than to cuss and swear here. I got put down by others worse than I put anyone down and their posts weren’t touched.
I just reviewed the comments Carson and I did not see any putting down people like yours did. Case closed.
I liked this previous comment:
It is very difficult to display emotion on a forum, so please keep to the facts and keep quarreling to a minimum.
Last week’s poll question
“Do you think carbon offset credits have a substantial positive effect on CO2 emmissions?”
Resulted in:
60% No, absolutely not
21% Probably not
16% Probably
4% Yes, absolutely
=81% negative perception of carbon credits.
Why do you think that is?
could southeast idaho landowners cash in on this carbon offset craze? offer to plant trees on their land? how does someone get involved with that?
You’re the boss, Joe. But I think I am being held to a different standard than some others. I’m not just talking about this thread. There are many other posters who mock and ridicule people and their posts aren’t touched. However, I do appreciate you reminding me to stick to the facts. I’ll try to do better.
Joe: taking into account the small sampling in the poll, I’d say the nasty liberal MSM is at it again. All of the reports about carbon credits are so positive & pro-Al Gore, don’t you see. That darn Leftist Liberal Media is always to blame!
“special code”, I LOVE it….let’s start an “assauge your guilt and use all the carbon you want: we will make it all better!” tree farm….tons of open space in Idaho…..
thats wat im thinking, idahoans can cash in on california liberals guilt pay us to plant trees for you
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
Thank you for that post feelinlucky. Everyone should take the time to read this link. Especially the last 3 paragraphs if you don’t have time to read the whole post. (although I’m sure it still won’t sway the thoughts and/or beliefs of some here)
Feelinlucky, awesome, I loved it….
Check out these two links. They talk alot about the inconvenient tax the Gore and other liberals won’t talk about. It notes that to offset pollution carbon taxes will have to be used to decrease consumption. This means an increase in the gas tax. The last time the tax was raised was in 1993. Gore cast the deciding vote. In 1994 the Republicans took over. This is the dirty little secret that is not talked about but needs to be exposed:
Here is the 1st link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0705/p08s01-comv.html
It seems that this is all an Inconvenient Truth too?
One other piece of interesting information: Scientists drilled 1.2 miles into a Glacier near Greenland and found some DNA from plants thousands of years ago. They were able to discern that global temperatures were greater then than thought (and life existed…amazing). Check out the link:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1
Global Climate Change is probably a better title for what is happening as there are places getting warmer and places getting colder.
I have only lived in IF for 8 years but from having talked with those who grew up here, the climate in *this* area is different. Less water in the form of snow and rain, more heat in the summer, longer growing season.
I am actually more worried about Peak Oil, i.e. changing economy due to rising oil costs.
Changes we can make to become a more sustainable culture include things like planting a garden to feed ourselves, with heirloom varieties so we don’t depend on hybrid seed stock (seed saving). If you have a black thumb, support local growers. Become a Locavore. It’s ridiculous to be importing lamb from New Zealand for $6-10 a pound when we have perfectly good lamb grown here for far, far less (I pay about $3 a pound by buying from a local grower). It’s even more ridiculous to be importing too dang much from China in the way of food imports when it is clearly unsafe for us and our children. Buy Local, save oil and support our OWN economy. That’s a start towards reversing both Global Climate Change and problems relating to Peak Oil.
The light bulb issue comes up time and time again with regards to cost. Buy buying one florescent light bulb that lasts much, much longer than in incandescent and uses less power you are able over time to save money on the extra bulbs and power to buy another. After a while you come to the point where you are way ahead of the game cost wise. Take baby steps, buy one for the extra $5-8 and go from there. Isn’t that easy? Baby steps?
Sustainable Living is more of an answer for me so there is something left for future generations. This is a journey that we should start on rather than just reactive living to emotionally charged scientific arguments.
Buying locally is an interesting challenge. I’ve thought of writing an article on it, but I never get try local shopping that much.
The idea is if you can buy most or all of your food items from within 100 miles, you are helping the environment by reducing transport costs and pollution, right?
What results has anyone had with trying to buy locally around southeast Idaho?
What items have been the most challenging to find locally?
On buying locally, I just finished my weekly grocery shopping at the farmer’s market. I found hotdogs for the husband from Mackay and pasture raised organic Lamb Shanks from Soda Springs (they also have beef). My eggs, cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes, beets and cheese came from Woods up in St. Anthony. I got radishes from Shelly. There was also local bread (I make my own from Wheat Montana wheat which is 123 miles away). I get my milk from Reeds which feeds a combination of grain and hay with no hormones, antibiotics, etc. I make my own butter from Reed’s cream (takes 10 minutes with my hand mixer). I didn’t buy fruit this week because I still have cherries from Magic Valley.
Frankly I’m finding buying local isn’t that difficult at all. My exceptions to the rule are Olive Oil, citrus, spices, coffee and chocolate.
I am using a regional approach to my buying. Idaho first, within 250 miles second. On spices, coffee and chocolate I try to buy fair trade and shade grown (grow as many herbs as I can too). As for Olive Oil, we produce Olive Oil in California but I am still searching for this and all I can find is imported. Any help with this greatly appreciated.
Buying locally and in season means that certain things are only short time harvests for my menu like berries and melons but I do put some up for the winter which makes them all that much more of a “treat” and gives me a greater appreciation of them. Believe me dehydrated watermelon in the winter is a serious taste explosion!
I really like the idea of using less transportation energy to get my food but more than that I like knowing that I’m supporting Idaho growers.
I read about five things supposedly that we should worry about solving before global warming:
the end of cheap oil
the collapse of ocean ecosystems
dwindling fresh water crisis
global deforestation
20,000 leftover nuclear weapons
http://lighterfootstep.com/five-things-that-are-worse-than-global-warming.html
What do you think is most pressing?
I both fear and relish the thought of a dwindling petroleum industry. I believe through innovation and research we can find alternatives to oil. It’s just a matter of doing it quick enough to forestall economic collapse.
The fresh water crisis is a crisis in name only due to gross wastage of water by many countries. With education we could cut our water consumption by 85% and still have enough to continue the cycle of our ecosystem and have fresh water. Again, this is fixable, but will it be in time?
20,000 leftover nuclear weapons are just too wierd to contemplate and I don’t think it’s a problem unless we get another idiot Texas cowboy elected.
Global deforestation is one of the worst issue we have facing us in our time. Gone is Gone. Extinct cannot come back. Trees that grew for centuries cannot be replaced. The damage to our planetary balance is so great at this point that the greenhouse effect might just kill us. We no longer have the trees to provide the delicate balance in our atmosphere. Trees BREATHE!!!! The yfilter our air. We have been destroying our filtration system and frankly if we don’t breathe, we die.
Worst of all, destroying the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that 70-80% of our oxygen is produced by Algae. Destroy the oceans and we are destroyed.
http://www.ecology.com/dr-jacks-natural-world/most-important-organism/index.html
We might try planting a tree, growing native plants that don’t require so much water, powering down on our energy needs and electing someone with a brain *g* But as the poster asked, destroying our Oceans will destroy us.
So if some of these other things are a bigger threat to our planet than CO2 emissions, why don’t the global warming folks attack those first?
It’s much easier to convince people like me to plant trees and conserve water than it is to convince me to stop driving my truck.
I was looking for this info a while back:
“Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wrote in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. [57] Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began.[58] Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period.[59]
[edit] Media
A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they “argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous”. Gore’s discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that “a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium.”[8] The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film; Gore responds that scientists may disagree with him on some details, “but we do agree on the fundamentals.”[8]
An April 19, 2007 article in Telegraph.co.uk reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is “inaccurate and politically motivated” and are “threatening a legal challenge over the Government’s decision to send it to every secondary school.” Parents claim that “the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002.”[60]
[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle
Main article: The Great Global Warming Swindle
The controversial documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK on March 8, 2007, brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming. Among other claims, the film states that Gore has misrepresented the data in An Inconvenient Truth, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature preceded an increase in carbon dioxide in the ice core samples); this however was promptly disputed by other scientists.[61][62] Global warming skeptic Fred Singer wrote that the documentary is “devastating” to Gore’s movie: “…The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.”[63]”
This is from Wikipedia, but the citations are all accurate…..
Just FYI!!!
I remember when Idaho Falls used to have feet upon feet of snow, annnnd…can someone please tell me why it barely gets one foot as of now?
Something is changing, Mother Earth could be part of it, but I’m convinced that it’s not all her doing…mostly ours.
-Doug
I just want to throw in another wrench and/or stir the pot here:
This article was originally published on June 28, by Robert Tracinski
Titled: “The Seeds of the Global Warming Police State”
The article begins: “Czech President Vaclav Klaus, drawing on his memories of Soviet oppression, recently declared that the global warming hysteria had replaced Communism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity.”
The environmentalists continue to do their best to prove him right.
In making the parallel to Communism, President Klaus cited the use of environmentalism as a justification for global central planning. But it is not just the vast scale of the controls proposed by environmentalists that is so revealing; it is also the detail. There is no aspect of life too trivial or intimate to fall outside of this new ideological regimentation.”
The last paragraph reads:
“No, we haven’t arrived at a green dictatorship—we’re nowhere near it. But with all of the environmentalists’ talk about the long-term consequences of our actions decades or centuries from now, we should subject their agenda to the same scrutiny. What ideological direction are they taking us, what kind of political and economic system are they seeking to impose—and what will happen to our liberty and prosperity, the day after tomorrow?”
The tenor of this thread is: Is global warming a real threat? I would mention that the messenger is highly suspect. I thought the post at the end of #171 said it best…that An Inconvenient Truth documents a politician.
This politician is deceptive and will say and do anything to get back into the mix. Check out this link on allegations about Gore being a real threat to National Security:
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2970_0_2_0_C/
Like it or not, the messenger on global warming is crooked. While this does not totally evaporate claims about global warming, more folks need to slow down and not take for gospel what comes out of Gore’s mouth.
Is it generally agreed on both sides that Al Gore is probably hurting the global warming debate more than he is helping?
Whether you believe in it or not. I tried watching An Inconvenient Truth, but quit about halfway through. It was just too much obvious emotional propaganda.
Problem is, most people believe everything they see on tv or hear on the radio and THATS the inconvienent truth here! Like lemmings being lead around not having a mind of their own and of which will eventually lead to their ultimate demise.
There’s so much information out there that is readily available to each one of us that disputes this farce, but most people don’t want to be bothered and would rather just jump on the nearest bandwagon just so they can claim their doing “their part” to save the world!
aiy yai yai!
New Analysis Counters Claims that Solar Activity is Linked to Global Warming
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/11/2449/
From the article:
“It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet’s climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle – the result of variation in the sun’s output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun’s output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.”
Personally, I don’t think Gore is a problem at all. I’ll speculate that the seemed hatred for Gore stems from the fact that he was Clinton’s VP. If you hate Clinton, I think the theory goes, then you have to hate Gore too.
Then to take it one step further, if you dislike (or hate) the Clintons and Gore, then global warming is also a farce and something to ignore and joke about.
I am, and I will.
Thank you.
I know.
You’re welcome.
Ooh Child,
I believe your quote that anything regarding global warming–manmade or natural cycle–is “firmly” settled is overly optimistic….here is a non-”progressive” look at the same data….note, this analysis goes back centuries, not just 25 years…….
Really, it would be nice if it were settled science; clearly it is not. As such, everyone is still left with their own informed opinions about manmade vs. natural/cyclical global warming.
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/forschung/sonne/
I agree with your earlier comment about being too busy to watch some videos (ie you were too busy to watch TGGWS to find out what I meant by solar/ocean warming)…I tried watching Inconvenient Truth but Gore sort of lost me when he stated something along the lines of “just accept these statistics, don’t try to understand them”…
anyway, just wanted to make sure I included the link…
I really would like to know why the scientists can’t agree (or won’t)? Just what is it that these supposed experts and professionals (on both sides) are doing that makes the science so inexact?
Of course, perhaps the science is more exact, we just don’t hear about it and this is what they want us to think….science in this area isn’t exact…but just do something we tell you to do anyway!?
We had this happen to us with the creation of the ceramic engine in the 1950s. This technology would have saved fuel immensely. The technology has been bought up and kept under wraps. It was never really heard from again. Fuel efficiency standards are being debated now in Congress like it’s some new fad.
My greatest fear is that we have the technologies available–from science–right now and we are not hearing about them and/or they are not allowed to be used. I am also concerned that we are not hearing the real truth from Gore or the other side about what we face. We see scare mongering on one side and supposed lies on the other side. It is so convoluted and seems intentional. Yes, intentional. The guys in the white jackets should all be able to agree on the majority of findings–using the scientific method–however, I think that the people paying the scientists bills and putting food on the scientists family table could be forcing skewed results. This forces some of us to be skeptical and others of us to be radical. Neither really solves the problem of what the appropriate direction this country needs to take. It seems either side is out to either keep the status quo and make money hand over fist or change our entire ideological way of thinking to form more political power (and wealth) at the expense of our existing institutions. I can see why some of these scientists turn mad!
This web site http://www.michaelellenbogen.com provides credible and original content in many different subjects under tips. The site has information that’s useful to the public and stands out for its content, you will definitely revisit to see new tips. I have a copy of the book, which I highly recommend – “The Insider’s Guide to Saving Money”. The book not only tells you how to save money, but many of the suggestions help in the fight of Global Warming.
Mike, I think it’s along the same lines as the so-called controversy over evolution, or descent w/ modification. The people who promote the ideas of Creationism or Intelligent Design don’t do any real science regarding their position; they would rather write books aimed at the general populace (& make scads of $) than actually submit their findings for peer review. Even though biological scientists agree that evolution is a fact, there are a lot of people who think it’s all one giant conspiracy to do away with God(s).
If you can convince enough people that there’s differing opinions on the subject, then they seem to think it bolsters their POV. They don’t seem to understand that just because there might be some “unknowns” in a certain theory, that doesn’t mean your theory is automatically right.
So, they try to convince enough people that global change isn’t caused by human activity in order to sell books & charge $ for speaking engagements. They’ll point to any other reason for the change that’s not in our control, but that doesn’t mean that humans aren’t contributing to the problem.
As has been pointed out before, it’s still in our best interests to cut down on carbon emissions ASAP. Lower personal costs, better air quality, reduction of Middle-East tensions, and investments in new technologies leading to economic growth are just some reasons I can think of off the top of my head. None of these have anything to do with Global Warming!
It all has to do with the almighty dollar. 20 years ago, Time magazine predicted that in the year 2000 we’d all be either driving around in either electic cars, or flying cars. We’d have a cure for cancer & many other diseases, and our world would be totally computerized and automated. Moving sidewalks, robots, solar energy providing power for our homes. What happened?
If another race visited our planet 20 years ago and then again in 2007 they would laugh at us at our lack of advancement as a human race. Where is all the advancement? Where are the futuristic automobiles, homes, etc? Things that make our lives easier. The technology is out there, so why isn’t it being used? Think about it. Our vehicles really haven’t changed much in 20 years. The styles are slow to progress, the fuel economy hardly advanced at all and why?
MONEY! The government and big business don’t want us to move into the future because their making more money holding us back and giving it to us a little at a time. They want us to buy a new car with one new feature in it every year or two so they can put more money into their pockets. The pharmecutical companies don’t want us to have a cure for cancer, they’d lose billions of dollars each year.
Its a sad sad world we live in when money has become more important than human life and the advancement of the human race as a whole. The technology is there. The cures are there. But we won’t see it in our lifetime because of corporate greed and corruption.
“We the people” need to get off our butts and demand some changes real soon and stop letting government and big business dictate how we live our lives, before it all comes crashing down around us.
Right on! There are alot of technologies and patents sitting on a shelf of a corporate vault gathering dust.
Global Warming is as real as real can be! Historic weather figures prove it. There is big debate on exactily what is causing it – but it is obvious that the human population is growing.
Get over it already Boise! More people die each year than are born, so population has nothing to do with it. People used to claim 15-20 years ago that our planet is so overpopulated we would run out of natuaral resources. Well, here we are 20 years later and that hasn’t happened. If you’ve done any kind of traveling whatsoever, I’m talking real traveling, you would know that we’ve got so much empty space on this planet it’s not even funny. Stop beliveing everything you hear on tv, all the fear mongering and doomsayers, and get a mind of your own. This world has been here for billions of years, and will be hear for billions more. The world has constantly changed, gotten hotter, colder, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. It’s been going on forever. Don’t think the world is going to come to an end because a couple of scientists that are being paid from governments and big business tell you so. Wake up man! Geez….some of you really need to get over all this doom and gloom. The world changes…that’s life. Move on!
Mr. Miagi, I wonder why the population of the world is increasing, if “more people die each year than are being born”?
That’s a real groaner, dear…
Populations rise and fall due to disease,famine, war, low fertility rates, etc. I think what Miagi is trying to point out is, population really has nothing to do with it. The world is plenty big enough for expansion of the human race.
Even Wikipedai admits that it is impossible to make anything close to a precise count of the worlds population. World census counts have never been more than just a rough estimate.
Like Mr Miagi, I have travelled extensivly around the world and it’s quite funny to me when I hear people say our world is over populated. It’s impossible and it’ll never happen.
Yeah Slim,
Try telling that story to the Chinese or Indians who have had to put a cap on their runaway populations in order to have enough food to feed those who are already there.
And sure, Mr. Miagi, we all know that fossil fuels can never run out…right? So, more people die every year than are born…are you insane…or do you really mean that?
Good points Miagi.
But dont you see meso, that’s a “choice” to live there. Just like it’s a “choice” for those millions of people to cram onto a little island called Manhattan. It’s a choice and a stupid one that people make everyday by wanting to live in an over populated place. It doesn’t mean the WORLD is over populated, it means people need to wake up and move.
I’ve never seen the appeal of living in a place such as New York City, Chicago, Toyko, etc. Anybody that spent anytime at all in these places know that there are people on top of people on top of people. You can’t walk 50 ft down the sidewalk in one of these cities without bumping into 70-80 people. Sure its crowded, but who’s fault is that? Its the people that choose to live there. I’ve lived in a number of big cities around world and it wasn’t by choice. I went where my job took me until I finally got fed up with that line of work and with the hectic lifestyle and moved out west here where you can actually hear yourself think.
Since I moved here 7 years ago, I’ve been amazed at how many people I’ve come across that are in their 40’s & 50s that have never been any further than Wyoming or any further west than California. There’s a whole world out there to see and experience but people are too afraid to venture out of their little “comfort zone” in order to experience it for themselves. They’d rather sit in their easy chairs and tell everyone else how much the world is falling apart, because that’s what they heard or saw on tv, when they really don’t have a clue.
Visit Austrailia or Japan or Europe and spend an hour watching the evening news in one of these countries. It’s completely opposite of our news here in the states. There isn’t all this doom and gloom and death and destruction and the world is coming to an end attitude like there is here in this country. The people in this country really have no idea how much the government and media here is brainwashing everyone into believing all this doom and gloom. And it’s all to keep the American public afraid and dependant on the government to consume and buy all this excess crap we really don’t need.
The business of “global warming” (and it IS a business) is a multi billion dollar a year business.
Wake up people and get a mind of your own. Our world is not coming to an end and we certainly are not the cause of global temp getting warmer.
Another thing, everyone complains about the enviroment, healthcare, crime, poverty, but nobody does anything about it. People think that if they throw a couple of bucks in the Red Cross bucket in front of WalMart each Christmas that their contributing and making a difference. Marsha Evans, top dog for the Red Cross is making 650 thousand dollars a year. And for what? To help run a charity? the Red Cross is a scam and is full of corruption. If you want to contribute to a cause, try the Salvation Army. The head of that charity makes 13,000 dollars a year plus free housing for managing a 2 billion dollar a year organization. The Red Cross under the “Liberty Fund” collected over 560 million dollars after 9/11. They only distributed about 150 million. And this type of corruption has happened over and over throughout history with the RedCross. From the San Fransicio earthquake in 89 to the Oklahoma City bombing. If you want to make a difference, stop contributing to this government front and find a smaller more trustworthy organization. Or better yet, volunteer once in awhile. Get out there and get your hands dirty, instead of just giving a few bucks.
And for crying out loud….stop believing everything you hear on the “boob tube”!
my work here is done.
Sorry to distract, but the diverse flavor of perspectives in this thread is exactly what I’m hoping to obtain for a new piece in our Idaho Falls magazine called, “Just Asking.” Here is the introduction as it will appear in our next issue, but I thought I’d give all of you a first crack at it:
“Like elsewhere, the local blogosphere has been ‘heating up’ in recent months regarding the subject of global warming—now often referred to as climate change. Is the earth heating up on a frighteningly sharp curve because of human activity? Is it all a bunch of hogwash? In 50 words or less, please share your thoughts in an email to steve@idahofallsmagazine.com.”
If you’re interested, please send me your thoughts. Again, sorry to distract from the ongoing discussion.
–Steve S.
IF Mag
Thanks Steve! I look forward to sending you my thoughts later on this evening.
For everyone else, take a moment to read this link and let it sink in. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086
CR67, that link was awesome. It hit on so many good points that point to the absurdity we are faced with by the politically correct and scientifically challenged greenies. I also liked the fact that it relies on other scientific studies from respected think tanks…not the UN body on climate change…which it is accurately pointed out is a political and not a scientific body of so called experts! Thanks for the link.
I am sending it out to all my friends and relatives!
Yessir, that was a great link. Amazing how a 19 year old college student knows more about global warming than the best scientists in the world.
It just goes to show that even a 19 y/o college student who wants to do a little investigating of his own, can easily debunk the whole “Man-made” global warming myth that your government is trying to feed you. All of the research he notes is readily available to everyone. People are just too lazy though and would rather believe everything they hear on tv from crooked polititians and government funded scientists.
Yesir it is amazing!
Hey Slim,
Could it be that Yessir is liberal? I thought that liberals didn’t practice ageism? Oh, well, I guess it is okay to discriminate based on age if you don’t like results. Good rebuttal to Yessir!
I agree. I know alot of really sharp young people. How refreshing that he took the time to compile this data that others (probably old fogeys) accumulated. lol
Yep, those evil gubmit scientists are out to get us all! Quick, somebody call Tom Cruise ’cause the whitecoats will come & drug us all into submission!
It’s all so obvious–just look at how all those gubmit scientists have been silenced by that science-hatin’ Dubya!
Wheee!
No, I’m a conservative. We are the ones who don’t practice ageism. Anyone with an agenda can easily compile a list of links to support that agenda. It doesn’t mean they’re right.
yeah you’re right ooohchild. I mean if one man like Jim Jones can lead over 900 people to take their own lives by drinking cyanide flavored Kool-Aid just by preaching to them over the course of a year ….Imagine what a hundred scientists being paid for by our government can do over the course of 15-20 years.
Hmmmm…..how silly me!
(and what is “gubmit” ? Oh I get it!!! Guess I need to study up on my ebonics) “my bad”!
holy racism ‘ooh_child’!!!! yowza!!! I am black; don’t believe I have ever said “gubmit” but thanks for the “ebonics” lesson for me and my kind……
ouch!
“yessir”, not sure you read the article; the author compiled sources (cited to throughout the article) and commentary and research of scientists who don’t believe global warming is man-made….
???? why the knee-jerk negative reaction? and why then are we all supposed to take “Al Gore, I invented the internet, was the inspiration for Love Story and only spend 30k amonth on power for my homes” at face value, without question?
…shouldn’t “real” science invite, even welcome, debate?
The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation. I am write a blog which gave complete information about Global Warming.
But what you fail to mention in your same article/advertisement for someone elses blog….is: in the paragraph beneath that one it also states, (and I quote) But mainstream scientists agree that the sun DOES have some influence on flucuations in the Earths temperature”. Correct answer!!Ding Ding Ding……what do we have for him Johnny!!??
It also notes in bold I might add….”Since 1985 that all possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming” to the earth. BUT…..their not telling you in this blog or study, that there are a half a dozen OTHER planets out there ALL experiencing this type of global change on their planets, extreme changes, and yet THOSE planets are not in our atmosphere as most of you may know.
Don’t these scientists realize that our earth revolves around the sun??? So how could ALL this solar activity miss earth only? Makes no sense.
So all you naysayers out there, how do you explain these changes going on to all these other planets of our solar system, when those planets are not affected by our carbon dioxide emissions? Hmmmm….makes ya wonder don’t it?
Really I would love for somebody to explain this one to me instead of just bashing my post or making a snide comment.
ditto to CR67…..also see this site which discusses the same data: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
in a slightly different political vein ha ha…..
the point is, there is no conclusive proof of manmade g.w.; as such, we are all able to have our own opinions on the subject, based on material we have read and measured according to political bias, etc. Can’t we stop arguing and just agree to disagree? It seems like if you don’t agree with Al Gore, you are “wrong”…..
I think everyone on this site agrees that recycling, re-using, drving a smaller car, etc., are all good things to do for the environment…..so why this need for everyone to accept Gore’s predictions?
*giggles about gubmit*
Ebonics, eh? That’s just the way my Okie red-neck cousins talk, when they get all up in arms about their “latest conspiracy”, usually involving science they refuse to understand.
Me, when I want to know about, say, the solar system, I’ll look to someone who studies them for a profession.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
“Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called “cherry picking”; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?”
The Bad Astronomer also points out the reasons why these observations aren’t necessarily tied to our Sun.
So, who are these people linking warming in our solar system to the Sun; are they also professional astronomers, or something else?
I still don’t know what to think on this subject.
On one hand are global warming believers, who are concerned we will all perish if we do not change our ways.
On the other hand are skeptics, who are concerned we are wasting our energy on global warming, energy that could be put to fixing other problems where there is not doubt of a problem.
Each side has science and evidence, and each side criticizes the other for having bad or skewed evidence. It’s difficult to understand and decide for non-scientific folks like me.
How about something fresh? Let’s try finding some meta information. For instance, are there statistics of the number of scientists who believe global warming is real, and how has that number changed over the past 10, 20 years?
If the number of believer scientists have grown dramatically over the years, then perhaps there is more to global warming. If the number has held steady as a percentage, or even declined, then perhaps there are other bigger problems we should focus on.
I agree 100% Joe; I just wish we could agree to disagree….and as long as we all agree that recycling, etc., is a good and positive thing to do, does it matter if we don’t buy into the whole Al Gore scenario??? If so, why does it matter????? Anyone??
I think your idea re: ’scientists by the numbers’ is a good one but inherently flawed because, in this day of internet and Google, any side of the debate can pad the numbers with “scientists” of any field with little or no valid credentials, publications, etc (reliance on the Christian “reconciling religion with science” website cited by one of the posters comes to mind)….without a standard definition of scientist, we will be back to square one……
I do like how you keep things civil on this board Joe…..keep up the good work and thanks for the forum…..
Good point about the padding of numbers, yeah I can see now how that could be unduly influenced.
Isn’t there scientific groups that have membership polls on global warming? Maybe we could look at this trend, if a scientific group could be found where their membership requirements are strict enough to only allow scientists who would have fully informed opinions on global warming? Any such groups?
I believe the warming of all these planets, including ours, isn’t necessarily and/or completely solar related, but the fact that climate change on our planet and many others has been going on since the beginning of time has got to say something.
These changes going on throughout the planets of our solar system just goes to prove, the warming and cooling of our earth can’t possibly be man made, but a natural occurence that’s been going on for billions of years.
Of course I still agree that we can all do our part to keep this planet healthy so as to leave it in better shape for our children and our childrens children, etc. I’m all for helping to control the polluting of this planet and the slowing down of all the deforestation of our rain forests, etc. I believe we REALLY need to look into hemp as an alternative product for cutting down hundreds of acres of forest each day. There are so many uses for hemp and it’s just not be utilized the way it should be.
I’m with Babs here….we must just agree to disagree, and just like the religion topic, most of our personal beliefs on this issue will not be swayed.
ooh_child, glad racism is funny to you!! equally offensive to call Southerners “rednecks” and assume they are all stupid……
It wasn’t racist, no one really, so your glee doesn’t apply to my use of “gubmit.” Glad I could lighten your day, though…
If I want to call my relatives rednecks, I guess I would know them better than you would.
I would like to have someone explain the logic of believing man couldn’t possibly be contributing to global warming, since the Earth has gone through warming periods in the past. Why does one automatically negate the other? Why can’t carbon emissions also contribute to warming? I’ve never understood the “either/or” false dichotomy set up by some detractors.
That is a good point.
It is difficult to imagine that man is causing all of the global warming when it appears to happen naturally.
It is difficult to imagine man is not aggravating global warming in the least, given the evidence and hints.
I suspect it will be something in the middle, that the Earth is warming, and that our actions are partly responsible. As in we are making it worse than it has to be?
What are the biggest global temperature aggravaters? Was Kyoto a bad idea, or did we miss a good opportunity?
If the global warming alarmists could change only two things to help global warming, what would they be? Perhaps fixing a few aggravating conditions could help the situation?
Guess we know now why ooohchild was banned from that other blog site. Ooohchild mentioned the other day that they just couldn’t understand why they were banned from this website, but if racist remarks like that are commonplace and in their everyday vocabulary, I can kinda understand now why they were banned.
Personally that kind of talk doesn’t bother me. I grew up with the “sticks and stones” philosophy, but it does bother some people. I think it’s just common courtesy to leave those types of racist remarks at home or between your own closenit group of friends. It’s just ashame that in this day and age, people still have feel the need to put others down in order to lift themselves up. Personally I think its a lack of self confidence in which one feels that its the only way they can express themselves. Its certainly not right to classify a whole race by trying to portray to this online community thats how all African Americans speak. It’s kinda sad that their family speaks like that too, but to each his own. I definately shows ones true lack of intelligence.
But then again, perhaps it was only meant to be a joke. If that was case, then it was simply in poor taste.
Back to the topic at hand….I agree with some of the others…..I agree to disagree with the doomsayers. I too believe global warming is a natrual occurence that is being blown out of proportion for monetary purposes.
I didn’t take ooh_child’s comment as racist. I think it is being blown way out of proportion. My colleagues and I sometimes talk about “taking care of bidness” and we sure don’t mean anything in a racist way. It’s just slang. Please don’t try to make something out of nothing.
As I said before Jeremiah, my comment wasn’t racist. If you refuse to deal with my point(s) & instead opt to try & paint me as racist, that could mean your argument may be pretty weak.
Care to answer my question about human activities & global warming? What’s the monetary gain, exactly?
We’ve all said something that did not come across the way we intended (boy I surely have), so let’s stop trying to analyze what was meant with that phrase. Live and learn kind of thing.
Let’s get back to the global warming discussion.
Again, if global warming believers could only get 3 things changed, what would they be, in order of priority?
Then we can discuss the effects of doing that, how difficult or expensive it would be vs. what we might get out of it.
What’s the monetary gain? Are you kidding me??? Do you honestly believe there’s no money being made with this whole global warming issue? WOW!
I’ll have to side with cr67 on this one. Are you serious oohchild? It’s really hard for me to believe that you’re that naive’. I’ve read some seemingly intelligent posts from you in the past, but this one really blew me away!
I mean if you’re really serious in your question and you really don’t think there’s money being made due to this whold global warming business. And I stress the word BUSINESS, because really….that’s what it is. A simple search online will yield thousands upon thousands of examples, all you have to do is look. But I’ll give you just a few.
Carbon Credits
Live Earth Concerts
Carbonfund.org (donations)
dagw.org (more donations by idiots)
The last site I listed is actually “Drummers Against Global Warming! DRUMMERS!!! Are you kidding me right now?? People from every walk of life that know how to throw together a website, are soliciting funds for “Global Warming”! There are literally thousands of sites all soliciting “donations” to help save the enviroment and/or to provide awareness to this global warming issue. And that’s just people trying to make a buck. That’s not including big business and governments.
Seriously though ooohchild, your thoughts & credibility on this whole issue just went out the window with that comment “What monetary gains”. Open your eyes man!
I still can’t believe you’re serious. I would have never thought that comment would have come out of your mouth.
Y’know, I could’ve assumed I knew what everyone meant by monetary gain, but I thought I’d let folks flesh out their arguments a bit. Sorry for asking a “dumb” question, oh wise ones!
As far as Slim’s list goes, thanks for at least indulging me with an answer.
Carbon Credits-Yep, that’s a biggy. This whole figuring out how to make business better & more profitable sure goes against the American Dream. I mean, let’s imagine all of the new industry, & jobs, & healthy workers contributing to our economy! We just can’t have it, I tell you!
Live Earth Concerts-So many taking up all of our precious time, to be sure. But I agree, these concerts are akin to the “Relay for Life” rallies across the country, for cancer prevention. The $ spent would do much more good if donated directly to the cause celeb being promoted.
Carbonfund.org (donations)
dagw.org (more donations by idiots)-
Sure, there’s always going to be people who latch on to a particular idea to make money for themselves. Does that mean the idea or cause has less credibility? Do televangelists negate the Christian message? Does PETA invalidate the reality of animal cruelty?
I recognize the monetary aspect of the issue. Does this mean we “throw the baby out with the bath?”
Good points. I think we’ve all been realizing lately there is a difference between the core issue and the folks trying to represent (advocate) the issue.
Sometimes the people advocating the issue can do more harm than good.
Is it their fault for being poor examples, or our fault for tying the issue to particular people?
Tell me something oohchild. Did any of the Live Earth concerts stop and/or prevent global warming? If anything, it left a larger “carbon footprint” in its wake!
Are any of these donation sites stopping and/or preventing global warming? No….their just taking your money and laughing their butts off!
Can you prove to me that carbon credits are stopping and/or preventing global warming? I bet you can’t, nor can anybody else. It’s just another way for the government to take your money.
Al Gores, Inconvienent Lie…..I mean Truth. Did that movie OR Al Gore stop and/or prevent global warming in any way shape or form?? Not so much! Al Gore is the biggest hipocrite of them all with his 30,000 dollar a month utility bill at his Nashville mansion! (but then again….he invented the internet, so what do I know!)
Incandescant light bulbs…..have they stopped and/or prevented global warming? not so much! All they did was make GE millions of dollars by charging the American public 4-5 dollars for a single light bulb. (when you can buy a 6 pack of standard bulbs for 1 and their twice as bright. Yeah…I admit, I’ve been suckered into buying them, thinking I was saving money on my electric bill. Haven’t seen any savings personally and my house is 40% darker because of it!
Prius automobile. Has this vehicle prevented and/or stopped global warming? not so much.
so you see…..the list goes on and on and on of money making opportunities for big business, government and people out to make a quick buck. Global Warming is a multi BILLION dollar a year industry.
I’d have to say slim is right….people need to open their eyes.
nobody’s answered the question about why does it matter, as long as we recycle, live greener, etc., if we believe the whole Al Gore ‘dog and pony show’ or not???? Sounds more like arrogance than activism…..anyone have a good answer to this?
Kyoto will never work without India or China on board and by all accounts, they will never sign on…..
ooh_child, …..whatever you intended (to make fun of poor people or uneducated people or southerners), as a black person I am offended by it….knew better than to expect an apology but to have you actually argue the point….wow!!
no one really: You’re absolutely right! Even though I don’t believe global warming is a man made occurence, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in helping to keep this planet clean and healthy for the future generations.
I think it’s great that people want to cut down on pollution and conserve energy and help the deforestation of our rain forests, I just don’t believe in all the government propoganda that revolves around it.
Point well made.
no one really, I’m sorry if you were offended by my comment. Still doesn’t make it, or me, racist.
Has anyone seen any data on the amount of CO2 emissions from wildfires? I’m curious as to how that emission level compares with human activities…
I’m glad you brought that question up justcurious! Few people realize that wildfires, volcanoes, etc produce more co2 emissions than humans do. Yet WE’RE the cause of global warming! yeeeeaaahhh ok!
The only problem with that question is, what if the wildfires are human caused? Many of them are. It sounds to me like some people will seek any cop-out to accepting human responsibility for the worsening condition of the planet.
And even though many “natural” sources produce CO2 doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t accept some responsibility for keeping the air cleaner. I wonder what percentage of “wildfires” are caused by humans.
Time out – casual observer – you don’t know anything about my position on this topic… I’m looking for data, not judgement of my question, thank you…
I’m looking for ratio data – ie, ratio of natural emissions to human emissions. This particular year has been rough with wildfires – human caused or not, we will have a hard time “preventing” those events – even if manmade…
I agree that we should be responsible with emissions and air quality. I’m just looking for some perspective to guage the level of difference we can make…
Time out yourself – JustCurious – I didn’t say I did know your position on this topic. Or that I cared what your position was either way. All I said was that how can you measure CO2 from wildfires and not attribute at least part of the source as being human caused? If you’re comparing wildfire emissions to “human activites” there is some overlap that would fall into both categories.
Not true…the majority of wildfires are caused by lighting, not by somebodys campfire getting out of control.
.
wow, ‘casual observer’, I think your comment, pasted above, spells it all out; j.c. was merely presenting an issue and you blasted him or her…..that is the problem some of us are seeing on this issue; if you don’t accept manmade global warming wholeheartedly, you are “wrong”. End of discussion. Why can’t there be middle ground? The science is definitely not settled….can’t, as has been discussed before, we agree that recycling, reducing and re-using are good ideas for our own reasons?
Your statement that you don’t care about anyone’s opinion but your own makes me wonder what your motivation is for posting here????? Why even read these boards, then????
Just wondering why we can’t civilly and rationally discuss this important issue…..
Babs, I re-read my posts and I didn’t blast anyone. That’s the pot calling the kettle black. All I asked was this: how do you distinguish between natural wildfires and human caused wildfires? I’ll make an example that many of you can relate to. More than 5000 acres was burned in the Idaho Falls foothills, probably caused by fireworks. If you try to measure the amount of CO2 caused by fires, and compare to the amount caused by “human activity” it would hardly be fair when some of the fires are caused by human activity. That’s what you called “middle ground.” A gray area. That’s where I was coming from.
And if you would please stop putting words in my mouth, I did not say that my opionion was the only one that matters. Read my post again. All I said was that I hadn’t stated in my previous post what I assumed JC’s position was, or that I cared. I didn’t say I didn’t care, only tried to make it clear that somebody else’s opinion didn’t matter in regard to this particular question. I didn’t say whether I believed global warming was true or not and what I tried to express was that I wasn’t going to bicker with anyone else about their opinion, not that I didn’t value it. Please don’t ask me to be civil, all I did was express an opinion. I am not the one who made personal attacks.
Would you believe that forest fires actually cause global cooling?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117130944.htm
“Boreal forest fires release greenhouse gases that contribute to climate warming, but inseparable changes in the forest canopy cause more sunlight to be reflected back into space during spring and summer for many decades after fire,” said James Randerson, associate professor of Earth system science at UCI and lead author of the study. “This cooling effect cancels the impact of the greenhouse gases, so the net effect of fire is close to neutral when averaged globally, and in northern regions may lead to slightly colder temperatures.”
Also, fire seasons in many areas are extended, due to warmer temperatures worldwide.
‘ooh_child’ – thank you for responding with DATA and INFORMATION. That was what I was trying to get by posing my question – dialog on DATA – not emotion.
‘Casual Observer’ – by stating “It sounds to me like some people will seek any cop-out to accepting human responsibility for the worsening condition of the planet” you are implying that people who have questions – and seek the truth – are looking for a cop-out. If you didn’t have a response to a request for DATA, maybe you should obstain from the posting…
One thing to keep in mind with Ooohchilds link. It clearly states that “it MAY” lead to slightly cooler temperatures. NOT, “it DOES” lead or “has been proven” to lead, or “definately’ leads to cooler temperatures.
But thanks for the link anyways. It’s nice to read supplied data even it if is a “theory” on their part.
You’re most welcome.
Remember when it comes to science nothing is proven. Theories give an explanation of observed phenomena, and are subject to change based on new observations.
Gravity is a theory, too. That doesn’t mean the jury’s still out as to its validity.
JC, I’m sorry you took offense, that is not what I meant. You want DATA. DATA is comprised of statistics. How can you compare smoke from fires to human pollution when some of the smoke from fires is human caused pollution? It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what I am saying. If you are really “seeking the truth” you will need to take the portion of smoke that is a result of human activity, subtract it from the total pollution of smoke from wildfires, then combine it with the other human caused pollution.
My comment about a cop-out referred to the trend of people who try to disprove a theory by blaming the effect on something else, sometimes to the point of grasping at straws. That’s all. No personal disrespect intended. I’m sorry I can’t give you the information you wanted, but nobody has given me the information I wanted yet either. Somebody please explain how to separate the amount of smoke from human caused fires from the equation. That’s all I’m asking too, is some data and information, not bashing.
If you want real data on what is going on with global warming, this is not the site to find it on. Try a search engine and start reading. All you will get here is someone else’s opinion…and you place an incredible amount of faith in them that they have the RIGHT answer.
I guess that is that last of lookin then?
Sorry lookin, didn’t know we were supposed to have PhD’s to discuss anything here. It seems to me that this is one of the problems of many elitist movements, including environmentalists, that the people are too stupid to have an opinion that matters because some guy in an ivory white tower is spouting off the solutions and we should just automatically believe them.
This site doesn’t proclaim to be a one stop shopping for data on global warming or anything else.Please take it easy on us lowly serfs we are trying to stay current on technology and the like!
Yeah that is a good point. Please note this site’s tagline is the Idaho Falls Discussion site. With all the conflicting statistics and “proof” out there, who has the time or inclination to go through it all, and for what? So you know you are right and then you have to convince the rest of the world?
I see discussions like these as healthy because a lot of folks (like me) want to understand more but do not know where to start, or who to trust. All we can do is talk about it, kick it around, try to use our own logic.
This topic is particularly illustrative. I am more and more convinced the answer is somewhere in the middle, if only because both sides claim to have solid proof that they are completely right. There could not be so much “proof” of both sides being completely right, could there?
Quoting Joe:
1. Do you think carbon offset credits have a substantial positive effect on CO2 emmissions?”
Resulted in:
60% No, absolutely not
21% Probably not
16% Probably
4% Yes, absolutely
=81% negative perception of carbon credits.
I don’t believe we’ve fully discussed this topic yet. First of all, the question is not “do you agree with the idea of requiring industry to buy carbon credits,” but rather “do carbon credits do anything to curb CO2 emissions?”.
The answer is a resounding maybe. Take a look at the clean air act and its 1990 amendments (link: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaq_caa.html/peg/index.html). The EPA has managed SOx and NOx credit (they call them allowances) trading for years. SOx and NOx are the principle pollutants responsible for acid rain. Coal plants are major emitters of these pollutants. The EPA works with industry and scientists to set the total amount of credits available at a level that reduces pollution, and allows businesses flexibility. So, because the EPA has done such a good job, you don’t hear a big fuss about SOx and NOx trading in the news. It has worked to cut our total emissions in half, and has spurred industry to create new technologies. So, CO2 credits could work in much the same way, but only if the EPA gets it right. If they give out too many credits, the CO2 level will never decrease (but lawyers and bankers will get rich off of the trading). If they give out too few, we could see a major energy crisis from coal plants being forced to close. But if they get it just right, like they did with other pollutants, then there is no doubt we’d see a similar decrease. Seriously, the EPA has had plans ready for CO2 trading for decades – they are just waiting for congress to pull the trigger.
What do you guys think? If in fact you think CO2 emissions are a problem, is this a good solution? Should it be a carbon copy (pun intended) of the SOx and NOx credit trading program?
Just FYI, found this on the ISJ blogsite, credited to Rick Larsen:
“Man is indeed contributing to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are roughly 34 parts per million of natural CO2 in the environment. Man is contributing roughly 1.7 parts per million. This means our CO2 contribution amounts to .00000001 of the atmospheric composition. I don’t know about you, but to me that seems to be pretty small.
AGW advocates have pointed to the NASA temperature data as the primary source for their trend in global warming. With the modification of that data, the trend no longer exists. Here are the NASA data links http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and here is an article by the Toronto scientist who found the problem and had NASA change their temperature data downward http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/does_hansens_error_matter_gues.htm
l . Here’s another perspective on the correction as released by the Drudge report http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/nasas_global_warming_misinform.
html . Here is the site for Steve McIntyre, the principal scientist who discovered the problems. The site is loaded with scientific analysis of the raw data http://www.climateaudit.org/ .
And with the invalidation of Michael Mann’s software that generated the now infamous “hockey stick” chart, the AGW advocates really have nothing scientifically to make their case with. Here is the MIT Technology Review article describing the programming problems with Mann’s software http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ .
So in short, yes. The AGW argument is dogmatic and not scientific at its foundation. With the correction of James Hansen and NASA’s warmest year’s list, and Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” chart discredited, the primary arguments of the AGW advocates have been discredited.”
I had heard about the corrections made to the data after some exposure by McIntyre, but hadn’t seen these websites yet.
Certainly adds some fuel to the fire, hey?
I think its interesting how everyone likes to bash Bush on this topic yet no one ever brings up his house in Texas which is soooo green. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php
http://i11.tinypic.com/66y0yo6.jpg
Read this interesting blurb on Glenn Beck. He pointed out some new legislation proposed by Rep. John Dingell of Michigan. Dingell wants to impose new taxes to help pay for eliminating global warming by imposing gas taxes starting at 50 more cents a gallon. He also wants to impose carbon tax emission taxes of $50 per ton of gases emmitted. Reading the article, it seems the government sends you the bill for what they think you emitted for the year.
The really interesting part is that these taxes collected supposedly for the purpose of eliminating global warming actually goto road and airplane trust funds (more roads, more runways)…..some funds goto mass transit, but it seems that this is more of an attempt to raise taxes under the guise for protecting the environment when it really does nothing actually curb emissions. This bolsters the concern that global warming (as an issue) is being hijacked for political purposes to garner more money for the government—and the party in power to hand out goodies and get elected versus actually solving problems at hand.
Check out the link:
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10032007a.shtml
The press is saying that Al Gore and all global warming scientists have been vindicated by Gore being awarded the Nobel prize.
What do you think?
I have a question for you Joe: If the press is saying Gore and his supporting scientists are vindicated are they reporting what someone else is saying, or are they making a call on their own to vindicate their own political preferences?
Interestingly, the fact that Gore won the Nobel Prize doesn’t change some of the inaccuracies in his movie.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1
A recent ruling by a British Court pointed out these inaccuracies and made it clear that the movie was indeed ebellished at certain points. No doubt this was well received by Hollywood and landed him an Oscar for stretching substance to make his point beyond accepted facts.
On a second point, look at some of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Price: Jimmy Carter 2002, Kofi Annan and the United Nations in 2001, and Yassir Arrafat in 1994. Many of these picks were questionable at the time, and laughable now. Affafat was a terrorist. Annan was stealing monies from UN programs and getting his relatives rich as a result. Carter was a buffoon in office with his malaise speeches and his poor dealings with Islamic fantacism (Iran). Carter currently also supports Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. While he might be described as an honorable man, his judgment and method for dealing with thugs past and present is as questionable as the Nobel Committee itself. Nothing much is going to change as a result. This is clearly another media created story. Now, they have another topic to write about that doesn’t mean much to the vast majority. IMO, most peoples views are not going to change as a result of Gore getting the Nobel Prize.
Excellent point Mike!
The pseudoscience quack fiction of Brocaw “Global Warming: Need to Know” is quite similar to Gore’s potitical propaganda scam piece in that it’s all BS and no science in spite of both claiming science to be behind it. It’s not at all unlike the “creation science” proponents claiming science supports their purely antiscience methods.
“Need to Know” leads the viewer, if ignorant of the actual science, to believe certain things. A few of these are:
1) That CO2 is earth’s major greenhouse gas. I reality water vapor makes up 98%+ and manmade CO2 isn’t even enough to be relevant. The only mention in the propaganda piece of water vapor was a casual list or other greenhouse gasses placing water vapor 4th or 5th on the list as if it’s not significant.
2) Hurricain Katrina was unusual strength. In reality, there was nothing at all unusual about Katrina other than the fact that it happened to hit New Orleans. Had Camille gone just a little to the left in ‘68 New Orleans would have been wiped out, it was far stronger than Katrina, as were many others over the past century.
3) That feedback loops are all positive. The propaganda piece mentions increased water vapor from melting as a feedback increasing the warming but never mentions the vastly more relevant increase in earth’s reflectivity due to more water in the atmosphere.
I could go on and on, but the point is that there’s no science at all to the program. It should be on the sci-fi channel instead of Discovery.
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
What I’ve been saying all along! Global warming is the greatest scam in history. It’s amazing what some people will believe!
No more amazing than what some people won’t believe.
yeah, but people are more willing to believe whatever they hear from whatever source they hear it, then visa versa. Instead or really looking into a topic, they’ll beliveve some hairbrained cockamamie video that a washed up vice president puts out!
But for every article written for one side, you can find an article written for the other side.
There are other highly intelligent people who agree with Gore. Are you going to insult them and call them names too? That really helps prove your point.
All one has to do is look at Gore’s carbon footprint and it’s plain to see he’s a hipocrite and fear monger only out to make a buck on this scam.
What’s sad is all the millions of people that believe what he and those government funded scientists tell us.
Man, I am shocked 007 and I actually agree on something. Nifty!
I know, imagine that!
There was a great show on the History Channel yesterday about Global Warming. It noted that our earth has been warming and cooling drastically for millions of years and whats occuring now is nothing new, and it certainly isn’t caused by man. The biggest cause of greenhouse gases right now is the natural release of methane from underneath the earths surface. Right now as we discuss this, underneath the water off the coast of California, there are huge eruptions of methane gas bubbling up under the ocean and rising up through the atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop and it is merely our earth changing like it’s done for millions of years.
All this mass hysteria that Al Gore and our government is spewing is merely their way of creating fear and attempting to profit from it.
I noted the founder of The Weather Channel came out against Gore too. I was reading a book by John Stossel the other night. He noted that the media made a big deal when 1700 scientists came out and jumped on board with Gore, but a larger number-5800 signed on against Global Warming-and it didn’t garner a peep. This once again shows the media’s true colors and bias against debate.
We see the ecology folks use a Bushism on us, “Either you’re for us or your against us.” There can be no debate….no questioning. What ever happened to the scientific method?
What this is coming down to is another means to perpetuate class warfare, divide and conquer the masses to make money off scare mongeringand gain political power. Mr. Gore’s creation of companies to buy and sell carbon credits is quite a capitalistic enterprise. I have to give him credit for being able to buy and sell a “commodity” that has never existed before….it is interesting to see the eco folks try and use the free market to achieve their ends when for years they have spewed venom about evil capitalists. I guess when it comes to lining their own pockets it’s okay for them—just not for the rest of us. Herein lies yet more hypocrisy on their part(s)and another reason to seriously call into question the threat of global warming.
Check out oism.org
This site is the Petition Project. It consists of approximately 19,000 (yes 19,000) signatories opposing the supposed consensus that global warming is caused by humans and rebukes the hijacking of science for political means.
The following is taken from the oism.org website:
“Listed here are the approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with MS or PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.”
Amazing that this doesn’t get reported by Scott Pelley on 60 minutes, but they put one rsearcher on and proclaim the sky is falling.
That’s awesome Mike! Thanks for the link.
I really hope people start to wake up and realize these bogus claims made my Al Gore and others. This subject has been severly BOP’d! (Blown Out of Proportion!)
And it’s time the general public stops buying into it. Literally!
The global warming issue and all things related to it is a billion dollar a year industry. And people like Gore are getting filty rich off of the ignorance and gullibility of your averge Jon Q Citizen.
Yeah, I see where Gore joined a San Fransisco capital investment firm. They specialize in investing in companies that produce clean energy technologies and other global friendly products. He looks to clean up financially with his salary. However, he did say he was going to donate it to a global warming consulting firm….which he probably owns stock in just like the company he set up for carbon credits.
I came across this link with a story about researchers that found some interesting reasons why Arctic Ice was melting….and it was NOT attributed to global warming!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311753,00.html
Here is something I do not understand, and an example is found in that story.
On one hand, I hear global warming opponents saying there is no global warming, no reduced ice, etc.
Then it seems I hear the same folks saying the reason we have global warming or reduced ice is because of natural patterns, etc., but not because of man-made sources.
I hear them saying first there is nothing happening, then saying what is happening is explained by natural events.
How can it be both?
Joe, I liked your question. It lead me to wonder about that as well. I must confess that I looked at several sites and what I came up left me as confused about the science at work right now.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
This site compared sea ice in both poles–melting and creation of the ice. Their conclusion in the press release:
“All of this leads us to ask: why has the melt season progressed so quickly? The answer lies in a combination of high temperatures, changes in the age and thickness of ice, and fluctuations in atmospheric circulations.”
There does not seem to be a definitive answer as either side would like us to believe. The one thing that struck me was the fact that Arctic ice at the North Pole is not regenerating as fast as it should have since they have been measuring this in 1979. However, I think it is important to look at the history of global temperature changes since the early 1900’s as a guide of what we should expect as being normal planetary changes before the alarm bells and whistles start goin off.
It is easy to see why scientists don’t agree on this topic once you start reading all the data and seeing how it is interpreted by a human set of eyes.
Hello all. For our January issue, we are publishing some responses to a simple request I posted here a while back. It was for commenters to share their views for publication in Idaho Falls magazine. Just wanted to say thanks. The results, I think, show a fairly good balance of opinion. What really blows me away is the VOLUME of comments in this thread. This issue certainly strikes a chord. It’s almost as intense (at some points) as the most divisive social issues. Again thanks to all of you for sharing your views. For future reference, please feel free to shoot me an email at steve@harrispublishing.com and let me know what’s on your mind.
Regards,
Steve Smede
I.F. mag
Cool. Should be interesting to read.
October 2007 issue of Outside Magazine, article by Juliet Eilperin about ‘An Inconvenient Expert’ MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen. fascinating article
Joe Pehrson, thanks for commenting on that article; very eye-opening! Here is the link:
http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html
Note: this MIT scientist mentions Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”, which Joe Vandal read, which, I think, prompted this thread in the first place……
Another link to the “inconvenient MIT scientist” ha ha: here is testimony presented in a senate hearing in 2001:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
….wonder why the Goracle never mentioned him?????
why is everyone so silent on this issue suddenly? Are they all too busy beating up Mike on the impeachment issue????
I still haven’t gotten a clear answer why conservatives alternate between saying there is no global warming and saying global warming is natural and back and forth.
It cannot be both, yet I hear both of these arguments from the same conservative sources, depending on the day.
Joe, your assumption is faulty–which leaves you scratching your head about “conservatives”. You can’t label all conservatives as waffling back and forth anymore than you can label all Democrats as being against the war in Iraq but wanting to fight the war on terror. Each individual whether they be Democrat or Republican has their own set of views. In the global warming arena, some see no global warming at all, i.e. no mass ice melt or major temp rises to cause them to believe a catastophe is in process. Other conservative (as well as Democrats) see natural global warming processes that ebb and flow based on natural phenomenon, i.e. sea current changes and other seasonal changes that are not man made.
Now, I will grant you that currently we are seeing some interesting bed fellows get involved in the global warming issue. General Electric and Conoco-Phillips are jumping on board the Gore bandwagon. They testified at Congressional hearings last week to support carbon credits. People in the global warming arena are cheering this move. However, a closer look reveals this move is less about care for the planet and more about positioning themselves for the best result in the future.
Some of these companies are hedging bets that carbon credits will be implemented and when it does they want to be first in line to get goodies handed out to them by the pols. As a result, they figure that if they have carbon credits and their competitors don’t they will be able to stay in business and produce products while their competitors are forced to delay production or go out of business. This supposed friendly move will have the unintended effect of creating government sanctioned monopolies based on mandated governmental environmental regulation. In turn, this will increase consumer prices to higher levels.
If you take this far enough on the ideological perspective this move will cut production, raise prices and decrease demand on goods and services–this is what many on the left prefer, not only on ecological grounds, but from the perspective of diminishing economic freedom (i.e. capitalism) to subplant a socialist agenda of government control–because they know what is better for us. We don’t tolerate government control or promotion of religion, yet are we really ready to hand more power over to government regulators in the name of saving the planet?
Here’s a link to a very interesting proposal scientists are discussing:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/192
And here’s a link to the discussion I followed to get the link:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=2057&m=1
Mike, I’d love to see you register over there & join their debate. I think you could a lot from those folks.
Well I only seem to only hear these two arguments from conservative camps. Liberal camps all seem to believe global warming is happening AND it is caused by man.
The conservative camps seem to waffle between saying nothing is warming vs. the warming is natural. This cannot work! If you way the warming is natural, then it makes me wonder why you just said there is no warming, which makes me wonder about the entire position. It seems those who are saying both of these arguments are just trying to fight the argument any way they can, without sticking to a logical position.
Forget I said conservatives then, what about these two arguments which oppose each other logically?
Is global warming happening or not?
Is global warming human caused or not?
Which argument is it?
Hi Joe,
I am not a conservative but I will throw my take on the issue in to the mix (let the attacks begin! ding ding ding!): I have stated all along, that I believe that some “global warming” is happening; but that, based on what I have read, it is a natural and cyclical phenomenon, which has happened before and will happen again. I think the problem is that Gore hyped it as a critical, life-changing series of events!!! which would alter our planet within the next 50 years!! Send money NOW! ha ha when, really, the article I cited above, as well as Crichton’s well-footnoted book, indicate that such radical change is not imminent (ie, Katrina was just a hurricane that happened to hit shore; stronger hurricanes have existed yet have not hit shore…Kyoto will have no appreciable effect on “global warming”, as the biggest polluters refuse to be bound to it, etc….) And before anyone jumps all over me, this is taken from the “Outdoor” magazine article I cited above. I am not a scientist. I don’t claim to be one. However, I have learned over the years that it might be better to look at the calmer, more reasoned analysis on certain issues than the hyped up “the sky is falling!” knee-jerk reaction to possibly misinterepreted data: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
see also:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/11/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gores-Documentary.php
So, yes, Joe, according to the experts, some warming is occuring; however, also according to the experts, it is a pattern of cyclical weather changes, and not “man made” nor as dire as Al Gore would have us believe.
BTW: Mike’s quote: “Each individual whether they be Democrat or Republican has their own set of views”.
Exactly.
Whatever happened to the pronouncement in Newsweek magazine in 1975? that the planet was approaching a global ice age? The alarm bells rang then in conjunction with Earth Day in April that the planet was in peril. Last I checked we weren’t frozen……….
Maybe since Gore didn’t get the credit he thought he deserved for creating the internet he thought he should create something else….hysteria over global warming!
What is the difference between Ted Kennedy and George Bush Sr? How about their TRUE belief in wind power.
Bush Sr. just had a large windwmill installed on his personal property. It produces over 400 kilowatts per month. Ted Kennedy fought to keep wind power generators away from his Hyannisport estate. Apparently, environmental concerns are okay for Kennedy until they encroach on his property. What a hypocrite!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312433,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312490,00.html
This is an interesting little article about the United Nations Climate Change Report that Mr. Gore has been pushing hard. It makes the case that we should not hand the keys to the American economy over to the UN due to alarmist fears put out. It also points out the same UN just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar artificially inflating AIDS deaths for political gain. It also notes that the UN would have us believe if we don’t act in the next 7 years to curb C)2 emissions over 1/4 of earth’s species are doomed. Check it out. It also dispells some of the myths of CO2 and temperature correlations that have been pushed hard.
Interesting tidbit
http://www.polkonline.com/stories/120407/opinion_Gore.shtml
….never heard of the word “overrepresentation”…hmmmmm….
Awesome link! Thanks Babs
Just watch. And listen. Then discuss.
What am I watching & listening for? Nothing’s there! Do you have a link instead?
Did you hear the garbage they were spewing on the news NOW?? Now their blaming divorced parents for contibuting more to global warming! Because they now have two homes instead of one, use more fuel driving to see their children, etc etc. It’s getting so ridiculous it’s not even funny!
I heard the other day San Fransisco is trying to ban the use of fireplaces in the home now. Stating the burning of wood in fireplaces is having a major impact on our environment!! Give me a break. It’s getting to be so absurd, you can’t watch any network or cable news station anymore without being bombarded with the fears of global warming. Even the weather channel, has gone overboard with this global warming garbage. it’s definately out of control!
Ridiculous video. Just anther geek spewing nonsense.
How about this Wiki article? I think everyone’s argument is in here one way or another. Comments?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
that video kinda seemed desperate.
Check out his other videos, they’re all like that. He is a credible science teacher. It’s just his style of teaching. I thought it was quite entertaining, and risk is a great way to look at the issue.
That’s what I was thinking.
He’s a “Bill Nye science guy” wannabe.
The Jan/Feb 2008 Idaho Falls Magazine raised the global warming topic. They kindly referenced this article and subsequent discussion, and printed some letters from their reader in response to the question about global warming.
Has any new evidence emerged to suggest global warming is real or not?
I find it hard to believe in global warming when I or look outside, i mean haven’t many states been having the coldest winters in years? I actually have another theory but I don’t have any proof so I’m not even going to bring it up, just something in my own little mind.
hi music girl, glad to read your comments as it is nice to have a fresh new voice added to the mix….I would love to hear your theory; remember, these comments are all OPINIONS, not hard facts, so let’s hear it!
the only “new” thing I have seen on the whole GWdebate (in answer to Joe’s comment) is this, a very witty New York Times piece on “selective” weather gathering:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html
Haha, its really quite outrageous, but I’ll share anyway. In my earth science class a few years ago I remember our teacher mentioning that we have scientific proof that the north and south poles have switched multiple times throughout the years, if that makes sense, like north became south and vice versa. Well perhaps that is why Florida is seeing the coldest winter in years but Idaho almost seems warm for our winters? just a thought that I found interesting, sure how or why it happened, but it has happened, and if its happened more than once before, won’t it happen again, what would stop it?
I dont know about that scientific proof your teacher spoke of. The north pole has always been the north pole and visa versa. not to mention Idaho has recieved more snow so far this year then in the past 10 years, so I don’t know how you think it’s warmer this year. As for Florida, they get a deep freeze that ruins crops every 5-6 years. The fact of the matter is, the earth has always gone through periods of extreme cold and severe drought for billions of years. Just recently, well some 10,000 years ago, all of north america was covered by a glacier.
The problem is, the doomsayers would have you believe man is the cause of the earth warming, which is quite amusing to me, since we as humans emit carbon dioxide every time we exhale. So according to them, humans are polluting the world just by breathing. Lets also remember that automobiles are barely a hundred years old. So the fact that north america’s glacier has melted away, was no fault of our own but the earths natural cycle.
All I can say is you’re still young so don’t believe everything you hear. Keep an open mind and do your own research.
Music_girl is correct. There is evidence in the geologic record (rock core samples) that indicates the poles have swapped numerous times. The process appears to occur at random, every few hundred thousand years. And the poles are constantly wandering around. The north pole is now several miles away from where it was during the first arctic expedition by Amundsen. It’s currently headed toward Siberia at a rate of about 25 miles per year.
Here’s a Canadian Geological Survey map of the current location:
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/northpole_e.php
There’s also a good article there about pole swapping.
Even if that’s the case, that’s proof enough that man HAS NOT been the cause of global warming. We never have and we never will be. Anyone who’s done any research whatsoever regarding this issue knows that our earth has been constantly changing (warming & cooling) for millions of years.
End of discussion.
Not to say we can’t all do our best to stop pollution, but there’s nothing man can do that will change the actual temp of the earth.
Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows: If the carbon dioxide level from Lawdome, Antarctica http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature since 1880 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and earth temperature from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If Lawdome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to ±1.5ºC (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998. As shown at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf ,for most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put American freedom and prosperity at risk.
Hi Aunt Rose, I agree with you and believe that it is always smart to reduce, reuse and recycle; I do all three religiously, even though I do not believe in manmade global warming.
I find it quite interesting that nobody is talking about the latest findings in the global warming hoax! It seems that the 4 main weather stations across the globe that track our weather have recently informed us that there is in fact NO global warming going on, but actually global cooling. All over the world there have been reports of a decrease in global temperatures and we’ve had the coldest winter in history worldwide in 50 years!
I never fell for this whole “man-made global warming” hoax and it’s quite sad to know that much of the world did. Now that Al Gore and everyone that jumped on his bandwagon have egg on their face, why aren’t we hearing from them about these findings?? Why isn’t your nightly news talking about it? I’ll tell you why. Because no matter what we’ve found, these doomsayers are going to fight this tooth and nail because they will refuse to admit they were wrong in causing a worldwide panic over nothing. Not to mention all the billions of dollars they look to lose over such information. Yet we still continue to hear almost nightly on the news, about all this “green” crap. A new “green” spa has opened up in Wyoming, carbon credits, everyone spending outrageous amounts of money to convert their businesses to “green” environmentally friendly blah blah blah!! All for what?? ALL because of this man-made global warming hoax.
I’m sure many of you will say “but it’s still better that we try and take care of our precious fragile earth”. What will we leave our poor children and their childrens children. People, I’ve got a newsflash for ya….our earth is NOT fragile. Quite the opposite. It’s more resiliant than we could ever imagine. But no…..our SUV’s are causing this hole in the ozone layer and our oceans are going to cover Florida and California and our glaciers are melting. OH NO!! It’s time we stop buying into the doomsayers, and stop lining the pockets of people like Al Gore and the rest of these fanatics.
It’s one thing to be conscieous (sp?) of our earth and do what we can not to litter and pollute any more than is necessary. But lets stop going overboard in our thinking that we could possibly do anything to destroy this earth. Believe it or not….we’re not that powerful! The earth has been here for billions of years and will be here for billions more after we’re all gone. Stop making your lives more difficult than they have to be because idiots like Al Gore tell you “the sky is falling”!
So lets here YOUR thoughts? (or haven’t you heard yet?) Not many people I know have heard these new findings, because our nightly news isn’t reporting it. Go figure.
You don’t really want to hear my thoughts because I disagree with most of what you said. Post #303 shows the kind of hostility, name calling, disrespect and condescending attitude you harbor for those who disagree with you. I’m not taking your bait this time but maybe if you want to have a civil discussion sometime that would be great. Have a nice day!
Calling Al Gore an Idiot is “hostile”? Wow!
OoooooK….sounds like somebody is a little sensitive. Perhaps I should have sugar coated it and not used such “disrespect” as you call it. If you look at the majority of my past posts, you’d see I don’t attack anybodys elses beliefs or opinions. I may debate them like everyone else here does, but I don’t attack. You’re going to believe what you want to believe whether I do or not. That’s just part of life. What do I care if you believe Al Gore over what scientists have discovered. All I did was bring up an old topic and post new information. You can either join in the discussion or not. Won’t hurt my feelings either way.
You have a great wknd now yahear?
(condesending???….yeahhhhh ok!)
One more thing before I go….please read the “community guidelines”. If Joe thought I was any of what you said I was in post 304, I wouldn’t be posting on this site. He would have banned me a long time ago.
later
Don’t be scared to post your thoughts on the actual topic, instead of making a complete post regarding how you feel about me. Trust me, I don’t loose any sleep at night because of what people think about me, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the actual topic.
Ok, CR67, you’re usually pretty even handed, but on this one you do show some hostility.
I suspect that global warming is more than most of us really understand, given that scientists are on both sides of this fence. (Hey, they usually are on both sides, because healthy skepticism is paramount in science).
I don’t know for sure who is right, but I do know that if we decide that we don’t need to do anything, and it turns out that Al Gore was correct, we’re in for a lot of pain (okay, maybe most of you and my grandkids because I’ll be long departed). Whereas, if it turns out that we went to all that trouble for nothing, well, better safe than sorry.
Isn’t that why the LDS church advocates food storage? Be prepared and plan for the worst. The doomsday seed storage in Norway? Be prepared and plan for the worst.
Look how long folks have been advocating recycling, and then look to see how many actually do it faithfully and correctly. I just don’t see that many changes being made abruptly by the global warming coalition, to infringe on our way of life just yet.
You could be right. But I haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me, yet. One cold winter does not a pattern break.
Peace out. I gotta go hug some cold trees.
I thought it was neat that Aberdeen also has one of those doomsday seed storage facilities. They made such a big deal about the Norway one though, and Aberdeen’s has apparently existed for several years. Is Aberdeen’s pretty small in scope then? Maybe they should expand?
I stumbled on this site and I must say some of these discussions are fascinating. I believe that some human caused climate changes are happening. It’s hard for me to believe that millions of tons of pollutants in our air and water do not have a negative effect.
I saw the news report about the fascinating seed storage place in Aberdeen. I had no idea it was there but it sounds like a pretty big deal. They keep seeds for emergencies in case a crop is wiped out or diseased or something. They said most of the seeds come from outside the country and they will stay good for up to 20 years. Maybe the Norway place will keep them longer since I think they will be frozen there.
I laughed when I read a few posts back where the person said these gems (among others!):
global warming hoax
doomsayers
egg on their face
worldwide panic over nothing
green crap
green environmentally friendly blah blah blah
idiots
sky is falling
And then ask what we think?
There’s an intelligent discussion for you. No inflammatory rhetoric there. So we really have global cooling and there’s a conspiracy to keep it hush hush? Alrighty then.
Hi “passin thru”; just curious, why is calling “global warming” a “hoax” so funny?? If you have read all the posts here, you will see that the topic really is about whether MAN is “causing” global warming; the word “hoax” simply applies to those making money off the frenzy of people eager to buy carbon credits, etc.
Moreover, I think the jury is still WAY out on whether or not a. global warming is happening and b. whether or not it is “man made” and c. whether or not our little country can have any effect, assuming GW is manmade, given that the largest pollutors on earth are not planning to stop anytime soon.
I happen to think that any periods of warming or cooling are cyclical, natural occurences: my opinion, based on all the information currently available.
Here is a link to a wonderful NYTimes piece (I cited it above) that lays it all out far better than I.
I must also add that (according to those scientists that don’t believe in man-made global warming) that global cooling is much more damaging to the environment and our world in general. What what do you think will happen? Will Al Gore jump ship and try to profit off of global cooling now?
Obviously some people don’t like my wording. ei: hoax, doomsayers, etc. But it IS a hoax (like Babs noted), when so many people are trying to profit off of others because of global warming.
I watched a program on Discovery this weekend regarding the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl. The worst man made disaster ever in history. 25 years since the meltdown the place is a haven for tons of wildlife, plants, etc. Even insects and & birds once thought extint are now thriving in this area. The toxic levels in the soil are still too high for humans to return but the point is, the earth is repairing itself, like it has for billions of years and like it will for billions of years after we’re all gone.
If you want to believe all the doom & gloom you hear on the news regarding this so called global warming garbage, that’s your perogative. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am. But I for one am not falling for it.
CR67, I also don’t know exactly what’s happening, and can only rely on others to do the studies and present the data. The interesting thing to me is that I think you are missing the broader point of the fear behind global warming ‘destroying the Earth’…
In Chernobyl’s long climb back from the brink, the Earth itself is undergoing repair. The plant/animal life forms will adapt and grow (gee, it’s evolution in action) and some types will make it, some will not.
But will MAN make it under those conditions? Man still can’t survive at Chernobyl, no matter how vibrant/alive the Earth’s attempts to heal itself.
I wonder if mankind will make it through the next climactic change, even if it’s cyclical and not man-made. I’m thinking, not many will.
But I’m still not buying it that I can do all the damage possible and it will have NO or very little impact on my descendents, when combined with every one else on Earth doing exactly the same thing.
I’d like to try to leave my environment a little better than it was when I found it. I’d like to convince others to do the same.
And I said all of that without using inflammatory language.
With current technology there is no way to definitively prove man is or is not the cause of global warming. The fact is that climate is a chaotic system and that means by definition you can’t forecast it precisely. In other words, sometimes stuff happens and sometimes it doesn’t. Randomly. Climate change is a fact and has always been a fact. Right now we’re in a warming period. Did we cause it? Nobody knows and anybody who says they do know for certain is a fool or liar.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take care of our planet because it’s the ONLY planet we have and there are too damn many people here already. Pollution by any measurement is bad for the planet and since we live here it’s bad for us. There is NO excuse for not decreasing our destruction of irreplaceable resources and repairing what we can. If we ARE responsible for the current warming cycle it will become apparent AFTER all the garbage we’ve spewed out over the centuries is cleaned up. Until then there is no point arguing about it. Pollution and overcrowding will kill us long before the hot summers do!
*****************Caution***********************
*****Inflamatory & Condesending Alert************
Please do not read any further if words like “hoax”, “global warming garbage”, and other non-threatening words hurt your feelings!
I could not believe the response CR67 got just for updating the latest findings he heard regarding the great global warming hoax. It amazes me just how many people have been taken for a ride on this global warming swindle that has been going on for far too long. So many people have been so “programmed” for so long, they refuse to open their eyes to the truth on this whole global warming fiasco. Nobody (including CR67) said we should blindly pollute without conscious. As a matter of fact if you read back throughout the past year, his comments have always said he believes we should do whatever we can to keep our world clean for future generations. Yet posters like Nemisis & others would rather point out his inflamatory words like “hoax”, “global warming garbage” and (gasp) the word “idiot”!!
I for one appreciate the update his given us and it amazes me that our everyday “drive-by media” are not talking about the fact that our world is IN FACT COOLING…not warming. Doesn’t anybody find that strange? I guess not since the propaganda that’s been driven into our heads over the past 10 years have convinced the majority of the worlds population….at least the majority on this site.
There’s nothing wrong with recylcing or “leaving the world better than you found it” for future generations, but people need to get over the fact that we as humans, have anything to do with how hot or cold our world gets each year. That’s absolutely preposterous! And for those of you that think our world is “over-crowded”, I would encourage you to get out and actually see the world before making such a ridiculous statement. I’ve travelled all over the world, and it is far from “over-crowded”.
(gasp! I sure hope I didn’t hurt anybody’s feelings!!)
Good post CR….keep fighting the good fight!
Okay, throwdown, 007. I accept the challenge.
Tell me why, when people can explain their point of view and disagree without being derogatory, we should accept comments that come off as (basically) shouting at the rest of us that we are stupid idiots and have no clue?
I feel as if I’m being yelled at (now), for daring to suggest that one can disagree without being disagreeable. I feel that what you’re saying is that using inflammatory language should be okay, and if some of us don’t like it, that’s just too bad.
I disagree with you that we must accept being yelled at or called names, to have a discussion.
You have a valid opinion that global warming is not man made and can’t be impacted by man’s actions for or against climatic change…that’s great, it’s even commendable that you are willing to pose the minority viewpoint there.
It’s important to remember that not everyone thinks the same way, and that those of us who disagree with you also have a valid viewpoint. And we can exchange our words civilly.
Nobody is “yelling” at you and nobody called YOU or anybody on this site an “idiot”. If that’s how you &/or others percieved it, that’s not my fault. If you’re a little sensitive to “healthy debate”, than that’s an issue you need to work on.
Also, nobody said you had to agree with me or anybody else on this site. All I was doing was standing up for CR67 as it seemed everyone was against him on this issue. An issue I happen to agree with him over. (we’re entitled to our views and opinions just as you and others are) So why is OUR opinion any less valid than yours or others, just because their different?
We’re talking about “man-made” global warming here. Not littering, recycling or leaving the world a better place than you found it. (which most of us are all for) But you and others are lumping them into the same category which has been proven they have nothing to do with each other. Especially when it’s been PROVEN the world is actually cooling….not warming.
Next question please… (and no….I’m not yelling….I’m as cool as a cucumber)
Instead of arguing over “feelings”, lets argue over the actual issue.
Just an FYI….for those of you new to the internet, chatting or blogging: typing your response in ALL CAPS is considered “yelling”. Typing a word within your sentence in ALL CAPS only emphasizes that word and is not considered yelling or shouting.
Thanks for the support 007, but I think I’ll bow out of this one. Seems this issue is quite upsetting for some and I’m not out to change anybody’s mind or opinions. I was only relaying information.
Have a great day everybody!
Obviously you didn’t really read my comment, as you said exactly the opposite of what I wrote about you having a valid opinion. This side discussion has hijacked this thread, so it’s time to move on.
I like healthy discussion on the issues. I am hoping there will be some more from both of us after this point.
Have a great day. I hear it’s going to be nice outside. I’m hoping for spring weather to arrive soon.
He is right….4 out of your 5 paragraphs were talking about people yelling or shouting at you and/or disagreeing with you.
I for one apologize if I was offensive in any way. I truly would like to keep up a healthy discussion on this issue.
Thanks!
I have always enjoyed your comments and sometimes disagreed with them, but rarely have I disagreed with how you said them. One person commented on a particularly angry sounding comment that you made, I agreed with THEM about it, and this thread was off the rails and running sideways in a hurry!
You do have a valid opinion. I don’t have a firm opinion on this issue, and I haven’t decided that it’s true or a hoax or just a misunderstanding, about global warming.
Live to write another day…enjoy.
Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that Al Gore was buying those papal indulgences…er, carbon credit offsets, from HIMSELF? From his own company, Generation Investments or whatever? Hello, I had no idea…doesn’t this sorta lend at least a little bias to his theories on man-made global warming???
Why hasn’t this been all over the news? Goodness knows, if it was a deliberate decepiton perpetrated by a Republican, it would be on CNN all day, every day…..
Just curious…I had no idea the Goracle was actually reaping a profit off of his “theory.”
Guest 007: you mentioned in your post 316 that it has been proven that the earth is cooling — not warming. Where did you read this or hear it? I am very interested in reading more about this. If the answer to this is in one of the other posts, please forgive me for asking. I’m trying to play catch-up here and just skimmed a lot of the posts.
I am very conflicted in my own mind about this whole issue — warming — cooling — status quo — normal.
Babs: you weren’t the only one to just now hear about Gore and his “papal indulgences”. I read it first on your post — now I am off to try and find out more about it.
Hope no one tells me that the multi-billionaire guy who owns Virgin Air (never can remember his name) is not sincere in his efforts to reduce carbon footprints. I’m quite idealistic, but I have always admired someone who believes in a cause, theory, or action and actually does something about it (whether I agree with them or not) instead of just talking about it.
Yeah, Richard Branson is now in trouble with enviro-nuts for flying a trans-Atlantic airliner across the ocean with only a few passengers….they are mad that he is wasting all that fuel on a just a few folks. Guess he just can’t win.
I guess I’d like to know, how does the energy credit program work? Is Al’s company the only one that is selling the credits? If they are but one of several/many, I can understand why he buys them from his own company, hello folks, it’s called capitalism…if I need supplies, why would I buy them from the competition?
But if they are the only one selling the credits, then it stands to reason that his push to warn us about global warming would seem suspicious.
Also, Babs, I agree that news can be biased, but if Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace are examples of liberal bias, then I’m a svelte young thing with my whole life ahead of me, while we’re making fantasy wishes, here.
It seems clear that each side can point to what they perceive to be abuses by the other side and ‘tsk tsk’ all they want, but it doesn’t mean their own side isn’t guilty of similar abuses (maybe on different ideological issues).
So maybe a more convincing argument to those of us trying to keep an open mind, would be to not focus on the person or the drama, but instead the actual facts about global climate change?
exactly my point, nemesis. And right now, the “facts” are still in a state of flux: more climatologists DO NOT believe in man-made global warming than do; Al Gore’s propoganda film (and remember, it isn’t just a question of him buying his credits from himself; it is that he is the Chairman of the Board of a company that SELLS these things. . . to everyone! So of course, promoting the theory of MMGW helps boost his company’s profits) has been demonstrably rife with errors in calculations and temperatures; a computer “projection” of what may or may not happen to the earth’s climate in a 50 year span is unreliable, at best;
all of these facts should generate some healthy discussion on the topic and not just a “buy carbon credits or die in 50 years” mindset.
I wasn’t suggesting that Nancy Grace is a “journalist”; I never mentioned her, actually; I am just stating (this is not an argument for or against MMGW, btw) a fact: if John McCain was the chairman of the board of a company that sold widgets, and two years ago John McCain made a “documentary” about how everyone must buy widgets or perish, that story would certainly get more than a little airtime on all the major networks’ news shows (HNN, NBC News, etc.)
Thanks, Babs. I just had an epiphany.
I bought that little slip of cardboard with the “Inconvenient Truth” dvd in it a long time ago, but have never sat down to watch it. I’m going to have to do so.
Until I see his song and dance for myself, I won’t be able to objectively read your comments against him, because I will probably keep missing the point you’re making and we’ll just argue in circles! (I hate it when that happens)
I am going to open up a company and start selling carbon credits. Does anyone want to buy some credits? It will do the planet some good and make you feel like you are actually doing something.
What? You want to know how this will help the planet by buying credits from a private individual that does not control production or industry……
Well, I can’t answer your question except to say, “It will make you feel like you are doing something for the planet”. So, jump on board–feel good about yourself and make me rich in the process. I promise to print the carbon credits on recycled paper.
Someone above asked about the established science of global warming. I came across this story about how conservationists (more than likely global warming advocates) showed their intellectual dishonesty to achieve an agenda of ridding the planet of evil plastic bags.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336189,00.html
Conservationsists cited a Newfoundland study on animals being harmed by a variety of items…one of which was labeled plastic debris. The conservationsists used the language of the study and tweaked it to read plastic bags. So, these fine upstanding conservationsist lied about the language of the study….even when brought to their attention they refused to be intellectually honest about the matter. Authors of the study noted that there was no way to determine if plastic bags were harming animals. They likened the plastic debris to items like fishing tackle. That is a far cry from plastic bags. Yet, this is the pattern of the conservationists. They can’t be trusted to tell the truth about evil plastic bags. What are the chances they are playing hard and fast with the truth about global warming. IMO, the chances are pretty high.
Hi Nemesis, I agree that watching the movie is key to understanding the dynamics of the global warming industry; however, please understand that what you see (I have seen it) are the facts as presented by Al Gore; to really understand the concern I have, you must follow through with the scientists who have taken issue with Gore’s data manipulation;
in other words, merely watching the movie will only give you Al Gore’s opinion, much like a Michael Moore “documentary” will only give you M&M’s opinion, not the facts on an issue……..
Thanks for the warning, Babs, but I do understand the difference between advocacy and papers published in scientific journals. I enjoy MM’s mockumentaries as entertainment, designed to present a lopsided version of one point of view and hopefully convince the other side to start asking questions, start thinking, and maybe convert. This dvd is probably along the same lines.
I just figured I’d better have this information under my belt (and then of course go see what’s being presented on the other side) so that when I read arguments pro or con, I know where they’re getting their information and can more effectively join the discussion…instead of relying on the fact that my common sense (which has failed me before due to my mental models) can carry me through the argument.
Just an FYI for Nemesis….Glen Beck is far from a liberal….he’s actually a conservative republican. (the complete opposite)
Just an FYI….Glenn Beck is not a “liberal”…..he’s a conservative republican…. (the complete opposite of liberal)
Obviously you don’t listen to his program. I would suggest you give him a try….he’s got a great program.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO’s of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink’s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC – North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
Brewski: I guess you haven’t been reading up on the fact that our earth is actually COOLING and not warming. The fact that you have listed numerous companies that support the “global warming theory”, doesn’t dispute the FACT that we’re actually experiencing a cooling trend as opposed to warming. The cooling trend that we experienced this past year has been enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
And the fact is, global cooling is much more damaging to our earth, than global warming is.
Here are a few links for you to look over & ponder. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/temperature-monitors-report-widescale-global-cooling/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/are-greenland-s-glaciers-expanding-temperatures-cooling
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/
So in my opinion….Al Gore and all those scientists that claim man is responsible for global warming, have produced and/or been a part of the largest scam in the history of the world.
But again…..that’s just MY opinion.
Have a great day!
not sure what I am supposed to take away from brewski’s list, except that the cut and paste features of his browser work ha ha ha….
here is a wikipedia link: (using my cut and paste features!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
however, that I think makes good points (with cites!) both pro and con, and even references a “global warming wager”, which follows Pascal’s Wager (when faced with two choices, one of which will not result in harm, it’s a safe bet to take that choice, even if you don’t really believe in its validity)(I am paraphrasing greatly);
again, I think what we have all been saying applies: we think it is a good idea to recycle, reduce, reuse, because it is smart to do so and not waste resources. So we will take these steps regardless; the problem is, when there is an expectation that we all MUST tow the party line about MMGW and all MUST adopt Al Gore’s view as the only correct one…..that is where I have trouble. I can’t just blindly follow anyone and the jury is most definitely still out on this; even the IPCC is at odds about the causes of (or even if there is) global warming….
Nemesis, I am enjoying this discussion; what did you mean by your “mental models?” I am not familiar with that term and I am curious. Thanks!
brewski, you may also want to see what NASA’s head really has to say about global warming before including it in your list of “supporters” or “believers” in MMGW:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499
Hey, LOTS and LOTS of new info this weekend!
JoseCuervo, I think both Nancy and Glenn are ultra conservative, they are CNN’s attempt to pander to the FOX audience. So if CNN is willing to go to that effort, I don’t think they still slant the news left, either. That was my point, that CNN is trying to be more right wing. (And I can only take Glenn in small doses, when he’s not trying to be Rush Lite).
Babs…a mental model, in a nutshell, is your educational, experiential, and emotional baggage through which you filter all new information coming into your life. Mental models end up impacting how you perceive things, and they tend to shortcut your reasoning process.
Most of the time this is a good thing, so it’s a pretty good evolutionary tool, but sometimes it gets in the way of our higher reasoning process, especially if we’re not aware it’s happening.
Nemesis, thanks! I was not familiar with that term; very intriguing and I can see the logic to it.
Thanks again.
“Babs…a mental model, in a nutshell, is your educational, experiential, and emotional baggage through which you filter all new information coming into your life. Mental models end up impacting how you perceive things, and they tend to shortcut your reasoning process.”
Question: How is it that your life experience and educational pursuits shortcut one’s reasoning process? Without these elements one would not have the ability to reason and have the executive function to learn from experience what works and what doesn’t. It seems like you are trying to have it both ways–that a mental model can harm or enhance reasoning….which is it?
Either global warming is occurring or it is not. Taking Pascal’s logic into account….let’s say we implement carbon credits which reduces and/or elminates certain types of production. What happens to the United States if other nation states like China, India, Japan, or South Korea don’t adhere to Pascal? I’ll tell you–the United States will cease being a thriving economy. Our standard of living will go south and poverty will increase. Sounds like excellent reasons to adopt Pascal’s mental model? I don’t think so.
No, Mike, I am not advocating adopting Pascal’s Wager. I am just stating that is what Wikipedia references in discussion the ongoing debate about MMGW…almost like the lesser of two evils, which, I agree, is no science at all. I don’t believe in MMGW, but that is merely my opinion based on everything, so far, I have read or seen.
I do like the idea of a mental model; whether or not it impacts science or factual matters, it does alter OUR reception of the same, and thus helps us to formulate our opinion.
oops, typo! I meant “discussing” not “discussion.”
When I explained this concept to Babs, I stated that mental models shortcut the reasoning process. I meant that it creates instant judgments that we make based upon our backgrounds. It can be a good thing (you get out of the way of the charging rhino) but it can also be a bad thing (you let your past experience cloud your ability to have an open mind in a discussion).
People use mental models in all aspects of their daily living. Again, usually they’re good tools and keep us from having to take too long to think about something prior to formulating a decision.
But when you’re trying to have a reasonable and thoughtful discussion of the issues, they can get in the way. Knowing you have these instincts, you can set them aside and agree to try to understand another’s point of view instead of immediately dismissing their argument (because your mental models would tell you they are wrong).
Mental models aren’t a problem if you’re convinced that you’re never wrong. In that case, it’s not really a discussion on your part, it’s an executive ruling from you on high to the rest of the peons who dare to disagree.
Here is a real eye-opener:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&c
Wow, Babs, thanks for the link. That was an interesting story.
I am very glad that scientists continue to work towards figuring this stuff out, instead of just assuming global warming is correct or incorrect and leaving it at that.
Yes….thanks for the link Babs. I’m amazed at how little news coverage we’re getting in regards to the fact that “global warming” was extremely BOP’d (blown out of proportion) when in fact in the last 10 years, the earth has actually gotten cooler. And those that were on the “global warming” bandwagon, have now jumped ship and climbed into the “climate change” bandwagon.
I still see companies profiting from global warming for the next decade or so, but instead of stressing the global warming issue I think they’ll now start to lean towards the pollution, recycling and keeping the world clean “issue”. Anything they can do to continue to profit from the world community.
Anyone notice how the new lexicon of language is global climate change vs. global warming? Seems like Al Gore is trying to change the language to again control the debate because he couldn’t get results off the last fear mongering attempt(s).
Okay. I want to say this up front, and I’ll remind you of it at the end….I’M NOT A FAN OF AL GORE.
That being said, I’m curious…Does ANYONE on this website have the courage to admit that maybe he really believes what he’s saying, and isn’t just fear mongering because he’s a lying liberal scumbag bastard? Does anyone understand that lots of people believe in this stuff, and he isn’t a puppet master who is mind controlling all of them?
I don’t get the impression in any way that he’s not sincere. He has had an environmentalist focus for most of his adult life. When it was pointed out that he was leaving a tremendous carbon footprint himself, he immediately took steps to fix that issue.
I’m really unhappy that when we disagree with someone, we immediately ascribe venal motives to them, we attack them instead of the message.
Okay. Now I’ve calmed down. Let’s try this reply again…
I have noticed the change in phrasing to global climate change vs global warming. I don’t know how this happened specifically but I do know that label names evolve as we get a better understanding, or have a different focus on the issue.
I don’t see the name change as proof of an evil loser trying to save face.
Remember, I’M NOT A FAN OF AL GORE. I haven’t even watched “An Inconvenient Truth” (although I truly plan to, this weekend).
Whew! Have a nice day, y’all.
His movie is fear mongering and blatantly attempts to use images of polar bears drowning as “evidence”. Tugging at the heart strings and making emotional pleas to save the planet when the scientific facts don’t support his position is troubling enough. The fact that he has set up companies to buy and sell carbon credits shows he is attempting to profit off the issue. While he might seem sincere, sincerity does not mean much when one is wrong and using scare tactics to get what they want. Gore has made himself THE central figure in the global warming fight. If he doesn’t like being attacked he should have picked a different issue like finding homes for puppies where he could have been popular.
I see your point nemesis; however, I think his assertion about “creating” the interenet (people have taken issue with his exact verbiage, but to me, saying “created” versus “invented” is a distinction without a difference) is telling;
more telling is the fact that he is chairman of a company that sells carbon credits and that this bit of information was not widely known and perhaps still is not widely known.
whether or not he truly believes in MMGW is one thing (although the fact that he continues to live out of three mansions and fly in a private jet somewhat belies the strength of his beliefs); whether he is choosing to turn his “belief” into a panic situation for this country is another.
I started watching An Inconvenient Truth but shut it off when he veered into an emotional plea based on his own family problems. I thought it was supposed to be scientific evidence?
Then I heard the reports about one of Gore’s mansions consuming tons of electricity and like a $10,000 monthly electricity bill. That was the end of any credibility for Al Gore for me.
I’ve listened to many experts and advocates over the years, and I’ve always observed that the best ones live how they preach for a long time before they start preaching how to live.
Sure Al Gore has been an environmental advocate all his life, but I see him using it as a political tool, not because he believes in it. The fact that he preached environmental responsibility for a couple decades BEFORE he was busted wasting so much electricity?
Gore is now on the same credibility level as Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart.
Actually, a Republican strategist named Frank Luntz came up with the term “climate change”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
So, it’s not Al Gore you have a beef with, it’s the Republicans. Seems like the memo worked perfectly well on several folks here.
babs, do you dispute the fact that Al Gore was one of the leaders in Congress who helped initiate the internet? If so, who do you think in Congress did help push the idea? Do you agree that the internet had help in the government in order to get off the ground?
The internet would have “gotten off the ground” as you put it, whether the government was involved or not. It was already “off the ground” before Al Gore began to “support” it. What’s that got to do with Global Warming and fact that Gore now has “mud on his face” from all the fear mongering he contributed to in regards to his global warming theory. Gore has a history of jumping on bandwagons in the early stages and then trying to take credit for it’s creation or its attempt at a solution. Just like he did when he heard about the internet and the possibilities of wealth that could be made by backing such a new technology. And just like he did when he heard about so called global warming. He jumped on board in an attempt to “save the world”, but more importantly to line his pockets. Gotta give him credit though, he is a good snake oil salesman.
I agree JoseCuervo, what’s Gore’s encouragement of the internet got to do with his work to inform the world about global warming? babs thinks it’s telling….
Why have we gotten off on a tangent since post #344 anyway? Seems Babs offered up some technical discussion, and instead we end up talking about one person, Al Gore. Sounds like the perfect strawman argument to me. After all, isn’t it much easier to refute Al Gore than to refute the evidence of global warming?
Back to the topic at hand.
So Babs, if I read the article right, it seems like this Kiwi’s argument is based on a “newly discovered mechanism” which refutes the IPCC’s and others’ models. Somehow this mechanism washes out excess water vapor, which thereby cools the atmosphere. That’s it, no more detail? If that’s the most detail he/she can give me, there’s no way I’m convinced. From what I’ve read on the topic, it doesn’t matter if clouds or the earth absorb sunlight, either way it’s going to be radiated back to space as infrared, which is the spectrum that greenhouse gases trap. So, since greenhouse gases aren’t going down any time soon, the only way to cool off barring a dramatic decrease in solar insolation is to either radiate at a higher rate, or radiate at different wavelengths. Perhaps the Earth has a mechanism to do this, but the article has not convinced me that rain is this mechanism.
good point, bobby. I had heard somewhere else about the whole “cloud/ocean” cycle and even the “sunspot” cycle having more to do with “climate change” than CO2 ever will. Yet there is a real shortage of good info out there. Gore’s movie has been shown to contain inaccuracies (I don’t want to detail them here, but if anyone cares to google ‘inconvenient truth’ and ‘british court’, you will find them) so I still feel like we are left with too little science and too much rhetoric.
Wow! When BobbyD mention 344 comments I was amazed! I didn’t realize this post has gotten up past 350. Joe, just wondering: does this post have the highest comment count? (& did the religous post ever make it up this high before being shut down?)
The Hot Pockets commercial just popped into my heard…….20% less fat and 100% real cheese….”HOT Topics”!!
yeah I know I know…it was a lame attempt at humour.
Maybe if we spend more energy in trying to lower greenhouse gasses, recycle and such, then we would eat more and drink more, fart more, poop and pee more, using more energy, making more un-recyclable waste, and thus ending up where we started. Anyway, if global warming is just a phase we go through as a cycle every so many years, what do we have to lose if it is not. I think we should still try to help Mother Earth. We are smart enough to figure out such problems, aren’t we?
I don’t think anybody that left a comment on this post is against the idea of trying to keep our world “healthy”. But I do think most of us are against the idea of using fear as a means by which to do so.
Hi Starsaglow,
You need to backtrack and read some of the earlier posts: I think we are all in agreement that recycling, reusing and reducing are smart things to do, and we all engage in such practices. The disagreement is over whether global warming exists, and if so, is it manmade? and is it as dire as Gore, et al, would have us believe? As we are all reducing and reusing anyway, that point is moot.
CR67 says it well: some of us are against using fear as a political tactic; or, in the case of the sale of carbon credits, as a means to make money.
For those who question whether we are experiencing global warming, I would encourage them to take a course offered at ISU called “The Dynamic Earth”. It is offered on both the IF and Pocatello campus. In this course, weather data collected since 1900 is studied and theories are put to test in a separate lab. After completing this very basic freshman course, I believe the student can make somewhat EDUCATED decisions about global warming for themselves and not have to rely on the likes of Al Gore who, in my opinion, does not base his claims on grounded, proven scientific data.
Interesting tidbit from a NASA scientist….
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,00.html
Saw this on Digg just now:
“45 Scientists Dump Global Warming Deniers in 24 Hours”
I guess some outfit called “The Heartland Institute” has been publishing and pushing a list of 500 scientists who either don’t believe global warming is happening, or believe it is natural (not man-caused).
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978
So this group at desmogblog emailed all of those scientists, and within the first 24 hours a bunch of those scientists have said they did not sign it, and they emphatically asserted that they do believe global warming is caused by man. It will be interesting to see if it is only those 45, or how many ultimately say their names were added to this list without their knowledge or permission.
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
I realize this does not prove the cause of global warming or that anti-global warming forces are engaged in deceit. But it is an interesting development. Reading the comments I see allegations that some of the other scientists are deceased and untrue associations of people and workplaces.
And more than ever I am more confused than ever about global warming.
Don’t be confused!!!
Take the class in post #361 this fall, earn 4 undergrad credits, become a world citizen, apply scientific method in a laboratory and prove to yourself whether global warming exsists. It’s simple and easy. LEARNING is fun!
We’d like to thank our sponser ISU Alumni for those kind words…..and we’ll be right back after these messages!
lol