Is global warming a real threat or not?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
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?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 lol I agree with jeremyPlo. Its a fact jack. lol
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 Good analogy with the Condor, JPlo.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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!
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 Is the UN still a reliable source when it comes to providing truthful facts/information?
Vote:
0 0 Excellent question!
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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!!
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 Am I wrong, or is eclipseit spouting just one tired cliche after another?
Vote:
0 0 Meso: at least I’ve done some research on the subject. I don’t see ANYTHING of substance coming out of your mouth!
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 I NEVER said volcanoes were the real cause of air pollution. You should read the post’s thouroughly before you try to quote someone!
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 Don’t call me lazy and I won’t call you an idiot.
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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?
Vote:
0 0 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.
Vote:
0 0 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”???
Vote:
0 0 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…
Vote:
0
Vote:
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.