# Say it ain't so, Al! SAY IT AIN'T SO!



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

Bloomberg.com: News

I know that this type of article is disheartening to those of you who love to think the miniscule human race is the omnipotent bad guy...but mark my words: In the next couple of years, the hysterical, hand-wringing buzz about global warming is going to die. And it will die for one reason: It isn't true.

SAVE THE HUMANS! Please donate...cause I hate having a real job.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

You know, your right. And we never polluted a river enough to start it on fire and we never drove animals to extinction, never were able to radically change the pH of the rain, that ozone hole isn`t much to worry about either. And those estrogen mimicking toxins were dumping could never lower our sperm count to make us infertile and.......
I`ll tell you one thing, if were wrong and we change we`ll be more self sufficient and cleaner but if we`re right and do nothing.... Bye Bye...........


----------



## kawickstrom (Oct 3, 2008)

Gore can shove it hahaha...


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

Smashtoad said:


> Bloomberg.com: News
> 
> I know that this type of article is disheartening to those of you who love to think the miniscule human race is the omnipotent bad guy...but mark my words: In the next couple of years, the hysterical, hand-wringing buzz about global warming is going to die. And it will die for one reason: It isn't true.
> 
> SAVE THE HUMANS! Please donate...cause I hate having a real job.


Did you read the article? The sensor had only be messed up for the last month and a half. It didn't affect the readings for the last two years that were the lowest readings EVER.


----------



## siples (Aug 14, 2004)

To say global warming doesn't exist is rediculous, even Bush and his cronies acknowleded that climate changes were happening at an alarming rate. Why would you want to pick on Gore as he has this worlds best interest in mind. If nothing else aren't green practices hopefully good for our economy and good for our future, and sensible? Makes me think of that Moron Rush Limbaugh hoping the stimulus package fails so he can gloat and prove a point, pop another oxy and shut up Rush.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

*Cracks knuckles*

I didn't read the article, other than the title, and I can guess what it says. The argument seems to be that there is more ice despite global warming. Well, if taken for face value, it would seem like a valid argument against contributions of humans to global warming, but if one thinks more about it, it actually is an argument for increasing temperatures.

A year or two ago, here in Michigan, around this time, we had a massive lake effect snowstorm, and those who thought that global warming was poppycock were pointing at this and saying that this was proof, but if one thought about it a little bit, one actually saw that there was an issue there. At this point during the year, Lake Michigan should be completely frozen over. Which means that there should be no lake effect snow. More ice pack is caused by more snow. More snow is caused by more evaporation, and in the arctic regions, that is from the ocean. The ocean being warmer would mean that the evaporation rate would be higher, which would mean more snow. That explains the ice.

But the evidence for global warming and the human impacts on it is overwhelming. And the overwhelming majority of scientists (especially climate scientists) believe that humans are influencing global climate change. It's not a scam or anything like that. It's happening. The only debate that is happening among the scientific community is the amount of influence humans are having to the environment.

And Aaron is right. Regardless of what is happening and how much humans are influencing it, "being green" makes sense. Economically, environmentally. If we be green, we would reduce our impacts on the overall environment. Why continue living a wasteful lifestyle, when you can be more efficient. If you don't think that global warming is happening, so be it, but why not be green. It seems silly not to change wasteful habits.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

Smashtoad said:


> Bloomberg.com: News
> 
> I know that this type of article is disheartening to those of you who love to think the miniscule human race is the omnipotent bad guy...but mark my words: In the next couple of years, the hysterical, hand-wringing buzz about global warming is going to die. And it will die for one reason: It isn't true.
> 
> SAVE THE HUMANS! Please donate...cause I hate having a real job.


The only real saving grace for the human species is the very certain knowledge that we, too, will one day be EXTINCT!!!! Why not try leaving the work of science to the scientists.

Richard in Staten Island.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Thanks Smashtoad, but if your in the red you can`t give neg. rep.


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

Well... I feel a little torn about this whole subject. There seems to be a wide range of opinion on the subject from flat out denial of the situation to absolute belief and demonizing of the human race. The problems that I have with the global warming buzz are the enforcement of useless laws (mandatory energy saver light bulbs for one), and the intentional pitting of people against others with opposing beliefs. Al Gore actually goes into schools and tells children that their parents don't necessarily know best because their knowledge is outdated by this time of "rapid change". Another example of intentionally stirring up ill will and this time between two generations. I just don't see the need for such hostile tactics. The one thing I can't say for sure is the solution for avoiding use of these tactics. I firmly believe that no matter what your position on global warming, if an environmentally friendly product came along that was less expensive or more convenient than environmentally damaging ones, there would be no debate, and everyone would be satisfied. Since no one is willing to take monetary losses (especially with the world economy is shambles) in order to supply "earth friendly" fuel consuming products we're destined to see laws and taxes put into place to punish energy consumption (fuel, electricity, etc). 
Here are some articles as "food for thought":

I like this one because it outlines the temperature increase that many planets are experiencing. Our pollution is now traveling through space and killing OTHER planets?! NOOOOES!! (Sorry I had to .)
Global Warming: A Convenient Lie

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether you like Glenn Beck or not, click the link and then click the big "PLAY" button to listen to the speech Gore gave to ~3,000 junior high students. Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck - Gore to 12 year olds: 'you know things older people don't know'

Make sure to click the "video and audio news" link to the right of Al Gore's picture.
BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Save the Environment--from school dunce Al Gore

It only took me about five minutes to find those so I can't even begin to imagine the treasure trove of information that's out there on the subject... 

Just to clarify, my personal opinion on this subject are that we are polluting every aspect of the human race, including our home planet. Some of our health care practices are horrifying, our food continues to degrade in nutritional quality, the air we breathe is tainted by combusted fuels man made debris, and to top it all off we can't even treat each other respectfully while our species slowly but surely falls to ruin. What I don't believe is that our pollution is the cause of the global temperature rise. I also don't believe that a serious issue like pollution, and other forms of planet destruction, should be used as marketing schemes or to recruit members for political causes. 

Sorry to sound like a doomsday peddler... I just feel that everything dies eventually: stars, planets, and species. It's sad that our species has to be responsible for the damage and downfall of so many things around us, and I don't claim to know how to fix it. It's just my opinion, regardless of how gloomy it may sound . Similarly to what above posters said; I think that we will die off long before the planet does. To be honest, I think our race will die off from overuse of disinfectants and antibiotics coupled with terrible food quality before the earth ceases to sustain us... but that's another thread topic.


----------



## Lucky (Jan 15, 2007)

Global warming is real, but humans only contribute about 2% of it, the rest is a natural occurrence. The Earth goes through cycles, we can not destroy the Earth, what ever we do the Earth will fix itself eventually, although we probably will not be around to see it. Al Gore is a moronic, hypocrite and one of the biggest scam artist there has ever been, and he has a bunch a sheep eating out of his hands. While he tells us that we can not drive our big SUVs he jumps on his private jet and flies all over the country to do presentation on global warming, er wait no, now we are calling it climate change, right? (lol), which just one of his average flights, in a jet that probably could carry way more people than he has with him, emits an amount of pollution equivalent to the driving of a hummer for a whole year. Just one of Al Gore's houses uses about 40% more energy than the average home in America, but we need to cut back on our energy usage, we should not be allowed to run our AC at the temp we want along with a host of other crap they want us to do, all in the name of energy savings, which it does not matter, because they are letting the power companies jack our rates so high that we have no choice but to go along with this made up crap. Oh yeah, it is ok though, you can just buy some carbon credits, WTF is a carbon credit anyways, From the company that Al Gore started and every thing will be ok, because someone just ran outside and planted a tree for you or some other such crap.


----------



## kawickstrom (Oct 3, 2008)

Lucky said:


> Global warming is real, but humans only contribute about 2% of it, the rest is a natural occurrence. The Earth goes through cycles, we can not destroy the Earth, what ever we do the Earth will fix itself eventually, although we probably will not be around to see it. Al Gore is a moronic, hypocrite and one of the biggest scam artist there has ever been, and he has a bunch a sheep eating out of his hands. While he tells us that we can not drive our big SUVs he jumps on his private jet and flies all over the country to do presentation on global warming, er wait no, now we are calling it climate change, right? (lol), which just one of his average flights, in a jet that probably could carry way more people than he has with him, emits an amount of pollution equivalent to the driving of a hummer for a whole year. Just one of Al Gore's houses uses about 40% more energy than the average home in America, but we need to cut back on our energy usage, we should not be allowed to run our AC at the temp we want along with a host of other crap they want us to do, all in the name of energy savings, which it does not matter, because they are letting the power companies jack our rates so high that we have no choice but to go along with this made up crap. Oh yeah, it is ok though, you can just buy some carbon credits, WTF is a carbon credit anyways, From the company that Al Gore started and every thing will be ok, because someone just ran outside and planted a tree for you or some other such crap.


Exactly how I feel on the subject.. I am all for saving the enviroment but he is doing it an injustice.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Lucky said:


> Global warming is real, but humans only contribute about 2% of it, the rest is a natural occurrence. The Earth goes through cycles, we can not destroy the Earth, what ever we do the Earth will fix itself eventually, although we probably will not be around to see it. Al Gore is a moronic, hypocrite and one of the biggest scam artist there has ever been, and he has a bunch a sheep eating out of his hands. While he tells us that we can not drive our big SUVs he jumps on his private jet and flies all over the country to do presentation on global warming, er wait no, now we are calling it climate change, right? (lol), which just one of his average flights, in a jet that probably could carry way more people than he has with him, emits an amount of pollution equivalent to the driving of a hummer for a whole year. Just one of Al Gore's houses uses about 40% more energy than the average home in America, but we need to cut back on our energy usage, we should not be allowed to run our AC at the temp we want along with a host of other crap they want us to do, all in the name of energy savings, which it does not matter, because they are letting the power companies jack our rates so high that we have no choice but to go along with this made up crap. Oh yeah, it is ok though, you can just buy some carbon credits, WTF is a carbon credit anyways, From the company that Al Gore started and every thing will be ok, because someone just ran outside and planted a tree for you or some other such crap.


Gore or no Gore, it doesn't change the facts. Al Gore and Global Warming are two different topics. What Gore does or doesn't do doesn't change the facts. If you read the literature, scientists studying global warming, they don't cite Al Gore as their main source. Gore is just repeating what is found. One of my biggest annoyances with people who don't think it is happening, is that they cite the hypocrisy of Al Gore as evidence it's not happening (and I do wonder how much of that is media blowing it out of proportion). Where are you getting that humans are only contributing 2%? There was a paper that recently came out that looked at several different climate models, and came to the conclusion that what we're seeing cannot be explained by nature alone.

Carbon credits are actually a very good, innovative idea. They provide value to something that didn't have value before. We know that trees absorb and sequester carbon. If we're putting CO2 into the air, why not counter that and set aside forest? It's quite an innovative idea.

In regards to the other planets warming, they're not warming at the rate that they're warming here. We've got a great deal more information on earth, and while climate cycles are driven by the sun (which would explain what we have gathered on other planets), it's not enough to explain what we see here.

And about the audacity of Gore telling kids that they know things that grown ups don't, that's just education for you. Adults are set in their ways. Kids are not. They're still open to new things. When I do herp educational programs with the herp club here, we aim it towards kids because their minds are still open to new things and might not shun herps like their parents may. It's just education. Kids are going to have to deal with the mistakes of the older generation, and if you can get them thinking on the right track while they're young, it will be all the better for the planet.


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

MonarchzMan said:


> And about the audacity of Gore telling kids that they know things that grown ups don't, that's just education for you. Adults are set in their ways. Kids are not. They're still open to new things. When I do herp educational programs with the herp club here, we aim it towards kids because their minds are still open to new things and might not shun herps like their parents may. It's just education. Kids are going to have to deal with the mistakes of the older generation, and if you can get them thinking on the right track while they're young, it will be all the better for the planet.


I had another page long rebuttal for this but I started to get a little too emotional. All I'd like to say is that "getting them early" is a well known and widely utilized method in brainwashing. Regardless of the intentions behind this, the truth is that rock solid "facts" are FAR more elusive than we pretend them to be. (Yes. That also goes for everything I stated that I believe in my earlier comments.)


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Marinarawr said:


> I had another page long rebuttal for this but I started to get a little too emotional. All I'd like to say is that "getting them early" is a well known and widely utilized method in brainwashing. Regardless of the intentions behind this, the truth is that rock solid "facts" are FAR more elusive than we pretend them to be. (Yes. That also goes for everything I stated that I believe in my earlier comments.)


It's education. That is when you teach people. There are countless studies that show the relationship of ease of learning and age. Not only that, but kids today are the ones who will be running the world tomorrow. Leaders today are set in their ways. If you want to change how things will be run, you go to the next generation, not to the current leaders.

As for the facts, no they're not elusive. Glaciers are melting world wide. Clouds are receding on mountains world wide. We're seeing more extreme weather patterns world wide. Carbon dioxide has increased exponentially in the last 200 years. Far more than would be expected. Temperatures have increased about 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years, something that should happen over the course of thousands of years. Those facts are not elusive. Those are pretty solid and all are evidence for human-influenced global warming.


----------



## garweft (Mar 11, 2008)

I always love when the topic of global warming comes up. It's always fun to see how many people are willing to just speak in absolutes about a subject that even the foremost experts cannot come to a complete consensus on.

Science and politics don't mix well since the body of knowledge gained through scientific exploration can change with the addition of new research, the testing of new hypothesis, and the use of new methodology into previously tested hypothesis. Politicians like to speak in absolutes which leaves little in the way for new, conflicting, information. Politicians will take a side on a topic they know nothing about and defend it as an absolute, based on nothing more than party lines.

Oh, and just because you don't fully understand something, doesn't make it wrong/false.


----------



## Lucky (Jan 15, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> Gore or no Gore, it doesn't change the facts. Al Gore and Global Warming are two different topics. What Gore does or doesn't do doesn't change the facts. If you read the literature, scientists studying global warming, they don't cite Al Gore as their main source. Gore is just repeating what is found. One of my biggest annoyances with people who don't think it is happening, is that they cite the hypocrisy of Al Gore as evidence it's not happening (and I do wonder how much of that is media blowing it out of proportion). Where are you getting that humans are only contributing 2%? There was a paper that recently came out that looked at several different climate models, and came to the conclusion that what we're seeing cannot be explained by nature alone.
> 
> Carbon credits are actually a very good, innovative idea. They provide value to something that didn't have value before. We know that trees absorb and sequester carbon. If we're putting CO2 into the air, why not counter that and set aside forest? It's quite an innovative idea.
> 
> ...



I know Gore is an idiot, and what he says does not much matter, he is just the main target because he is the one that is promoting this crap the most (in the media), telling people what they should and should not do. The facts...hmmmm....yeah lets talk about how a bunch of scientist jumped on this subject from the get go, and when the research was done and it was found to be a bunch of hooplahh, (for a lack of a better word) about 2000 scientists, (top scientists) wanted their names removed from the reports supporting global warming, but the few remaining that were staking their career on global warming, regardless of the facts, would not let them. They had to file law suits to have their names removed off of the lists of supporting scientist in this study. I do not know, but is not science a field of contradictory theories, where an idea differing from your own is welcomed, just to see what happens and how things come out, regardless of who is right. That is how it used to be, but these global warming fanatics will not let anyone contradict them, whether they are right or not. The "global warming" scientists actually tried to get the other "contradictory scientist", along with some college professors who thought differently than they did disbarred, and discredited, and to have their reputations tarnished just to further their agenda and discount any possibility they that could be wrong. 
As far as research, I do my research, I watch the news, I read the paper, I listen to talk radio, and I do my own independent research in libraries and on the internet, maybe you should do some research before you try to say I do not.

Oh yeah, carbon credits, the reason they did not have value before is because they did not exist, it is some BS that was made up to make people feel bad for driving their trucks and SUVs, so that they would send in their money to line someone's pockets and then they could go on with their lives driving their gas hog, but yet feel good because they did their part. I am sorry if you really want to be a lemming you go ahead and follow them right over the edge. 

Should be a dead give away that it is BS when they call it global warming, that the ice is melting in the arctic and so on, and so on, until it comes out that it is in fact not warming and that the ice is actually growing that "they" say "oh yeah, it's global climate change" now, hehehe. If you still follow this crap after that, you go ahead and drink the kool aide, and you will follow them when they change again, no matter how absurd it becomes. The only reason they are still going on with this crap is because they all based their careers on this crap and to admit they were wrong would mean they would all be a farse and be out of a job, and we can not have that can we.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Lucky said:


> I know Gore is an idiot, and what he says does not much matter, he is just the main target because he is the one that is promoting this crap the most (in the media), telling people what they should and should not do. The facts...hmmmm....yeah lets talk about how a bunch of scientist jumped on this subject from the get go, and when the research was done and it was found to be a bunch of hooplahh, (for a lack of a better word) about 2000 scientists, (top scientists) wanted their names removed from the reports supporting global warming, but the few remaining that were staking their career on global warming, regardless of the facts, would not let them. They had to file law suits to have their names removed off of the lists of supporting scientist in this study. I do not know, but is not science a field of contradictory theories, where an idea differing from your own is welcomed, just to see what happens and how things come out, regardless of who is right. That is how it used to be, but these global warming fanatics will not let anyone contradict them, whether they are right or not. The "global warming" scientists actually tried to get the other "contradictory scientist", along with some college professors who thought differently than they did disbarred, and discredited, and to have their reputations tarnished just to further their agenda and discount any possibility they that could be wrong.


Where are you getting your information? The overwhelming majority of scientists, climate scientists especially, believe that humans are impacting global warming:

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

There are only a hand full of scientists now that are against the idea of global warming (although they have changed their views several times from global warming isn't happening, to global warming is happening but humans aren't influencing it, to global warming is happening and humans are influencing it, but it isn't a bad thing). John Christy is the big name that falls in that group. He has been criticized for his views and ties to big oil, but he remains in question because his science has been shown to be questionable, misleading, or wrong. If scientists do that, regardless of their ideology, they should be criticized and reputations tarnished.



> As far as research, I do my research, I watch the news, I read the paper, I listen to talk radio, and I do my own independent research in libraries and on the internet, maybe you should do some research before you try to say I do not.


No, you mistake what I mean, I am talking about the primary literature. The actual science. Not the media's version of it. The media has a habit of skimming over the important details or blowing things out of proportion.



> Oh yeah, carbon credits, the reason they did not have value before is because they did not exist, it is some BS that was made up to make people feel bad for driving their trucks and SUVs, so that they would send in their money to line someone's pockets and then they could go on with their lives driving their gas hog, but yet feel good because they did their part. I am sorry if you really want to be a lemming you go ahead and follow them right over the edge.


Cars had no value in the 1800s. Computers had no value in the 1930s. These things did not exist then, but today they have great value because someone was innovative and came up with a new idea. Carbon credits are the same. And they make sense. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I don't think you'll be able to find a scientist who would disagree with that. And things like SUVs do put quite a bit of it into the air. Forests take up a lot of CO2. Again, I don't think you'll be able to find a scientist who would disagree with that. Why not offset our what we put into the atmosphere by protecting what would take that out? It makes sense to me.



> Should be a dead give away that it is BS when they call it global warming, that the ice is melting in the arctic and so on, and so on, until it comes out that it is in fact not warming and that the ice is actually growing that "they" say "oh yeah, it's global climate change" now, hehehe. If you still follow this crap after that, you go ahead and drink the kool aide, and you will follow them when they change again, no matter how absurd it becomes. The only reason they are still going on with this crap is because they all based their careers on this crap and to admit they were wrong would mean they would all be a farse and be out of a job, and we can not have that can we.


It has been changed from Global Warming to Global Climate Change because the general public does not seem to understand that global warming and global cooling are inextricably linked. As I said, on the surface, lake effect snow in february would seem contradictory to the overall premise of global warming, but it isn't. While the Day After Tomorrow was a bad movie, the basic ideas behind it were sound. If you look at the climatological record, you'll see that the earth goes through warm and cool cycles. If that doesn't tell you that they are linked, nothing will. What's so disturbing is that we're seeing what should be happening over the course of thousands of years, not hundreds.


----------



## Woodsman (Jan 3, 2008)

This thread has become pretty ridiculous and way off topic for anything related specifically to PDFs and their conservation. Would someone please put it out of my misery!!!

Thanks, Richard.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Global warming is pretty important when one takes conservation of Dart Frogs and amphibians into account. Chytrid is spreading because of climate change, and it likely wiping out species because of the synergistic effects of weakened immune systems due to temperature and disease.

I would say in order to effectively be able to conserve amphibians and dart frogs, global warming is something that needs to be tackled. It makes little difference to protect animals in terms of refuges and such if some other factor will compromise those efforts, don't you think?


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

If any of you doubt humans can do anything look into the story of the passenger pigeon..possibly the most plentiful animal on earth EVER and the last one dies in 1912 (or was it 1914... I might be flip flopping the year we lost the last carolina parakeet). I have Gore but I believe in global warming.
Brian


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

You don`t have to believe in anything. Look at the possible outcomes if it`s right or if it`s wrong. It`s true and we do nothing, wiped out. It`s true and we do something, we have a chance. It`s wrong and we do something, we have cleaner air, water and food. It`s wrong and we don`t do anything, business as usual. Now in all the confusion, I`m not sure myself whether I fired 5 bullets or 6, but considering this is a 44 magnum, the most powerful climate on earth and would take your head clean off, you gotta ask yourself one question, "do I feel lucky", well do ya punk?!!!
Your not going to shut me up thru bad rep so fire away!!!!


----------



## harrywitmore (Feb 9, 2004)

Well said frogfarm. Forget the buzz words like 'Global Warming' Just think of it this way. Are we polluting our planet with materials which would otherwise not be here? Yes. Stop it! 

This subject has had all types of names over the years. In the 70's it was known as 'The Greenhouse Effect' and people laughed at anyone that mentioned it much like many do now about 'Global Warming'. Regardless what you call it we are producing CO2 at alarming rates that can't be good for the planet. The only reason people can ignore it and say it's not causing any problems is because it's not easily seen and the effects are subtle. It was easier to see SMOG, polluted water and earth, but it's still pollution.

I believe Al Gore to be the prime reason the tide has turned on this subject and I thank him for it. Luckily we now have an adminitration that talks to scientist instead of ignoring them.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Funny, I`ve got more neg rep off this thread than any other and all for nothing but stating the facts of what we, as humans, have done in the past. I must be hitting close to home on what some are trying to falsify, for the only reason I can think of, is that they stand to make money by not controlling carbon emission or they feel bad about their lifestyle. Think what may happen if every 3rd world nation on earth takes our lead for their fuel consumption. If there isn`t a problem w/ our influencing climate right now, there certainly will be in years to come!
And I could care less about the rep system, it`s more the attitudes it represents!


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

MonarchzMan said:


> But the evidence for global warming and the human impacts on it is overwhelming. And the overwhelming majority of scientists (especially climate scientists) believe that humans are influencing global climate change. It's not a scam or anything like that. It's happening. The only debate that is happening among the scientific community is the amount of influence humans are having to the environment..


"Overwhelming majority?" Dude that is such a freakin crock of crap. A huge group of climatologists, not "scientists", showed up in Poland recently to speak out against this power grab...how much media coverage did they get? They're climatologists...doesn't their scientific opinion count? No...it doesn't. They ain't towin the line.



MonarchzMan said:


> And Aaron is right. Regardless of what is happening and how much humans are influencing it, "being green" makes sense.


Agreed...as long as some failed hack like Al Gore who doesn't even come close to practicing what he preaches isn't trying to force me or the free market to change because of something he claims but has not proven...no one has. Its the sun folks...very simple.


----------



## Smashtoad (Apr 27, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> Funny, I`ve got more neg rep off this thread than any other and all for nothing but stating the facts of what we, as humans, have done in the past. I must be hitting close to home on what some are trying to falsify, for the only reason I can think of, is that they stand to make money by not controlling carbon emission or they feel bad about their lifestyle. Think what may happen if every 3rd world nation on earth takes our lead for their fuel consumption. If there isn`t a problem w/ our influencing climate right now, there certainly will be in years to come!
> And I could care less about the rep system, it`s more the attitudes it represents!


wow...so much opinion stated as fact. Just re-read that...you want to talk about making money? You might want to talk to Al Gore.

Every third world nation? They have NOTHING but coal and charcoal...NOTHING. And the do gooders want to control that? You think they can afford wind or solar, that isn't even close to being efficient or affordable for Americans? How are alternative energies going to help them?

The climate of earth changes continuously. Anyone remember Ted Dansen in the 90's, telling us we had ten years to fix it or we'd destroy the planet? C'mon folks...open your eyes. This is about control of your lives...period.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Smashtoad said:


> "Overwhelming majority?" Dude that is such a freakin crock of crap. A huge group of climatologists, not "scientists", showed up in Poland recently to speak out against this power grab...how much media coverage did they get? They're climatologists...doesn't their scientific opinion count? No...it doesn't. They ain't towin the line.


Yes, overwhelming majority. I'd suggest that you look at that survey I posted. It shows that, based on a representative sample of climate scientists (3000+) that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that it's human-influenced. The only two that don't have the overwhelming majority are petroleum scientists (for obvious reasons tied to big oil) and meteorologists (who deal with short term phenomena, not long term like Global warming).



> Agreed...as long as some failed hack like Al Gore who doesn't even come close to practicing what he preaches isn't trying to force me or the free market to change because of something he claims but has not proven...no one has. Its the sun folks...very simple.


It's not just the sun. There was a recent model that said what we're observing can't be solely explained by natural occurrences. Not only that, but we're in a solar minimum and the temperatures are still rising when they should be falling!

And just a bit about science. Falsifiability. Basically that means that science doesn't prove anything. It only disproves the opposite. We can study this phenomenon for thousands of years and get untold amounts of data regarding it, but it will never be proven. We can only get data that disproves the opposite (that humans aren't influencing GW), and we have plenty of those data.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

Smashtoad said:


> Every third world nation? They have NOTHING but coal and charcoal...NOTHING. And the do gooders want to control that? You think they can afford wind or solar, that isn't even close to being efficient or affordable for Americans? How are alternative energies going to help them?


Just as a point of fact, check out Costa Rica and their energy situation. They currently get the large majority (if not all) of their energy from wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. They're getting so much that they're actually exporting energy. And they would be considered a third world country (or developing country if you want to be more PC).



> The climate of earth changes continuously. Anyone remember Ted Dansen in the 90's, telling us we had ten years to fix it or we'd destroy the planet? C'mon folks...open your eyes. This is about control of your lives...period.


No, this isn't about control of our lives. This is about ensuring a future for future generations. Ensuring that they can have a planet that is not riddled with problems. Ensuring that they can go to the tropics and still see many of the amphibians there as well as the other flora and fauna. This is about making sure our planet remains the wonder that it is and that it doesn't succumb to the decay of mankind. That's what this is about. 

I don't know about you, but I want to be able to take my children and grandchildren to Costa Rica and Panama and show them all of the amazing amphibians there. I don't want to say "Well, when I first came here, there were frogs everywhere, but not anymore." It's about thinking ahead and planning for the future rather than living in the past.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Look at my comments, there are only 4 possible outcomes and I stated them, fact. It wasn`t us who started the rivers on fire, it wasn`t us who caused a hole in our ozone, we didn`t wipe out the bison, dodo and tooo many others to list? and men aren`t seeing signifigantly reduced spermcounts gen to gen in certain parts of the country. 
If by control you mean capitalism not being able to use energies so out of control that they destroy us, then yes they want to control us to not only head off proven outcomes but also to assess outcomes and act accordingly when ultimate proof can not be drawn, but would ultimately be devastating!!


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

One of the major problems with global warming is how its become so popular. People have used fear to promote it in a way that combines the junk with the science. is global warming happening, probably. is the ice cap going to be gone in 10-20 years like that's been reported on the news. i don't think so. Should we try to prevent it and understand it, of course. But i don't think we should throw billions or trillions of dollars away on things we don't really understand just yet. And remember anyone can make a model that says what ever they want. weather it proves or disproves global warming.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

bussardnr said:


> One of the major problems with global warming is how its become so popular. People have used fear to promote it in a way that combines the junk with the science. is global warming happening, probably. is the ice cap going to be gone in 10-20 years like that's been reported on the news. i don't think so. Should we try to prevent it and understand it, of course. But i don't think we should throw billions or trillions of dollars away on things we don't really understand just yet. And remember anyone can make a model that says what ever they want. weather it proves or disproves global warming.


I don't think that anyone is suggesting to do anything that we don't understand. As is, all of the suggestions that have been made to help reduce our effects on GW are all things that reduce CO2 emissions, which we know has insulating properties. It's the common sense things that people have suggested so far. More fuel efficient cars, alternative energy, maintaining and spreading carbon sinks (e.g. forests), so on and so forth. They're not things that are vastly radical, just common sense.

As for the model, it's partially true, but it also has to stand up to scientific criticism, which, if models are misleading or missing information to come to a false conclusion, they will be shot down. The model I speak of likely will be altered in the future as more data become available, but based on our current knowledge of the climate and weather systems, it would be as accurate as we can get it. Here's the article I am referring to:

Data pins polar warming blame on humans - CNN.com


----------



## harrywitmore (Feb 9, 2004)

Smashtoad said:


> Agreed...as long as some failed hack like Al Gore who doesn't even come close to practicing what he preaches isn't trying to force me or the free market to change because of something he claims but has not proven...no one has. Its the sun folks...very simple.


Let's turn this around since some seem to need proof positive before even considering it to be a problem. Prove to me that it is not happening. Show me the absolute proof that what I believe is not happening and I will surely change my mind.

It's not possible to provide proof that it will happen. That will come after it does. Then it's too late. 

The free market changes on any whim that happens to come it's way. The government has subsidized the 'free market' for years to make us dependent on oil and coal. I'd just like to see some balance for a change.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

harrywitmore said:


> Let's turn this around since some seem to need proof positive before even considering it to be a problem. Prove to me that it is not happening. Show me the absolute proof that what I believe is not happening and I will surely change my mind.
> 
> It's not possible to provide proof that it will happen. That will come after it does. Then it's too late.
> 
> The free market changes on any whim that happens to come it's way. The government has subsidized the 'free market' for years to make us dependent on oil and coal. I'd just like to see some balance for a change.


Couldn`t have said it better.


----------



## buddha (Oct 17, 2006)

Amen and god bless Smashtoad. haha. Someone put me in the red because of something i said that they didn't agree with. And i truley believe that it has to do with the environment. We should be more careful about spillage. and be more careful about ruining habitats and destroying animals through our needs and wants. But global warming is just something for us to be afraid of. Do the research and make your own opionions. Just beacuse "Robot" formally known as vice president says something everyone believes. Internet has allot of useful info and some crap. Use your Nose. Bring on the Negatives. Mwah. -Buddha


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

buddha said:


> But global warming is just something for us to be afraid of. Do the research and make your own opionions. Just beacuse "Robot" formally known as vice president says something everyone believes. Internet has allot of useful info and some crap. Use your Nose. Bring on the Negatives. Mwah. -Buddha


You're right about doing the research, and when done properly, I think that people will come to the same conclusion: global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it. By proper research, I mean going to the sources of the science, not reading off of Fox News' website or some random person's blog. The media tends to go nuts with these sort of things, and they are often inaccurate or misleading in what they report. Go to the science being conducted and see what's happening. You do that, and you'll understand that it's happening and we're influencing it.

Global warming is a serious problem. It will cause the extinction of countless species as well as the alteration of many habitats. Given that we're contributing to it, I think that we have a moral obligation to help slow its effects so that future generations can inherit a world like what we inherited.


----------



## harrywitmore (Feb 9, 2004)

I really don't like what they are calling our pollution of the planet. I think 'Global Warming' only allows people to discount the evidence. I would just like to call it what it is and that's pollution plain and simple. Try filling your house with CO2 and see how anything but plants like the result. Spewing CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem regardless of what you call it so we need to find different alternatives to burning fuels that produce CO2 for energy.


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

I'm sorry but I truly don't understand why this argument is still happening. From what I'm reading, every person here agrees that the planet is in danger. The only discrepancy is whether or not "Global Warming" is what it should be called. I clearly stated how I felt in my very first post and that statement was apparently ignored by those who continue to pick apart this thread. I agree with Harry that the name they've given to pollution is what's causing the issue (in this thread and in the media). I think that we need to make changes to the way our society operates and I think that the most effective way to deliver the information available about the planet's situation is to have credible sources make the delivery. We need to stop making this political and start making it cultural because as long as there are political attachments to the subject of pollution there will always be opposition, solely for partisan reasons (even when the "opposition" is arguing the same side of the debate apparently). Sad, but true.

I apologize for some of my more hostile comments... I'm just reading nearly the same thing from every person, yet "mud" is still being flung.


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

Marinarawr said:


> I'm sorry but I truly don't understand why this argument is still happening. From what I'm reading, every person here agrees that the planet is in danger. The only discrepancy is whether or not "Global Warming" is what it should be called. I clearly stated how I felt in my very first post and that statement was apparently ignored by those who continue to pick apart this thread. I agree with Harry that the name they've given to pollution is what's causing the issue (in this thread and in the media). I think that we need to make changes to the way our society operates and I think that the most effective way to deliver the information available about the planet's situation is to have credible sources make the delivery. We need to stop making this political and start making it cultural because as long as there are political attachments to the subject of pollution there will always be opposition, solely for partisan reasons (even when the "opposition" is arguing the same side of the debate apparently). Sad, but true.
> 
> I apologize for some of my more hostile comments... I'm just reading nearly the same thing from every person, yet "mud" is still being flung.


Because people on here for some reason find it amusing to bicker and fight about things..thats why this is still going on...no one can ever meet someone in the middle its ether thier way or the high way. Witch is why you see less and less of the experienced people on here because their sick of it.
Brian


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Just as a reminder, this section is dedicated to the following....



> In depth discussions about science, conservation, and related news. Topics must be warranted, and will be moved if not.


It occurs to me that this debate like all the others that have preceded it on the board would be better served if the posters would follow this guideline:

1) Points made for or against the topic would involve citing primary scientific evidence, not casual observation or what one heard on Fox/CNN/PBS or from your Uncle Jim (after all this is supposed to be a science-based section of the board, not an extension of the Lounge).

2) Politics can be left to the politicians. What is happening to the planet is to a great degree independent of their beliefs or actions. 

Otherwise there is always the Lounge 

Bill


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

elmoisfive said:


> Just as a reminder, this section is dedicated to the following....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if my Uncle Jim is a climatologist?


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

frogfarm said:


> What if my Uncle Jim is a climatologist?


Then I would suggest that you quote him from his articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals 

Bill


----------

