See, this is exactly my point. No one is willing to see the other side.

 

There is just as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and if you actually take the time to put aside your political bias for a moment you would see that many of the scientific processes are flawed and incapable of giving accurate data either way.

 

The alarmists have much more to prove than the skeptics do and all they have come forward with are shaky positive results from flawed equipment. We are talking about such a small amount of change that there is practically no reliable means out there to make strong enough case to change policy.

throughout history, the temperature has been constantly changing a little bit here and a little bit there...and thats all well in good...but we are talking about the temperature rising several degrees over the next decade or two...im sorry...but A. that cant just be natural and B. will be disasterous to humanity...in the past 150 years...humanity has been burning fossil fuels into the air, dumping toxic waste into water, cutting down forests of trees in the blink of an eye and so on...are there really people out there who didnt think there would be an adverse effect to all this abuse?...if you eat mcdonalds everyday what will happen? you will get fat and die...if you do things to screw with the natural order of things...what do you think will happen? if your answer is nothing...lets go watch some beach volleyball up here in boston come december...i tell you what...it will def be warm enough for shorts

 

check out the little ice age. The temperature dropped more during that period (100 years or so) than it has increased in the past 100 years.

yeah...and temperature drops are a great thing for most living creatures...the temperature being raised at the rate it is, is bad news for us and good news for sea creatures...who are about to have a whole lot more play room...including everyone on the east coasts' living room

Can you do a little bit of research please? Temperature drops are not a great thing for most living creatures. Considering a great majority of the earth's creatures live in the tropics and the subtropics.

 

The temperature being raised has already shown itself to be beneficial to many tropical insects and plants. Whether good or bad.

 

All I'm asking is you do a little bit of research.

i did the research in college...and you know what i came up with...global warming...wait wait wait...are you ready for this...ISNT A GOOD THING...most especially for humans...which...is...who...i kinda think...that humans care about the most...personally i dont care whether a certain species of frog goes extinct...but i do care if my house...which is in central massachusetts...is in the middle of the atlantic ocean...i mean...i like fish and all...just dont really wish to become one of them ya know what i mean?

See, this is exactly my point. No one is willing to see the other side.

 

There is just as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and if you actually take the time to put aside your political bias for a moment you would see that many of the scientific processes are flawed and incapable of giving accurate data either way.

 

The alarmists have much more to prove than the skeptics do and all they have come forward with are shaky positive results from flawed equipment. We are talking about such a small amount of change that there is practically no reliable means out there to make strong enough case to change policy.

throughout history, the temperature has been constantly changing a little bit here and a little bit there...and thats all well in good...but we are talking about the temperature rising several degrees over the next decade or two...im sorry...but A. that cant just be natural and B. will be disasterous to humanity...in the past 150 years...humanity has been burning fossil fuels into the air, dumping toxic waste into water, cutting down forests of trees in the blink of an eye and so on...are there really people out there who didnt think there would be an adverse effect to all this abuse?...if you eat mcdonalds everyday what will happen? you will get fat and die...if you do things to screw with the natural order of things...what do you think will happen? if your answer is nothing...lets go watch some beach volleyball up here in boston come december...i tell you what...it will def be warm enough for shorts

 

check out the little ice age. The temperature dropped more during that period (100 years or so) than it has increased in the past 100 years.

yeah...and temperature drops are a great thing for most living creatures...the temperature being raised at the rate it is, is bad news for us and good news for sea creatures...who are about to have a whole lot more play room...including everyone on the east coasts' living room

Can you do a little bit of research please? Temperature drops are not a great thing for most living creatures. Considering a great majority of the earth's creatures live in the tropics and the subtropics.

 

The temperature being raised has already shown itself to be beneficial to many tropical insects and plants. Whether good or bad.

 

All I'm asking is you do a little bit of research.

i did the research in college...and you know what i came up with...global warming...wait wait wait...are you ready for this...ISNT A GOOD THING...most especially for humans...which...is...who...i kinda think...that humans care about the most...personally i dont care whether a certain species of frog goes extinct...but i do care if my house...which is in central massachusetts...is in the middle of the atlantic ocean...i mean...i like fish and all...just dont really wish to become one of them ya know what i mean?

 

dude you have no clue. In the little ice age millions of people were starving. If you check population charts, you will see that the population decreased during that period because there was not enough food for everyone.

If you really think the ice caps are going to melt in the next 15 years and flood massachusetts then there really is no point in talking to you anymore.

 

 

PS incase anyone wanted to know, this is when people started eating the "devils plant" aka potatoes. Potatoes grow under ground and many people refused to eat them until the absolutely had too.

I've been waiting until the President of the Czech Republic made an official comment before I decided one way or the other how I feel about global warming. I feel much better now.

See, this is exactly my point. No one is willing to see the other side.

 

There is just as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and if you actually take the time to put aside your political bias for a moment you would see that many of the scientific processes are flawed and incapable of giving accurate data either way.

 

The alarmists have much more to prove than the skeptics do and all they have come forward with are shaky positive results from flawed equipment. We are talking about such a small amount of change that there is practically no reliable means out there to make strong enough case to change policy.

throughout history, the temperature has been constantly changing a little bit here and a little bit there...and thats all well in good...but we are talking about the temperature rising several degrees over the next decade or two...im sorry...but A. that cant just be natural and B. will be disasterous to humanity...in the past 150 years...humanity has been burning fossil fuels into the air, dumping toxic waste into water, cutting down forests of trees in the blink of an eye and so on...are there really people out there who didnt think there would be an adverse effect to all this abuse?...if you eat mcdonalds everyday what will happen? you will get fat and die...if you do things to screw with the natural order of things...what do you think will happen? if your answer is nothing...lets go watch some beach volleyball up here in boston come december...i tell you what...it will def be warm enough for shorts

 

check out the little ice age. The temperature dropped more during that period (100 years or so) than it has increased in the past 100 years.

yeah...and temperature drops are a great thing for most living creatures...the temperature being raised at the rate it is, is bad news for us and good news for sea creatures...who are about to have a whole lot more play room...including everyone on the east coasts' living room

Can you do a little bit of research please? Temperature drops are not a great thing for most living creatures. Considering a great majority of the earth's creatures live in the tropics and the subtropics.

 

The temperature being raised has already shown itself to be beneficial to many tropical insects and plants. Whether good or bad.

 

All I'm asking is you do a little bit of research.

i did the research in college...and you know what i came up with...global warming...wait wait wait...are you ready for this...ISNT A GOOD THING...most especially for humans...which...is...who...i kinda think...that humans care about the most...personally i dont care whether a certain species of frog goes extinct...but i do care if my house...which is in central massachusetts...is in the middle of the atlantic ocean...i mean...i like fish and all...just dont really wish to become one of them ya know what i mean?

 

dude you have no clue. In the little ice age millions of people were starving. If you check population charts, you will see that the population decreased during that period because there was not enough food for everyone.

If you really think the ice caps are going to melt in the next 15 years and flood massachusetts then there really is no point in talking to you anymore.

 

 

PS incase anyone wanted to know, this is when people started eating the "devils plant" aka potatoes. Potatoes grow under ground and many people refused to eat them until the absolutely had too.

ok...let me just throw this idea out there...the plague, the black death had absolutely nothing to do with the population decrease during the time period of the little ice age...just chew on that for me...and no...i dont think that will happen within 15 years...but within 30 is very much so a possibility...but i guess people will actually have to see the east coast under water to believe it could actually happen...buut whatever you say boss...dont let me stop you from educuating the people

I've been waiting until the President of the Czech Republic made an official comment before I decided one way or the other how I feel about global warming. I feel much better now.

lol...this is my nomination for post of the year

See, this is exactly my point. No one is willing to see the other side.

 

There is just as much evidence against AGW as there is for it and if you actually take the time to put aside your political bias for a moment you would see that many of the scientific processes are flawed and incapable of giving accurate data either way.

 

The alarmists have much more to prove than the skeptics do and all they have come forward with are shaky positive results from flawed equipment. We are talking about such a small amount of change that there is practically no reliable means out there to make strong enough case to change policy.

throughout history, the temperature has been constantly changing a little bit here and a little bit there...and thats all well in good...but we are talking about the temperature rising several degrees over the next decade or two...im sorry...but A. that cant just be natural and B. will be disasterous to humanity...in the past 150 years...humanity has been burning fossil fuels into the air, dumping toxic waste into water, cutting down forests of trees in the blink of an eye and so on...are there really people out there who didnt think there would be an adverse effect to all this abuse?...if you eat mcdonalds everyday what will happen? you will get fat and die...if you do things to screw with the natural order of things...what do you think will happen? if your answer is nothing...lets go watch some beach volleyball up here in boston come december...i tell you what...it will def be warm enough for shorts

 

check out the little ice age. The temperature dropped more during that period (100 years or so) than it has increased in the past 100 years.

yeah...and temperature drops are a great thing for most living creatures...the temperature being raised at the rate it is, is bad news for us and good news for sea creatures...who are about to have a whole lot more play room...including everyone on the east coasts' living room

Can you do a little bit of research please? Temperature drops are not a great thing for most living creatures. Considering a great majority of the earth's creatures live in the tropics and the subtropics.

 

The temperature being raised has already shown itself to be beneficial to many tropical insects and plants. Whether good or bad.

 

All I'm asking is you do a little bit of research.

i did the research in college...and you know what i came up with...global warming...wait wait wait...are you ready for this...ISNT A GOOD THING...most especially for humans...which...is...who...i kinda think...that humans care about the most...personally i dont care whether a certain species of frog goes extinct...but i do care if my house...which is in central massachusetts...is in the middle of the atlantic ocean...i mean...i like fish and all...just dont really wish to become one of them ya know what i mean?

 

dude you have no clue. In the little ice age millions of people were starving. If you check population charts, you will see that the population decreased during that period because there was not enough food for everyone.

If you really think the ice caps are going to melt in the next 15 years and flood massachusetts then there really is no point in talking to you anymore.

 

 

PS incase anyone wanted to know, this is when people started eating the "devils plant" aka potatoes. Potatoes grow under ground and many people refused to eat them until the absolutely had too.

ok...let me just throw this idea out there...the plague, the black death had absolutely nothing to do with the population decrease during the time period of the little ice age...just chew on that for me...and no...i dont think that will happen within 15 years...but within 30 is very much so a possibility...but i guess people will actually have to see the east coast under water to believe it could actually happen...buut whatever you say boss...dont let me stop you from educuating the people

 

yes the black plague had something to do with it, however that didnt last 150 years. The earth works in cycles. While I do think that green houses gasses arent helping the environment, I think we are giving humans to much credit here. Do you truely believe that humans can have such a great effect on earth in such a short time? The same earth that has been here for a million years? The same earth that had an ICE AGE. Climante shifts happen. You really cant take a small sample and say that humans are causing the death of the earth.

That's the problem with this world, everyone wants to have a say even in arguments they know nothing about.

first of all...the plague returned many times in different forms...and it wiped out roughly about half of europe...im pretty sure...that during the 1500's-1700's the plague was responsible for a few more deaths than a little cold weather...im not saying that humans are causing the death of the earth...the earth will be around long after humanity is wiped from the planet...but we are leading ourselves to our own downfall...and yes i believe humans can have great impact on the earth in a short time...in the last 150 years we have invented everything from sporks to planes to submarines to space shuttles, the human race is advancing in leaps and bounds with nothing to stop it...except nature...nature can kill every single one of us in an instant...and therefore...for the sake of humanity surviving another couple thousand years...id like to see humanity to the needed preparations to avoid our own extinction...im not saying that its goin to happen tomorrow...but really...wouldnt you all rather be prepared for the worst than to be caught off guard?

I've been waiting until the President of the Czech Republic made an official comment before I decided one way or the other how I feel about global warming. I feel much better now.

Well, 80 percent of the American public (yes, I'm talking out of my ass on that, but hopefully you get the point) waited until the former Vice President of the United States and inventor of the internet made an official comment.

 

Who would you rather listen to? (and yes, this is a trick question).

ummm...im pretty sure that most of the known world knew about global warming long before gore made a movie about it

first of all...the plague returned many times in different forms...and it wiped out roughly about half of europe...im pretty sure...that during the 1500's-1700's the plague was responsible for a few more deaths than a little cold weather...im not saying that humans are causing the death of the earth...the earth will be around long after humanity is wiped from the planet...but we are leading ourselves to our own downfall...and yes i believe humans can have great impact on the earth in a short time...in the last 150 years we have invented everything from sporks to planes to submarines to space shuttles, the human race is advancing in leaps and bounds with nothing to stop it...except nature...nature can kill every single one of us in an instant...and therefore...for the sake of humanity surviving another couple thousand years...id like to see humanity to the needed preparations to avoid our own extinction...im not saying that its goin to happen tomorrow...but really...wouldnt you all rather be prepared for the worst than to be caught off guard?

 

Well if a little cold weather has not effect why should a little warm weather? The temp during the little ice age was further from the average than the temperature is now.

so what happens when the east coast is a part of the atlantic ocean? or do we just consider losing millions and millions of lives as a part of human progress?

 

You are making an assumption that something is fact, when in fact it is not a settled matter.

well...it wont be a settled matter until it actually happens...and yeah...much like Bush's intial reason for going into iraq...i think we need to be proactive and try to prevent the actual sharks from swimming around NYC and boston...whatever is clever though...i like to swim

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

so what happens when the east coast is a part of the atlantic ocean? or do we just consider losing millions and millions of lives as a part of human progress?

 

You are making an assumption that something is fact, when in fact it is not a settled matter.

well...it wont be a settled matter until it actually happens...and yeah...much like Bush's intial reason for going into iraq...i think we need to be proactive and try to prevent the actual sharks from swimming around NYC and boston...whatever is clever though...i like to swim

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

i think someday it will be if we continue on the path we are on...but thanks for the incredibly informative post

so what happens when the east coast is a part of the atlantic ocean? or do we just consider losing millions and millions of lives as a part of human progress?

 

You are making an assumption that something is fact, when in fact it is not a settled matter.

well...it wont be a settled matter until it actually happens...and yeah...much like Bush's intial reason for going into iraq...i think we need to be proactive and try to prevent the actual sharks from swimming around NYC and boston...whatever is clever though...i like to swim

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

i think someday it will be if we continue on the path we are on...but thanks for the incredibly informative post

 

ya because you're post was so much more informative

 

when you go around screaming such outlandish stuff everyone will just pass you off as a crazy...here is some info for you..... i read somewhere that yes the polar ice caps are melting but they are freezing somewhere else twice as fast...ill try to find the article

 

 

all im trying to say is that if you want people to change there ways ( if you believe those ways are causing harm) say something credible and that way maybe they'll change but what your doing sure as hell won't work

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

 

And that's the big problem. You can get most everyone to agree that spewing nasty stuff into the air is a bad thing. You can get most everyone to agree that we should spew less nasty stuff into the air. You can make policies on that agreement. But that isn't enough for some folks. Global Warming (the movement, not the theory) is about exerting control over people's lives based upon an elitist position.

 

Advocates for Global Warming will point to studies they have that show a pending disaster. Skeptics of Global Warming will point to studies they have that show no such thing. The skeptics will often be dismissed by the media due to some industrial connection, no matter how tenuous. The proponents will not be dismissed by the media despite being funded my a multi-billion dollar a year industry. That industry? Suing other industries about Global Warming issues.

The only true fact in this world is that foreign leaders should be able to dictate our policy if it helps a conservative viewpoint. But they should shut their faces if it doesn't. I love the hypocrisy.

 

I also love how the panels and studies that have agreed that global warming is a problem and is caused by man CAN be dismissed by el penguino and eric weiner as either not being qualified to speak on the subject, having financial bias, or being leeberals. But the same arguments against the skeptics can't be used.

 

So what exactly seperates you from the media that isn't fair? Pretty much nothing.

 

What about Nicolas Sarkozy? France did great by electing him, right? And he has been critical of us for not fighting GW enough. And Schwarzenegger?

FWIW, Rorod, the east coast at periods in history has been under water. And there were some points in history where a GREAT deal more land was available because of the Ice Age on the east coast.

The only true fact in this world is that foreign leaders should be able to dictate our policy if it helps a conservative viewpoint. But they should shut their faces if it doesn't. I love the hypocrisy.

 

I also love how the panels and studies that have agreed that global warming is a problem and is caused by man CAN be dismissed by el penguino and eric weiner as either not being qualified to speak on the subject, having financial bias, or being leeberals. But the same arguments against the skeptics can't be used.

 

So what exactly seperates you from the media that isn't fair? Pretty much nothing.

 

What about Nicolas Sarkozy? France did great by electing him, right? And he has been critical of us for not fighting GW enough. And Schwarzenegger?

Oh please. Point to me where in this thread I said that. In fact, I've been insinuating that those in political positions should be ignored in the better interests of raw science. Please re-read my posts or feel free to remain confused.

 

Again, all I've been advocating in this thread is looking at the raw science, rather than treating this like a rhetorical debate or political issue. Unfortunately you seem to be emphasizing the latter.

 

How do I have more credibility than the media? I for one am not in the business to use scare tactics to make money through the forgery of mass hysteria. If you don't acknowledge the fact that the media is one sided on this issue you are naive. I am also a scientist from a major US university and have years of research experience under a pending Nobel Laureate. Yes, not in climatology but at least I speak the language of science, not politics and economics.

 

I have absolutely nothing at stake over this issue other than the fact that I would like to see true science favored over junk science. If I published a report in my field using such inaccurate equipment and computer software (with such inconclusive results to boot), I would be laughed at.

 

thats absolutely true. It seems that anyone who speaks out against global warming gets dragged through the mud. Even if science proved there was no global warming, it would take YEARS before you had everyone, including the media, accept it.

You know full well that it is next to impossible for us to break down the scientific details of any of these assessments. But I know how the tactics in these debates work. One can muddy the waters so much, play with language, make points that don't go directly to an issue, and then claim that the foundations of a movement are not well established. Then when other people disagree with seemingly viable and excepted points, you can just turn around and demand that they analyze the issue in a way that is not possible. As an attorney, I know how one can poke holes and create reasonable doubt in anything. But policy does not get formulated in such a matter.

 

Do I think every scientist agrees on every aspect of global warming and whether it is 100% man made? Of course not. But that doesn't mean they agree on nothing.

 

Do I think there are methodology issues that have to be worked out? There are always issues. But I trust that those issues are not big enough that a consensus would arise and ignore them.

 

Do I think people on the left can be rude and condescending? Yes. Oh my god. They are so mean and they won't be nice to me. Wah!

 

But none of this means that the media and mean mean agenda driven scientists that suppress ideas are somehow conspiring to control the debate.

 

Now is Science magazine a biased source? Is it something that has an agenda or has hated Republicans forever?

 

From Science magazine:

 

 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

so what happens when the east coast is a part of the atlantic ocean? or do we just consider losing millions and millions of lives as a part of human progress?

 

You are making an assumption that something is fact, when in fact it is not a settled matter.

well...it wont be a settled matter until it actually happens...and yeah...much like Bush's intial reason for going into iraq...i think we need to be proactive and try to prevent the actual sharks from swimming around NYC and boston...whatever is clever though...i like to swim

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

i think someday it will be if we continue on the path we are on...but thanks for the incredibly informative post

 

ya because you're post was so much more informative

 

when you go around screaming such outlandish stuff everyone will just pass you off as a crazy...here is some info for you..... i read somewhere that yes the polar ice caps are melting but they are freezing somewhere else twice as fast...ill try to find the article

 

 

all im trying to say is that if you want people to change there ways ( if you believe those ways are causing harm) say something credible and that way maybe they'll change but what your doing sure as hell won't work

my argument is credible based on the facts that have been explained at nauseating amount of time...the earth is warming at a rate that is unnatural...as in man made...as in...you and i and every other person on this earth is leading us to our own ultimate destruction...and im waiting for that crazy polar ice caps are re-freezing somewhere else article...and fyi...we are still screwed if the polar ice cap re-freezes on boston or nyc...this has nothing to do with politics...we have been slowly killing humanity since the start of the industrial revolution and i believe its our duty to our grand children and great grand children to not leave them with the same problems which we endure...and like i said before...if you dont believe the heat is unnatural...come watch some beach volleyball with me in boston...in december...it will more than likely be warm enough for shorts and seeing some chicas in bikinis

so what happens when the east coast is a part of the atlantic ocean? or do we just consider losing millions and millions of lives as a part of human progress?

 

You are making an assumption that something is fact, when in fact it is not a settled matter.

well...it wont be a settled matter until it actually happens...and yeah...much like Bush's intial reason for going into iraq...i think we need to be proactive and try to prevent the actual sharks from swimming around NYC and boston...whatever is clever though...i like to swim

:lol that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard...do you honestly think the east coast is going to be under water? when people read outrageous sh*t like that no one will listen

i think someday it will be if we continue on the path we are on...but thanks for the incredibly informative post

 

ya because you're post was so much more informative

 

when you go around screaming such outlandish stuff everyone will just pass you off as a crazy...here is some info for you..... i read somewhere that yes the polar ice caps are melting but they are freezing somewhere else twice as fast...ill try to find the article

 

 

all im trying to say is that if you want people to change there ways ( if you believe those ways are causing harm) say something credible and that way maybe they'll change but what your doing sure as hell won't work

my argument is credible based on the facts that have been explained at nauseating amount of time...the earth is warming at a rate that is unnatural...as in man made...as in...you and i and every other person on this earth is leading us to our own ultimate destruction...and im waiting for that crazy polar ice caps are re-freezing somewhere else article...and fyi...we are still screwed if the polar ice cap re-freezes on boston or nyc...this has nothing to do with politics...we have been slowly killing humanity since the start of the industrial revolution and i believe its our duty to our grand children and great grand children to not leave them with the same problems which we endure...and like i said before...if you dont believe the heat is unnatural...come watch some beach volleyball with me in boston...in december...it will more than likely be warm enough for shorts and seeing some chicas in bikinis

:lol

The only true fact in this world is that foreign leaders should be able to dictate our policy if it helps a conservative viewpoint. But they should shut their faces if it doesn't. I love the hypocrisy.

 

I also love how the panels and studies that have agreed that global warming is a problem and is caused by man CAN be dismissed by el penguino and eric weiner as either not being qualified to speak on the subject, having financial bias, or being leeberals. But the same arguments against the skeptics can't be used.

 

So what exactly seperates you from the media that isn't fair? Pretty much nothing.

 

What about Nicolas Sarkozy? France did great by electing him, right? And he has been critical of us for not fighting GW enough. And Schwarzenegger?

 

I am merely pointing out the discrepancy in coverage. I point out that the matter is not even close to settled. Another thing that might separate me from the media is my lack of a multi-billion dollar bullhorn with which to espouse my opinion.

Please.

 

You make three people sound like a small number when you consider the number of different posters in this thread, it isn't. The vast majority of iflammatory responses have been on one side of the argument.

 

Cape appears to be the only person in this thread who has actually gone out of his way to do his own research and he probably even knows much more than I do on this issue. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is amazing. You are quick to criticize the rhetoric of this man, but why not the rhetoric of the junk scientists or unimformed policy makers?

 

I was merely using this thread as an example of how the entire American public treats this issue. Whenever, a skeptic comes out, his motive, background, rhetoric are immediately attacked and when the opposite side produces an argument no one blinks an eye. Sure, skeptics are guilty of the same thing at times, but I like to think I have separated myself from that by looking at the raw science rather than the interpretation of that science. Not saying this guy is more qualified to express his opinion than Al Gore is, but to write this guy off as a moron because he is going against the trend (again, as the majority of posters in this thread have done), is purely hypocritical.

 

What recently happened to NASA administrator Mike Griffin is a startling example. He recently in an interview stated his views on global warming by saying it was not cause for concern and not worth basing policy on. This immediately caused a massive uproar and the media pressure finally got to him. He then went on the record saying that he regretted commenting on the issue AT ALL, because of the way the press and the public received it. He did not, however, retract the comments he made, which I greatly admire.

 

The moral of all of this is that everyone is to blame by so easily being manipulated by the media and blanket statements from scientists. For that reason, I stand by my accusation.

 

BTW this is random. I looked up Mike Griffin to try and find his comments and found out that the guy had 5 masters degrees and a phd! WOW

Isnt the ice cap in the south pole thicker than it ever has been?

 

Also JimmyJack, I dont think that the temperature "rapidly" as you erroneously suggest(in fact, I think record highs in the 20s and 30s arent far off from the temperatures now). In the last 30 years, hasnt the average temp only changed a degree or two world wide?

 

Climates do change. In cycles. I am no scientist, but I have read many articles for both sides.

(1.) Isnt the ice cap in the south pole thicker than it ever has been?

 

(2.)Also JimmyJack, I dont think that the temperature "rapidly" as you erroneously suggest(in fact, I think record highs in the 20s and 30s arent far off from the temperatures now). In the last 30 years, hasnt the average temp only changed a degree or two world wide?

 

Climates do change. In cycles. I am no scientist, but I have read many articles for both sides.

 

1: Yes

 

2: 0.7 degrees C in the last 150 years. (end of 'Little Ice Age')

(1.) Isnt the ice cap in the south pole thicker than it ever has been?

 

(2.)Also JimmyJack, I dont think that the temperature "rapidly" as you erroneously suggest(in fact, I think record highs in the 20s and 30s arent far off from the temperatures now). In the last 30 years, hasnt the average temp only changed a degree or two world wide?

 

Climates do change. In cycles. I am no scientist, but I have read many articles for both sides.

 

1: Yes

 

2: 0.7 degrees C in the last 150 years. (end of 'Little Ice Age')

 

What is it in the last 25-50 years? I am just curious because everyone is saying how fast its changing, but no one has shown me anything to back that up.