Pollution is good for you!

[richter915]

man, people are dumb:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060517/us_nm/environment_ads_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A little girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life," in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists," especially Al Gore.

ADVERTISEMENT



Yes No
Yes No

Yes No



The television ads, screened for the press on Wednesday and set to air in 14 U.S. cities starting on Thursday, are part of a campaign by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute to counter a media spotlight on threats posed by worldwide climate change.

The spots are timed to precede next week's theatrical release of "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary film on global warming that features Gore, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate.

Against backdrops of a park, a beach and a forest, one celebrates the benefits of greenhouse gas-producing fuels.

"The fuels that produce CO2 (carbon dioxide) have freed us from a world of back-breaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love," the ad runs. "Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. Imagine if they succeed -- what would our lives be like then?"

The other ad questions media reports of the threat of climate change, especially a Time magazine issue devoted to the topic, and shows film of a glacier melting and then runs in reverse to show the glacier reconstituting itself.

"We had started work on this several months back, but we sort of changed course once the flood of glacier-melting stories began," said Sam Kazman, an institute lawyer who worked on the ads. "So we did want to get out there before the Al Gore film got into national opening."

'RUNNING FOR ARCH-DRUID'

Fred Smith, president of the institute, a lobbying group closely allied to the Bush administration that stresses limited government regulation and a free-market approach to environmental issues, said he had seen the film and found it "very alarmist," although well-produced.

"There's a lot of pictures of Al Gore pensively looking into the sunset," Smith said. "I don't think he's running for president, but he might be running for arch-druid."

The institute and environmental groups such as Washington-based Environmental Defense agree that average global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) in the last century.

But the institute questions the impact of global warming while a broad range of scientists and environmentalists, including Gore, have linked it to more severe storms, melting ice caps and rising sea levels.

"They fly in the face of most of the science," Charlie Miller of Environmental Defense said of the institute ads. "The good news is that there's not a trade-off here between prosperity, jobs, growth and protecting the Earth. We can do both."

Environmental Defense and the Ad Council released public service announcements in March featuring children as future victims of global warming, and these were mentioned critically at the briefing where the new ads were released.

The institute ads will run from May 18 through May 28 in Albany, New York; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Austin, Texas; Charleston, West Virginia; Dallas; Dayton, Ohio; Denver; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Phoenix; Sacramento and Santa Barbara, California; Springfield, Illinois, and Washington.

[Trainsaw]

I really want to see Gore's film, its something that needs to be talked about as this will be a huge issue by the end of my lifetime i'd say

[Justin_stacy]

South Park summed up Al Gore's ideas better then any peice of propaganda ever could.....

[richter915]

South Park summed up Al Gore's ideas better then any peice of propaganda ever could.....
South Park Republicans realllly bother me. If the left wing has Michael Moore, the right wing has Cartman hah.

I forget what the episode said but didn't they make Gore look like a big-foot hunter type? Also made him look gay. Yes, well done indeed.

[Justin_stacy]

South Park Republicans realllly bother me. If the left wing has Michael Moore, the right wing has Cartman hah..
If I had to pick between two fatasses I’d take Cartman, hell at least there’s a shred of truth in a south park episode.

I forget what the episode said but didn't they make Gore look like a big-foot hunter type? Also made him look gay. Yes, well done indeed.

It never went out to make him "gay"..........it set out to make him look foolish in his fearmongering. People like Gore use global warming as scare tactic to force people to buy into fanatical liberalism. People like this should be mock for what they are……

[richter915]

If I had to pick between two fatasses I’d take Cartman, hell at least there’s a shred of truth in a south park episode. heh, whatever floats your boat.



It never went out to make him "gay"..........it set out to make him look foolish in his fearmongering. People like Gore use global warming as scare tactic to force people to buy into fanatical liberalism. People like this should be mock for what they are……
Well, I mean...he sounded like the stereotypical gay person but whatever...the fearmongering is true but come on...it's not like the left does that. Cartoons like Harvey Birdman have cleverly mocked the fear the right wing creates...heck, Colbert's show is all about that.

[cal1082]

michael crichton said it best when he said if the weather man can't give you the exact tempature tomorrow how the hell do you expect him to tell you that the earth will be 2 degrees warmer 75 years from now.

[richter915]

michael crichton said it best when he said if the weather man can't give you the exact tempature tomorrow how the hell do you expect him to tell you that the earth will be 2 degrees warmer 75 years from now.
To take the word of a fiction novelist over a scientist is pretty absurd. It's not every day that your weather man gets his observations from organizations like NASA...these studies are done from respectable scientific organizations...not your local newsstations weather balloon.

We may not know the exact temperature in the future, but to ignore the trends from 150 years ago to today makes no sense. We know that as CO2 production increases, global temperature will rise. That may not be 100% fact...but the chance of it happening is 99.99999999%.

[Justin_stacy]

To take the word of a fiction novelist over a scientist is pretty absurd. It's not every day that your weather man gets his observations from organizations like NASA...these studies are done from respectable scientific organizations...not your local newsstations weather balloon.

Reputable in the eye of the beholder, most reports come from groups that have an agenda (the UN) and a want to perpetuate the idea of a human caused "global warming". Global warming in relation to humans is a theory and one that contradicts history and nature.

We know that the world is cooler now then it was 500 years ago, long before cars or factories or pollution. The reason for this discrepancy is that about 400 years ago the Earth entered what is called a little Ice Age which cooled the overall temperature of the planet 2 degrees. Now to recover from that what must the planet do? Raise the temperature. So is the rising temperature the cause of man or the natural response to weather cycles?

Remember that just last year after Katrina all these “respectable” scientists were saying that storms like this were the cause of rising ocean temperatures. But of course anyone who looks at the facts and history saw that hurricanes run in cycles that last 30 years and that the hurricane seasons of 1960's were far worse then anything we’ve seen since.

[Justin_stacy]

Well, I mean...he sounded like the stereotypical gay person but whatever.

Without watching the show i could see where you could get that, but its quite obvious the show was trying to imply that the Gore character was irrational and foolish. Its the samething they did with Mel Gibson/Passion of the Jew episode.

[richter915]

Reputable in the eye of the beholder, most reports come from groups that have an agenda (the UN) and a want to perpetuate the idea of a human caused "global warming". Global warming in relation to humans is a theory and one that contradicts history and nature.

We know that the world is cooler now then it was 500 years ago, long before cars or factories or pollution. The reason for this discrepancy is that about 400 years ago the Earth entered what is called a little Ice Age which cooled the overall temperature of the planet 2 degrees. Now to recover from that what must the planet do? Raise the temperature. So is the rising temperature the cause of man or the natural response to weather cycles?

Remember that just last year after Katrina all these “respectable” scientists were saying that storms like this were the cause of rising ocean temperatures. But of course anyone who looks at the facts and history saw that hurricanes run in cycles that last 30 years and that the hurricane seasons of 1960's were far worse then anything we’ve seen since.
Of course...but science is really hard to skew regardless of agenda. It is a theory and a well supported theory. I mean, you just need to look at the change in global temperatures since the industrial revolution and there's a definite correlation...

Right, the planet must raise it's temperature...Personally, I've never heard of what you said but let's assume it to be true. Usually, any changes made on a global scale naturally occur over the course of hundreds of years...possibly even thousands...the changes in global temperature have changed sharply in about 200 years...

I don't know if you can relate hurricanes to global warming really. There're definitely cycles for things but I want you too look at a few figures...you'll see that's what has happened is most definitely not cyclical. The sources of this data are from universities so ya, they should know their shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari son.png

this one shows the little ice age you speak of...turns out that that's long been over so double check ur sources. It indeed looks like the world was warming up again but that spike at the end is what's sparking these problems.

since the industrial revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Reco rd.png

[richter915]

Without watching the show i could see where you could get that, but its quite obvious the show was trying to imply that the Gore character was irrational and foolish. Its the samething they did with Mel Gibson/Passion of the Jew episode.
oh no, I thought the exaggeration of his behavior was hilarious (and the first thing I noticed) but they made him look very girlish in doing so. It was funny.

[Justin_stacy]

Of course...but science is really hard to skew regardless of agenda. It is a theory and a well supported theory. I mean, you just need to look at the change in global temperatures since the industrial revolution and there's a definite correlation...

That’s not exactly true, because science is a creation of man and man is corruptible. Anything can be skewed if you ignore facts that don’t fit your preconceived conclusion. If a scientist has already concluded that human caused global warming is real, then there’s no way they are going to look at something that might contradict that.

Honestly how many people do you think know that we just came out of an ice age that started prior to the industrial revolution? A handful at best? But yet this is a fact, and it is also a fact that the planet is cooler now. So why aren’t they teaching it? Why is human caused global warming the only conclusion you hear about?

There is an agenda out there and it’s politically motivated.


Right, the planet must raise it's temperature...Personally, I've never heard of what you said but let's assume it to be true. Usually, any changes made on a global scale naturally occur over the course of hundreds of years...possibly even thousands...the changes in global temperature have changed sharply in about 200 years...

Fist thinks for proving my point, not all sides of the issue are being taught, just those that support a human caused global warming.

Second your assertion is not true. A large scale change would take 1,000 of years. But a small change, like 1 or 2 degrees, would only take a few hundred years. Say from 1600 to 1900.

If temperatures can lower in a matter of few hundred years why is it so far fetch to think that can also rise in that same period of time? Is that not a valid question?

I don't know if you can relate hurricanes to global warming really. There're definitely cycles for things but I want you too look at a few figures...you'll see that's what has happened is most definitely not cyclical. The sources of this data are from universities so ya, they should know their shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari son.png

this one shows the little ice age you speak of...turns out that that's long been over so double check ur sources. It indeed looks like the world was warming up again but that spike at the end is what's sparking these problems.

No one can confirm when an ice age exactly begins or ends, but to say something is done when the temperature hasn’t recovered to its previous levels is just foolish. What has ended is the lowering effect. Now we are in the recovering phase. Until we reach and then surpass the temperatures of the 1600’s Global Warming in your context just a theory.

My point is there are other answers to explain the rising temperature then just humans. Nature is a very strong force that we truly know little about. And placing blame or forcing excuses doesn’t change that.




The Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists, forcing a rethink on climate change, writes Robert Matthews in London.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

Claims that man-made pollution has caused unprecedented global warming have been undermined by research that shows the Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late-1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures were rising faster than before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations were causing record temperatures.

Last year, scientists on the UK climate impacts program said that global temperatures were the hottest on record. "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating," they said.

This followed research, published in 1998, in which scientists at the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia said the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1000 years.

These claims have been sharply contradicted now by a comprehensive study of world temperatures over the past 1000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.


The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures.

The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.

The study, to be published in the journal, Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the environmentalists' claims in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

Professor Stott said the evidence also undermined doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher temperatures.

"During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone," he said.

Severe famine and economic collapse followed the little Ice Age. "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth," he said.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the official voice of global warming research, has conceded that today's temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a cold period. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes are mysterious.

Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at Britain's Meteorological Office, said that the consensus among scientists on the climate change panel was that the medieval warm period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming.

Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the medieval warm period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

He said that there were doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings.

[richter915]

Your viewpoint mostly revolves around the same thing so I'm not gonna bother quoting. The main problem I have is that temperatures have surpassed those of the warm medieval period and the rate at which it's occurred is much faster. I think that's what most scientists are attributing CO2 emissions to.

[Trainsaw]

It never went out to make him "gay"..........it set out to make him look foolish in his fearmongering. People like Gore use global warming as scare tactic to force people to buy into fanatical liberalism. People like this should be mock for what they are……
funny coming from someone who supports an administration full of it.............fearmongering that is

[Justin_stacy]

funny coming from someone who supports an administration full of it.............fearmongering that is

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

[Justin_stacy]

Your viewpoint mostly revolves around the same thing so I'm not gonna bother quoting. The main problem I have is that temperatures have surpassed those of the warm medieval period and the rate at which it's occurred is much faster. I think that's what most scientists are attributing CO2 emissions to.


Here I’ll give my speal.....First though, the temperature has not recovered. We know that the Middle Ages were much hotter then they are now (and we’ve known for years) and that the 1600's through 1700's were much colder. So one explanation for the Earth's temperature change is a balancing effect. The Earth cools it’s self from a hot period by having a small "ice age," which it then gradually reheats from. It’s a natural cycling effect.

Now yes CO2 levels are rising, but that doesn't explain away history or nature. Man created global warming is one theory, but it is not the only nor is it a fact. That is what I’m trying to show you. I don't care what you believe personally so long as you know there are other sides to the story. "Scientists" are humans just like us, they are corruptible and they do have agendas and politics.

We know the earths temperature fluctuated long before cars and pollution, so asigning them the blame for our current temperature changes is not the end all to the conversation.

[richter915]

Here I’ll give my speal.....First though, the temperature has not recovered. We know that the Middle Ages were much hotter then they are now (and we’ve known for years) and that the 1600's through 1700's were much colder. So one explanation for the Earth's temperature change is a balancing effect. The Earth cools it’s self from a hot period by having a small "ice age," which it then gradually reheats from. It’s a natural cycling effect.

Now yes CO2 levels are rising, but that doesn't explain away history or nature. Man created global warming is one theory, but it is not the only nor is it a fact. That is what I’m trying to show you. I don't care what you believe personally so long as you know there are other sides to the story. "Scientists" are humans just like us, they are corruptible and they do have agendas and politics.

We know the earths temperature fluctuated long before cars and pollution, so asigning them the blame for our current temperature changes is not the end all to the conversation.
From what I'm reading, there's a lot of dispute about data regarding the Medieval Warm Period. Some evidence says it was 1 degree hotter than, others indicate it's warmer now. Regardless, the cause of the warm period was a period of excessive solar activity which, if we go by that, global temperatures should be DECREASING over the next 500 years and in around 1500 years, we should reach a maximum. The Earth does not decide to cool or warm, it's dependent on the sun and current data suggests that based on solar activity alone, we should not be increasing in temperature as fast as we are.

I think you're having a problem with your words here. Global warming based on CO2 is not really a theory because although there is overwhelming amounts of evidence for it, it's not really testable. So ya, it's totally legit to think that the sun is just warming up or some other reason...but to put this in perspective...that's like saying creation science poses a threat to the evidence of evolution.

look at this figure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.pn g
it shows that temperatures are rising and the impact of various causes and as you can see...the highest impact comes from greenhouse gas emission. I understand that you're saying science has a bias but you really can't say that because that's wrong. As scientists, they can't sit and believe what is wrong just cause it makes them feel nice. When science disagrees with your personal agenda, you can't just deny it and say it's wrong...like you said, the forces of nature are extremely powerful and science is there to discern them...so when the majority of scientific evidence points in one direction, yes you must look at other reasons but you have to accept that they lack substantial evidence for it. Science can NEVER state fact...science can only show ideas have evidence for it. You're right, CO2 emission causing warming is not fact...but...it's pretty darn close.

edit: again I think you should really look through this diagram. The data is from respectable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari son.png

[Trainsaw]

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
no so much that people had to be ignorant, as to that they continously tried to scare the people into going into war....

[cal1082]

no so much that people had to be ignorant, as to that they continously tried to scare the people into going into war....

If you think about it though every single war, or talk of engagment is centered around fear though. I dont think that's fair. What would you expect that case for war to revolve around?

[Justin_stacy]

no so much that people had to be ignorant, as to that they continously tried to scare the people into going into war....

The comment wasn't directed at that. The ignorance was in your assertion that any conservative is by definition a fan of this administration because it has an "R" next to it. Republican doesn't equate to conservative. And a neo-con, like the "new" Bush, has far more in common with you then me.

[thedood]

The comment wasn't directed at that. The ignorance was in your assertion that any conservative is by definition a fan of this administration because it has an "R" next to it. Republican doesn't equate to conservative. And a neo-con, like the "new" Bush, has far more in common with you then me.

I'm not one to correct spelling in forums, so good post.

But, I am out of my element in the politics forum...so back to the generals for me.

Love the He-man avatar.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm not one to correct spelling in forums, so good post.

Personally, grammar really shouldn't be a top priority to someone posting on a forum.

But, like I said, that's a personal opinion.

[dangets]

it seems to me that the political motivation for those who say global warming is due to fossil fuels (winning elections, making the other side look bad) is much less than the motivation for those who say global warming is not an issue or not something that is the fault of humans (winning elections, not looking bad, allowing their key supporters to sell more oil).

but what if both sides were completely non-politically motivated? the proponents of global warming think they are saving the earth. what is the non-politically motivated reasoning behind the other side's argument?

science was created by people, but science is inherently more reliable than any other method of determining truth. even if a few scientists are politically motivated, there are still far more who are interested in what's really happening. to say that the findings of so many members of the scientific community are politically motivated is to say that thousands and thousands of people are committing scientific fraud, bending the truth for some other dubious purpose. i'm as pessimistic as anybody, but this seems pretty unlikely.

and saying that al gore is a fear monger in an ad hominem argument. stick to the science.

[richter915]

it seems to me that the political motivation for those who say global warming is due to fossil fuels (winning elections, making the other side look bad) is much less than the motivation for those who say global warming is not an issue or not something that is the fault of humans (winning elections, not looking bad, allowing their key supporters to sell more oil).

but what if both sides were completely non-politically motivated? the proponents of global warming think they are saving the earth. what is the non-politically motivated reasoning behind the other side's argument?

science was created by people, but science is inherently more reliable than any other method of determining truth. even if a few scientists are politically motivated, there are still far more who are interested in what's really happening. to say that the findings of so many members of the scientific community are politically motivated is to say that thousands and thousands of people are committing scientific fraud, bending the truth for some other dubious purpose. i'm as pessimistic as anybody, but this seems pretty unlikely.

and saying that al gore is a fear monger in an ad hominem argument. stick to the science.
probably one of the smartest, most unbiased posts I've ever read. Thanks guy.

[Jarrodtexas]

Personally, I think science is much like a Michael Moore film. You can take whatever facts or figures you want to in order to prove a specific agenda. No one knows if the cycles we rely on are even part of a bigger cycle that we haven't been around long enough to witness.

Aside from that, none of us know.

I agree with he-man, we can't point towards humans and our consumption of oil and/or other forms of fuel and the CO2 as the problem. It is a theory, nothing moore.

I digress however, into thinking that there is nothing wrong with conserving, but let's focus on that, rather than passing blame on anyone.

[richter915]

Personally, I think science is much like a Michael Moore film. You can take whatever facts or figures you want to in order to prove a specific agenda. No one knows if the cycles we rely on are even part of a bigger cycle that we haven't been around long enough to witness.

Aside from that, none of us know.

I agree with he-man, we can't point towards humans and our consumption of oil and/or other forms of fuel and the CO2 as the problem. It is a theory, nothing moore.

I digress however, into thinking that there is nothing wrong with conserving, but let's focus on that, rather than passing blame on anyone.
You're stupid. Science is like a Michael Moore film? are you shitting me. Amazing how you equate hypothesis/theory to agenda. That's just RETARDED. Science is never about proving some person's specific idea...it's about proving what occurs naturally. You might not know this but there're more scientific theories that end up being thrown out the window than accepted because it's not what naturally occurs. 150 years ago, you woulda been taught things like Lamarckian evolution...spontaneous generation...but today, we know those things to be false because they are not proved scientifically. That's not an agenda at all.

Again, the word theory gets thrown around. When there's a theory like this...it means it has a lot of hardcore scientific evidence supporting it...anything else is really just an alternative suggestion without as strong of a basis. Yes, there's a slight possibility that the sun is getting hotter than ever before in the past 150 years...but...it's really really really not likely and if it is, it might not be the only reason or the most predominant one.

this is never about passing the blame...this is about realizing that things humans do can have a larger global impact than realized and something should be done about that.

[cal1082]

You have to realize that for the scientific theory that humans have increased global warming there is the scientific theory that they have not.

[dangets]

You have to realize that for the scientific theory that humans have increased global warming there is the scientific theory that they have not.

the founder of the International Flat Earth Society wrote a book detailing 15 "scientific" experiments that prove his theory - that the earth is really a flat disk with the north pole in the center and a 150 foot wall of ice around the edge.

not all scientific theories are created equal

[Jarrodtexas]

First off, calling me stupid is frankly uncalled for. Putting that aside, I very much think in this instance, that it is very relevant to compare a michael moore film and science. There are simply too many factors that can contribute to the temperature of the earth changing. And one can portray "scientific fact" to portray any idea or agenda. This would not be the first time.

I think it is you, sir, who may a bit naive, to assume that science itself is free from agenda.

In the end, I still stand by my assertion, and continue to say that it is simply a theory. I say theory because, by defintion, anything that remains unproves is a theory. A theory that I am not convinced is fact or even near fact. Simple as that.

There exists a group of Scientists who insist it is not humans causing global warming, how can you, a non-scientist, decipher the truth?

Which group of scientists are lying? Are either of them, or is that they just don't have enough information to prove either side.

You can't prove either side, so please just accept them as theories.

[dangets]

First off, calling me stupid is frankly uncalled for. Putting that aside, I very much think in this instance, that it is very relevant to compare a michael moore film and science. There are simply too many factors that can contribute to the temperature of the earth changing. And one can portray "scientific fact" to portray any idea or agenda. This would not be the first time.

I think it is you, sir, who may a bit naive, to assume that science itself is free from agenda.

In the end, I still stand by my assertion, and continue to say that it is simply a theory. I say theory because, by defintion, anything that remains unproves is a theory. A theory that I am not convinced is fact or even near fact. Simple as that.

There exists a group of Scientists who insist it is not humans causing global warming, how can you, a non-scientist, decipher the truth?

Which group of scientists are lying? Are either of them, or is that they just don't have enough information to prove either side.

You can't prove either side, so please just accept them as theories.

if the correct theory is that we're not causing global warming, then everything is fine and we can go about our business like usual

but if the things we're doing actually are causing global warming, we're working to disrupt and change the environment, with severe consequences that have been pretty well explained by climatologists. if this is even a possibility, don't you think we would want to err on the side of caution before we actually knew the truth, considering we would be negatively affected by the whole thing?

i think it is possible to prove one side over the other. science has a long history of things that people said were unprovable that have since been proven well beyond a resonable doubt. it just needs time.

i don't deny that some scientists may have an agenda... it happens all the time. but when you're talking about the number of scientists we're talking about, you get into a real huge shitload of agenda and basically no science at all. i think it's naive to assume this is what's actually happening.

[Jarrodtexas]

That is a fair response. I disagree with you. But I see where you are coming from. I suppose its just how you look at it.

[richter915]

First off, calling me stupid is frankly uncalled for. Putting that aside, I very much think in this instance, that it is very relevant to compare a michael moore film and science. There are simply too many factors that can contribute to the temperature of the earth changing. And one can portray "scientific fact" to portray any idea or agenda. This would not be the first time.

I think it is you, sir, who may a bit naive, to assume that science itself is free from agenda.

In the end, I still stand by my assertion, and continue to say that it is simply a theory. I say theory because, by defintion, anything that remains unproves is a theory. A theory that I am not convinced is fact or even near fact. Simple as that.

There exists a group of Scientists who insist it is not humans causing global warming, how can you, a non-scientist, decipher the truth?

Which group of scientists are lying? Are either of them, or is that they just don't have enough information to prove either side.

You can't prove either side, so please just accept them as theories.
I apologize...when people argue with science I get really heated and rude for no reason. Sorry.

In any issue there are several scientific possiblities as to what occurs naturally...and at the basis of science is the fact that nothing can be proven 100%. Science can NEVER say anything is fact...science can just show what "theory" has the most evidence supporting it. That's what's amazing about science because it allows anyone to think what they want...even if it's wrong lol.

I disagree with the Moore statement because science is not a fat uber-liberal. Science is out there to prove (or at least come as close as possible to proving) what is true. Moore has an agenda...he's a social commentator...a politician...someone full of corruption...science doesn't, and cannot, have that. If it's an agenda to try and find the evidence for what occurs in nature...then ya, science has an agenda.

a group of scientists? My friend, it's not a handful of nobodies who think this...it's the majority of the global scientific (and non-scientific) community who think this because the majority of the evidence points in that direction.

scientists CANNOT lie. It's impossible to LIE in the science world.

The other "theories" to support global warming lack evidence and there aren't as many alternative explanations as you're asserting. I've found two other pieces of evidence for global warming and those do have an impact (I never said they didn't...at least I shouldn't have)...BUT! they can't answer the question of the global warming question since the industrial revolution...the current spike in global warming is pretty much unprecedented so it's hard to say it's just part of the cycle. Science has tried to show the most likely reason for the warming and that is through increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And many say they just wanna blame the right wing agenda...that's what's wrong and skewed. Science will say "yes, CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing...so has global warming...here's how the two relate"...newspapers, TV, and politicians will start throwing the slander due to their bias.

[richter915]

if the correct theory is that we're not causing global warming, then everything is fine and we can go about our business like usual

but if the things we're doing actually are causing global warming, we're working to disrupt and change the environment, with severe consequences that have been pretty well explained by climatologists. if this is even a possibility, don't you think we would want to err on the side of caution before we actually knew the truth, considering we would be negatively affected by the whole thing?

i think it is possible to prove one side over the other. science has a long history of things that people said were unprovable that have since been proven well beyond a resonable doubt. it just needs time.

i don't deny that some scientists may have an agenda... it happens all the time. but when you're talking about the number of scientists we're talking about, you get into a real huge shitload of agenda and basically no science at all. i think it's naive to assume this is what's actually happening.
I agree with everything except for the agenda of scientists. Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Plank...none of them were out there to change anything, but they did...Newton and Copernicus didn't hate the Church and decide to do research solely to tear it down ya know? Scientists are doing their work because they see a large change in the community and are looking for the most likely cause and solution to help the global community...how is that an agenda?? There's no gain for them...they're doing their job...garbage men pick garbage...not cause they have an agenda they just might like to pick garbage.

[richter915]

That is a fair response. I disagree with you. But I see where you are coming from. I suppose its just how you look at it.
I still find it hard to believe how there's another angle you can view this from. The angle I see it from is... the most likely (but not sole) cause of the recent fluctuation in global temperature is due to a large amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...there are other causes but the impact from them is very small and almost insignificant. What's wrong in all of that?

[Trainsaw]

The comment wasn't directed at that. The ignorance was in your assertion that any conservative is by definition a fan of this administration because it has an "R" next to it. Republican doesn't equate to conservative. And a neo-con, like the "new" Bush, has far more in common with you then me.
doubtful, but you have expressed your admiration for the administration a few times in previous posts

[dangets]

I agree with everything except for the agenda of scientists. Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Plank...none of them were out there to change anything, but they did...Newton and Copernicus didn't hate the Church and decide to do research solely to tear it down ya know? Scientists are doing their work because they see a large change in the community and are looking for the most likely cause and solution to help the global community...how is that an agenda?? There's no gain for them...they're doing their job...garbage men pick garbage...not cause they have an agenda they just might like to pick garbage.

i'm talking about instances like the scientists hired by Campbell's Soup to do a study on the effects of salt, finding that high sodium intake doesn't raise blood pressure. their motivation has to be suspect. but, things like that are definitely on the fringe.

i may be naive about this, but i believe that the vast majority of scientists are doing their research without dubious motivation. i mean, these days it has to suck to deal with all the shit that scientists have to deal with to do their research... getting grants, hiring student researchers, spending long hours in labs, dealing with regular funding cuts from government agencies... you really have to like what you're doing. if these scientists have any "agenda" at all, it's to discredit all the bad science that's out there.

and, in general, i'd say that those people whose views are being challenged by current scientific findings are most apt to accuse scientists of having a suspect agenda. they have something to gain from ruining reputations and discrediting research.

[open mind]

it's kind of funny how people who lean more right will say something that has some pretty good scientific backing like say.......evolution, or global warming is just a theory and then a minute later claim gay marriage will be the destruction of society, and not beliveing in jesus is idiotic.
just thought i'd throw that out there.

[Jarrodtexas]

There are several "facts" that support both sides. Scientists assert that there are more greenhouse gasses released into the air from one single volcano eruption (i.e. Mt. St Helens) than all human pollution combined.

I am not trying to argue one point or the other. I am simply saying this is a theory.

And to respond to the post above about those who lean right. I find that conservatives are often consistent. They seem to reject science when it comes to the start of humanity as they reject it when it comes to Global Warming.

I insist it is naive to put so much faith in science and the lack of agenda within the field. If anything, this field has the most vulnerability to agenda because so many people blindly accept it as fact.

[open mind]

There are several "facts" that support both sides. Scientists assert that there are more greenhouse gasses released into the air from one single volcano eruption (i.e. Mt. St Helens) than all human pollution combined.

I am not trying to argue one point or the other. I am simply saying this is a theory.

And to respond to the post above about those who lean right. I find that conservatives are often consistent. They seem to reject science when it comes to the start of humanity as they reject it when it comes to Global Warming.

I insist it is naive to put so much faith in science and the lack of agenda within the field. If anything, this field has the most vulnerability to agenda because so many people blindly accept it as fact.
i know that volcano eruption claim has been disproven, rush limbaugh tried to make a big thing about it in a book of his a few years back. i'll get a link in a bit.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
here's one it's from a leftist sight sure, but the scientists they talk to are pretty good.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2432_WayThingsReallyAre.pdf
these people really don't like limbaugh but they do a better job of citing where they got they're info.

[Jarrodtexas]

Fair Enough, I will read up a bit more. Thanks for the directions.

[dangets]

I insist it is naive to put so much faith in science and the lack of agenda within the field. If anything, this field has the most vulnerability to agenda because so many people blindly accept it as fact.

i still think it's innaccurate to represent the scientific community the way you are, as some sort intellectual club. science is not a lobby group, it's a method of determining truth. there's more infighting in the scientific community (simply meaning those who practice science) than there is in the democratic party. this is why when the majority of scientists in a particular field support a particular theory, it speaks so much to the theory's validity.

in general, scientists thrive on oneupsmanship. if there was anyone you'd expect to see accusing a scientist of having an agenda, it would be another scientist.

[Justin_stacy]

doubtful, but you have expressed your admiration for the administration a few times in previous posts

no its quite true that's the irony in how the media portrays him...........as for admiration, again the ignorance comment applys. Agreeing with an act does not equate to admiration. I agreed with alot that the clinton did or was forced to do not in 90's, but i do admire him nor his administration.

[Justin_stacy]

i know that volcano eruption claim has been disproven, rush limbaugh tried to make a big thing about it in a book of his a few years back. i'll get a link in a bit.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
here's one it's from a leftist sight sure, but the scientists they talk to are pretty good.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/2432_WayThingsReallyAre.pdf
these people really don't like limbaugh but they do a better job of citing where they got they're info.

actually the "volcano eruption claims" are quite true.......

http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/1/index.html
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html

[richter915]

i'm talking about instances like the scientists hired by Campbell's Soup to do a study on the effects of salt, finding that high sodium intake doesn't raise blood pressure. their motivation has to be suspect. but, things like that are definitely on the fringe.

i may be naive about this, but i believe that the vast majority of scientists are doing their research without dubious motivation. i mean, these days it has to suck to deal with all the shit that scientists have to deal with to do their research... getting grants, hiring student researchers, spending long hours in labs, dealing with regular funding cuts from government agencies... you really have to like what you're doing. if these scientists have any "agenda" at all, it's to discredit all the bad science that's out there.

and, in general, i'd say that those people whose views are being challenged by current scientific findings are most apt to accuse scientists of having a suspect agenda. they have something to gain from ruining reputations and discrediting research.
I get what you're saying and I was gonna acknowledge it cause I was thinkin about it last night that the people who do have an agenda are those who fund scientists. I vaguely remember researchers discovering products or diet programs (?) that, outside of their work, they say they'd never take or do. But does that means scientists have an agenda? I would label them "bad" scientists cause they're obviously doing it for money and glory than for anything else.

Scientists are humans, they do vote in elections so obviously they have agendas but generally that stays outside of the lab.

Scientists are like little kids though...most of the loser scientists are just out there to find something first so they can get their name on it or something but again, I don't see that as an agenda. Nobody goes into the lab saying, alright, time to help politician X win. If they do, it's probably cause of funding from that source.

[open mind]

actually the "volcano eruption claims" are quite true.......

http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/1/index.html
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
those articles fail to note that the naturally accurring pollutants that are put into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions dissipate within a few years, while man made pollutants stay in the atmosphere for a century or more.

[Justin_stacy]

those articles fail to note that the naturally accurring pollutants that are put into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions dissipate within a few years, while man made pollutants stay in the atmosphere for a century or more.

You might want to try that again, big boy. That is exactly what the second article is about......
The difference is even small erruptions have a provable impact on our climate, where as "man made pollutants" don't.

[FScott]

yeah big boy :aimkiss: don't stop get it get it

[open mind]

You might want to try that again, big boy. That is exactly what the second article is about......
The difference is even small erruptions have a provable impact on our climate, where as "man made pollutants" don't.
maybe you believe you put up a different link, but nowhere in the article is it noted that volcanic gases dissipate within a few years while man made gases take a century or more to do the same, the result being a longer lasting cumulative effect from man made cfcs.
but for the sake of argument here you realize your saying that it's proven that the same chemicals that spout into the atmosphere when a volcano erupts cause global warming, but those same albeit longer lasting in the atmosphere chemicals don't. you can't have it both ways my friend.

[Justin_stacy]

maybe you believe you put up a different link, but nowhere in the article is it noted that volcanic gases dissipate within a few years while man made gases take a century or more to do the same, the result being a longer lasting cumulative effect from man made cfcs..

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust put into the air, and the duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano. These particles have little effect on the climate. Tiny dust-size ash particles thrown into the lower atmosphere will float around for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by the abundant water and rain present in the lower atmosphere. However, dust tossed into the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks to months before they finally settle. These particles block sunlight and cause some cooling over large areas of the earth.

..........should i continue?
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html



but for the sake of argument here you realize your saying that it's proven that the same chemicals that spout into the atmosphere when a volcano erupts cause global warming, but those same albeit longer lasting in the atmosphere chemicals don't. you can't have it both ways my friend.

So your saying its possible that something other then man could be causing climate changes? Wwwwwhat?

Have it either way? Volcanoes do more then just drop CO2, but irregardless the point is the affect of volcanoes can be shown, proven. Nothing that man has done can be shown to have had any affect on the climate in anyway, which means the idea of man made global warming should be view with hesitation, rather then as fact. If human pollutants are so great and they last "so long" some sign would be expected by now that validates totally ignoring every natural cause of climate changs, which were warming and cooling the planet long before the industrial age.

[open mind]

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust put into the air, and the duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano. These particles have little effect on the climate. Tiny dust-size ash particles thrown into the lower atmosphere will float around for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by the abundant water and rain present in the lower atmosphere. However, dust tossed into the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks to months before they finally settle. These particles block sunlight and cause some cooling over large areas of the earth.

..........should i continue?
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html




So your saying its possible that something other then man could be causing climate changes? Wwwwwhat?

Have it either way? Volcanoes do more then just drop CO2, but irregardless the point is the affect of volcanoes can be shown, proven. Nothing that man has done can be shown to have had any affect on the climate in anyway, which means the idea of man made global warming should be view with hesitation, rather then as fact. If human pollutants are so great and they last "so long" some sign would be expected by now that validates totally ignoring every natural cause of climate changs, which were warming and cooling the planet long before the industrial age.
i still don't see a mention of the fact that man made cfcs stay in the upper atmosphere longer then natural ones, my point is that in the long term man's going to cause more damage with manufactured gases, because nature self corrects the damage done by volcanoes pretty easily, and that's not true with man made gases.
i never said the only thing that cause climate change is man, you must think pretty lowly of me if you think i believe that.
if we can we agree that CO2 causes climate change (i think we can) then logically man made CO2 causes climate change too, i don't see how an intelligent person could deny that. the difference between volcanic eruptions is that with a volcano you get a huge shot of gas whenever a large eruption occurs that goes away in a short number of years so of course it's going to be more easily measured. man made gas in contrast is pumped into the atmosphere slowly and constantly and then stays there for a century or so, so of course it harder to measure, but to say it doesn't have any real impact is just nutty.

[richter915]

it's funny...the stuff with the volcanoes...they cause cooling due to dust and acid rain/haze...but, you're trying to show that it warms the earth up...another shot to the foot. Volcanoes do heat up the earth by releasing CO2 which, like Open Mind keeps saying, is evidence to support the impact of CO2 released by man. Nobody denies that there's more than one cause of global warming (and if I said it a bunch of posts ago and u go and quote me don't waste ur time cause people make mistakes)...it's illogical to say that and wrong. We're just saying the most likely cause of the recent (over the past 150 years) spike in global temperature is due to gases released by man.

You can't say that global warming due to CO2 from volcanoes is provable while CO2 emissions from man is not.

The thing is, we can't stop volcanoes and other natural processes but we can control how much CO2 we put into the environment...and the whole argument of "it'll happen anyway" is just pointless because we're just furthering the problem...we can help stop it (or at least slow it down).

[Justin_stacy]

i still don't see a mention of the fact that man made cfcs stay in the upper atmosphere longer then natural ones, ..

So now your want will continuously change? Both links concerned only volcanic activity as it relates to our climate, not any human aspects. Both links disprove your original statement that volcanic activity had been disproven as a fact of climate change and second one directly speaks about your point that limited volcanic activity does not carry an exceptionally long term affect.

my point is that in the long term man's going to cause more damage with manufactured gases, because nature self corrects the damage done by volcanoes pretty easily, and that's not true with man made gases..

That's an absolute guess. You can not prove the effect man may have or that nature will have no affect on it. Where as volcanic activity is a known cooling and warming factor, that in excessive forms is not easily fixed. We know that volcanic activity prior to the Little Ice Age, was heightened, leading many to suppose that, along with the sun's activity, it caused the Little Ice Age. Now if that is true it took 400 years for earth to begin reversing the affect and the planets temperature has still not fully recovered.

i never said the only thing that cause climate change is man, you must think pretty lowly of me if you think i believe that...

You never know what to expect on this board, but the impression that I got was that you were spouting the same blind-eyed notion as that of richter, that science has for all extensive purposes proven the notion of man made global warming, that they are infallible in their conclusions, and that natural causes always play second fiddle.

I offer my most humbled apologies, if I was mistaken.

if we can we agree that CO2 causes climate change (i think we can) then logically man made CO2 causes climate change too, i don't see how an intelligent person could deny that. the difference between volcanic eruptions is that with a volcano you get a huge shot of gas whenever a large eruption occurs that goes away in a short number of years so of course it's going to be more easily measured. man made gas in contrast is pumped into the atmosphere slowly and constantly and then stays there for a century or so, so of course it harder to measure, but to say it doesn't have any real impact is just nutty.

CO2 is one of the causes, yes, and man may, in the future, cause some global warming. But to perpetuate this as the only conclusion for the earth’s current warming trend is wrong and deceptive. We know the earth’s temperature fluctuates naturally from many different sources and has been doing it longer then man has had industry. Presenting them equals is fine, but to ignore one because it doesn’t fit an agenda or disproves previous work is wrong.

The conclusions scientist come to on a subject like this should not be viewed without hesitation. 30 years ago, with the same evidence, they said man made pollutants were causing the earth to cool, 10 years ago they said the Earth was at its hottest temperature ever, we know both are wrong and that both conclusions ignored natural occurrences and history.

[selftitled85]

since im not completely up to date with this i want to know what everyone thinks...

i have read a lot of reports saying venus used to have a climate similar to earths. but carbon dioxide heated the surface to insane temperatures and had led to the current condition.

[YourMusicSucks]

Global warming is the dumbest shit to worry about.

First off, I doubt it is a result of what we're doing. All the unbiased information is against it.

Secondly, even if it is our fault and global warming is occuring... who cares?

4 more degrees in Siberia and another degree in the US doesn't bother me at all.

And water has less mass than ice any way.

[selftitled85]

Global warming is the dumbest shit to worry about.

First off, I doubt it is a result of what we're doing. All the unbiased information is against it.

Secondly, even if it is our fault and global warming is occuring... who cares?

4 more degrees in Siberia and another degree in the US doesn't bother me at all.

And water has less mass than ice any way.

dude...

if the water raises one degree and rises because of the melting of the caps...

pretty much the jersey shore line is no more. as is a lot of the east coast. a small change has a huge impact.

[YourMusicSucks]

dude...

if the water raises one degree and rises because of the melting of the caps...

pretty much the jersey shore line is no more. as is a lot of the east coast. a small change has a huge impact.

Is there an article or something that explains that in detail?

[selftitled85]

and seriously...

even if by chance we are overreacting about global warming...

wouldnt it be better if we erred on the side of caution on this one? i would think we would try to lower those gases in case they are the problem. because if we get rid of them then theres a chance we can hinder global warming and we curtailed our emission of fossil fuels. if it ends up being bull shit...well still curtailed our fossil fuels and may have learned a more efficient way to do things.

and big companies such as oil companies are gonna bitch and moan saying that setting efficiency limits wont work because it will hinder them. so what...when the montreal protocol was signed these companies pretty much said the same thing...and then within 10 years everyone was below the limit. these companies just need to spend some money (gasp) and maybe they can get through everything pretty much unscathed.

[selftitled85]

Is there an article or something that explains that in detail?

According to some estimates, the sea level may rise about half a meter in the next century - far faster than any change in sea level in the past 1,000 years. Such a rise will inundate many low-lying areas, leading to destruction of crops along coasts and uprooting millions of people. The coast of Bangladesh, the Egyptian Nile Delta and some islands (such as the Maldives) will probably be inundated if the sea level rises merely 50 centimeters. Other low-lying areas, such as eastern England and parts of Indonesia, are also vulnerable. A number of major cities - Bangkok, Calcutta and Shanghai - in low-lying river basins are also vulnerable to a rise in sea level.

How Will Climate Change Affect Human Health?. Pim Martens.
American Scientist 87.6 (Nov 1999): p534


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has forecast a 10- to 12-inch rise in sea levels during the twenty-first century. Researchers at Columbia University have predicted that ozone-related deaths in urban centers like New York will increase by at least 4.5%.

The rising costs of global warming: as global temperatures rise, the insurance industry prepares for the worst.(Economics). Patrick Tucker.
The Futurist 39.6 (Nov-Dec 2005): p13(1).

[Justin_stacy]

Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.........

[dangets]

Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?ei=5065&en=e3ee5ed70c936bca&ex=1149739200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees.........

"...they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic."

"...caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests."

"Experts not connected with the studies say they support the idea that heat-trapping gases — not slight variations in Earth's orbit — largely determine warming and cooling."

"The new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University."

"This simultaneity tends to support the idea that the cooling was caused by a drop in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, which mix uniformly in the global atmosphere, said Dr. Moran and other members of the team."

good find

[Justin_stacy]

good find

i know it was that why i posted it.

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed remarkably 55 million years ago, which is when many scientists say the extraordinary planetwide warm-up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge. Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests.

The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, with many ups and downs, that the researchers say began about 45 million years ago and led to the cycles of ice ages and brief warm spells of the last several million years.

[richter915]

That's an absolute guess. You can not prove the effect man may have or that nature will have no affect on it. Where as volcanic activity is a known cooling and warming factor, that in excessive forms is not easily fixed. We know that volcanic activity prior to the Little Ice Age, was heightened, leading many to suppose that, along with the sun's activity, it caused the Little Ice Age. Now if that is true it took 400 years for earth to begin reversing the affect and the planets temperature has still not fully recovered. no that's kinda wrong, we do know that man can have adverse affects on the environment...we do acknowledge changes in nature as a cause (and usually one of the strongest causes) of change on Earth...but here's the flaw in the argument you're making...we know that man has an impact on global warming (you acknowledge that later on even though it refutes your earlier statement that we can't predict anything)...we clearly see that things like solar flashes and changes in greenhouse gasses due to nature also impact global warming. answer this, can we do anything to stop nature's course without potentially causing greater harm? no...can we limit what man does to destroy the world around us? yes. So why sit here and quibble about how much "evidence" we have of periods in history that counter the current trend (or agenda as you keep putting it)...I put evidence in quotes there because as you pointed out, predicting temperatures from such prehistoric eras is extremely difficult and is a crapshoot for the most part. So ya, we're causing harm, there is reason for alarm, and we can do something about it which is the main point of all of this. To say...well it'll heat up anyway is a horrible horrible guess that we should not rely on. As selftitled pointed out...there's no reason to risk it.

You never know what to expect on this board, but the impression that I got was that you were spouting the same blind-eyed notion as that of richter, that science has for all extensive purposes proven the notion of man made global warming, that they are infallible in their conclusions, and that natural causes always play second fiddle.

I offer my most humbled apologies, if I was mistaken.



CO2 is one of the causes, yes, and man may, in the future, cause some global warming. But to perpetuate this as the only conclusion for the earth’s current warming trend is wrong and deceptive. We know the earth’s temperature fluctuates naturally from many different sources and has been doing it longer then man has had industry. Presenting them equals is fine, but to ignore one because it doesn’t fit an agenda or disproves previous work is wrong.

The conclusions scientist come to on a subject like this should not be viewed without hesitation. 30 years ago, with the same evidence, they said man made pollutants were causing the earth to cool, 10 years ago they said the Earth was at its hottest temperature ever, we know both are wrong and that both conclusions ignored natural occurrences and history.

[richter915]

here's an article you should read and give thought to before you start saying it's biased left wing media propaganda. I think it pretty much covers much of the defense used by those saying that this global warming is supposed to happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming