|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 12:33:19 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Let's be clear here: I did not level this charge at any individual. I said that ad hominem arguments are intellectually lazy and irresponsible, and that is so.
What you said was
quote:
Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore. Making the whole issue about Al Gore is ad hominem: the most intellectually lazy and irresponsible form of rebuttal that there is.
Again, just because a conservative website disagrees with Al Gore does not mean that they only seek to discredit him and it does not mean that they are not dealing with the scientific merits of the issues (and it does not mean they are intellectually lazy). You are making unfair stereotypes here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 12:56:18 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1501
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh, I think he is an expert that-which-is-expelled-from-the-back-end-of-a-bull artist. After all, he is a politician.
But I find it disingenuous that the same people- hopefully not you- will take Ben Stein's word for it when it comes to another scientific topic. He's no expert, either.
AG = manure artist, agreed and I haven't mentioned one word have I about the Ben Stein issue. This isn't the thread. However, from what I've read there are scientists who are censored for not towing the the party line so to speak. It kind of goes against the independent thinking vein scientists are known for. That is not good for the long term.
quote:
No, everyone is pretty much settled on what causes global warming. Deforestation is the biggest single contributor.
No not every scientist is in agreement with the cause of GW.
quote:
In the past this was true. But we're not living in the past, are we.
Deforestation and industrial pollution (including all man-made emissions) are a reality now, whereas this was not the case in millenia past. Right now, we are the ones impacting the climate. Add a major natural contributor, and then we have a real problem on our hands, now don't we.
Plant more trees, then. Katrina and Rita wiped out a ton of forests, thankfully most of them were on commercial forestry lands and they got to work replanting what those two evil witches destroyed. 
Are you willing to give up all of your stuff that is produced by those nasty industries?
quote:
I'm sorry, but I must clarify: do you understand the difference between mountains and glaciers?
 I'm not stupid nor uneducated. That's the main problem I have with faux intellectuals. The program stated that formation and movement of glaciers is cyclical. The glaciers, made up of ice, will melt enough to move over a thin layer of water and in the process of the movement they will wear down the Rocky Mountains.
quote:
What for? You have already stated that global warming happens in cycles. We don't impact anything. Why bother cleaning up after ourselves if all of our climate problems are just natural cycles?
There is more than global warming to not allow industries to pollute the environment. I do live in a petrochemical industrial area, believe me I don't want to drink contaminated water or breathe a steady flow of carcinogens.
quote:
I've had the good fortune to live on an the Big Island and see the volcano up close and personal as well as live through a major hurricane hitting my area. Mankind can not compete with nature.
quote:
Oh, how wrong you are.
Have you seen the destruction up close and personal? It puts things in perspective. Sorry but we are but specks of dust. I own property in a community that was totally wiped off the face of the earth by a wall of water 16ft high with waves upwards of 25ft or more. We can get out of the way if there is time but we can't stop it. Nor should we.
quote:
Volcanoes are very destructive in the short term, but in the long run they actually benefit life. Volcano sites become near-paradises in a relatively short time.
Man, on the other hand, is unleashing all kinds of toxic wastes that may never go away. Furthermore, deforestation is a man-mand process happening at a daily rate that no volcano can compete with in the long haul. Comparing volcanoes and man is like comparing a house fire with a termite infestation.
You missed my point. The forces of nature are bigger than us mere mortals. At this time and for a long time in the future, we will not control it. I did make the point that even with the destructive nature of volcanoes and hurricanes the earth is very capable of recovering very nicely. Volcanoes can put out more CO2 than all of us mere mortals. The volcanoes are destructive but necessary part of the life cycle. The same thing with hurricanes. They redistribute heat by upwelling the cooler waters. It was just that in previous time, man was smart enough not to build up the coasts.
quote:
We don't have to be smart, just greedy and rapacious.
Unlike you, I don't think that highly of mankind. We just aren't as smart as we think we are. There is nothing wrong with improving the way things are but as with all things there is usually a trade off.
_____________________________
Stephanie
"If one starts with an impersonal beginning, the answer to morals eventually turns out to be the assertion that there are no morals." ~Francis Schaeffer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 1:46:11 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, just because a conservative website disagrees with Al Gore does not mean that they only seek to discredit him
Wrong. Global warming isn't about Al Gore. To make it about discrediting him is disingenuous on the part of those who do so.
quote:
and it does not mean that they are not dealing with the scientific merits of the issues (and it does not mean they are intellectually lazy). You are making unfair stereotypes here.
C'mon, now . . . do you know the definition of ad hominem?:
"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."
If someone makes their case based on Al Gore rather than on the merits of global warming itself, then that is ad hominem: an intellectually lazy and irresponsible argument, imo.
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
agreed and I haven't mentioned one word have I about the Ben Stein issue.
No, that is why I said that I hope you wouldn't be one who would do this. I don't know where you stand on the creationism/evolution issue.
I was just wondering out loud, so to speak: if right wing Christians can use Ben Stein as an expert authority from which to plead their case on the creationism/evolution debate, then why don't they allow left wingers to site Al Gore as an equal authority on global warming?
quote:
No not every scientist is in agreement with the cause of GW.
There is a majority consensus.
quote:
Are you willing to give up all of your stuff that is produced by those nasty industries?
The question is: are we all willing to change our life style choices enough to make a difference? A handful of individuals won't cut it.
quote:
I'm not stupid nor uneducated. That's the main problem I have with faux intellectuals.
I'm sorry, but you seemed to be jumbling the erosion of mountains with the melting of glaciers. These are two separate things.
quote:
The program stated that formation and movement of glaciers is cyclical. The glaciers, made up of ice, will melt enough to move over a thin layer of water and in the process of the movement they will wear down the Rocky Mountains.
There are several facts about glaciers and mountains of which you seem unaware:
1. Glaciers can erode mountains whether or not the glaciers melt.
2. Mountains erode whether or not there are glaciers on them.
3. Global warming has no direct bearing on the erosion of mountains.
4. Global warming has a very direct bearing on the melting of glaciers.
And 5: the erosion of mountains has little to do with global warming, whereas the melting of glaciers does have everything to do with global warming. Mixing the two issues of mountain erosion and glacial runoff only obfuscates the issue.
quote:
There is more than global warming to not allow industries to pollute the environment. I do live in a petrochemical industrial area, believe me I don't want to drink contaminated water or breathe a steady flow of carcinogens.
Now I'll answer with the stock anti-global warming argument:
There has to be industrial waste unless you want to send us back to some sort of socialist stoneage.
Now, how do you answer that (and do you see my frustration with it)?
quote:
Have you seen the destruction up close and personal?
I got ashed by Mt. St. Helens. Have you been there lately? It's gorgeous.
quote:
I own property in a community that was totally wiped off the face of the earth by a wall of water 16ft high with waves upwards of 25ft or more. We can get out of the way if there is time but we can't stop it. Nor should we.
We cannot stop natural disasters, but we sure as heck can stop manmade ones.
quote:
The forces of nature are bigger than us mere mortals. At this time and for a long time in the future, we will not control it.
We are not completely out of control, either. We dam rivers and change their natural course, which in turn greatly impacts the surrounding ecosystems. We convert whole rain forest biomes into plains, which has the most longrange impact on the environment of all. The Pacific Ocean is beginning to fill up with plastic, the natural habitat of countless lifeforms is disappearing due to human encroachment . . .
Our contribution to global warming is not out of our control. Quite the opposite: it is our direct responsibility. Future generations, if there will be any, will judge us according to how we handle that responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 3:44:48 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 624
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
Are you willing to give up all of your stuff that is produced by those nasty industries?
The question is: are we all willing to change our life style choices enough to make a difference? A handful of individuals won't cut it.
No actually the question is why haven't you given up all of your stuff that is produced by the companies? You claim they are damaging the environment and should be stopped! Well then I challenge you, as an adherent of global warming, to put your money where your mouth is and stop using their product. If you and all of the other folks that shared your beliefs would stop buying their "stuff" then a change could be made. Instead folks such as Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, John Travolta and a host of others tell us that we are bad because we don't listen to them. All I can say is that they, and anyone else that espouses similar sentiments, will be considered to be hypocrites until they practice what they preach!!
< Message edited by rhippie -- 5/9/2008 3:52:46 PM >
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 4:45:38 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 1006
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
That wasn't my point. My point was that any website, blog, or forum with a conservative agenda will promote conservativism, not fairness. A liberal site will likewise promote a liberal agenda, not a fair view.
Agendas are not concerned with fairness.
So you are admitting that the global warming websites might be biased as well or only those against it. Your answer will determine if you're being fair.
As for myself, I will await the day when satan needs a sweater when the global warming crowd are confident enough of their data tht they publish their methodology (the exact procedure on how the test was run) and their uncertainties (what statistical error that are innate to those procedures).
I won't hold my breath!
Signed,
Another scientist that doesn't support the theory of global warming as a man-made event.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 6:39:10 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
No actually the question is why haven't you given up all of your stuff that is produced by the companies?
Who said that I didn't?
quote:
You claim they are damaging the environment and should be stopped!
No, I claimed that deforestation is the single greatest contributor. Consumers don't clearcut and burn whole tracts of forest.
However, the resources for some of our consumer goods does come from land that has been cleared to make room for cattle, or cash crops. We can't really control that, but we can cut down on our consumerism, or find alternate sources whose suppliers are less aggressive toward the environment.
quote:
Instead folks such as Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, John Travolta and a host of others tell us that we are bad because we don't listen to them.
Here we go again: ad hominem to the rescue. Now we don't have to deal with the reality of global warming because we are too busy discrediting Hollywood big wigs.
Except for Ben Stein, of course . . . we make an exception for him because we like him. And Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and etc., etc.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/9/2008 6:48:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 6:42:54 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
So you are admitting that the global warming websites might be biased as well or only those against it. Your answer will determine if you're being fair.
No, I am not fair and impartial. I discriminate based on the scientific veracity of the source, as well as their lack of a bald-faced agenda. All others I discredit even if there is a grain of truth to their data.
quote:
Signed,
Another scientist that doesn't support the theory of global warming as a man-made event.
Are you really a scientist, or are you just being cute?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 6:46:03 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Wrong. Global warming isn't about Al Gore. To make it about discrediting him is disingenuous on the part of those who do so.
I did not say global warming is about Al Gore. What I said was, "just because a conservative website disagrees with Al Gore does not mean that they only seek to discredit him."
quote:
If someone makes their case based on Al Gore rather than on the merits of global warming itself, then that is ad hominem: an intellectually lazy and irresponsible argument, imo.
What you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming."
Just because someone disagrees with Al Gore does not mean he "is making his case based on Al Gore" and it does not mean he is not making his case on the merits of global warming itself. I can disagree with you and make my case on the merits of the subject at hand. Disagreeing with Al Gore does not mean they are resorting to an "ad hominem."
quote:
Actually, this is a valid question. You have no reason to take my word for it prima facie. I know that I think for myself, but you don't know that.
You seem to be appealing to yourself, which doesn't really make for good argumentation. Heck, everyone here may think for themselves, that doesn't mean what they think is correct.
quote:
Look back through the pages, Betta. I have countered argument after argument before I got to "I am right." Give me a little credit.
Both sides have probably given their arguments and counter arguments, but this, "you are wrong because I am right" attitude is not an argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 7:51:17 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 624
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
No actually the question is why haven't you given up all of your stuff that is produced by the companies?
Who said that I didn't?
Have you?
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You claim they are damaging the environment and should be stopped!
No, I claimed that deforestation is the single greatest contributor. Consumers don't clearcut and burn whole tracts of forest.
However, the resources for some of our consumer goods does come from land that has been cleared to make room for cattle, or cash crops. We can't really control that, but we can cut down on our consumerism, or find alternate sources whose suppliers are less aggressive toward the environment.
Are you saying that companies that sponsor deforestation are not damaging the environment? If they are damaging the environment then why are you buying the products they sell?
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
Instead folks such as Al Gore, Arianna Huffington, John Travolta and a host of others tell us that we are bad because we don't listen to them.
Here we go again: ad hominem to the rescue. Now we don't have to deal with the reality of global warming because we are too busy discrediting Hollywood big wigs.
Except for Ben Stein, of course . . . we make an exception for him because we like him. And Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, and etc., etc.
It seems to me that you want to defend someone that hasn't been attacked for anything other than being a hypocrite? Why is that? Or maybe you think hypocrisy is acceptable? It's rather hard to tell because every time someone mentions Al Gore you scream "Ad hominem attack!!!"
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 7:56:40 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 120
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
But Algore is global warming's foremost spokesperson, as if you haven't noticed.
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, just because a conservative website disagrees with Al Gore does not mean that they only seek to discredit him
Wrong. Global warming isn't about Al Gore. To make it about discrediting him is disingenuous on the part of those who do so.
_____________________________
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 8:34:39 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1105
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
Have you?
Ultimately, everyone is going to have an impact on our planet just by living, breathing, and eating, so in some ways, accusing environmentalists of hypocrisy is like accusing Christians of hypocrisy because they sin.
I think a rational approach is to not senselessly waste resources. For me, that means going as far as getting rid of my car. I guess I am still a hypocrite to Limbaugh listeners, though, because selling my car enables someone else to drive. (Even though they'll be able to avoid buying a new car, thus reducing plastic, electrical, coal, and water consumption). At least you can't fault me for attacking druggies as I got myself addicted to prescription painkillers. 
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Are you saying that companies that sponsor deforestation are not damaging the environment? If they are damaging the environment then why are you buying the products they sell?
I'm not sure if all of us do.
I think it's sort of like the issue with natural gas. I wasn't aware how much natural gas I used until prices got high. After that, I started getting used to heating my apartment to 65 degrees instead of 70- and it stuck even when natural gas prices went down. Some of the environuts who aren't connected to the electrical grid realize how much work it is to get electricity to run refrigerators and lights, and save boatloads of electricity, too.
When we at least become aware of how much we consume, we at least find ourselves consuming less of the things that don't necessarily make our lives a whole lot better. I think in most cases, that's all us envirocrazies are asking for. And besides that, of course, in an inflationary economic environment, the best thing everyone can do for the country's finances is to slow down their consumption.
quote:
It seems to me that you want to defend someone that hasn't been attacked for anything other than being a hypocrite? Why is that? Or maybe you think hypocrisy is acceptable? It's rather hard to tell because every time someone mentions Al Gore you scream "Ad hominem attack!!!"
Al Gore's a rich politician, and he lives a lifestyle comparable to rich politicians. I'm sure that as a middle-class environmentalist, many people in third-world countries would laugh at me for giving up my car. They would probably see my move as some rich billionaire giving up his Boeing 747 and switching to a Lear Jet. Still, I've reduced my energy consumption significantly without any major sacrifices in terms of my lifestyle.
Still, Al has taken steps to reduce his consumption. He usually takes commercial airlines when he can. He's switched to CFLs to light his home. I think he's also installing solar panels. He may be spending more money than us, and his lifestyle changes may be laughable to us (as mine would be to someone who lives in the third world), but I think he's put as much effort as he's asking us to put into reducing our consumption of resources.
In general, it's pretty easy to cut your energy consumption by 10-20% without too much pain. Why not consider doing the same thing? If everyone in the country did it, we wouldn't have a trade deficit, oil would be $50/barrel, and liberals wouldn't be able to whine about the environment quite as much.
For starters, replacing your incandescent bulbs with CFLs can reduce your electricity consumption by 7.5%.
Driving at 60-65 MPH on the highway instead of 75% can give you anywhere from 3%-10% better milage. And if you have mass transit- like the train or the bus- you might ultimately find that more convenient than driving. If you check your tire pressure regularly, that can also increase your mileage. And when you buy your next car, you might want to consider mileage. At current gas prices, a car that gets 30 mpg instead of 25 will save you about $300-$400/year if you drive 12000 miles/year. And don't get me started about a hybrid.
Heating your home less in the winter is another great way to save energy- same with cooling your home less during the day if everyone's gone in the summer. Getting a programmable thermostat could save you a lot of money- and a lot of electricity/natural gas.
A great way for us to reduce consumption is if we get the government to help. CAFE standards, subsidies for hybrids, and other energy-saving measures help keep the economy energy-efficient and competitive with other countries. The best news is that if you work to save energy, that benefits everyone else because less demand means lower energy prices. If everyone works to save energy, we can stick it to the third-world dictators and foreign religious fundamentalists.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 5/9/2008 8:40:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 8:38:24 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3297
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey do not believe Big Al, but I recycle and use swirly light bulbs, that is it, all I intend to do for God's gift, unless I am led to do something else for Gods gift of creation. No ugly hybrids, I am getting a pt crusier, and I will use paper or plastic bags, because I use them for more than one thing.
< Message edited by lightshineon -- 5/9/2008 8:45:45 PM >
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 8:41:56 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1105
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
But Algore is global warming's foremost spokesperson, as if you haven't noticed.
-Dave
I think Al has been demonized by the Right because he made a movie about global warming and got an Academy Award and Nobel Peace Prize for it. You can't get a more liberal pedigree than that, and many conservatives probably find it disgusting.
Al Gore's hypocrisy aside, though, what's wrong with consuming less and living a slightly simpler lifestyle? The world currently produces 85 million barrels per day of oil, and if every person on this planet consumed as much as the average American, we would need roughly 450 million barrels per day. Why not make the oil companies' job of providing us with oil easier by just consuming less?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 8:47:31 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1105
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Hey do not believe Big Al, but I recycle and use swirly light bulbs, that is it, all I intend to do for God's gift, unless I am led to do something else for Gods gift of creation. No ugly hybrids, I am getting a pt crusier, and I will use paper or plastic bags, because I use them for more than one thing.
quote:
Hey do not believe Big Al, but I recycle and use swirly light bulbs, that is it, all I intend to do for God's gift, unless I am led to do something else for Gods gift of creation. No ugly hybrids, I am getting a pt crusier, and I will use paper or plastic bags, because I use them for more than one thing.
Actually, I do the same thing, too with bags. However, I've been thinking about switching to a tote bag ever since I heard about this:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Pacific-Garbage-Patch27oct02.htm
quote:
For the last 50-odd years, every piece of plastic that has made it from our shores to the Pacific Ocean has been breaking down and accumulating in the central Pacific gyre. Oceanographers like Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the world's leading flotsam expert, refer to it as the great Pacific Garbage Patch.
I'm sure it's not anywhere near as bad as it seems- and I imagine we can one day clean it up by installing filters of some sort- but it does make me feel bad.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 8:58:12 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3297
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
[ quote]ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Hey do not believe Big Al, but I recycle and use swirly light bulbs, that is it, all I intend to do for God's gift, unless I am led to do something else for Gods gift of creation. No ugly hybrids, I am getting a pt crusier, and I will use paper or plastic bags, because I use them for more than one thing.
quote:
Hey do not believe Big Al, but I recycle and use swirly light bulbs, that is it, all I intend to do for God's gift, unless I am led to do something else for Gods gift of creation. No ugly hybrids, I am getting a pt crusier, and I will use paper or plastic bags, because I use them for more than one thing.
Actually, I do the same thing, too with bags. However, I've been thinking about switching to a tote bag ever since I heard about this:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Pacific-Garbage-Patch27oct02.htm
quote:
For the last 50-odd years, every piece of plastic that has made it from our shores to the Pacific Ocean has been breaking down and accumulating in the central Pacific gyre. Oceanographers like Curtis Ebbesmeyer, the world's leading flotsam expert, refer to it as the great Pacific Garbage Patch.
I'm sure it's not anywhere near as bad as it seems- and I imagine we can one day clean it up by installing filters of some sort- but it does make me feel bad.
Yes, I agree being an animal lover, maybe I will add a tote to the list. 
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 10:17:18 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 530
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
StephK,
Please respond to my post:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
Al Gore isn't a scientist. He has a degree in government and was a theology major and then a journalism major. Why are people buying his hot air?
Because he got the information (that global warming is here and it is caused by humans in part) from scientists from: countries all over the world; the UN; our own government EPA; the IPCC; NASA; the NOAA - now, I posted direct links to these sites (in post #170 in this very thread), but people here seem to ignore them. This tells me either they are too lazy to look at them; they alread read them and are in denial; or they plainly don't want to read them. And if you say these are biased sources, please explain why. While doing that, please keep in mind that these are US government organizations and international government organizations that could care less how one votes in America, as they have more important things to think about than silly mundane things like that.
Now, even if you don't believe that humans play a part in global warming - what countries all over the world; the UN; our own government EPA; the IPCC; NASA; the NOAA are saying, again, what is the big deal about taking the steps that they are saying? I mean, wouldn't it be great if asthmatic kids could play outside during ozone action days? Wouldn't it be great to take harmful toxins out of the environment (you know, the ones that have been linked to cancer and increased incidence of asthma in the environment) - wouldn't that be great? And what about recycling - my grandparents generation did this with no questions asked during the wars - honestly, what is the big deal?
And most importantly God commands us to take care of what is His in Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Peace and God bless,
And BTW, if you don't care to go and look at the links I provided in my post #170, here they are:
"Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html
"U.N. Secretary General Calls Global Warming a Priority
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 2, 2007; Page A14
UNITED NATIONS, March 1 -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon argued Thursday that global warming poses as great a threat to the world as modern warfare, and he vowed to make reduction of greenhouse gases one of his tenure's top priorities.
Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels and threatening millions of poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say today in a report that U.N. officials hope will help mobilize the world into taking tougher actions on climate change. .."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101484.html
"U.N. Global Warming Report Sternly Warns Against Inaction
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A03
Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels and threatening millions of poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say today in a report that U.N. officials hope will help mobilize the world into taking tougher actions on climate change. ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101484.html
"On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role..."
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#
".N. panel claims manmade global warming certain
Published May 8, 2008
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—The most-often quoted authority on global climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific group established in 1988 by the United Nations to evaluate the risk of human-induced climate change. It was the IPCC that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, former vice president of the United States. ..."
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8806.article
This study should speak for itself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
"Recent Climate Change
Related Links
CCSP
Product 1.3 - Re-analyses of historical climate data for key atmospheric features. Implications for attribution of causes of observed change
Product 3.3 - Climate Extremes: Analysis of the Observed Changes and Variations and Prospects for the Future
Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light..."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
"State of Knowledge
As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely” to “uncertain.”
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
Top of page
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change. "
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
From the NOAA:
"The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q11
"Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
...
Agreement on global warming
Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
"NASA and Global Warming
Aired: Friday, February 03, 2006 10-11AM ET
By host Tom Ashbrook:
The lead story on page one of the New York Times last Sunday read: top NASA climate scientist says the Bush administration is trying to stop him from speaking out on global warming.
The scientist is James E. Hansen - NASA's number one climate watcher, who says he's been muzzled on a dire threat facing the planet. The media James Hansen was trying to talk to? Well, yes, it was NPR, as the Times reported, but more specifically, it was us -- On Point."
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/02/20060203_a_main.asp
And in fact, 18 states are sueing the EPA for failure to comply with air regulations that prevent global warming:
"BOSTON - A coalition of states on Wednesday sued the Bush administration, saying it has failed to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that opened the door for regulating the greenhouse gases tied to global warming.
The Supreme Court said in April 2007 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant subject to the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide emissions, linked to global warming, endanger public health and welfare.
If that is the case, the court said, the EPA must regulate the emissions.
The 18 states, two cities and 11 environmental groups said in a court filing Wednesday that the EPA has not issued a decision on regulation. Their court filing seeks to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.
“The EPA’s failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23919234/
Again, if you say these are biased sources, please explain why. While doing that, please keep in mind that these are US government organizations and international government organizations that could care less how one votes in America, as they have more important things to think about than silly mundane things like that.
Please DO let me know if you'd like more posts from scientists, and not blogs. There is plenty more where these links came from.
Ciao, Peace and God bless,
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/9/2008 10:24:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 10:41:27 PM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 120
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Nothing wrong with cutting back a little, but when those who preach that the loudest still fly around in their private jets, still drive their SUVs, have monthly electric bills in the thousands of dollars........... They need to lead by example, not "do as I say, not as I do."
Teddy Kennedy is all in favor of wind power.....just not in HIS backyard. He makes me sick too!
-Dave
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
But Algore is global warming's foremost spokesperson, as if you haven't noticed.
-Dave
I think Al has been demonized by the Right because he made a movie about global warming and got an Academy Award and Nobel Peace Prize for it. You can't get a more liberal pedigree than that, and many conservatives probably find it disgusting.
Al Gore's hypocrisy aside, though, what's wrong with consuming less and living a slightly simpler lifestyle? The world currently produces 85 million barrels per day of oil, and if every person on this planet consumed as much as the average American, we would need roughly 450 million barrels per day. Why not make the oil companies' job of providing us with oil easier by just consuming less?
_____________________________
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/9/2008 10:49:50 PM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1501
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
StephK,
Please respond to my post:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
Al Gore isn't a scientist. He has a degree in government and was a theology major and then a journalism major. Why are people buying his hot air?
Because he got the information (that global warming is here and it is caused by humans in part) from scientists from: countries all over the world; the UN; our own government EPA; the IPCC; NASA; the NOAA - now, I posted direct links to these sites (in post #170 in this very thread), but people here seem to ignore them. This tells me either they are too lazy to look at them; they alread read them and are in denial; or they plainly don't want to read them. And if you say these are biased sources, please explain why. While doing that, please keep in mind that these are US government organizations and international government organizations that could care less how one votes in America, as they have more important things to think about than silly mundane things like that.
Now, even if you don't believe that humans play a part in global warming - what countries all over the world; the UN; our own government EPA; the IPCC; NASA; the NOAA are saying, again, what is the big deal about taking the steps that they are saying? I mean, wouldn't it be great if asthmatic kids could play outside during ozone action days? Wouldn't it be great to take harmful toxins out of the environment (you know, the ones that have been linked to cancer and increased incidence of asthma in the environment) - wouldn't that be great? And what about recycling - my grandparents generation did this with no questions asked during the wars - honestly, what is the big deal?
And most importantly God commands us to take care of what is His in Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Peace and God bless,
And BTW, if you don't care to go and look at the links I provided in my post #170, here they are:
"Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html
"U.N. Secretary General Calls Global Warming a Priority
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 2, 2007; Page A14
UNITED NATIONS, March 1 -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon argued Thursday that global warming poses as great a threat to the world as modern warfare, and he vowed to make reduction of greenhouse gases one of his tenure's top priorities.
Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels and threatening millions of poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say today in a report that U.N. officials hope will help mobilize the world into taking tougher actions on climate change. .."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101484.html
"U.N. Global Warming Report Sternly Warns Against Inaction
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A03
Global warming is destroying species, raising sea levels and threatening millions of poor people, the United Nations' top scientific panel will say today in a report that U.N. officials hope will help mobilize the world into taking tougher actions on climate change. ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101484.html
"On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role..."
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#
".N. panel claims manmade global warming certain
Published May 8, 2008
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—The most-often quoted authority on global climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific group established in 1988 by the United Nations to evaluate the risk of human-induced climate change. It was the IPCC that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, former vice president of the United States. ..."
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8806.article
This study should speak for itself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
"Recent Climate Change
Related Links
CCSP
Product 1.3 - Re-analyses of historical climate data for key atmospheric features. Implications for attribution of causes of observed change
Product 3.3 - Climate Extremes: Analysis of the Observed Changes and Variations and Prospects for the Future
Since the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), human activities have substantially added to the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has also resulted in emissions of aerosols that absorb and emit heat, and reflect light..."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
"State of Knowledge
As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate science. Some aspects of the science are known with virtual certainty1, because they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends. Current understanding of many other aspects of climate change ranges from “very likely” to “uncertain.”
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
Top of page
What's Very Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change. "
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
From the NOAA:
"The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and oth | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
