Let's Be Sensible Please

[Zeatrix 0]

Here is an article that I found today, it was too good not to post in this thread.BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeThis article was published in Science, one of the most well respected scientific journals on our planet. Take it as you will.

[Zeatrix 0]

PRESS RELEASE:Gore not so bad as you might think...Olbermann on Gore ElectricityOk, I admit that Olbermann is kind of biased, but on the other hand, so was the press release published by this Tennessee "think tank". Guess they forgot to think...

[All_In 0]

No one is denying that fact that there is warming, we can argue if it has ever been warmer and if man is the cause of any warming.

are they denying the negative effects it has on present ecosystems, populations, etc?

[All_In 0]

You have the science that you choose to use on your side. Having worked in the scientific community i can state that for every argument you will have many qualified scientists with various opinions.So as an individual that feels that the enviroment is in far less distress than ppl would have us beileve , I say read all the evidence not just the reports that support your opinion. Furthermore God Bless you for feeling as strong about this issue as you do. I just wish that environazis could have an opinion without trying to force it on everyone else.

i have an opinion that cigarette smoke can cause cancer.when u use words like 'environazis' it really exposes your bias.

[DanielNEGROnu 0]

I love how so many people latch onto an issue like global warming and remain ignorant to much more imminent threats to our planet like volatile regimes developing nuclear technology.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't think anyone will openly admit to changing sides, but I have noticed a lot of the "global warming is a conspiracy" posters stopped replying. Take that for whatever you think it means.

Yeah, gee, you guys just wore us down with your impressive pseudo-science.

[Zeatrix 0]

Yeah, gee, you guys just wore us down with your impressive pseudo-science.

I'm gonna be dumb enough to quote myself:

Here is an article that I found today, it was too good not to post in this thread.BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate ChangeThis article was published in Science, one of the most well respected scientific journals on our planet. Take it as you will.

Now Science might be THE most respected scientific journal, if it isn't, it sure is way up there. How in the world can you say it's "pseudo-science" when one of the most well respected scientific peer-reviewed journals in the world concludes that there is no debate about the validity of global warming in the scientific community? The only debate is outside the scientific community, among people that aren't experts!

[scgolfer 0]

are they denying the negative effects it has on present ecosystems, populations, etc?

No one is denying that either, but it has benefits too, are you denying that? Ecosystems and populations change all the time. I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs were pissed when it changed on them too. We adapt and change in regards to change in our world. Do you live in a bubble? Or are you saying that the normal natural warming and cooling never had negative or positve effects?

[Zeatrix 0]

No one is denying that either, but it has benefits too, are you denying that? Ecosystems and populations change all the time. I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs were pissed when it changed on them too. We adapt and change in regards to change in our world. Do you live in a bubble? Or are you saying that the normal natural warming and cooling never had negative or positve effects?

You bring attention to a good point. Should we tamper with the natural changes of the earth's ecosystem? I think that's an ethical problem with no clear answer. Sometimes the answer is clear; A comet is on route to hit the earth and if it does life as we know it is over. Should we try to stop it if we could? I think few would argue that we should just let it happen. But what about abortion? Clearly there are many people on both sides of that issue, still, it's hard to deny that it's a tamper with nature.Now "global warming" isn't a natural phenomenon in the sense that if humans didn't live on earth and no other intelligent species did either then it would not be happening. Now basically everything we do has some effect on nature, be it extremely small or big. But somewhere you have to draw a line and say; these things has such a big effect that we can't tolerate it. I believe global warming is well beyond this line of acceptable ethical environmental effects. There's been a lot of discussion of facts versus opinion. My opinion is that we should do something about global warming.

[All_In 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_..._species_impact

[Zeatrix 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_..._species_impact

I just think it's utterly sad that so many don't trust science when I read an article like that. Truly sad.

[All_In 0]

"The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world.Eighty-five percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world."I wonder how many pieces of data the global-warming deniers (for lack of a better term) here have analyzed?"This is the second in a series of IPCC reports coming out this year, together making up its fourth global climate assessment.The first element, on the science of climate change, was released in February, concluding it is at least 90% likely that human activities are principally responsible for the warming observed since 1950. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6524251.stm

[Scanner313 0]

Here's the problem in a nutshell...There are a lot of Christian Conservatives in the USA. Many of them believe that science if completely off the mark about evolution, and because of that they completely deny anything else that science says because they believe it's all anti-god propoganda. So, when climatologists step up and provide evidence that the human race is causing global warming they all just dismiss it like they do with anything else science tells them.Funny story... I was playing poker a few nights back, and one of the "rednecks" that play at this club was sitting there talking to his buddy. The weather had turned cold that day from a warm morning. So he sarcastically says "Boy, that Al Gore sure was wrong about that global warming, huh?". This guy has no idea what global warming is all about, nor does he care. He, and many others, seem to think that it means we're not going to have winter anymore.Anyway, the ignorance of the facts is staggering, but when your own dumbass president denies global warming, what do you expect his loyal followers to think?

[mrwojo 0]

Ok so to be fair I actually watch the Al bore move. I found it very interesting. I still beileve that it is alot of the sky is fallin. By this I mean that there is a slant put on the data that causes the outcome to be what one is looking for. To that end there was alot in the movie I found to be disturbing. I.E. Greenland for one. The difference between now and the normal thaw to be staggering, and the cafe standards that the world is adopting and what the Us is failing to conform to. My reasons for being appauled by the cafe standards is if we were more economical then there would be less demand and LOWER gas prices. The main problem with enviromentalism is it is not economical. Living green cost more than not living green. You make green living a cheaper alteranative then more ppl I included would adopt a more enviromentaly aware lifestyle.

[All_In 0]

Ok so to be fair I actually watch the Al bore move. I found it very interesting. I still beileve that it is alot of the sky is fallin. By this I mean that there is a slant put on the data that causes the outcome to be what one is looking for. To that end there was alot in the movie I found to be disturbing. I.E. Greenland for one. The difference between now and the normal thaw to be staggering, and the cafe standards that the world is adopting and what the Us is failing to conform to. My reasons for being appauled by the cafe standards is if we were more economical then there would be less demand and LOWER gas prices. The main problem with enviromentalism is it is not economical. Living green cost more than not living green. You make green living a cheaper alteranative then more ppl I included would adopt a more enviromentaly aware lifestyle.

huh?

[Zeatrix 0]

Ok so to be fair I actually watch the Al bore move. I found it very interesting. I still beileve that it is alot of the sky is fallin. By this I mean that there is a slant put on the data that causes the outcome to be what one is looking for. To that end there was alot in the movie I found to be disturbing. I.E. Greenland for one. The difference between now and the normal thaw to be staggering, and the cafe standards that the world is adopting and what the Us is failing to conform to. My reasons for being appauled by the cafe standards is if we were more economical then there would be less demand and LOWER gas prices. The main problem with enviromentalism is it is not economical. Living green cost more than not living green. You make green living a cheaper alteranative then more ppl I included would adopt a more enviromentaly aware lifestyle.

Well the problem is that there is always going to be an alternative that is worthless from an environmental point of view but cheaper. That's just a fact. That is exactly why we have to step up and decide: Yes, it will be more expensive but it is the RIGHT thing to do. We have to take the moral high ground and take the actions that is right in the long run. Buying the cheapest environmentally awful product is only best in the short term.

[akoff 0]

Well the problem is that there is always going to be an alternative that is worthless from an environmental point of view but cheaper. That's just a fact. That is exactly why we have to step up and decide: Yes, it will be more expensive but it is the RIGHT thing to do. We have to take the moral high ground and take the actions that is right in the long run. Buying the cheapest environmentally awful product is only best in the short term.

Stop....please

[Zeatrix 0]

How can you turn your back on this issue when today, this was reported:Fox News: Global Climate Report: Earth Facing Major Hunger, Water Shortages, Massive Floods, AvalanchesMSNBC: Experts warn warming will harm society, natureCNN: Climate report: World's poorest will suffer mostBBC News: Billions face climate change riskClimate change isn't a myth, it isn't exaggerated, it's fact.

[ShootAndHit 0]

Sure climate change isn't a myth, it has always been changing. The question is: does mankind have any influence on it?I doubt it. In the dark ages the average temperature was much higher for a long time than it is now.

[Kwest4chipz 0]

watching this thread is like watchin two monkeys fk a football. Seriously. Yah the climate is changing....most of the "global warming" is caused by WATER VAPOR, however, and not CO2. This should be interesting.

[Zeatrix 0]

Sure climate change isn't a myth, it has always been changing. The question is: does mankind have any influence on it?I doubt it. In the dark ages the average temperature was much higher for a long time than it is now.

Yes, the scientific community says we do have an influence. And no, the average temperatures weren't "much higher" in the dark ages."Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years." Stanford Solar CenterAnd besides, the average temperature we see today is projected to rise even more in the decades to come, far surpassing the natural warm period 400 years ago.

watching this thread is like watchin two monkeys fk a football. Seriously. Yah the climate is changing....most of the "global warming" is caused by WATER VAPOR, however, and not CO2. This should be interesting.

Wrong, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. "Global warming" is the term used for the phenomenon that the record high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (caused by humans) is causing the average temperature on earth to be higher than it would be if the CO2 levels where in preindustrial times. Did you even read the articles? Did you even bother to look up the facts?

[Kwest4chipz 0]

Nope, you got me there......the earth is melting...run for yer lives!!!! When the water levels reach Nebraska, i'll be concerned. Til then its just propaganda for different peoples agendas.

[ShootAndHit 0]

Yes, the scientific community says we do have an influence. And no, the average temperatures weren't "much higher" in the dark ages

Sorry I meant the Medieval period ( 1000 -1400 AD) It was alot warmer then than it is today. And after that the temperaturedropped in a period which is called "The little ice age" (16th - 17th century). So the fact is that there is dramatic change in temperature over the centuries.I'm sure you agree that mankind couldn't have had anything to do with it then, so how can you be 100% sure that we influence it now?And what about the temperature rise in the last century? Most of the rising happend before the 1940's (beginning late in the 19th century), why is that?The significant rise of industries (including car and plane production) began after the 1940's. The production of CO2 was relatively low before the 1940's.Whats interesting is that when the production of CO2 went up alot, in the 1940-1975 period, the average temperature actually went down during that time.

[akoff 0]

Sorry I meant the Medieval period ( 1000 -1400 AD) It was alot warmer then than it is today. And after that the temperaturedropped in a period which is called "The little ice age" (16th - 17th century). So the fact is that there is dramatic change in temperature over the centuries.I'm sure you agree that mankind couldn't have had anything to do with it then, so how can you be 100% sure that we influence it now?And what about the temperature rise in the last century? Most of the rising happend before the 1940's (beginning late in the 19th century), why is that?The significant rise of industries (including car and plane production) began after the 1940's. The production of CO2 was relatively low before the 1940's.Whats interesting is that when the production of CO2 went up alot, in the 1940-1975 period, the average temperature actually went down during that time.

Dude you are so wasting your time...this guy is going to spend the rest of his weekend searching and posting about how wrong we all are.

[All_In 0]

Nope, you got me there......the earth is melting...run for yer lives!!!! When the water levels reach Nebraska, i'll be concerned. Til then its just propaganda for different peoples agendas.

all the posters here like u, what data have u analyzed? 29 000 pieces, like the scientists who are producing these reports on climate change?how can u summarily dismiss the EXPERTS in this field? really, what qualifies you guys to pass judgments on scientific reports, and go against the scientific consensus?do u honestly know how you all appear?