Let's Be Sensible Please

[akoff 0]

I am already planning how to spend my money from DN...only 49 years 11 months till i collect.

[Zeatrix 0]

And as a result the government dictated that we give up everything flourocarbon and for what? Did it really matter? And did we need the government to mandate this change? Capitolistic economic pressure and a public riddled with Chicken Little disease resulted in massive industry changes, mainly the banning of Freon to a far more expensive and far less efficient alternative. For better or worse? Was the sky falling or was it another example of how the earth is gonna do what it's gonna do regardless of us?More and more studies are dispelling the so called scientific experts opinions, and just today another study challenged many claims about Antartica and the amount of snow that falls there, or the amounts of rain falling on other areas. NO ONE KNOWS exactly how much actually falls, but recent data (if you believe it) now shows that the snow in antartica is actually INCREASING.This is why I am firmly taking an anti panic stance on this issue. Cooler heads need top prevail here, as too much of the current data is polluted with bias and appears to be agenda influenced.

You are missing the point. Panicing will not help, making changes to the way we live will. We need to lower the amount of pollution across the globe, period. If we don't it will most probably have catastrophic effects. What people have to realize is that the ozone problem was a big issue, but we solved it, that's why you haven't heard about it. We banned freons and because of that we stopped the negative development. This is exactly what we have to do when it comes to global warming, we have to bite the sour apple and dedicate ourselves to solving the problem once and for all.Let me break this up to you so you can see the problem: We pump oil up from the ground, that would, if we didn't pump it up, stay there. The oil contains a lot of carbon, and when burned, CO2 is produced and release into the atmosphere. CO2 is one of the gases in the atmosphere that is responsible for keeping the energy beamed from the sun on the earth. If we have more carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere the atmosphere will "keep" more of the suns energy on earth. More energy on the earth will mean a lot of things. One thing is that the temperature will increase. If the temperature increases, things like ice, will take up some of that energy and turn into water. If this ice used to be located on land, it will increase the amount of water in the oceans. More water in the oceans will mean higher sea levels. See where this is going? Everything I've said here is fact. Try to dispute even one sentance.Now what will higher sea levels mean? Well, the land that Manhattan sits on will become seafloor. Now this is only one of many possible side effects of global warming, making small changes to a closed ecosystem can have catastrophic effects, as seen in nature. The earth is a closed ecosystem.Remember, you don't have to sell everything you own and move to the forrest to make a change, you just have to make small changes to the way you live. I've done as much as I can.What I have done:Bought low energy lamps (big initial cost, save cost on energy)Changed energy company and to green energy. (Very slight cost increase, about 3-4%)Make sure my tires have the right pressure (Saves me money on gas)Use the car as little as possible (Take train and/or bus instead, saves me a bunch)Recycle as much as possible (Only costs me some time)Turn off electronic equipment completely when not used (Saves me money on energy bill)Don't use tumble drier (Saves me both on energy and clothes, since clothes don't like tumble driers)Buy ecologically grown food as much as possible (High costs, but not by that much, about 10%)Buy as little frozen food as possible (Much higher cost, but on the other hand, fresh food is SO much more healthy and tastes better, so it means higher standard of living)Buy as much food produces in Sweden as possible. Why buy chicken brought up in germany and transported here when we have chicken here. (Higher cost, better tasting, not frozen)Tell as many as possible about the problem and what they can do (costs me nothing but time, and it's time well spent)What I will do:When I get a job (still a full time student), I will buy a car that runs on alcohol fuel as soon as I can afford. Saab has a really cool alcohol car coming out around 2010 (projected) that looks sweet (http://www.saabusa.com/saabjsp/concepts/index.jsp "Saab Aero X"). Not really a big fan of Saab, but they are one of the few companies selling alcohol cars in Sweden.I've probably forgotten something, but this is what I have done, a student with a really low income. If I can do it, so can others.

[akoff 0]

Proud of ya

[Skyblue 0]

Zeatrix, it's good to read posts like yours in amongst all the absolute rubbish from many of the others. You put all these guys to shame and they're too ignorant to even notice it.This is my last post on this thread because I really can't cope with the stuff people are writing. It makes me even more worried about the current crisis. I guess you guys will need something like Greenland to completely melt or Manhattan to be under water before you believe there's a crisis. I mean the vast majority of scientists telling you along with the many many early signs all over the world aren't enough. This is what baffles me most. Do you need to see millions displaced or dead first yeh? People comparing this to past warnings on global cooling are also crazy. There was nowhere near the same scientific argument for that. Even if you think scientists/Al Gore have agendas then just take a look around the world please?? There's ice/snow melting all over, glaciers retreating and rivers drying up! All you need are eyes to see that!! Plus look at the big rise in natural disasters? A lot of them can be attributed to global warming and the rise in ocean temperatures. I don't even know why I'm still building the argument on this one actually, I get the feeling most of you will skim read it and brush it off because some popular press article or Michael Crichton book told you global warming isn't a problem! I seriously think a major problem with this thing in America is that the campaign is being headed by Al Gore. Because he was always a democrat then it means half the damn country is against him whatever he says. As he's tried to say all along though, this isn't a partisan issue! As I've also said before, I think due to Americans being the worst culprits it makes it harder for them to admit their faults and change. Most other nationals that know anything about this issue seem to accept the glaringly obvious truth. Well I've never said this or believed it before but all over the world you'll find people who like to laugh at Americans and say so many of them are pretty much stupid. Please don't tell me this is true??? For the record I don't believe it is.Anyway, I'm over and out here. I have a feeling this is a losing battle I'm fighting. Hopefully the sensible people of the world will save it so even you ignorant idiots and your children will still have somewhere to live in 50 or 100 years.

[Balloon guy 158]

Let me break this up to you so you can see the problem: We pump oil up from the ground, that would, if we didn't pump it up, stay there. The oil contains a lot of carbon, and when burned, CO2 is produced and release into the atmosphere. CO2 is one of the gases in the atmosphere that is responsible for keeping the energy beamed from the sun on the earth. If we have more carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere the atmosphere will "keep" more of the suns energy on earth. More energy on the earth will mean a lot of things. One thing is that the temperature will increase. If the temperature increases, things like ice, will take up some of that energy and turn into water. If this ice used to be located on land, it will increase the amount of water in the oceans. More water in the oceans will mean higher sea levels. See where this is going? Everything I've said here is fact. Try to dispute even one sentance.

Does Co2 only reflect the sun's energy down? It doesn't reflect some of the energy away before it gets trapped in our atmosphere? So a rise in Co2 could actully reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'? Almost like the natural flow of things is working itself out.

I guess you guys will need something like Greenland to completely melt or Manhattan to be under water before you believe there's a crisis.

And I officially will believe that there is a problem when Manhatten is underwater. It really sucks for us though that the temperature up there is 31.95 degrees, just barely able to keep the ice frozen so this .5 degree increase is pushing the ice over the edge so to speak. Man if it were only like 30 degrees than a 1 degree increase in temp wouldn't actually melt the entire polar ice caps and raise the entire ocean by 4-10 feet. Oh well, the Earth has alwasy been pretty fragile.I really need to quit baiting you guys. I am just a glutton for drama I guess.But it would help your side alot of you quit your childish name calling of our side. We are not idiots, and you'll notice that most of the chicken little crowd is young, you don't understand why being doubtful of thing reported is a safer route to take. Whenever someone has a book to sell or an agenda to push, follow the money first and you'll be right more than you are wrong.But if you want to believe that the entire world will reduce it's carbon belching internal combustion engines by a factor that is enough to heal the entire ecosystem that is so badly damaged that the entire planetary weather system is now destructive, well you go ahead and do the math. I guess if all cars were outlawed in the entire world it would be a start, but heal the whole planet? Probably too late.However if you were to take the let's clean up the air and water you would get alot farther. Going off on a tangent and blaming the US for being successfull and productive is more likely to just get you shut out of the debate. Pick your battles better and you'll get farther ahead.Or just keep whining while the USA protects your socialist borders, freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat.

[Loismustdie 0]

No, you certainly are NOT one of the best-read persons I ever met - by a very long shot. No one needs your understanding for the luvva mike, what everyone needs is your ACTION. No, your opinion isn't "valid" because it is not a matter of opinion - which you'd know if you were, indeed, well-read. The time for debate was past about ninety klicks back - people like myself have been telling everyone this for......ready?.....DECADES. Did anyone listen? NO! They just said it was all a matter of interpretation. Am I mean-spirited? Are you insane - people are dying in the millions right now - and have been for quite a while due to global warming, you moron.Gee, I wonder why anyone would get a little testy listening to lazy-a** jerk-offs like you being reasonable while the freakin' Antarctic ice shelf is charting the shortest course to Honolulu? I don't give a tinker's dam in hell what you personally believe or if you think you are qualified to have an opinion, which you are obviously not. Go turn off a few lights, go replace a few lightbulbs with flourescents, turn down your heat and buy a car that doesn't eat gas and learn how to ride the bus. You can tell everyone on it how very wise and wonderful you are and what a jackass I am. I'll even do testimonials as to your unparallelled erudition.This isn't about who is right, this is like arguing about whether cigarettes cause lung cancer while everyone lies dying in the oncology ward.

Someday we will meet, and I will pretend I don't know you. It's for the best.

[Loismustdie 0]

Are you old enough to remember the 1970s when the "Scientists" identified the Ozone Hole? There were predictions of skyrocketing Skin Cancer rates. The conclusion was that the Hole was caused by man and was rapidly increasing in size. Turns out that it was pretty much a natural occurrence - not the result of spray on deodorant.Now, the same "Scientists" who cannot predict yesterday's weather today are claiming that the Earth is warmer than it has been in 400 years - and it is all due to the IC engine. Forget for the moment that Mr Gore is not "carbon neutral" as he claims (could he have an agenda?). I still have never heard a basic explanation to a very basic question: "If the Earth is indeed warmer than it has been in 400 years - what caused it to be this warm 400 years ago?"Not the IC engine surely.Yes. I am a retard. I clearly need the government to come make my decisions for me. Are you also one of the guys screaming about government interference with On-Line Gaming?

What caused it to be warmer 400 years ago- that's a damn good question. I would love to hear the answer to that.

[BWToth 0]

Someday we will meet, and I will pretend I don't know you. It's for the best.

I sense a trend? One day you'll realize it's not 'them' that are wrong, but YOU. But from what i know, you'll be in denial til you die even when that day comes.

[All_In 0]

I'm slighty more worried about having my head blown out of my *** on the E train by some "freedom fighter." I don't care about global warming. There are more important things for me to worry about.

then u r a fool who has been played by his government.yeah...lol, scared of the big bad terrorists, hahaha..u people are so ignorant.

[All_In 0]

We are not idiots, and you'll notice that most of the chicken little crowd is young, you don't understand why being doubtful of thing reported is a safer route to take. Whenever someone has a book to sell or an agenda to push, follow the money first and you'll be right more than you are wrong.

no, people who deny that global warming is a real threat and man-made ARE idiots.the facts are out there, u people just choose to ignore it, and get your understanding of science from a conservative commentator.there are currently ZERO peer-reviewed, scientific papers out there that claim global warming is not a threat. ZERO. hmmm, where are you getting your 'info' from?

[BWToth 0]

It's easy to skew the facts about global warming, today rush said "the overnight low at JFK was 13 degrees, an all-time record. Global Warming isn't occurring". If anyone with half a brain analyzes this statement they can see how one isolated incident cannot be used to determine global long term trends. Similar to the donkey who doesn't understand that getting his money in as a 6 to 1 underdog and winning once, doesn't mean he's going to be able to do that over time and win money. I guess that type of rationale is why the avg. IQ of 'red' states is something like 20 pts. lower than the avg. IQ of 'blue' states. I wish I could find that graph, i'm sure a lot of you have seen it, from the 04 election.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's easy to skew the facts about global warming, today rush said "the overnight low at JFK was 13 degrees, an all-time record. Global Warming isn't occurring". If anyone with half a brain analyzes this statement they can see how one isolated incident cannot be used to determine global long term trends. Similar to the donkey who doesn't understand that getting his money in as a 6 to 1 underdog and winning once, doesn't mean he's going to be able to do that over time and win money. I guess that type of rationale is why the avg. IQ of 'red' states is something like 20 pts. lower than the avg. IQ of 'blue' states. I wish I could find that graph, i'm sure a lot of you have seen it, from the 04 election.

puhleese. They did an IQ test for all the states????? Might want to think about the logistics of that one. That's alot of number 2 pencils.And I do believe that I am subject to hearing how Katrina, Tornados, etc etc etc are results of global warming, so why can't an all time record low be used against that argument. Although I agree that it isn't, but the point of having isolated incedents to prove a point, also must allow isolated incedents to disprove the same point. I know ISAspelling

[Balloon guy 158]

no, people who deny that global warming is a real threat and man-made ARE idiots.the facts are out there, u people just choose to ignore it, and get your understanding of science from a conservative commentator.there are currently ZERO peer-reviewed, scientific papers out there that claim global warming is not a threat. ZERO. hmmm, where are you getting your 'info' from?

Well this idiot is driving an SUV and comes from a state that has a higher GNP than your whole pathetic whiney country. When you quit living in our shadows like snot nosed little children, then you can come to the table and talk with the grownups. Until then keep your opinion amongst yourselves during recess and don't try to equate yourself with your betters.Oh and turn off your light bulbs and sit in the dark, I will be needing the extra energy for my 3rd house. BTW, when the world does get destroyed, will the good earth conscience people die last? My next house is on a hill about 500 feet above the valley floor, I guess I'll get about a week extra time than the poor slobs on the bottom.Global warming is not a threat, it's a cult.

[Balloon guy 158]

then u r a fool who has been played by his government.yeah...lol, scared of the big bad terrorists, hahaha..u people are so ignorant.

Yea, we all know that they will never do anything bad to anyone.Bummer about their names though, terrorist, must be why people don't like them.

[BWToth 0]

puhleese. They did an IQ test for all the states????? Might want to think about the logistics of that one. That's alot of number 2 pencils.And I do believe that I am subject to hearing how Katrina, Tornados, etc etc etc are results of global warming, so why can't an all time record low be used against that argument. Although I agree that it isn't, but the point of having isolated incedents to prove a point, also must allow isolated incedents to disprove the same point. I know ISAspelling

More Conservative traits bubbling to the surface. Nowhere did I claim that an IQ test was administered to every voter in the election. It was based on some other data that was already compiled over time prior to the election, I'll dig a little I'm sure I can find it.NO scientific study used Katrina as proof that global warming exists. It's has been claimed to be a RESULT of global warming, but that's a HUGE difference.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

NO scientific study used Katrina as proof that global warming exists. It's has been claimed to be a RESULT of global warming, but that's a HUGE difference.

It's a good thing that "NO scientific study" used Katrina as proof of global warming. That would be as much BS as the scientific genius' that predicted the hurricane season of 2006 would be as bad as the 2005 season because of global warming. But, that didn't happen. The global warming crowd wanted so bad to use Katrina as an example (some still do) It's total BS. Katrina was no where near the costliest hurricane in lives and wind damage to ever hit the U.S. Nor did it push anywhere near the largest storm surge to ever hit the U.S. Katrina just happened to come in close enough to an ill prepared city that was counting on a broken down levee system to protect it from storm surge. That city has been flirting with disaster for years and years and their luck finally ran out. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 pushed a storm surge of 15 ft. Had a hurricane pushing that much water hit New Orleans there would have been tens of thousands killed. Or a hurricane with the winds of hurricane Andrew, again, tens of thousands would have died. They were unlucky that their shabby built levee system broke, but they were lucky that it wasn't far worse than it was. I was born and raised here on the Gulf Coast, and have weathered a few hurricanes and tropical storms. They will continue to come just as they always have. Some will be worse than others. Has nothing to do with global warming. Yet we know that there will never be a shortage of idiots who try to use natural disasters to further their political and social agendas.

[Balloon guy 158]

More Conservative traits bubbling to the surface. Nowhere did I claim that an IQ test was administered to every voter in the election. It was based on some other data that was already compiled over time prior to the election, I'll dig a little I'm sure I can find it.NO scientific study used Katrina as proof that global warming exists. It's has been claimed to be a RESULT of global warming, but that's a HUGE difference.

I'll give you that. But I was also listening to Rush, and while he may have made fun of the global warming threat during the record cold in NY, he didn't use that as his proof that global warming doesn't exist, just another thing to point at that doesn't jibe with the earth tempature is rising everywhere. His point was that a record cold can't be a RESULT of global warming.Now I can appreciate the tone of this argument, although you are quick to discount things with labels, but this is a reasonable approach, much better than name calling.Isn't there some BBc special coming on this weekend that is going to 'disprove' the global warming theory? That could spark some interesting debate.

[Atremis 0]

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.

[akoff 0]

Al Gore has been wrong about most every comment i have ever heard come out of his mouth. Ignore him and he will go away...hopefully forever.

[Zeatrix 0]

Does Co2 only reflect the sun's energy down? It doesn't reflect some of the energy away before it gets trapped in our atmosphere? So a rise in Co2 could actully reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'? Almost like the natural flow of things is working itself out.But if you want to believe that the entire world will reduce it's carbon belching internal combustion engines by a factor that is enough to heal the entire ecosystem that is so badly damaged that the entire planetary weather system is now destructive, well you go ahead and do the math. I guess if all cars were outlawed in the entire world it would be a start, but heal the whole planet? Probably too late.However if you were to take the let's clean up the air and water you would get alot farther. Going off on a tangent and blaming the US for being successfull and productive is more likely to just get you shut out of the debate. Pick your battles better and you'll get farther ahead.Or just keep whining while the USA protects your socialist borders, freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat.

To the first bolded statement: Yes, CO2 and other greenhouse gases only keeps the suns energy on earth, they don't "reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'". Nice try though, but your teory is way off base. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasThe second bolded statement:First of all, the US is not the only country that needs to make fundamental changes. Basicly every country in the world have to comabt this problem. EU and USA just happen to be the worst culprits. And why do you think we are trying to "freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat." Yes, the US is the biggest economy in the world, but you are acting like the rest of the world can't take care of itself without you, which is just plain false. The US is in no way superior except in one thing, military power. You have an ignorant opinion in the matter.

What caused it to be warmer 400 years ago- that's a damn good question. I would love to hear the answer to that.

You don't understand the facts. Read this and you'll see that yes, it was warm 400 years ago, but it is possibly warmer now and it will become warmer.

Study Says Earth's Temp at 400-Year HighBy JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press WriterThursday, June 22, 2006(06-22) 08:10 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.The Bush administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

What probably happened after this report is that someone that didn't like the conclusions (or didn't fully understand them) said that it was this warm 400 years ago, global warming is therefore a fraud. They failed to mention (or didn't grasp) the fact that the current rise in average global temperature is unprecedented.

puhleese. They did an IQ test for all the states????? Might want to think about the logistics of that one. That's alot of number 2 pencils.And I do believe that I am subject to hearing how Katrina, Tornados, etc etc etc are results of global warming, so why can't an all time record low be used against that argument. Although I agree that it isn't, but the point of having isolated incedents to prove a point, also must allow isolated incedents to disprove the same point. I know ISAspelling

Scientist don't really understand why hurricanes form, but they do know where they get their power from. Warm water adds energy to hurricanes. The global average temperature rise caused the mexican gulf to be above normal when it comes to temperature. This led to Katrina beeing extremely powerfull, so in a way, global warming was the cause of the extent of the destruction.Also, you don't seem to understand how statistics work. Do you think they ask every voter when they do before an election polls? They ask a small amount of people, usually around 1000, how they would vote, and with that small population (statistical term) they can make a 95% certain prediction. The same can be done with IQ tests. That is how they can statisticly show, that red states are inhabited by, on average, less intelligent people, than blue states. I haven't seen the data, but it is certainly possible to conclude such a thing.

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.

The first bolded statement: No, you are largly incorrect in this matter. If a scientific study showed that humans are not the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere it would surely be published. The reason there is none such paper is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the cause, so therefore, if a study showed we weren't, the paper would be wrong, and therefore not published.The second bolded statement: Mysteriously, these same men also swore that smoking and second hand smoke wasn't unhealthy back in the day when some people actually could say such a thing and be taken seriously. Watch this investigative report: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52...67811&hl=en

[Atremis 0]

The first bolded statement: No, you are largly incorrect in this matter. If a scientific study showed that humans are not the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere it would surely be published. The reason there is none such paper is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the cause, so therefore, if a study showed we weren't, the paper would be wrong, and therefore not published.

I fear that you have bolded the wrong portion of my argument. Focus on the word 'explicitly.' Gore is technically correct when he says what he does because there is no one paper that disproves global warming. However, a conglomeration of them do cast doubt on this 'proven' idea:"From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D. M., Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. H., McKay, C. P., and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response.” Nature 415: 517-20."The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979." Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40."Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years."Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.As one may infer from my citations, all three of these articles, and many more, have been published in reputable journals. These directly contradict the notion that Antarctica is experiencing a continent-wide glacial melt. Gore is correct when he talks about one particular peninsula, but what he does not reveal is the miniscule percentage of Antarctica's actual landmass this one peninsula constitutes. These papers, as a whole, indirectly cast doubt on the idea of global warming. One must simply do some searching to find them.

[All_In 0]

Well this idiot is driving an SUV and comes from a state that has a higher GNP than your whole pathetic whiney country. When you quit living in our shadows like snot nosed little children, then you can come to the table and talk with the grownups. Until then keep your opinion amongst yourselves during recess and don't try to equate yourself with your betters.Oh and turn off your light bulbs and sit in the dark, I will be needing the extra energy for my 3rd house. BTW, when the world does get destroyed, will the good earth conscience people die last? My next house is on a hill about 500 feet above the valley floor, I guess I'll get about a week extra time than the poor slobs on the bottom.Global warming is not a threat, it's a cult.

yep, u r an idiot. oh, and add materialistic.

[All_In 0]

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.

ohhh, i get it..it's now the whole scientific community that's to blame! because they would never allow another opinion to be voiced, like general relativity, black holes, hawking radiation, etc...and it's the scientists who are NOT up-to-date on the recent discoveries (retired) or the fringe, that you claim deny it...please back this up with info, if u want to.it's really funny. why do u guys continually deny global warming as man-made and real, when ALL people who are, ohh, about a million times more EDUCATED ON THE ISSUE than you (besides your retirees and 'independants', whatever that means) says it is happening?just makes u all appear ignorant..wait, it's can't be ignorance, the data is available. guess it must be laziness and a simplistic mind, easily swayed. why does that one poster keep mentioning things rush limbagh said? that doesn't help your argument.

[Atremis 0]

and it's the scientists who are NOT up-to-date on the recent discoveries (retired) or the fringe, that you claim deny it...please back this up with info, if u want to.

I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested.

[TrulyRaNd0m 0]

I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested.

Let's be sensible please. You have, what, 3 posts? Obviously this means that anything you say is completely WORTHLESS. After all, you've only posted 3 times. Are you even human? LOL noobamentssw- TR