Do you believe in global warming?

Yep, this is a round a bout discussion, and emotions will only make it worse.

So, l will only say to the people who agree with global warming, we or about 90% of us should be dead in the next 90 years, or more or less by the year 2100, most of us will be gone!

This is based on scientists or some projecting the worse case scenario.


Then we have people who can see that the planet has been cooling or staying somewhere in the middle since 1998.


And others who see one of the ice caps melting, while the ice cap on the other side of the planet is not surprisingly gaining more ice than normal.

If it wasn't then huge sea level rises would be occurring, not the 1 or 2 cm, rises we have witnessed!


Never trust politicians with their hands out or scientists doing the same, etc, not a dependable source of information!


I will stay neutral in this one, and just present some facts!


As for if l believe or not, l will only say, the points above should show what l believe!


Shane

Yes, l agree that GW did or has happened, but as for us substantially making it worse, it is virtually impossible to show!

Common sense shows that if we have had hot and cold periods over millions of years, then it can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt that we have caused the lot.

I also agree that we have added to GW, but only in a negligible way!


We have the knowledge to dramatically stop pollution tomorrow, but not after a substantial stock market crash, and the loss or redistribution of tens or thousands of oil dependent jobs.

Or another way of putting it, the socialpaths would rather protect their $100,000,000,000 oil profits still in the ground, as well as their positions and lifestyle than the planet.

So, as you are saying, unless you perfected a radical energy system, with a $50,000,000 global advertising campaign, it is dead in the water.


This always gets back to the point l always make in these discussions, as to how did the planet correct the mini ice age Britain, etc experienced over 30 years from 1860 to 1898, (or something close to that) that froze the Thames river?

And this happened 100 years after the industrial revolution, where we polluted the atmosphere as much as we could!!!


And the Earth corrected it, while we were still polluting as much as possible.

No, GW is a political money grab, nothing more!


Shane

Some scientists say global warming is a natural phenomenon caused by sun activity and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

I agree Kurt, as with everything else education is the key.
I think your rain forest thing is a little off though. From what I have read the people who live in the rain forests are happy with the way they live and have tried to fight those who come in to cut it down and "modernize" their way of life.
As for those in the US, that's the entitlement attitude that seems to be so prevalent.

"Reliable" is not a word that I, personally, would use to describe Fox News. In my opinion, they should change the name to The Fox Propaganda Channel.

John

Way to cherry pick facts to back up your political views. Typical for deniers.

Please explain the difference between sea ice and land ice sheets, then tell us what is happening to the Antartic ice sheets and why it is more important than the sea ice.

I'll help you get a clue:
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Let's also get back to the fact that you post a link that says global warming is real to "prove" that global warming doesn't exist. Have you tried Hooked on Phonics?

www.hop.com

Sal;
First, your point is valid. I read little of the article and made my judgement based on the the website and it's political agenda.

That had nothing to do with the validity of the sources in the article itself. It had a lot to do with the agenda of the author. But the sources cited? No. It was a mistake on my part. Although everything in my post was true. I didn't read the sources cited, and that was a mistake.

I was wrong.

PS. Smartly written response. That's how to give an argument. The last sentence, I would have left out though.

Phil Jones and Michael Mann ARE scientists and they got caught manipulating data so anything that *they* have to say about the subject is now suspect. Do the alarmists care? No...because they support what they believe so it's OK that they lied and manipulated.

Cringing Over Climategate - Forbes
"“Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including … mitigation of climate change,” President Barack Obama declared in a not-so-subtle dig at his predecessor soon after assuming office. “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings.”

Last week’s Climategate scandal is putting Obama’s promise to the test. If he wants to pass, there are two things he should do, pronto: (1) Start singing hosannas to whoever broke the scandal instead of acting like nothing has happened; and (2) Ask eco-warriors at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit next week to declare an immediate cease-fire in their war against global warming pending a complete review of the science.

Someone–a whistleblower or a hacker–got into the computers of University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England, also known as the Hadley Research Center, and revealed reams of e-mails showing that its leading climatologists had engaged in all kinds of scientific shenanigans including manipulating data, destroying evidence that didn’t support their conclusions and keeping contrarian scientists from being published in peer-reviewed journals."

"One e-mail as recent as last month acknowledged that global temperatures plateaued in 1998, something that skeptics have been pointing out for years and warming warriors have been pooh-poohing. “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment,” the e-mail confessed. But instead of celebrating the good news that the planet may not ineluctably fry to a crisp, the e-mail continues with its gloom and doom, blaming an “inadequate observing system” for not picking up on the warming.

This wouldn’t be such a big deal if other e-mails didn’t show even worse malfeasance. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline [of temperatures],” one said. To most people with normal IQs, the words “trick” and “hide” in the same sentence would suggest manipulation of data. But the brainiacs at Hadley claim that these are just standard colloquialism that scientists use to describe completely innocent operations.

Really? Then how do they explain this 2005 e-mail by Phil Jones, the director of the center, to the aforementioned Mike. “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” The “two MMs” refers to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. And–lo and behold–when one of them asked Jones for his data, what did he do? He hid behind the data protection act. But no, there is nothing premeditated here!

Why was Jones so afraid of the two MMs? Because they had debunked Mike’s–or Michael Mann of Penn State University’s–infamous “hockey stick” graph that supposedly offered proof positive that humans were warming the earth. It showed that global temperatures had remained flat for a millennium only to spike sharply in the 20th century following the industrial revolution. But McIntyre and McKitrick found that the innocent “tricks” that Mann was performing on the data were so riddled with methodological errors that even the IPCC was forced to remove the graph from its official reports."

"But the issues go beyond the misconduct of just one outfit. One of the dirty little secrets of the field revealed by the scandal is that climate scientists, though they are publicly funded, don’t as a matter of routine make their raw data publicly available. This makes it exceedingly difficult for their peers to replicate their findings, subverting the scientific method at its core. Judy Curry of Georgia Tech, a stalwart in the field who is convinced that global warming is real, is exhorting her colleagues to end this incestuous tribalism and open their work to scrutiny, even of skeptics.” Make all your data, metadata and codes openly available,” she urges. Meanwhile, George Monbiot–the British media’s alarmist-in-chief who has called global warming the “moral question of the 21st century”–is demanding a reanalysis of the climate science data."

Claude is kinda nutty....