Is Global Warning A Hoax!

[Morsaille 4]

What possible political gain? Please enlighten me on that, I can not for a minute see where anyone could not deduce that humans are having an incredible effect on our enviroment. But on the other hand I forgot about David Suzuki and all of the money he is bringing in using those alarmist scare tactics. NOT!!!!

Honestly it has just occured to me that I can't take this bullshit any more. If you refuse to see what is right in front of your face then you deserve what you get. Piss off, okay, for once think of the whole planet stop being so small minded. Stop ruinning my world find another one to destroy. Global warming is happening and we are to blame. Show me a scientist who refutes this and I will bet they are paid by some large corporation who is raping the enviroment and pumping the atmosphere full of CO'2. Anyone who say's that the atmosphere is to large for us to have any impact on it is betting that we are idiots and that we are stupid enough to believe that crap. Stop reading the bullshit that helps you prove your narrow point of view and start reading the honest scientific data that shows we are ruining the place.

Enough already

:kiss2: Thank You :clap2:

[lisah25 3]

Al Gore refuses to debate scientists that agree that global warming is not a crisis.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/04/05/global-warming-skeptic-challenges-gore-to-debate/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsnews.com%2FViewCulture.asp%3FPage%3D%2FCulture%2Farchive%2F200704%2FCUL20070405a.html&frame=true

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it's only one person who wants to debate Gore, and your link says this:

"Monckton was once an advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He points out that like Gore, he is not a scientist or economist, although he has written several essays challenging the idea that global warming is a crisis."

So, he's really not refusing to debate "scientists" but one person who isn' t one. And doesn't play one on TV.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are correct! I misread it and he is not a scientist. Nevetheless, there are many scientists, such at reported here - http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A347_0_2_0_C/ - that hold that same view.

Other interesting links -

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/111313.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200411/NAT20041119a.html

http://www.helium.com/tm/122584

Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, there is a lot of evidence both ways.

[anonemouse 1]

Al Gore may be getting political gain from the idea, but he isn't the one doing the scientific research. You can blame him all you want, but that doesn't make him responsible for the majority of the world's leading scientists being proponents of the idea of global warming. In other words, stop killing the messenger.

[lisah25 3]

Well, yeah there are of course those who hold different opinions. Different issue the Gore's debating them.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I don't think there is any real debate, even among scientists, that we are in a cycle of global warming. I think the debate is over the cause, with sides being devided over weather is a natural cycle or caused by man- made emmissions. Again, there is a lot of evidence on both sides of the issue. Al Gore is on one side of the issue and is milking it for all the political and financial gain that he can. That's the part that I have a problem with.

Al Gore may be getting political gain from the idea, but he isn't the one doing the scientific research. You can blame him all you want, but that doesn't make him responsible for the majority of the world's leading scientists being proponents of the idea of global warming. In other words, stop killing the messenger.

[anonemouse 1]

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

Yeah, we can go all day posting rebuttals of each other's viewpoint. People can drag up scientists who truly believe in anything. I can find scientists that believe in Big Foot. What I go by is what the majority of the scientific community believes. And right now, the majority believes that global warming is real and that one of the major causes is human activity.

And really, why all the fighting? Taking action to mitigate our impact on the environment isn't going to do anything but help us. The only people that are fighting it are the folks who stand to gain by us not taking that action. Even if you don't accept that global warming is being caused by people, what do you have to lose by changing your habits?

[Ron Cusano 0]

I could not agree more! We all need to make responsible changes simply because it's the right think to do!

Yeah, we can go all day posting rebuttals of each other's viewpoint. People can drag up scientists who truly believe in anything. I can find scientists that believe in Big Foot. What I go by is what the majority of the scientific community believes. And right now, the majority believes that global warming is real and that one of the major causes is human activity.

And really, why all the fighting? Taking action to mitigate our impact on the environment isn't going to do anything but help us. The only people that are fighting it are the folks who stand to gain by us not taking that action. Even if you don't accept that global warming is being caused by people, what do you have to lose by changing your habits?

[lizrbit 0]

the answer is yes.

there....

[anonemouse 1]

I don't think there is any real debate, even among scientists, that we are in a cycle of global warming. I think the debate is over the cause, with sides being devided over weather is a natural cycle or caused by man- made emmissions. Again, there is a lot of evidence on both sides of the issue. Al Gore is on one side of the issue and is milking it for all the political and financial gain that he can. That's the part that I have a problem with.

He's a politician. That's what he does for a living. That's what everyone is doing on both sides of the table. The ones you hear screeching about global warming (on both sides, mind you) are the ones who have something to gain politically. Otherwise, they just do the research, write the papers, do the presentations, and sit down.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You may be right, but he seems to be screeming the loudest and gaining the most.

He's a politician. That's what he does for a living. That's what everyone is doing on both sides of the table. The ones you hear screeching about global warming (on both sides, mind you) are the ones who have something to gain politically. Otherwise, they just do the research, write the papers, do the presentations, and sit down.

[lisah25 3]

And really, why all the fighting? Taking action to mitigate our impact on the environment isn't going to do anything but help us. The only people that are fighting it are the folks who stand to gain by us not taking that action. Even if you don't accept that global warming is being caused by people, what do you have to lose by changing your habits?

Now that makes a great deal of sense to me!

[TommyO 5]

Ron, whats in this for you, I don't get it. Why are you so against those who are trying to save the planet. I just can't imagine why you would feel a need to dispute or debate the topic. If you were a major oil company I could understand your position but what would motivate an individual to debate this issue is beyond me.

I understand as a right wing conservative you dislike Al Gore but to disagree with someting just because he is delivering the message seems kind of odd to me. When a right wing conservative says that murder is wrong I don't automatically decide that murder is not wrong just because I may not agree with their politics doesn't mean that I must apose everything they say.

This just seems very odd to me if George Bush were to say that we were causing global warming would you change your mind? What about any issue Bush and Gore agree on? how do you deal with that. If Jerry Falwell walked up to me and said "It is important to help those who are less fortunate" I would say "Jerry I agree"

( I might say a few other things to him but I would still tell him on that idea I agree)

[Ron Cusano 0]

What's in it for me? Nothing! I am not against anyone doing good things to conserve energy, clean up, polution, help the enviroment, etc. I think thet are responsible things to do. I'm all for it. Am I convinced that global warming is caused by Co2 emmissions and burning fossel fuels? I am not. I think there are a lot of question marks and a lot of good arguments against it, but I have an open mind. I don't believe it's a proven fact and I see a lot of hysteria resulting from it.

My problem with Al Gore is not that he is a Liberal, but the fact that he is profiting big time politically and financially. If it was Bush or any Conservative, I would feel the same way. It has nothing to do with politics. I also have a problem with so-called evangelists that use faith to line their pockets. Does that suprise you?

If Al Gore, and everyone else on the global warming bandwagon really believed what they is saying, shouldn't they all be driving hybrids or using commercial airlines when they travels, instead of private planes. Shouldn't

they all be driving a hybrid cars and be using solar heat? Shouldn't they be putting political pressure on third world countries that cause the majority of the emmissions polutions? I don't see any of this happening, do you?

Ron, whats in this for you, I don't get it. Why are you so against those who are trying to save the planet. I just can't imagine why you would feel a need to dispute or debate the topic. If you were a major oil company I could understand your position but what would motivate an individual to debate this issue is beyond me.

I understand as a right wing conservative you dislike Al Gore but to disagree with someting just because he is delivering the message seems kind of odd to me. When a right wing conservative says that murder is wrong I don't automatically decide that murder is not wrong just because I may not agree with their politics doesn't mean that I must apose everything they say.

This just seems very odd to me if George Bush were to say that we were causing global warming would you change your mind? What about any issue Bush and Gore agree on? how do you deal with that. If Jerry Falwell walked up to me and said "It is important to help those who are less fortunate" I would say "Jerry I agree"

( I might say a few other things to him but I would still tell him on that idea I agree)

[jono201 0]

Al Gore may be getting political gain from the idea, but he isn't the one doing the scientific research. You can blame him all you want, but that doesn't make him responsible for the majority of the world's leading scientists being proponents of the idea of global warming. In other words, stop killing the messenger.

Exactly-What is it about peer-reviewed science people do not understand? It is sad really.