Is Global Warning A Hoax!

[gadgetlady 4]

Most would argue that scientists are doing far more than predicting the weather when they discuss global warming. In the last relatively brief period of time human beings have dumped enormous volumes of waste products into the atmosphere and the land and the sea. These create measurable effects. Scientists may be wrong about the exact date the earth will get warmer, but that does not detract from validity of the scientific observations and the evidence of changes to the environment.

Just because a few people erroneously predicted a coming ice age in a couple magazines fifty years ago does not justify closing your eyes and ears to all science relating to environmental destruction, overfishing, extinction of species, etc. That "ice age" thing is a red herring. Just because some people were wrong about that then does not mean that every other environmentalist is automatically wrong about everything else forever.

I don't think we close our eyes and plug our ears. However, there is a credible and growing bank of scientists who don't believe in global warming. I find their arguments more convincing than their gloom-and-doom counterparts.

I'll be back when I have more time to give you some examples.

[gadgetlady 4]

No, I'm not. Im saying that you were wrong in saying that the environmentalists were wrong about there being no lasting effects of the oil spill and oil fires. You posted an incorrect statement and I corrected you. That's it.

I don't think I posted an incorrect statement. I said:

I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same.

I don't believe things will "never be the same". I believe they are now back to normal, if not very close to back to normal. I don't believe 4 years of increased mortality amongst salmon eggs (BTW, that is not the total destruction of salmon eggs, just an increased mortality rate) or 30 years of mussel bed damage defines things as "NEVER" being the same.

Again, I don't LIKE the Kuwaiti oil fires or the Valdez oil spill. What I was using these as an example of is the "the sky is falling" environmental knee-jerk response of blowing things out of proportion.

[anonemouse 1]

I don't think I posted an incorrect statement. I said:

I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same.

I don't believe things will "never be the same". I believe they are now back to normal, if not very close to back to normal. I don't believe 4 years of increased mortality amongst salmon eggs (BTW, that is not the total destruction of salmon eggs, just an increased mortality rate) or 30 years of mussel bed damage defines things as "NEVER" being the same.

Again, I don't LIKE the Kuwaiti oil fires or the Valdez oil spill. What I was using these as an example of is the "the sky is falling" environmental knee-jerk response of blowing things out of proportion.

You managed to leave the "Both were wrong" statement off the end of your quote. That is what I was debating. Obviously, they weren't necessarily wrong if there are still measurable effects being seen today. Therefore, your statement was incorrect.

[marjon9 6]

I don't think we close our eyes and plug our ears. However, there is a credible and growing bank of scientists who don't believe in global warming. I find their arguments more convincing than their gloom-and-doom counterparts. I'll be back when I have more time to give you some examples.

And this brings me back to my original question. Why do you, and other "Conservative Christians," all seem to find the arguments of the anti-global-warming scientists "more convincing." Why is that? And this is not an unfair generalization. I think it is fair to say that the very large majority of "Conservative Christians" count themselves on that list.

Let's say it is true that no one can predict the weather. But it is certainly reasonable to assume that the enormous quantities of pollutants that have been dumped into the environment over the last 50 years might be having some effects. Damage to the environment just cannot be chalked up to the speculation of arrogant gloom and doom liberals. There is just too much objective evidence of environmental damage, extinction of species, overfishing of the oceans and depletion of fish stocks, international deforestation. A fair-minded person cannot simple forever reject this evidence as "gloom and doom speculation of arrogant liberals."

Even if it is true that "no one knows for sure," why not err on the side of protecting the environment? Why do Conservative Christians all seem to err on the side of corporate profiteers? It just makes no sense. It does not seem to be consistent with the type of values a religious conservative would be expected to have.

[sophrosyne 0]

What utter BS. Maybe he refuses to debate "scientists" about global warming because any "scientist" who can live in today's world and still be clueless about it is an idiot.

Pretty much the entire scientific community not only agrees that global warming is a problem, but that it's a HUGE problem with catastrophic outcomes if we don't get our asses in gear NOW.

And you can see that, even in scientific reports that the US and China have put pressure on to have dumbed down.

Except for the scientific reports that the hacks in the Bush administration took and completely rewrote, so that it said the complete opposite of what it originally said. But even that was years ago and not something they can get away with anymore.

Even leaked Pentagon papers point at dire consequences of global warming. But if we do anything to try and reverse the damage, that would seriously crimp the oil companies and other corporations. Which is why the Bush administration has a lot invested in either denying global warming altogether or down-playing it as much as possible.

And anybody who has their head in the sand so deep, they're completely unaware of global warming around them, should just look at photos of different areas. Glaciers are melting exponentially faster than anticipated. Fresh-Water lakes are evaporating, seas are rising, and the climate's becoming harsher.

[gadgetlady 4]

This whole "everybody knows it's true and you're an idiot" argument is ridiculous. Everybody DOES NOT know it's true. Read "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" by S. Fred Singer or go to http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=188 for a tidbit. There's also a GREAT book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell that sheds light on a lot of topics.

If you know anything at all about politics you know the behind-the-scenes facts rarely make it to the forefront. And if you know anything about news you know that impending catastrophe and doom sell.

One more thought. Lobbying for environmental causes is a $1.6 billion industry.

[anonemouse 1]

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine).

Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.[citation needed]

Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer[1][2][3][4][5] and between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[6][7][8]

Bethell is a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis which denies that HIV causes AIDS. His The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science promotes global warming skepticism, AIDS denial, and a skeptical inquiry into the theory of evolution

Yeah, they've got lots of scientifically valid ideas.

[daveintoronto 0]

Don't be silly, with the amount of chemicals we are pumping into the atmosphere every day by buring fuels at an abnormal rate we must be doing something to the environment. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that the number of lung related illness is growing, just ask anyone with kids.

I laugh when I see parents drive their asthma stricten children to the hospital in an SUV.

Don't be fools, improve your carbon footprint or die!

It may very well be a normal cycle for the earth to burns fuels and change the chemical balance in the atmosphere, the problem is that this cycle can not sustain life, lol!

[daveintoronto 0]

Gatetlady, this is the stupid thing I have ever heard.

The lobby against the environment concerns is not just a multiple billion dollar industry, it is the worlds economy.

Just because you do not want to hear it doesn't make it a lie.

I better leave before I say something I will regret...

This whole "everybody knows it's true and you're an idiot" argument is ridiculous. Everybody DOES NOT know it's true. Read "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" by S. Fred Singer or go to http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=188 for a tidbit. There's also a GREAT book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell that sheds light on a lot of topics.

If you know anything at all about politics you know the behind-the-scenes facts rarely make it to the forefront. And if you know anything about news you know that impending catastrophe and doom sell.

One more thought. Lobbying for environmental causes is a $1.6 billion industry.

[gadgetlady 4]

Just because you do not want to hear it doesn't make it a lie.

And just because you believe it doesn't make it the truth. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're just not entitled to your own facts.

[gadgetlady 4]

Wikipedia knows not of what it speaks (probably because it's editable by the general public). Bethell doesn't deny AIDS. Instead of reading ABOUT what they say from a publicly-editable source, why not read WHAT they say?

[marjon9 6]

This whole "everybody knows it's true and you're an idiot" argument is ridiculous. Everybody DOES NOT know it's true. Read "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" by S. Fred Singer or go to http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=188 for a tidbit. There's also a GREAT book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell that sheds light on a lot of topics.

If you know anything at all about politics you know the behind-the-scenes facts rarely make it to the forefront. And if you know anything about news you know that impending catastrophe and doom sell.

One more thought. Lobbying for environmental causes is a $1.6 billion industry.

When I read your responses the same question keeps coming to my mind:

Let's assume that "no one knows for sure" about global warming and imminent environmental catastrophe. Even if that is true that no one knows for sure, you must admit that there is at least some risk that the general consensus of the scientific community might be right. Again, let's assume that the minority of commentators who disagree with the majority might be proven right in the long run. But at least I am sure you will admit that "no one knows for sure."

So, if that is true, why not err on the side of protecting the environment? Why not err on the side of decreasing the permanent extinction of god's plant and animal species? Why do Conservative Christians all seem to err on the side of corporate profiteers? It just makes no sense. Wouldn't a "conservative" person be in favor of "conserving?" When Christian Conservatives all line up on the side of chemical companies, strip miners, corporate fish trawlers that strip every living thing out of the ocean and then discard the "waste" forms of sea life like so much garbage, does that not seem to be inconsistent with the type of values a religious conservative would be expected to have? I really do not understand.

[gadgetlady 4]

When I read your responses the same question keeps coming to my mind:

Let's assume that "no one knows for sure" about global warming and imminent environmental catastrophe. Even if that is true that no one knows for sure, you must admit that there is at least some risk that the general consensus of the scientific community might be right. Again, let's assume that the minority of commentators who disagree with the majority might be proven right in the long run. But at least I am sure you will admit that "no one knows for sure."

Do you take this position with other issues? No one knows for sure if the unborn baby is a baby, so let's take the conservative position and disallow abortion just in case? I doubt it.

So, if that is true, why not err on the side of protecting the environment? Why not err on the side of decreasing the permanent extinction of god's plant and animal species?

I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I am not in favor of trashing the environment. What I have a problem with is "the sky is falling" doomsday scientists who are blowing everything out of proportion. I do not believe it is our right or our purvue to "trash the planet". I do believe we should make efforts to preserve what's around us.

A few years ago in CA we had huge, raging, out-of-control fires that quickly spread because environmentalists wouldn't let anyone cut down trees because of a protected beetle (even though the trees were all dead because of said beetle). Now trees, beetles, and homes are gone. What idiocy. We need to put on our common-sense caps, because there isn't much common sense going on right now.

[TommyO 5]

The idiocy, seems to me, is that you would use that story to justify your position on Global warming.

[gadgetlady 4]

The idiocy, seems to me, is that you would use that story to justify your position on Global warming.

LOL! You guys are the kings of non sequitur. I didn't use the story to justify my position on global warming, but rather to cite an example of how the manic behavior of evolutionists can get out of control and cause more damage than the original thing they were trying to prevent.