Is Global Warning A Hoax!

[Ron Cusano 0]

Better sense of humor? No way! I turn everything into a funny! There is nothing I enjoy more than a good laugh, unless it's at my expense!!

I was just kidding Ron, I didn't expect that you agreed with my premise. Just like you probably don't agree with the idea that Liberals naturally have better sense of Humour.

[marjon9 6]

So do I! The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles since forever, with much greated temperature ranges. I think it's all a bunch of political garbage by the tree hugging crowd!

Ron Cusano believes global warming is a hoax? I'm deeply shocked and surprised! I would so very much have expected Ron Cusano to take the other side on this. NOT!!

Obviously, Ron, you are going to advocate any position that is, from your perspective, opposed by "liberal tree huggers." You could not care less about the scientific issues here. You are simply interested in taking the most extreme right-wing position you can on any issue, and throwing it out there to stir up debate. On most forums, people like you are called "trolls." It's not such a bad thing. We all seem to enjoy taking your bait and chewing on it. But it's pretty silly for you to suggest that you are actually interested in a scientific discussion here.

Not that the issue of global warming itself is actually relevant here in this "troll" post, but I would nonetheless like to make one point about that actual issue.

Yes, it is true that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling over many years. But one thing is obviously different now. And that is, we humans are generating massive amounts of emissions that are going directly into the atmosphere. How can any thinking person believe that these massive emissions will have no effect on our climate and atmosphere?

When the argument is made that the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles for many years, this argument seems to imply that there is no fundamental difference in the circumstances now compared to the way they were in the past. But this is obviously not true. It is only very recently that we humans have been adding all these enormous volumes of emissions to the mix.

Say what you want about global warming, Al Gore, or whatever. But your argument that this is just "business as usual" for the earth is just silly and ignorant. I don't have the final answer on what all these emissions are doing, but it is absurd to forward an explanation for global warming that does not take into consideration the new, and huge, contribution we humans are making to the atmosphere. Simply arguing that "the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles" just does not cut it.

By the way, Ron, have you yet started an organization called "Scientists for Blind, Stubborn Ignorance"? Just curious.

[Ron Cusano 0]

If you had taken the time to actually read my posts instead of making saracstic remarks, you might notice that I never said global warming is a hoax, I just asked the question. You would also notice that I never said we were not experiencing global warming, I merely brought up that there was more than one scientific argument regarding the cause. There happen to be a number of scientists that conclude what man is contributing in emissions in so small as to have no effect globally.

And, while leaning in one direction in the argument, I also said I was open minded about it, and just not ready to panic as some are. But it seems like you are more intent on attacking me personally than making any contribution to the discussion. Perhaps you don't have anything meaningful to contribute so you feel the need to be sarcastic. Seems you would rather fight and argue rather that discuss. Sad!

Ron Cusano believes global warming is a hoax? I'm deeply shocked and surprised! I would so very much have expected Ron Cusano to take the other side on this. NOT!!

Obviously, Ron, you are going to advocate any position that is, from your perspective, opposed by "liberal tree huggers." You could not care less about the scientific issues here. You are simply interested in taking the most extreme right-wing position you can on any issue, and throwing it out there to stir up debate. On most forums, people like you are called "trolls." It's not such a bad thing. We all seem to enjoy taking your bait and chewing on it. But it's pretty silly for you to suggest that you are actually interested in a scientific discussion here.

Not that the issue of global warming itself is actually relevant here in this "troll" post, but I would nonetheless like to make one point about that actual issue.

Yes, it is true that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling over many years. But one thing is obviously different now. And that is, we humans are generating massive amounts of emissions that are going directly into the atmosphere. How can any thinking person believe that these massive emissions will have no effect on our climate and atmosphere?

When the argument is made that the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles for many years, this argument seems to imply that there is no fundamental difference in the circumstances now compared to the way they were in the past. But this is obviously not true. It is only very recently that we humans have been adding all these enormous volumes of emissions to the mix.

Say what you want about global warming, Al Gore, or whatever. But your argument that this is just "business as usual" for the earth is just silly and ignorant. I don't have the final answer on what all these emissions are doing, but it is absurd to forward an explanation for global warming that does not take into consideration the new, and huge, contribution we humans are making to the atmosphere. Simply arguing that "the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles" just does not cut it.

By the way, Ron, have you yet started an organization called "Scientists for Blind, Stubborn Ignorance"? Just curious.

[green 6]

Though it is true that the do-gooder antics of the Hollywoodite types can be irritating and usually do carry with them the powerful stench of hypocrisy, one can ignore these folks and instead choose to pay attention to what the European governments, the U.N. and the many serious scientists have and are saying about this issue, Cusano. It is now generally deemed that this is an issue that can no longer be ignored, whether the cause is a natural planetary phase or due to our own behaviour or some combination of the above.

Certainly, by thinking green or greener we can loosen our dependency on fossil fuels and on the Middle East and that would be a good thing in and of itself. We can also clean up our own backyard, you know, the land where we live if we figure out methods of controlling pollution for the truth is that both the air we breathe and the major waterways have become corrupted by our activities. This, by the way, does not only apply to city folk; there are rural folk who are falling sick in ways that urbanites are not and this is due to the run-off of the chemicals now used in farming.

Unfortunately environmental work is complex and will require that government become engaged as well as individual families. You Americans might remember FDR and the fine work he did on the TVA....

As a Canadian I am always surprised by the mistrust with which Americans view their government. Up here we kind of view our government as being something which we put in place by virtue of voting for it; perhaps our relationship with our government is more intimate for we know that if it gets uppity we can throw it out in the next election. It for this reason that our elected officials make some attempt to remain responsive to the will of the people.

I am aware that you who live below the 49th parallel are terrified of something which you view as socialism. This is, I suspect, because of your founding philosophy, a kind of Ayn Randian way of thought, of rugged individualism. Up here we are more concerned about the general health of our society and we figure that the needs of many trump the desires of one. This is why we have universal health care and this is why we endure an elaborate system of recycling our garbage in my big city which is, quite frankly a bit of work, but to which there is a compliance rate in the high 90s%.

Pat Robertson once referred to Canada as Socialist Canuckistan, and I still find this hilarious. If you look up Canada in Wikipedia you will see that this country functions on the capitalist system and is a member of G-8, the countries which routinely participate in economic summits.

Now, I am fully aware that is has been an irritating and really quite smug-sounding post and I am sorry for that. Canada certainly has its on-going problems and I am a big fan of America. I guess what I am trying to say is that modified socialism is practised north of your border and in most of the western European economies and that the notion of government intervention in certain spheres of activity does not seem as frightening to us who are not American, and thus your fear of it seems to be an on-going puzzle.

[jono201 0]

If you had taken the time to actually read my posts instead of making saracstic remarks, you might notice that I never said global warming is a hoax, I just asked the question. You would also notice that I never said we were not experiencing global warming, I merely brought up that there was more than one scientific argument regarding the cause. There happen to be a number of scientists that conclude what man is contributing in emissions in so small as to have no effect globally.

And, while leaning in one direction in the argument, I also said I was open minded about it, and just not ready to panic as some are. But it seems like you are more intent on attacking me personally than making any contribution to the discussion. Perhaps you don't have anything meaningful to contribute so you feel the need to be sarcastic. Seems you would rather fight and argue rather that discuss. Sad!

No Ron-There really is not two sides. Not if you base your arguments on true peer reviewed scientific studys. As you commented in a earlier post, in which an error was caught my another poster-It was not a scientist that Gore refused to debate, but a person who wrote a few essays. So until someone caught you, you were perpetuating a lie you misread and failed to critically analyze. Kinda like midlessly towing the party line. I recently wrote a lesson plan related to Global Atmospheric Change (GAC) and could not find a single unbiased fact based veiw that human actions are not responsible for the extremely high levels of C02. GAC began in the 1880's as a result of the industrial revolution. I would like to point out that the industrial revolution was a human action and not a part of the any natural climate influences. You might ask, how can they measure such changes that happened so long ago? Well one way is to anaylze layers of ice cores, simular to how past climate changes can be measured by the rings on a tree. Anyway-you might want to read closer when spreading untruths or skewed ideology.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Putting politics aside, which is a whole other subject, as I have said all along, there is no argument from me that we are seeing global warming. If it is man-made there is cause for alarm, but if it is a natural cycle, not only is there no cause for alarm, but there is likely nothing man can do about it.

What you said about lessening our dependancy on foreign oil and cleaning up our act concerning the enviroment, I wholeheartedly agree with. It is the right and responsible thing to do.

Also putting aside the "do-gooder antics of the Hollywoodite types" as you describe them, I think the jury is still out regarding the cause of global warming and i think it is way premature to be panicing about it science even the scientists seem to disagree on it's severty.

Though it is true that the do-gooder antics of the Hollywoodite types can be irritating and usually do carry with them the powerful stench of hypocrisy, one can ignore these folks and instead choose to pay attention to what the European governments, the U.N. and the many serious scientists have and are saying about this issue, Cusano. It is now generally deemed that this is an issue that can no longer be ignored, whether the cause is a natural planetary phase or due to our own behaviour or some combination of the above.

Certainly, by thinking green or greener we can loosen our dependency on fossil fuels and on the Middle East and that would be a good thing in and of itself. We can also clean up our own backyard, you know, the land where we live if we figure out methods of controlling pollution for the truth is that both the air we breathe and the major waterways have become corrupted by our activities. This, by the way, does not only apply to city folk; there are rural folk who are falling sick in ways that urbanites are not and this is due to the run-off of the chemicals now used in farming.

Unfortunately environmental work is complex and will require that government become engaged as well as individual families. You Americans might remember FDR and the fine work he did on the TVA....

As a Canadian I am always surprised by the mistrust with which Americans view their government. Up here we kind of view our government as being something which we put in place by virtue of voting for it; perhaps our relationship with our government is more intimate for we know that if it gets uppity we can throw it out in the next election. It for this reason that our elected officials make some attempt to remain responsive to the will of the people.

I am aware that you who live below the 49th parallel are terrified of something which you view as socialism. This is, I suspect, because of your founding philosophy, a kind of Ayn Randian way of thought, of rugged individualism. Up here we are more concerned about the general health of our society and we figure that the needs of many trump the desires of one. This is why we have universal health care and this is why we endure an elaborate system of recycling our garbage in my big city which is, quite frankly a bit of work, but to which there is a compliance rate in the high 90s%.

Pat Robertson once referred to Canada as Socialist Canuckistan, and I still find this hilarious. If you look up Canada in Wikipedia you will see that this country functions on the capitalist system and is a member of G-8, the countries which routinely participate in economic summits.

Now, I am fully aware that is has been an irritating and really quite smug-sounding post and I am sorry for that. Canada certainly has its on-going problems and I am a big fan of America. I guess what I am trying to say is that modified socialism is practised north of your border and in most of the western European economies and that the notion of government intervention in certain spheres of activity does not seem as frightening to us who are not American, and thus your fear of it seems to be an on-going puzzle.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I did misread that particular article, but I also offered links to several other articles by scientists that did agree with the same viewpoints as those expressed by the gentleman that wished to debate Al Gore. I got the impression that this person was not mearly someone "who wrote a few essays" as you put it, but rather someone who was quite knowledgeable on the subject. There is no "party line" here, only a difference of opinion between scientists and schools of thought. There was no "spreading untruths or skewed ideology" as you claim, only a misunderstanding with regard to the writers credentials. Nevertheless, his argument seems to have merit and is supported by some in the scientific community. Therefore, I consider it worthy of consideration before we go into a blind panic.

No Ron-There really is not two sides. Not if you base your arguments on true peer reviewed scientific studys. As you commented in a earlier post, in which an error was caught my another poster-It was not a scientist that Gore refused to debate, but a person who wrote a few essays. So until someone caught you, you were perpetuating a lie you misread and failed to critically analyze. Kinda like midlessly towing the party line. I recently wrote a lesson plan related to Global Atmospheric Change (GAC) and could not find a single unbiased fact based veiw that human actions are not responsible for the extremely high levels of C02. GAC began in the 1880's as a result of the industrial revolution. I would like to point out that the industrial revolution was a human action and not a part of the any natural climate influences. You might ask, how can they measure such changes that happened so long ago? Well one way is to anaylze layers of ice cores, simular to how past climate changes can be measured by the rings on a tree. Anyway-you might want to read closer when spreading untruths or skewed ideology.

[TommyO 5]

Ron, who is suggesting we go into a blind panic. I have yet to see that as a recommended course of action.

Sometimes the words we choose give the reader far greater insight to our views than we know.

[Ron Cusano 0]

A lot of the comments I see in the media and hear from people seem to be advocating panic. I have heard talk about the ice caps melting and destroying cities, wiping out various species of wildlife, etc. I personally think that is all very, very premature and unwarrented. That's just my opinion.

Here is another viewpoint on global warming -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html It was conducted by Danish researchers and reported on Fox News. They conclude - "

So although it has been taken for granted by global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Svensmark’s study strongly challenges this assumption."

Here is yet another opinion by Gary Novak, a biologist - http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

The cause of global warming is by no means proven and established, and contrary to what a recent poster claimed, there is indeed much objection from withing the scientific community to the theory that man-made greenhouse gasses are the cause.

Ron, who is suggesting we go into a blind panic. I have yet to see that as a recommended course of action.

Sometimes the words we choose give the reader far greater insight to our views than we know.

[jono201 0]

Hardly unbiased--- Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute . (this info is at the bottom of the article)

Nov55 is an html site which is not peer reviewed and basically a bunch of essays on his personal views. He provides few links to science in backing up his veiws. I would have my students think twice before quoting such a site for factual information. How about some links to .gov or .edu sites.

If your answer is that you are just pointing out other points of veiw-fine, but if you are using these as examples as scientific findings disputing the the causes behind rapid GAC, I must disagree.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I am mearly pointing out that there are other views, and some of the other links that I mentioned are indeed from respected scientists. I don't believe this is a clear cut issue at this point in time - either way!

Hardly unbiased--- Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute . (this info is at the bottom of the article)

Nov55 is an html site which is not peer reviewed and basically a bunch of essays on his personal views. He provides few links to science in backing up his veiws. I would have my students think twice before quoting such a site for factual information. How about some links to .gov or .edu sites.

If your answer is that you are just pointing out other points of veiw-fine, but if you are using these as examples as scientific findings disputing the the causes behind rapid GAC, I must disagree.

[marjon9 6]

Here is an article I ran across today that tends to support Cusano. I'ts written by an actual scientist. Being the unimaginably fair-minded person that I am, I thought I'd post the link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

[Fauxnaif 1]

The man who wants to debate Gore is NOT a scientist. In fact, I challenge you to find any actual scientists who doubt global warning. These are very few and far between.

[wavydaby 1]

The thing is, what is this "blind panic"?

Is it the fact that people do want to start cleaning up the planet and cutting emisssions and reducing the use of fossil fuels?

Maybe its not blind panic but a, "whoa hey, we might actually need to do something"?

Again, if it is a blind panic, and we later find out as we are floating around on our boats, that this is a natural warming trend, are the changes people want to make bad?

Can people stay off of the party line and the "Al Gore said" and just try to save the environment?????

I heard a quote by a preacher the other day, "If the devil is saved what will all the evanglists do then?"

[gadgetlady 4]

The man who wants to debate Gore is NOT a scientist.

Ummmm . . . neither is Gore!