General discussion


Man-Caused Global Warming - Who's right, and why?

By maxwell edison ·
America's Al Gore, author of "Earth in the Balance", has called the internal combustion engine, a primary contributor to greenhouse gasses that cause "global warming", a worse threat to the Earth than nuclear weapons.

Australia's Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting has recently suggested that the Earth may be more resilient to global warming than first thought.

Sir David King, Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Office of Science and Technology, described the "global warming" threat worse as than terrorism.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said, "The notion that human activity is the controlling factor (of climate change) is inherently bogus. To believe that, you would have to believe that the sun, the oceans, the clouds, volcanic activity, and countless other factors do not play a major role in the weather.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (D) said, "The question of how and when we deal with the threat of global warming is one of the great tests for our generation of elected officials. The question is do we have the courage to begin to bring about the changes to protect us, our children and grandchildren?"

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe (R) said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (D) said, "Global warming is America's biggest threat since the Cold War."

The Bush White House has said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

Okay, what do the experts at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) think?

Professor Ronald Prinn, Head of MIT?s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, and Co-Director of MIT?s Joint Program on the Policy and Science of Global Change, said that, "global warming is the most difficult and important environmental problem that we face this century, and that it is a problem that we are going to have to solve, and we need to start forming solutions now.?

However, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a paper titled, Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty, "There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such troposphere warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures." (Published in The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.) Professor Lindzen has also pointed out that, "Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

For argument's sake, let's concede that the Earth's surface has warmed a bit (a very little bit) over the past century. But is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles?

Is all this man-caused "global warming" propaganda real or imagined? What do you believe, and why? Who do you believe, and why? And the $64,000 question, therefore what?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

131 total posts (Page 2 of 14)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Whatever

You say every part of my post is unsubstantiated BS.

Seeing as my post offered few or no actual facts but just logical conclusions I am interested in what exactly you see as BS.

Would it be BS that we pollute through our emissions? You're a Scout leader for Christ's sake, you MUST know better than that, if not i sincerely feel sorry for the ppoor young men you 'instruct' on nature.

My post was full of questions, not statements, give your head a shake and put your bifocals on old man then get with the program and wake up.

Out of 5 paragraphs, there was one opening, two that started with "DO" and two that started with "WHAT".

DO and WHAT are indications of questions not statements.

Collapse -

Puny humans who think they're omnipotent

by DC_GUY In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming ...

I have no doubt that human activity since the discovery of fossil fuels CAN have a measurable effect on the climate. What I doubt is whether current scientific models can determine that the ACTUAL effect is serious. I can't help coming back to the flippant but irrefutable argument: These very same "scientists" can't predict tomorrow's weather with much greater accuracy than a look out the window and a coin toss; who in his right mind could possibly trust them to predict the weather fifty years from now?

Less flippantly, huge fluctuations in the Earth's climate have occurred with utterly no regularity for as far back as we can measure with soil core samples, tree rings, and even archeological evidence.

12,000 years ago the Earth was so cold, and so much of its water was locked into the polar caps and the glaciers that radiate out from them, that sea level had dropped hundreds of feet. The Western Hemisphere was first populated by humans simply walking across what is now the Bering Strait. During one of these ice ages, mammoths established colonies on what are now the islands off of Santa Barbara, and got trapped there when the sea level rose back up.

Yet 800 years ago, the Earth was so warm that the people of England grew their own grapes and made their own wine.

Fossil fuel and man-made greenhouse gases had nothing to do with these dramatic temperature shifts, many of which far exceed those predicted by the Red-repainted-Green party.

Here's one that simply can't be explained away. Recent advances in astronomy have allowed the polar ice caps on Mars to be studied in much more detail than ever before. Guess what? They are melting, just like ours! Since no one is burning fossil fuels on Mars, another reason had to be sought.

Well gee, what else could possibly affect a planet's weather? Hint: It's big and it's yellow and it's known by various endearing names such as "Giver of Life." By pivoting their instruments about 180 degrees, scientists have determined that the energy output of the sun is not stable.

The amount of solar radiation available to the Earth has varied by enough to fully account for climate fluctuations -- just during the short time we've been able to measure it. There's no telling how much it might increase or decrease in a millennium or ten millennia.

So there's nothing wrong with cleaning up our act and taking better care of the planet. But when it all comes down, it's really the Big Landlord in the Sky's call.

Collapse -

While this may be correct there are a few things to think about as well

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Puny humans who think the ...

Several hundred years ago we certainly didn't have fossil fuels {as we have today but we where still using different forms of fuels} but we had other sources of fuel that was used quite extensively like wood from trees that where cut down to provide heat and cooking, then there where the oil lamps that where being used all through the Old Testament so some form of oil was being used although granted in smaller quantities than it is today.

Then there was the fact that we had a far smaller population than today so we didn't need to clear as much land to produce the food that we need to survive so with the advent of "Modern Civilization" we are having a far more dramatic effect upon the planet first just by having far more people inhabiting the place and then requiring far more land cleared to feed these people not to mention all the extra energy that these people are using this has to come from somewhere and it produces pollution. While not something new Europe has been suffering from "Acid Rain" for several decades now and they are fighting hard to eradicate this problem although to date that have not proved totally successful.

What about the hole in the Ozone Layer that is necessary to protect us all from what you like to call "The Giver of Life" as it is effectively a fission reaction on a massive scale that is throwing out masses of energy and other compounds/elements. While it is necessary to life on this planet and undoubtedly goes through cycles we don't need to destroy our own protection from this source of energy either. While I don't know what will happen and if "Global Warming" is real I do know that we are destroying the planet far faster than it can regenerate so it only stands to reason that eventually something must give and we will all suffer.

The main problem here is that something can only be proved after it has happened and by then it is far too late to try to stop it so the best that can be hoped for is to minimize the problem.

After all you certainly do not want to be in the position of having LA under 85 feet of water and ask why wasn't something done sooner? Do you? There is one certainly that change will be slow to happen and will be slow to recover so none of us want to run the risk of being wiped out as a species only to say just before the last of us dies "Well I guess that those Wacko's where right when they spoke about Global Warming after all!"

Of perhaps you are starting to build your own floating cities like in "Water World" although it would not be a feasible alternative as they had no long tern capacity to provide the necessary food that they would require but it did make an interesting movie.


Collapse -

Both side are right and wrong

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming ...

The truth is that both sides are right and wrong. Over the millenia the earth has gone through a number of warming and cooling phases, the geological evidence is there, we have been warming up since the last ice age. Natural processes like the sun and volcanoes are the main cause of this, and it is a growth curve process.

Yet some of the actions of man have had an effect on this process, the most severe effect comes from the reduction in greenleaf through forest and pasture reductions. Even if mankind were to return everything to its original state global warming would still continue.

BTW why is man building a dam for his purposes is artificual and wrong, whilst when a beaver does it for beaver purposes it is natural and right?

Anyway, there is no reason why we should not do what we can to lessen the impact of humanity on the environment. Simple changes, a decade or so agao the various govts banned production of new cars using leaded fuel, why not ban production of any vehicle that use petroleum based fuel. Biodiesel works it only needs govt support to help establish a standard with a production and delivery infrastructure and every existing petrol vehicle could be easily switched over to a much more environmentally friendly fuel. Enforce requirements to plant more greenleaf. these two factors alone woulr so change the environmental impact, and the economy it is frightening.

Collapse -

Did you ever consider running combustion engines

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Both side are right and w ...

On Hydrogen?

If that was to happen the main by product of combustion would be H2O which is far more friendly then even "Bio Fuels" and a lot easier to convert most motor cars and aircraft to as well.


Collapse -

Al Who? - Al I lost the election becaus of what!

by JimHM In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming ...

Come on Al Gore knows something about Global Warming - like when he said him and Clinton invented the Internet.

Na - but all kidding aside, its just a cycle the earth is in - the small amount of time man has been on this planet isn't enough to figure or even guess what nature is doing. Not when man has inhabited the planet can be measured in hundreds of thousands of years.

Look when I was a kid (50 now) they said no other star in the universe had a planets - now they are finding them all over - space travel something that happened in the movies - bottom of the ocean was dead, no life to deep nothing could live at those pressures -

Right no the information may point to a warming trend - but is it from Human - or cow poop - or just a cycle the nature is in - whats going to happen as the moon moves away from the earth - no one knows -

Al's book is all hype no scientific evidence - only speculations and greeny scare hype.

Collapse -

Well Maxwell I really don't know about this one

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming ...

But what I do know is that when vested interest groups start legal action to stop the various Government Departments from publishing reports on possible affects there is something to worry about.

Just image what we would be doing now if there was no research into tobacco or for that matter Cocaine as that was very popular a couple of hundred years ago ands somewhat less as well. Then there was the good old Indian Hemp which is an all natural product that is no longer being grown legally in large quantities because of someone asking something like "Could this be doing harm?" Research followed which proved all of these substances where harmful to man and even though Hemp made the best ropes that where used on all the sailing ships of the time it has been outlawed.

I actually have a "Companion Planting Guide" here from around the 1890 era which advises you to plant Indian Hemp around all your above ground crops to stop any insects from damaging your produce. I personally don't think that, that argument would wash in any court action now days do you?

While I'm the first to admit that I really don't know what is happening (I have seen weather patterns change in my short lifetime and while they could be a natural thing they could also be helped by mans activities as well. We have a louse history at protecting this planet and all its life as we have managed to wipe out quite a few species in just the last 30 years let alone the last 300 years and as time goes by we are destroying faster than we can rebuild the natural environment.

Here in Australia we have a massive salinity problem that is being brought about by land clearing and our current farming practices as well as our water management practices so we are losing productive land at an alarming rate with at present no solution available and even better while it is admitted that there is a problem only small amounts of money have been set aside to begin to study this problem. Governments talk quite a lot about this but come up short when they are required to put their hands in their pockets to fund research to prevent the problem in the first place as they just hope it will go away but unfortunately it only gets worse.

I have a horrible feeling that Global Warming if it actually exists will fall into the same category and action will only be taken after it is no longer a possible theory but a proven fact. So as we all watch our Detroit gas guzzlers disappear under water we will have to come up with another alternative to our current lifestyle and provide food from a smaller land mass for at the very least many more people so maybe "Soylent Green" isn't so far off.

Now isn't that something interesting to look forward to?


Collapse -

On vested interest groups

by maxwell edison In reply to Well Maxwell I really don ...

Colin, you suggested that, "vested interest groups start legal action to stop the various Government Departments from publishing reports on possible affects".

Will you be so kind as to be specific, and name some of these "vested interest groups" who have initiated such legal action?

And by the way, speaking of vested interest groups, I would be willing to make a wager that all, or almost all, of the "scientists" who are on the "global warming" scare bandwagon are either employees of a government agency or are with an organization receiving grants from the government to study the "problem". Who pays these guys? Follow the money.

How's that for a "vested interest group"? Create a scare, and get paid to study it some more.

Collapse -

Just off the top of my head Maxwell

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to On vested interest groups

There was a story in New Scientist about a group sueing a US Department Governemnt for publishing scientific data about Global Warming as they are claiming that it just doesn't exist. You should be able to find the story in the back issues of New Scientist or if you like I'll have a look around and see what I can find as I tend to keep these mags for quite some time so it's probably somewhere around here along with all the other technical mags that I get and don't get enough time to actually read. But this particular story I did read as I had just bought the mag and was waiting at the doctors so I had a bit of spare time.


Collapse -

Suing people over global warming. Geesh - what's next?

by maxwell edison In reply to Just off the top of my he ...


You make these ludicrous claims, but can't back them up with anything at all. So I tried to back it up for you.

I took your challenge and searched for cases of lawsuits against any government attempting to keep them from publishing information. I didn't find any.

What I did find, however, were dozens of instances where environmental groups were suing various governments. AND there's a new movement that will attempt to sue people to collect damages caused by climate change, an "alleged" effect of global warming.



Green party suing the government of Spain


This next decade is going to see quite a lot of climate change cases around the world "
Environment lawyer Peter Roderick
Some environmental lawyers believe this was a hugely significant step in paving the way to compensation claims against those responsible for climate change.**0017.stm


In the first suit of its kind filed by state governments, attorneys general from Massachusetts, Maine, and Connecticut are suing the US Environmental Protection Agency. They argue the Bush administration is jeopardizing the health of citizens and violating clean-air laws by failing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. From the Boston Globe, January 31, 2003.


US groups sue government agency over global warming:
Three major US environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to curb global warming despite its growing impacts on human health and the environment. The move comes amid growing anger among environmentalists over the record and intentions of President George W Bush.


The basic message of the ABC report is that companies and organizations who are identified as CO2 emitters could find themselves being sued in courts for `damages' by litigants with real or imagined claims of loss through climate change. The notion is legally absurd anyway, even though the ABC report was co-authored by a lawyer. In real damages cases, it is normal for the court to determine the proportion of damage which can be attributed to the defendant. Since greenhouse gases are the accumulation of over a hundred years of industrialization and global economic activity, the total number of defendants is over 6 billion - the whole population of the planet.

The idea of one plaintiff, or a class action of them, suing 6 billion people - plus the billions more already dead but who contributed to the total greenhouse gas quantity - is a legal absurdity, but is one which is being promoted by the Greens anyway as a political correctness bludgeon to silence criticism of their agenda.

But a sinister new twist has been promoted by the ABC, a way to be more selective about who to blame - and therefore who to sue - for `climate change'. According to Martijn Wilder, a lawyer for the law firm Baker and McKenzie who floated this idea in Australia,

"The reality is that those who are probably going to be most exposed are the companies who have publicly taken an anti-climate change line."

What is that but a direct threat against free speech itself? Express your opinion and you will be the target of legal action - and this from the public broadcaster of Australia! Using, or even threatening to use, the courts to suppress the free expression of opinion is a flagrant abuse of the legal process and an unprincipled attack on democracy itself.

Heckling an invited head of state in our parliament was but the tip of a very sinister iceberg.



"Some of it might be down to things you'd have trouble suing - like the Sun - so you obviously need to work how particularly human influence has contributed to the overall change in risk," the scientist, who has worked with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said.

"But once you've done that, then we as scientists can essentially hand the problem over to the lawyers, for them to assess whether the change in risk is enough for the courts to decide that a settlement could be made."


I could go on, but this is getting to be too much.

Suing people over global warming. Geesh - what's next?

Back to Desktop Forum
131 total posts (Page 2 of 14)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums