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 4 of 14)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


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

We need to care for our environment as we care for our individual homes. I remember back in the early 70's when fires would spontaneously combust on the great lakes and in the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers due to pollution. At one point in the 60's over 95% of the shore line in the Great Lakes were contaminated with foreign bacteria. No one could swim and enjoy the natural wonder. The stynch was unbearable and the views were unsightly. Massive cleanups were undertaken and America reclaimed the shores and rivers. We now have the clean water and air acts to safe guard the environment preventing Times Beach or other superfund cleanup sites.

IRT the green house gases and global warming, I recall in the 70's when there was a panic because the Earth was cooling and we were faced with the prospect of another Ice Age. The US Government had a project to tow icebergs out into the open ocean to melt them down reducing the risk of the polar caps from expanding too far. I also remember a panic that human populations were growing too fast. The Global populations were faced with starvation if something was not done soon about food supplies. Today, nearly 30 years later, the global population has nearly tripled and we over produce food. In fact, the US over produces so much food that we alone could feed the world.

I think everyone should note that behind every panic today is a call for money and a political motive. Projects are spun up and politicians claim they created millions of new jobs that are not real jobs. Just a few years ago there were an incredible number of forest fires. Then Vice President Gore pulled an Alexander Haig style exhibition at a press conference. He grabbed the microphone exclaiming, "People, people the only way to stop these fires is to increase taxes!" There was no mention that the administration he was in forbid clearing of underbrush that was fueling the fires. A change in policy was in better order than increasing taxes. But then the motives for the tax increase is a political point of view and another discussion in itself.

From a rational view regarding global warming the volume of the atmosphere compared to the annual reported volume of green house gas pollution amounts to a drop of red food coloring in the Pacific Ocean. In short, I do not sense an eminent danger of the Pacific Ocean turning red nor Green House Gases destroying the atmosphere. However, my nose does get irritated with the smell of the big city, burning fuels, and other distillates.

So yes I would like to see more environmentally friendlier vehicles and energy sources not because of green house gases but simply a desire for more pleasant living conditions. Have you ever seen carbon dioxide burns on plants close to highways or damage to your cars finish from acid rain? Ever wonder why water spots evaporate leaving a oxidized ring on your car finish?

Let's seek other energy sources and better modes of transportation making our world a better place.

Collapse -

You have made some excellent points here

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to MY BELIEF...

I particularly liked the one about raising taxes as that is the main reason behind almost everything that any Government ever does and it certainly isn't limited to America but to most of the Governments in the world.

I think you second last paragraph says it all and is totally correct.


Collapse -

All valid arguments ....

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

I think that all the arguments presented here
from various points of view are valid to a
greater or lesser extent.

But I concur with "ruralgeezer"

"Who's right? Only time will tell. But for the
sake of our planet, could we please err on the
side of caution?"

Collapse -

A common misconception throughout this discussion

by maxwell edison In reply to Man-Caused Global Warming ...

The "global warming" theory and the quest to live in a clean environment are not one in the same.

There's probably no one who wants a cleaner environment more than I do, but that doesn't automatically mean that I must subscribe to the "global warming" nonsense. (Yes, my choice of the word "nonsense" was an intentional bit of editorializing.)

No, I don't want industry (or individuals) to pollute our water.

Yes, I want to find a way to have cleaner air.

And if I ever see you throw trash out your window while driving, don't be surprised if you get the "evil-eye" from me.

Separate the desire for a cleaner environment from the "global warming" theory, thereby separating a real issue from a questionable one, and one basking itself in fear-mongering and deceptiveness, by the way, and there will be a lot more people on-board. Moreover, I believe that not only is the "global warming" theory seriously flawed, but the proposed solutions by the "environmental radicals", and they're the ones driving the issue, are a threat to free markets and personal liberty. If the "global warming" threat is real, and I've seen just as much evidence to question it as to support it, then free market solutions are the ones to seek, not socialist ones.

Collapse -


by FluxIt In reply to A common misconception th ...

Global warming threatens Earth bound life by heating up the surface to critical temperatures killing life. It achieves this by the expulsion of pollutants namely CO that seeks a free O radical to stabilize itself. The CO attaches to the O making CO2 the infamous greenhouse gas. ChloroFloruoCarbons used as propellants and in cooling systems also contribute to the process of increasing CO2 on the atmosphere.

How is this than distillates and other contaminants that polluted the lakes and rivers causing fish kills and destroying water tables?

It is unsightly to see the crap floating on our rivers and lakes. It is irrating to smell the stuff. Likewise, it is just as irritating to smell auto emissions or see smoke stacks dumping crap into our air that causes the so called green house gases.

The difference being that I think we are past the days of widespread clean up and environmental scares. It is a matter of maintenance now. Global warming is more politicized than the earlier environmental issues and less of a real issue.

Collapse -

Never happen - the Red/Greenies don't want it separate

by JimHM In reply to A common misconception th ...

That will never happen - the RED - Greenies will never permitt that to happen. If it did they would loose the power that "Global Warming" has. Because they tied it to a Clean Environment.

There is a difference - Global Warming - Flawed Science - no scientific evidence - no repeatable therom (not even in computer models - unless they cheat) - Where as a Clean Environment - means a healther ocean - better drinking water - safer land - cleaner air ... which is repeatable - has a sound scientific base -

Yes - I call them RED - Greenies - because they are basically a Communist organization under the cloak of environmentalist... Their ask for direct scientific proof that global warming is a fact - and they will hand you flawed evidence. Because there is no evidence. To be scientific fact the therom must be repeatable - and they can't do it even in a computer model! Not without added a bunch of variables..

Global Warming - Flawed Science
Clean Environment - Something Everyone wants
RED/Greenies separate the Two - Never

Collapse -

can't say they are all the same!

by wiremaster In reply to Never happen - the Red/Gr ...

@ JimiHM:
I don't wanna start a quarrel here and i hate unpolite posts; moreover i think that you have a look on the U.S.A. situation but maybe you don't know much 'bout every green fellow or organization allovertheworld.
So i just wanted to point out that not all the greenies are children eating, stalin worshipping communists! A lot of them i know just don't care about red or black or purple 'cause they think that our only planet to live in is MUCH more important of my, your and anybody's politics.
In other words they think that whatever party you support pollution CAN kill you.
So i think it would be wise to give environment protection the maximum priority and beware of fake greens who only care about the chair...

Collapse -

You're right

by JimHM In reply to can't say they are all th ...

You're correct only USA Greenies are the ones I know or have read about.

Collapse -

Spoken like a Scout Leader

by Oz_Media In reply to A common misconception th ...

Max, there is one area where we do see eye to eye, our wildlife and forests.
"And if I ever see you throw trash out your window while driving, don't be surprised if you get the "evil-eye" from me."

I usually follow them to the next light and sometimes I lode it at that point.
One time near Stanley Park, Vancouver's main attraction, I saw a guy in a rental throw his A&W bags and cup out the window.

At the next light I got out and (I used to carry 20" piece of 3/8" rebar on the floor beside me), walked up to his car. He saw me coming and tried to leave by driving through the red light but before he could get going, I had already removed his side view mirror and created a nice bill for him to address at National Car rental.

Don't come to MY city and throw YOUR garbage in MY park.

Now you may be able to get away with the evil-eye, but these idiots just **** me off to no end. How dare you pollute in MY world.

So as I expleined my focus is more environmental in my last post, I will detail that I do believe we re harming the atmosphere, yet it is still questionable as to the extent. The atmospheric layer when seen from space look SOOOOOOOO thin, like an eggshell.

The issue we need to resolve, is how klong do we wait for proof we ARE harming the atmosphere?
Until it has a week to go and they say, DAMN!!! It's true!

or do we act concisouly all the time?

No major life changes, just awareness and conciouseness(is that a word, it looks wierd?).

I see extremes on both sides, happy polluters and over 'green' save the world types. Must there be an extreme either way? Wouldn't just a general and global awareness suffice?

Collapse -

You just made me think of something...

by maecuff In reply to Spoken like a Scout Leade ...

I too am appalled when I see people throw trash from their car. However..I had an incident a few months back. We were driving along when my little one announced that he was going to throw up RIGHT NOW. The only thing handy was an empty McDonald's bag. I shoved the bag in front of him, he puked, and I was left holding a bag full of McPuke. What do you think I did with the bag? That's right, it went out the window before seepage set in. This woman in the car next to us rolled down her window and was shaking her finger and screaming at me. I was leaned over the seat, trying to get Joey completely cleaned up and trying not to get sick myself. I swear to god, I wanted to follow their call and smack her. In fact, when I saw them heading off the expressway, I casually suggested to my husband that we stop and stretch our legs. He said, "you just want to chase that woman. I'm not stopping." The moral is.. while I will agree that littering is almost ALWAYS a lazy, inconsiderate thing to do.. it could be that someone has a bag of puke in their car..

Back to Desktop Forum
131 total posts (Page 4 of 14)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums