• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Blow is dealt to the Global Warming Theory

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I know a little about this topic
Remember

1. A local variation does not make a trend. Example- "yeah it was a really warm winter in country X"
2. If some of the more credible models are correct, then what you would see before indisputable temperature increases is more instability in weather patterns. That means it could COOL in some areas and see increases in precipitation where it was drier before. Of course you have warmer and drier areas. The trick here is to get a good average here. That is not easy.
3. Go out and look at the sky on a really clear day. In most areas the sky is blue but becomes oranger as you look towards the horizon. That is particulate matter comprised largely of sulfur compounds. It's the same stuff acid rain comes from. That reflects radiation back into space. It may be that we don't see global warming to be a problem because that offsets the greenhouse effect. That masks the problem. Before some idiot says, "Ha here is a cure, see all that pollution is good." Remember that's like saying someones cancer is getting better because they are taking pain meds. Sooner or later the catastrophic will happen.
4. The magnitude of global warming is uncertain, and if we get away from fossil fuels, we stand a good chance of this climatic era just being a blip on the radar. We are far from doomed
 


<< ToBeMe
You said it right. How can we realy know with 30 or 40 years worth of data. Come on the earth will be around long after we are nothing but worm food and the worms are gone and to think that man can realy have that much of an impact is to presume that we are truly gods.
Just my $.02 >>


That's right, 6 Billion people on this Earth and none of it is having "much of an impact". LOL, riiiiight. 6 Billion people spread out all over the earth and it's so hard to believe that we have any kind of impact... if we do have an impact then we're GODS. Gods he said... please... make me laugh more you funny man.
 
One item that really got me thinking was I read in a science journal or the newspaper, forgot which, that the ice cap on Mars is melting. As soon as I heard that news, I began to wonder... man obviously has no impact on Mars, so what is causing the ice cap to suddenly begin to melt. Then it occured to me that Mars was going through a cycle. Now if Mars has it's ice cap melting without any intervention from man, then what's to think that possibly we don't have much control over what happens here on Earth. Sure, we need to be mindful of what we put into the environment, but I am definitely in the camp of thinking that human's aren't the sole cause for any type of cooling or warming trend, but rather just the natural cycle that Earth will go through. We may damage small pockets of the environment, but as a whole, warming and cooling seems more to be just a natural cyclictic change.

The Earth just came out of an ice age not to long ago compared to the earth's age. It would make sense that the planet would continually increase in temperature until it peaks on the cycle, then the planet will begin to see a cooling trend until the next ice age hits.
 
Yes, I heard this on the news. But all other places in Antarctica are warming, and all other continents have an average warming rise. We know that there are LOTS of gasses going not the air, and we know the temp of the air is going up. If you can find a better explanation, please let us know. 🙂

LOOK!!! HERE IS A BLOW TO THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH CROWD!!!! AND ANOTHER ONE!!! (Second link actually ties Greenhouse gasses are producing long-term changes in the Earth's atmosphere)

Tominator: Here ya go
 
Maybe we're becoming too presumptous, that people can take a very small (relative to the life span of earth) sampling of temperatures and deduce that we're destroying the planet with our waste and pollution. Not that I don't think we aren't, but not nearly to the magnitude, or rather in such a simple regard, of what some folks (who still drive SUVs and leave their lights on when they aren't home) have convinced themselves.
 


<< BlueApple >>



That whole 'Convention' was a farce! Many notable scientists refused to take part because of the political agenda and the lack of credible scientific evidence. That is old news.
 

Home · Dr. Bill Wattenburg · Heroes & Villains · Energy · Justice · Terrorism · Fun · Suggested Reading · Write your government
Upgrade your web browser to enjoy a better view of this site.

Dr. Bill Wattenburg?s testimony to the Calif. Legislature on MTBE
Statement to the California State Legislature Assembly Budget Subcommittee 3
Howard Kaloogian, Chairman
by
Dr. Bill Wattenburg
4/30/96

The present vulgar gas prices are cruel punishment of Californians for trusting the State government and supporting environmental programs. The Calif. Air Resources Board (CARB) bureaucracy with its typical arrogance and incompetence added insult to injury by demanding immediate conversion to its new reformulated gasoline at the worst possible time. CARB could have phased in the new gasoline over a year period to avoid the disruption of the market and prevent speculators from running up prices. But worse yet, the gas price insult may be just the tip of the shaft.

Alarming reports are coming in from all segments of the driving public that the new gasoline has reduced mileage in newer cars by 10% to 15%. This is five to eight times the mileage reduction that CARB promised. CARB told the Legislature, public and the press that good scientific tests were done to verify that mileage reductions ?will be no more than one-half mile per gallon.? This means 1½%?2½% reduction for newer cars. How can anyone explain the 10%?15% reductions being reported by honest motorists and businesses? The reason for these reports must be determined immediately.

If motorists must buy and burn 10% to 15% more of this more-expensive gas to go the same distance, then they are being forced to put 10% to 15% more pollutants back in the air. This completely cancels the purported 15% reduction in pollutants per gallon burned, as claimed by CARB.

In fact, if average mileage reduction for all motorists is even 5%, this reformulated gasoline will be the biggest fraud on the public since the savings and loan scandals because of the small benefits gained for the enormous cost to the citizens of this state and the forced burning of greater amounts of imported oil.

What must be done? First, the Governor and the Legislature must demand that the new gasoline be phased in over the next six months or year, and not 100% by June 1. Then the Governor and the Legislature must order an immediate independent scientific assessment of the actual mileage reduction being experienced by California vehicles on the road. This can be done very quickly by scientists from the University of California and our research laboratories. There is no federal EPA requirement for conversion to this reformulated gasoline until the year 2000. Motorists must not be forced to use it until it is proven to be a significant environmental improvement worth billions of dollars that will be taken from their family budgets every year.

Fortunately, both private companies that operate large fleets of vehicles and individual motorists can provide the data that will tell us the truth about mileage with new gasoline. No one is going to keep this a secret from the voting public. God help the Legislature at the next election if this gasoline is forced on all California motorists by June 1 and the actual mileage reduction figures are much worse than CARB has promised. Legislators had better listen to their constituents who are already insulted and properly irate.

Over 5 million Californians pay dues to the California State Automobile Association. CAA operates a fleet of over 100 cars. CAA for example, can provide the mileage comparison for this new gas that the public and the press must have as soon as possible. It is fitting and proper that CAA should render this service to the millions of motorists that it represents. CAA members should call the association and request that CAA?s mileage data be made public as soon as possible.

CARB bureaucrats committed exactly this same sort of abuse of public trust three years ago while lying to the Legislature, the press, and the public about their own concoction of poison diesel fuel that they forced on the State overnight. Newspapers eventually had to editorialize the truth and report the damage done to the public after they had published the earlier propaganda lies from CARB. The Legislature had to pay out millions of taxpayer dollars to pay for damaged vehicles.

But the Governor and the Legislature let their political friends at CARB continue on the payroll. CARB bureaucrats continue to justify everything they do in the name of the environment, no matter how economically stupid and environmentally damaging their ignorance and actions may turn out to be.

Some Background, Observations and Opinions:
Legislative committees investigating this scandal had better put all witnesses from CARB, its paid consultants and the oil companies under oath and then demand the full truth tight now?including all the conflicting technical reports in the CARB files that CARB did not reveal to the Legislature or the press.

I was shocked to discover just last week that the contrived mileage tests done by CARB did not use the actual gasoline that motorists are forced to buy from the refineries today. Most significantly, the oil companies will make no promises for mileage as compared to the older gasoline. Their position is that they are simply producing the reformulated gas demanded by CARB.

Anonymous insiders are reporting that CARB has had on file reports from Federal Express and the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources which report serious mileage reductions with Federal EPA specified reformulated gas when these entities tested the gasoline in their fleets in 1995. This must be looked into. It would be criminal if CARB concealed such information while telling the California public that mileage reductions would be much less. CARB knows that the reformulated gas that it has specified for California can be expected to reduce mileage more than the federal EPA version of reformulated gas that was tested.

Some refineries are still producing the perfectly good old (normal) gasoline. The old and new gas can be mixed in any proportions required. This is the only way to insure adequate supplies of gasoline to Californians at fair prices for the near future. The refiners of the new gas will get paid. Other suppliers will have to buy the new gas from them. CARB and the some of the refiners will probably say gradual conversion can?t be done because they have been scratching each other?s backs. But some plant engineers within the refineries say this can be done easily.

The feeble excuse that California had to make this conversion immediately or face sanctions from the federal EPA is absurd on its face. Does anyone believe that California would be punished by the present White House before the election next November? The next six months would be plenty of time to phase in the new reformulated gasoline?and to make sure that it actually is the environmental improvement that CARB represents.

Representatives of the gasoline suppliers warned CARB that they should phase in the conversion and that there would be outrageous price increases if they didn?t. But CARB again ignored the advice of experts and then lied to the Legislature with assurances that there would be only about a ten cent increase in pump prices. CARB was beholden to the oil refiners who had converted their equipment at great expense and wanted to start getting their money back with immediate conversion to the new gasoline. Also, insiders say that CARB and the environmental lobby worried that the public might lose enthusiasm for the new gasoline it it had a chance to compare the old and new gasolines over a period of time.

A gasoline marketing expert suggested to me that there had been recent conversations between CARB bureaucrats and oil company executives in which they both acknowledged that gas prices would skyrocket in April and that $2.00 a gallon price scares were not necessarily bad because it would condition the public to the higher prices that are going to persist forever with the newer gasoline?in other words, the public would sigh relief when prices come down under $1.50 a gallon and CARB and the oil companies would not receive so much flak.

An alarming revelation came about this week when a representative from Pacific Telephone stated the Pacific Telephone engineers did not study or record the mileage figures for their vehicles that were used in the CARB test of the new gasoline. They said that CARB officials took care of this! This means that there was no independent comparison or verification of mileage figures for these vehicles burning the questionable gasoline CARB supplied.

All the press printed the CARB press releases and mileage claims without questioning the validity of the CARB tests or even looking at conflicting reports on file at CARB.

The most respected scientists from MIT, Cal Tech, U.C., and government laboratories have reported (SCIENCE, 2 July 1993, p 37) that previous government air pollution reduction programs seldom have achieved 50% of the promises. This means that the actual reduction in air pollution, and waste billions of dollars of our state economy that could go toward beneficial programs.

You must remember the massive fraud on the public that was recently disclosed when the State Senate finally ordered a scientific review of the so-called leaking underground fuel tank threat by University of California scientists. The activities of another bloated State bureaucracy, the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB), have guaranteed that the big oil companies would have a monopoly in California and that prices would soar because it, SWQCB, systematically wiped out?bankrupted?most of the small service stations in California by claiming that leaking underground fuel tanks were contaminating our water supplies and that this threat justified any amount of expense. However, scientists at the University of California in a published report recently confirmed that not even one percent of this purported threat to ground water ever existed. Our Legislature waited twelve years to learn the truth. By that time, several billion dollars had been wasted, thousands of small businesses and service stations bankrupted, and over a hundred fifty thousand jobs wiped out for the wage-earners who found employment businesses.

This page was last modified on Tuesday, 20-Nov-2001 01:34:47 EST.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise noted, contents of this site
Copyright © 1996?2001 by Peter K. Sheerin, All rights reserved.

| Masthead | E-mail, Postal, Phone and Fax Contact Information |



This article, and many other interesting ones, can be found at PushBack.com
Related Information
 
For those of you that are stupid I suggest you consult real scientific literature:

http://www.sciam.com/2000/0800issue/0800epstein.html

http://www.sciam.com/news/011402/2.html

http://130.94.24.217/2001/1101issue/1101profile.html

"While the rest of world has warmed, Antarctica has grown chillier, scientists say. According to a new study, air temperature on the southernmost continent fell by 0.7 degree Celsius per decade between 1986 and 2000?a cooling trend that has come with ecological consequences. "

"Today few scientists doubt the atmosphere is warming. Most also agree that the rate of heating is accelerating and that the consequences of this temperature change could become increasingly disruptive. Even high school students can reel off some projected outcomes: the oceans will warm, and glaciers will melt, causing sea levels to rise and salt water to inundate settlements along many low-lying coasts. Meanwhile the regions suitable for farming will shift. Weather patterns should also become more erratic and storms more severe."

Before the 90's how many level 5 hurricanes hit the US, during the 90's how many did?
 
Texmaster, you started this thread, so I am going to address you.

Global warming, right now, is pretty much fact. The amount and what impact it will have are the real questions now.


Look, I am not going to talk about political affiliation, liberals vs. conservatives, etc, etc. You can site all of the "Anti" global warming sources you want to, but do you really think that you can have a planet with 4 or 5 Billion people on, and have the majority of these people utilizing industry-based technology for transportation, energy, etc, and that isn't going to have an impact on the atmosphere and the weather on this planet?

Maybe the temperatures in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula have actually gone down less than a degree over the past decade, but over that same decade the rate of icecap melt has dramatically increased, and if the rate continues to increase, we are going to have a whole bunch of cold water in the Atlantic Ocean that wasn't there before...and if that cold water lessens the flow of the gulf stream, you know, that little bit of warmth that helps keep the temperatures in a little place called Europe up..well, then you have a whole bunch of really cold people up there.......and if enough water is added to the oceans from the ice melting, then there is the issue of coastal cities being a bit like a certain city in Italy.

Some of this may sound dramatic, but we can hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist, think that our planet and its resources are so vast that nothing we do could ever really have a profound impact on the world around us, or we can look for better ways to do things, more efficient ways to do things, cleaner ways to do things.

This isn't a liberal/democratic voice, this is the voice of common sense. Imagine if the computer chip advanced as slowly as the technology that powers car engines has....we would all still be using punch cards to enter & retrieve data out of our car-sized PC's.

Change is scary for many people, countries, and cultures. Those that are willing to change when needed, they adapt and survive. Those that are unwilling do not.
 


<< Once again, where is your proof? >>

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. You and I both know I could exhaustively quote evidence, and you would just dismiss it with quip comments like "that's a farce". Wow, pretty sound counter-evidence!

The evidence is not only comprehensive but easily found throughout the internet. Don't be so lazy.

<< The consensus is that climatic change does occur....but most scientist will tell you that there is not enough data to come to any concrete conclusions. >>

lol! Where are these "most" scientists, maybe they're among those who signed the anti-Kyoto Petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute for Science & Medicine and the Science & Environment Policy Project?

Let's take a look at the statement those scientists were actually putting their signature behind:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

No where did that statement so much as attempt to deny or refute evidence that shows the global mean temperatures are increasing, nor does it attempt to discredit the fundamental premise of the Kyoto Treaty. What it proposes is that Kyoto will consititute an economic burden and hinder science and technology (presumably because science and technology will have fewer pollutants and problems to research or develop solutions for). What it denies or refutes is the evidence that man is responsible for it (the cause). It then hedges the non-surety of its own assertion by adding the caveat that, if man is causing the earth to warm (which is an admittal that the earth is probably warming), increasing carbon dioxide levels and causing polar ice-caps to melt might actually be beneficial to the environment, not harmful.

Nowhere do you find a statement similar to: "The evidence shows the earth is not warming."

Even Kyoto's ardent opponents no longer attempt to maintain this baseless position. Indeed, they've not only abandoned their denial of global warming, they have changed the logic behind their opposition to Kyoto and increased regulation of vehicle and industry emissions by attempting to argue the warming and increased carbon dioxide levels might be beneficial for the environment.

Again, the debate is not about whether the earth is warming - its now universally accepted that it is warming. The debate is over the "cause" of that warming, the "degree" of the warming, and the "consequences" of the warming.

But, if you want to cling to "flat earth" arguments, be my guest.
 
Tex. I'm no longer going to argue with you anymore over the possibility of global warming. Instead, I want to lead you to an article. One that surely you have not seen yet and will greatly interest you, provided you have an open mind. Unfortunately I cannot link to it.

It's in January 2002's scientific american, and entitled something to the effect of "answering the skeptical environmentalist." It's the latest on perspectives, facts and misconceptions in regards to this whole topic. It is written by Stephen Schneider, a professor and climatologist at NCAR in Colorado. I first heard of him watching Infinite voyage and NOVA on PBS ten years ago. I challenge you to name me a more qualified and accomplished scientist in the field. Please read it when you get the chance and get back to me. It may surprise you.
 
tcsenter

At Kyoto and Clinton's 'Summit' on Global warming, most notable Scientists stayed home citing lack of credibility at the claims.

Many Scientists say that Global Warming will benefit mankind.

The Glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of years, that is melting, with no great effect on ocean levels.
 


<< tcsenter

At Kyoto and Clinton's 'Summit' on Global warming, most notable Scientists stayed home citing lack of credibility at the claims.

Many Scientists say that Global Warming will benefit mankind.

The Glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of years, that is melting, with no great effect on ocean levels. >>



What an ignorant thing to say. Global warming is too unpredictable. We cannot tell with a high degree of certainty what will happen, nor whether it will be something dramatic and cataclysmic or something slow and gradual and relatively adaptable. What we can say is that humans and industry HAVE had a noticeable affect on global weather patterns because what we observe is not consistent with any record or histories we have.

Any climatologist will validate my opinion above.
 
<<At Kyoto and Clinton's 'Summit' on Global warming, most notable Scientists stayed home citing lack of credibility at the claims.>>

Source.

<<Many Scientists say that Global Warming will benefit mankind.>>

Source.

<<The Glaciers have been retreating for hundreds of years, that is melting, with no great effect on ocean levels.>>

Source.
 
Centuries ago,

I wonder how long it took before most conservatives accepted the fact that the Earth wasn't flat?:frown:
 


<< Source. >>


It's called being educated about current events!

Or are you one of those that thinks if you can't see it on your screen it must not exist?

All while those events were happening EVERYONE had an article on it in the print media and EVERY major news source had extended articles dealing with this.

As for glaciers melting, YOU look it up! I learned of this in High School....in 1972! Just like I leaned that the world has more trees than at any time in recorded history, but we have discussed this fact here and to many it is just something they refuse to believe since their whole pathetic Liberal inflected and taught life they've been told a bunch of unsupported pap!...just like in this thread,,,
 
<<It's called being educated about current events!

Or are you one of those that thinks if you can't see it on your screen it must not exist?

All while those events were happening EVERYONE had an article on it in the print media and EVERY major news source had extended articles dealing with this.

As for glaciers melting, YOU look it up! I learned of this in High School....in 1972! Just like I leaned that the world has more trees than at any time in recorded history, but we have discussed this fact here and to many it is just something they refuse to believe since their whole pathetic Liberal inflected and taught life they've been told a bunch of unsupported pap!...just like in this thread,,, >>

Just because you think you know the answer doesn't mean you do. You might try relying on more accurate sources in the future because your memory doesn't appear to be one. See you are probably one of those people that doesn't realize that theories change over time. You expect things to be static, that we know everything now that we ever will. Guess what, we don't. Some people want to error on the side of caution because the risks could be catastrophic. If you had bothered to read the Scientific American articles I listed you would know the global warming could increase disease, cause erratic and more violent weather and will shift the optimal food production areas of the planet further north. I understand your debate technique relies on attacking the source when you are asked to back up your statements but if you did bother to research any of this you would hopefully realise you are wrong. But it really doesn't matter because you closed your mind to new ideas years ago apparently.
 
IMHO, the environmentalists pushing this junk science called "global warming" are the true threat. People of their ilk were even forseen by the wise earlier this century. See if this quote seems to hold true for some of the folks in this thread...

Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that "the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science." Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.


Homework assignment for all those who believe that Kyoto was a good idea - find out who wrote this quote, and read the book which it came from. Hint... the same person also wrote the following...

From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.


Take a long look in the mirror, and you might be surprised at how very right this author was.
 


<< Guess what, we don't. Some people want to error on the side of caution because the risks could be catastrophic. If >>



I guess you are afraid to take a fump fearing your insides might drop out.

That quote is the whole Environmentalist Wacko argument! What if?
 
Speaking of Enviro-nuts, not too long ago, groups like the Sierra Club were calling for the shut down of major hydro-electric dams in the west, while at the same time promoting the electric car. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Hydro is one of the best sources of electricity that exists.
 
Interesting how tex bowed out when the true facts started coming out....

<----isnt a scientist but reading this thread carefully. 🙂
 


<< Interesting how tex bowed out when the true facts started coming out....

<----isnt a scientist but reading this thread carefully. 🙂 >>



Shrug, like Tex cares about facts.
 


<<

<< Interesting how tex bowed out when the true facts started coming out....

<----isnt a scientist but reading this thread carefully. 🙂 >>



Shrug, like Tex cares about facts. >>



HAHAHA Its all I care about!

You Morons say I dont care about the facts then you point to nothing.

Be specific about what you claim is factual.

Luckster, I'm dissappointed in you.
 


<< Texmaster, you started this thread, so I am going to address you.

Global warming, right now, is pretty much fact. The amount and what impact it will have are the real questions now.


Look, I am not going to talk about political affiliation, liberals vs. conservatives, etc, etc. You can site all of the "Anti" global warming sources you want to, but do you really think that you can have a planet with 4 or 5 Billion people on, and have the majority of these people utilizing industry-based technology for transportation, energy, etc, and that isn't going to have an impact on the atmosphere and the weather on this planet?

Maybe the temperatures in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula have actually gone down less than a degree over the past decade, but over that same decade the rate of icecap melt has dramatically increased, and if the rate continues to increase, we are going to have a whole bunch of cold water in the Atlantic Ocean that wasn't there before...and if that cold water lessens the flow of the gulf stream, you know, that little bit of warmth that helps keep the temperatures in a little place called Europe up..well, then you have a whole bunch of really cold people up there.......and if enough water is added to the oceans from the ice melting, then there is the issue of coastal cities being a bit like a certain city in Italy.

Some of this may sound dramatic, but we can hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist, think that our planet and its resources are so vast that nothing we do could ever really have a profound impact on the world around us, or we can look for better ways to do things, more efficient ways to do things, cleaner ways to do things.

This isn't a liberal/democratic voice, this is the voice of common sense. Imagine if the computer chip advanced as slowly as the technology that powers car engines has....we would all still be using punch cards to enter & retrieve data out of our car-sized PC's.

Change is scary for many people, countries, and cultures. Those that are willing to change when needed, they adapt and survive. Those that are unwilling do not. >>



Whats humerous is the arrogance shown here that a few hundered years of recording the weather you all are ready to beleive scientists who cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming exists.

This dates back to when Bush went over to Europe and the Europeans were up in arms about global warming yet not a SINGLE scientist ANYWHERE in the world could directly link global warming with human activity. And now we have a study that not only claims there is no global warming tread but actually shows WHY other scientists have failed to do so by only taking temperature readings of the Antartic close to the tip of South America.

And in all the crying done on this board, not a single person has addressed that.

Why? Because we have not been recording global temperature long enough to know for a fact that this isn't a cycle.
 
my favorite part of this whole thread is the constant reminder that a "consensus of scientists" believe global warming. "it's not in debate, it's proof." well, are you talking about the full page ad that ran in USA Today about three years ago? if you are, then you better look up the facts yourself. in the world of climatology, geology and ecology there is a MAJOR debate about global warming. it just so happens that the OVER 8,000 NON-EARTH SCIENTISTS WHO PUT THEIR NAME IN THAT AD DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! don't ask a sociologist about global warming! don't ask a climatologist about mass-hysteria (although, judging by this thread, they are linked.) ask those that are actually in the field of question. no, wait. then you'd get truth and not scare-tactics. nothing better than the bark-chewers saying "where's your proof, but when asked for it themselves they say "no one is more blind than those who refuse to see." and we wonder why our education system is going downhill. these spotted owl tongue kissers are the majority of our teachers.
here's the gist of this---i have a PhD in central Asian studies. i've published two books. don't ask me about global warming, don't ask a climatologist about Uzbekistan. having been in academia, i can assure you there is debate going on about this. just not in the newspaper. the scientists who truly care about this are not trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by popping off to reporters when there is much still to learn. is the earth warming? probably. did we do it? probably not. are you willing to totally change everything in your life to reverse it? no. could we reverse it if we wanted too? no.



i'd be interested to know you power your computer. i'm assuming the same way we all do. do you live within a mile of where you work? if not, not another word about how "we" caused global warming. move closer to work, ride a bike, use candles in your house. be a part of the solution!


i thought not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top