Climate Change

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:02 pm

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:11 pm

Very interesting read. (although the CFP isn't the most reliable news source)

Massage...Bored · Post by **Massage...Bored** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:13 pm

I know, I just know that our pollution is not doing the environment any good. It has to be hurting it somehow, whether this is "global warming" or just the sh*tty condition of our oceans/shorelines, its still no good and something needs to be done. Gore's film may be propaganda, my actual opinion is yet to be seen (like the film), but I'm sure a little kick in the pants to everyone about how awful we treat the environment won't hurt.

Thoughts.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:20 pm

Honestly I don't know enough about the issue to side with one camp or the other. The mean temperature has gone up...but as to why I don't quite have that opinion formed yet.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:13 pm

Did I see this somewhere in a previous post???

Anyway.

As I understand it. The planet Earth has had plenty of climate changes cooling & heating during the reign of man on this earth and long before.

I dont think there's anything the human race can do to alter
this scenario either way. Does man pollute. Hell yeah, but so does a active volcano which is multiple times more than man could possibly do. (no I'm not saying that pollution is OK. Hell, is anybody policing China & India, yeah they signed Kyoto but are they adhering too it?)

Is the ocean warming up, hell yeah, but the temp again, swings to and fro.

Nature has seemed to always, in the end, has superceded all that happens(mans' supposed intrusion) on the planet. For us to think we could shape or alter the surface temperature in any fashion seems to be IMHO,
a waste of time.

I view the subject as a interesting distraction. .

It's nice to see Gore challenged though. Though it does keep him from
coming up with such inventions like the internet!

Honestly haven't seen the film. Anybody here seen it??

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:26 pm

I'm sure as hell not going to guess when scientists can't come to an agreement.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:38 pm

I'm sure as hell not going to guess when scientists can't come to an agreement.

......agree,... probably better said
than my long diatribe.

Mama Dragon · Post by **Mama Dragon** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:54 pm

Yes, the climatic change is perfectly normal. The real thing that no one can agree on is whether or not what we're doing is speeding the process up.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:11 pm

DELETED

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:22 pm

That's a good point. Remember the cigarette ads where they claimed smoking was benefitial to your health?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:56 pm

Arkface wrote:it's weird how people that really have nothing to gain are saying global warming is occuring, and yet corporate scientists disagree. kinda like how cigarette companies found nothing wrong.

You mean nothing to gain like research dollars from very well-funded, environmentalist special interest groups? Anytime a Hollywood movie is hailed as a policy initiative, there are serious issues.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:03 pm

DELETED

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:55 pm

I don't know too much on the topic, but the data I've read shows an increase in global temperature of less than one degree over the past one hundred years. Considering the industrial revolution was in full swing in the past 100 years, that's not really all that large compared to previous centuries. Of course, data for most previous centuries is rather non-existent, because "globally" we were not keeping track of it. Maybe some more developed countries were, but well developed countries do not make up an entire globe.

As for people saying "global warming is causing more hurricanes." Nope. Get a Hurricane chart, and you'll notice that between 1940 and 1950 we had 24 hurricanes (10 major ones), where as in the 90's we had only 14.
Here ya go: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Climate and global warming are up in the air with scientist. Some say we're rapidly accelerating it, some say we have no impact on it. Essentially, climate is one thing that we don't understand, but we feel we have to have an answer for it right now. Because people aren't content with "I don't know." That's why many go to religion.

The author Michael Chricton has been rather outspoken about this topic in the last few years, and he even wrote a book which encompassed a lot of his thoughts, and others science, in fiction form. If you're interested there are a lot of articles you could find by googling probably where he discusses some of the perspectives against global warming.

Found a Chricton speech link: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html "Aliens Cause Global Warming"....read it if you want to see an alternative perspective.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:46 am

no reputable

define reputable, because I'm guessing it means that whoever said it was automatically discounting those scientists who agreed with whatever his point of view happened to be, as disreputable. Unfortunately for that person, the dissenters include highly decorated, respected scientists.

Did you read the entire article about how the scientific evidence that does exist is being completely manipulated. One of my favorites was measuring data from March in the early study to data from September in the later cycle - complete opposite ends of the freezing cycle. JUNK SCIENCE!!

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:49 pm

....great!,... now it's the Supreme Court's turn to
expound a lot of time on this.

AP) The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.

A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them.

They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.