How ridiculous did you think an inconvenient truth was?

Question

20 years ago scientists were predicting that we were going into a mini ice age. This was "confirmed" when we had the "MEGA Snowstorms" in '93 and '96. We obviously didn't enter another ice age and now just a few years later, all these scientists are claiming that we are causing global warming. You gotta be kidding if you think that it really is going to happen.
Gore claims that this movie is not about politics. He says that in the intro to the movie. I am wondering why a very biased liberal politician is presenting this information to us instead of a scientist. I have never heard a scientist claim that we are causing global warming, just the anti-american, conspiracy believing liberals. Why is this???
Oh, and all you democrats out there that want to try to debate this, don't send me a link to some 100000000000000 word article some idiot put on his/her own site. Don't copy and paste what someone else thinks either. Just tell me what you really think.
If you agree, also explain

gdeach: How am i supposed to debate you if you won't let me see your address.
i'm [e-mail]

Answer 1

Completely. Global Warming is the biggest lie that I know of.

Answer 2

I thought it was rather interesting, if Mr. Gore had left out the political spin t would have been much better in my opinion. However, I have gone to google earth and double checked the melting of that ice sheet and oddly enough it is still there (of course I am not sure how good a source google earth is). I have read where a scientist said it is imposable to see visually where the US passed the clean air act and any changes would have taken decades to happen. Al Gore has also been quoted as saying that if the cause is just it is morally acceptable to exaggerate what is out there.

I think the environmentalist have taken a wrong turn with global warming since not everyone can agree. However I believe we can all agree that breathing is good and we should take measures to make our emissions cleaner. I also think fuel efficient flex fuel vehicles can be easily sold to the public. I will give Al Gore the fact the he explains how being green can be profitable and we don't have to go into a recession to do it.

I like some of the points that he make in that film, the problem is it seems partisanship and extremist have made reasonable discussion on that film hard to do. Oh well, in the mean time I will still write my Representatives about making a national bicycle highway, no emissions and you get healthy at the same time.

Answer 3

Where are the experts in Belief Theory?
I don't really care if x% of scientists believe one way or the other if y% are wrong.
I know next to nothing about this field, but I do know that the samples of recent temperature readings are essentially useless for the argument. I do know that the samples of polar ice are of necessity limited. I know that whatever can be measured now is at best a surrogate marker for prehistoric climate, of which we can have no certain knowledge.
I understand the rationale behind supposing it is so, but I cannot find a scientific reason to be certain of causality, though I am impressed by the relationship between presumed carbon dioxide levels and presumed temperatures through time.
It seems to me that the CONSERVATIVE thing to do, though, would be to hedge our bets in case this global warming thing is true. But I do not want to contribute to global warming by continuing to add heat to these posts. Why don't you people chill out (sorry, I'm getting carried away here) and find a compromise? If the right side think the economic risks are too great with the Kyoto agreement, I'd think less would be better than no agreement. And I'm pretty used to the left being apoplectic about everything. So come up with something, why dontcha?

Answer 4

It was interesting and after seeing it, spent a few days doing some reading on the web. For the most part, I thought it was panic driven and a little bit on the side of sensationalism. There is no argument that we have to do everything we can to not further damage our home, but after doing my research, my overall impression was that the experts used for reference in the movie were not the end all, be all of credibility. Personally, I trust the scientists who work at NASA. Back in the "Ozone Hole" panic, they were the only ones who predicted a modulation behavior theory and it turned out they were right. The hole closed. We have to be careful with our environment, but I see no reason to "panicpass" laws that will limit our progress.

Now...as to the Kyoto Accord. I read this document. And I will say I am glad it was not signed. Why should developing nations messes be the responsibility of the US? If we do 30% of the damage to the environment, why should the biggest load of responsibility be on the US to clean up after others? To sign the accord would have been an economic disaster globally for industrial nations while giving a free ride to the developing nations.

Answer 5

Not ridiculous at all. I've paid attention, you see, and have the benefit of being a few years older than many of the people on YA.

The climate is changing, rapidly. In the region I live, born and raised, the changes are very evident, just within my lifetime.

I also read many papers from around the world, and spend a lot of time following up on stories and studies that I see mentioned or quoted, something most people don't take the time to do.

Make no mistake, whether you accept the information from Al Gore, or prefer it to come from another source, we are in for it. Global warming is real. The potential for a 'mini ice age' which you dismiss, is very real. The science is real. Politics, conversely, will always be about spin, and far too many politicians are spinning madly to confuse people on this all-important subject.

I'm getting set to buy a house, on high ground, that I can convert to solar and wind power, and am going to buy a hybrid car this next year. I'm changing every aspect of my life that I can to try and diminish my 'footprint' when it comes to emissions and power consumption.

Believe me, it would be much easier, and cheaper by far, to pretend global warming is a fallacy. But, the very fact that I've been reading about it, and seeing the same information verified from all corners of the globe, by scientists and politicians alike, makes it impossible for me to ignore. You seem determined to do so; I'm sorry for that. I hope you set aside your dislike for Al Gore ( now a private citizen, not a politician, fyi), seek information from any and all of the myriad of other reputable sources on this subject, and change your mind.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Answer 6

first I'll say i have never really researched the topic.

i can't say for sure if humans are causing global warming but i can say for sure that we are polluting the earth.

having Gore present the material makes sense. it gets the massage out easier to the common people. people would rather hear from a politician they know then a scientist they know nothing about. also scientist tend to use a lot of jargon when they talk about this type of stuff.

an issue like global warming is becoming a political issue. its the only way that it can be dealt with.

i saw the film and i thought he did a decent job of trying to keep politics out. he could have continually said the Bush administration hasn't done this or they have done that. Bush isn't mentioned that often. He could have been because we all know Bush ain't no tree hugger.

Answer 7

No doubt the reason you’ve never heard a scientist say that humans are effecting the global climate system is because you don’t bother to inform yourself, you probably rely on some equally uninformed partisan hack like Rush to tell you what to think, and you obviously skipped all of those math and science classes in school.

The truth is that there is almost unanimous agreement among all climate scientists that not only can humans impact the climate, but that they are, demonstrably so.

As for earlier (and, for that matter, current) estimations of long-term climate trends, so what? Science is about learning and increasing knowledge. There would be no point to it if we never increased or improved our knowledge.

Quit acting like you know anything about this. Ever heard of the ‘hockey stick’? Check out Figure 1 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

The red line is from my analysis that MB&H used in their infamous global warming study.

It goes both ways, too. When Gore was a senator he objected to some work I was involved in on the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

So, politics certainly exists on both sides. It is just that on your side – it is all politics. They are lying to you and you are sucking it up. If you do not feel foolish, you should.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

floydhonk...

You know less than nothing about this either, huh? Let me take a wild guess - science is not really your strong point.

---------------------------------------------

W W D –

This is not belief theory this is about the epistemology of human knowledge. The proxy climate records are far more accurate and robust than you believe. There are proxy records with annual resolution (to the exact, accurate, and precise year) over 8000 years long (most, if not all, of the Holocene).

You cannot discount research simply because it is based on probabilistic models (really, that is the way nature is). The mathematics are (when done properly) rigorously applied. I guess this comes as a shock to you, but we do understand the concepts of bias in sampling, recording, and analysis as well as the requirements of independence and degrees of freedom in testing and model development. In fact, much of the published research has been subjected to a wide battery of calibration and verification testing and, in fact, could not make it into major journals without such substantiation.

There has been a distortion of the philosophy of science and the scientific method in the minds of many people who define science as dealing only with a relatively narrow set of designed experiments common to physics. The hard (physical) sciences do not define science, science defines them. The scientific method also applies to the life sciences (which may lack the numerous elegant descriptive theories [i.e., gravity] found in physics, but physics lacks anything close to all powerful and generalizing scientific theory of biological evolution) and the social sciences (which represents the third stage of the scientific revolution).

Answer 8

The argument that global warming is false because forty years ago some scientists though we might be headed for an ice age is not only a foolish bit of logic, but a factual inaccuracy.

Here is why global warming matters and is real. During the past 800,000 years, the temperature always mirrored the level of carbon in the atmosphere, which never exceeded 300 parts per million.

The current level is 380.


I know you don't want links, but I'll give them to you anyway, as no one should just take anyone's word for something like this.

Answer 9

Global warming is an indisputable fact. The glaciers are melting.
Did we - people cause it? Are you serious? One vulcanic erruption throws more garbage and gases into the atmosphere
than all the power plants and cars in the world do in a month.
Of course if only the US has signed the Kyoto treaty the ice caps
on Mars would not be melting either, which they are doing in case you did not know.

Answer 10

Just pretend there's global warming and here's what you would do
We would start to look for alternative energy sources Clean burn fuels to replace fossil fuels
1. There would be research and development that would create dozens of new business"s in this search. It could dwarf the technology boom of the 90's
2. These business's would create or boost other business's to partner with, supply parts and services
3. All these new business's could create thousands upon thousands of new jobs1,2 and 3 would all be good for the economy
4. We could stop shoving money into the pockets of mega rich Arab Sheiks and oil companies and their CEO's. every time you pull up to the pump you know one of these SO B's gets a cut. It might even scare them into dropping the price of gas
5. It would take the power outta the hands of rogue country's in the middle east and make them a non factor by making us energy independent
6.And ............OH YEA we might clean up the environment so we don't leave our kids a filthy sewer of a planet!!!!

So what would be the drawback about doin this?

BURGER
If you havent seen scientists supporting Gores View you must be Stevie Wonder . Theres something called the Kyoto treaty signed by 143 nations (not by the USA) that was real big in the papers a few years back. Oh and btw the earth is flat and is the center of the universe Galileo and Capurnicus were wrong!
btw #4 and 5 are really all that matter
i EAGERLY WAIT FOR THE DEBATE TO BEGIN
Tell me what you think right here Burger
if we have to well open another question
Public debate is always best

Answer 11

This is my 2nd time - I live in a house full of science geeks, engineering and medicine. My next car will be a hybrid i hope. I am a conservative Christian who supports Bush.
My child got 1st place in a 21 school competition by doing an experiment with hydrogen fuel----THIS occurred way before Al Gore discovered global warming.
So don't give me crap about Republicans not caring about the environment. We do.
Now- my original point is GLOBAL WARMING is a theory only--Most scientists do not believe it.