Global Warming?

Question

Ok, so I would like to know what side of this debate everyone is on (because, news flash to al gore, there are still two sides). Please say whether you are for it or against it, and also if you have researched the arguments of both sides, or whether you go with whatever side suits your fancy. Thanks!

does this extend my answer

By "researched both sides of the debate" I mean: have you read or watched things put out by both sides? I personally find the skeptics view much more persuasive, as they constantly are refuting everything the alarmists say, and are exposing all the pseudo-science they use. And no, most of them are MOST DECIDEDLY NOT getting paid by the big oil companies, and even if they were, you could turn that and say, "Al Gore is getting big bucks from the environmental groups to lie about global warming," so either way, it's the same.

Answer 1

I'm not really sure you can be on a "side," opinion-wise. Perhaps you can choose a scientific stance that is yea or nay on whether this is a naturally occurring phenom or a man-made one. Or, even, take a position on whether or not humans can stop, prevent or alter the course of the earth's heating and cooling cycles (because we KNOW these occur--that's scientific fact).

The question you really need to ask is: is Al Gore a hypocrite for using this issue for his own edification while living in an energy-guzzling house and flying around the globe on private jets?

Answer 2

My parents have known the Gores for over 25 years and I have seen a very scary change in Al over the last 15 years from a moderate and rational Democrat to a globalization-socialist harping the whims of the UN in their process toward a one-world government. Here is the beginnings of the global warming issue:

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

We as a country must wake up to the fact that we are losing our freedoms a little more each day. Research for yourself the truth (if you can) hidden amongst all the politics and the conspiracy theories. Re-think your allegiance to either the Republican or Democrat parties. Realize we have lost our republic and are now a democracy spreading democracy around the world (socialist and communist governments are based on democracy).

Science for the last fifty years has increasingly become political. In regards to global warming, I have researched both arguments and have no idea which scientific arena to trust. All I know is that there are groups in higher powers that create diversions to draw the citizens' attentions and passions away from what their true agenda may be, and until I have solid unadulterated proof otherwise, I believe global warming to be nothing more than another diversionary tactic.

Answer 3

<< Ok, so I would like to know what side of this debate everyone is on >>
Historically global warming and cooling has been entirely natural. In the last two centuries temperatures have risen so much faster then has ever been known (we have 542 million years of data). We know what causes global warming, the dynamics are clearly understood, the current effects are well documented, the future is harder to predict. Global warming is happening now and requires nothing more than a thermometer to prove, the rest of the science is more complicated but there's no question it's happening - partly naturally but largely man made.

<< (because, news flash to al gore, there are still two sides). >>
There are many aspects to global warming, the causes and effects are still being studied and there is an open debate to which all sides are contributing. There isn't any debate as to whether it's happening - this was first speculated about in 1811 and proven in 1896. Only in recent years has there been any dispute and that's primarily since it became a political issue and is largely confined to the US.

<< Please say whether you are for it or against it >>
I'm against global warming. If you're asking whether I beleive in it then yes.

<< and also if you have researched the arguments of both sides >>
I've studied all aspects of it for 23 years, have several professional qualifications, various published papers and blah blah blah

<< or whether you go with whatever side suits your fancy. >>
I side with the science and evidence.

<< Thanks! >>
You're welcome.

Answer 4

Sorry guys or gals I am 76 years old and I see nothing that makes me believe. It makes me mad that it is slanted toward punishing the poor so Gore can have fuel for his plain. If it is that critical we all need to focus on the problem. Like u cannot drill in Alaska . u can not drill off the coast of some states . Contrary not all support our troops . Back to our fuel problem . We need to explore all possibilities of what we can do as the Arabs will eventually get around to using oil as a weapon .
Now look at the GW the data is bad . CO2 is not a problem it is the first part of Mother nature recycling our air .The plants have done a great job .
Methane is a real joke,The environmentalist have put all kinds of numbers on how much is up in our atmosphere . Methane is very light so it goes very high in our atmosphere ,how did they measure the methane?? It gets much worse ,they have lost that huge lake of methane in our upper atmosphere ,u can not find it. If the gas is not there neither is global warming.

Answer 5

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

These are the best summaries of the overwhelming mass of data that convinced Admiral Truly (and most all scientists, and most all people who've studied the issue), short and long:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The swindle movie (and its' "science") are wrong:

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/329.php?nid=&id=&pnt=329&lb=hmpg1

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Finally, a host of refutations of the skeptics:

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm#WEB

Answer 6

I believe we are already experiencing it.

I have looked at both sides of the argument and note that most reputable scientists side with the pro-global warming side. The scientist hold-outs are usually financed by big energy interests in whose interest it is to claim there is no such thing as global warming.

One only has to note that sea levels are already rising, storms are more fierce, trees and flowers in many places blooming earlier and ice pack is melting rapidly, to know that there is a change in in the environment. Given that China and the US are the two biggest emitters of "green house gases" and that these gases have increased substantially in the last half century, I can only conclude we have affected the environment.

Unlike some, I think its already too late to stop it. Unlike some, I don't necessarily see this as a disaster for earth and its species--it's been hotter globally and there have been greater amounts of carbon di in the atmosphere in the past--the earth survived, the species flourished.

Global warming now, may only be a disaster for humans and the current species. Life will go on, new species will evolve and fill the new niches created by the altered environment. As for humans, there will probably mass hunger and death and shifts in population based on climate. Such is life in this universe.

Answer 7

I am a skeptic.

When the issue first came out, I believed in the theory of man made global warming. When they started to change the theory to climate change, and that severe winters, storms etc were all the result of increases in co2, my gut instinct said there is something wrong here.

Then came the Y2K scare, and how a small minority of scientist said the earth was going to collapse. Despite that fact the media picked up that story and ran. I realized how the popular media was more interested in being sensationalistic that reporting the truth. Of course that is not proof that the theory on man made global warming is not correct, but it cast more doubts in my mind. Is the media doing the same with global warming?

As I started to become informed about global warming, I realized that my gut instinct was correct. It was the alarmist attitude that lost me. If the are lying about Hurricanes, half of Florida being under water, malaria etc what else are they lying about?

Answer 8

FACT OR FICTION

FICTION
for many North Americans ,but they are used to fiction and feel more comfortable with fairytales instead of the truth,

Many blindly believe that our fate is in Gods hands ,and their focus is on the beautifull heaven that awaits ,they are not to concerned with the world their children will inherrit

whilst others wish to enjoy an Earthly paradise ,with out having to die first,they care what happens here and want to help the planet

there may come a time that for the sake of our survival the two views will be seperated in to Enemies and friends of the planet

World leaders are not concerned with the well being of the masses ,on the contrary .it was stated at a conference in Copenhagen,in 1998,by Kissinger, that the Agenda demanded a decrease in the world population of 60%,and you cannot achieve this if you start saving everybody.

scientists who work for politicians ,get paid by these politicians and they have downplayed the facts because solutions are expensive and means change and change effects many peoples incomes,and upsets profit margins,so most of the world is kept in the dark of the real things that are going on.for political and economic reasons

HOWEVER CLIMATE CHANGE IS FACT FOR MILLIONS
Global warming is a very complex collection of many effects

this text only covers some aspects of global warming mainly man made desertification

industrial contamination ,the contaminating effects of the cities ,is another story

there are natural cycles in the planets life
but mans existance has its effects,and this is increasing with overpopulation,putting strains on Natural resources and increasing contaminations as well as destructions of essential componants the ensure living conditions for all life forms

in North Africa,India,Mexico ,millions of people are effected by land loss and desertification and some have died as a result

in china, thousands of what used to be farmers are running for their lives from the dust storms that have burried their towns and turned their lands into dessert,

,the Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year
and all of the desserts we know are a results of mans actions ,and they are increasing ,not getting less ,in the dinosaurs days ,there were very few desserts.

collectively this planet is drying up because of bad farming practices like,over grazing and fertilizers,

each degree rise in temperature means 10%crop loss

and there is less and less water (because of deforestation),to irrigate this production ,
and there are less and less farmers to do it..
and there are 70 million more peole every year that have to eat and drink and wash

who are overpumping deep carbon aquifiers
who are plowing more and more unstable lands because they have lost so many million hectares to desertification ,
because of bad farming practises ,such as using fertilizers and heavy machinary or over grazing

RISING SEAS
The northpole is melting ,and we will know it without ice in our life times.
this does not affect the sea level because it is ice that is already in the water.but the melting ice from Green land and the south pole ,are another matter.

Answer 9

You can keep pretending there are 2 sides, but there is really only one. Everyone knows the earth is getting warmer...2007 was the warmest winter in history, the polar ice caps are melting, and the oceans are getting warmer. There is no debate, CO2 concentrations are getting higher, and CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, it's as simple as that. Everyone knows it's getting warmer and an overwhelming majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle realize this as well

Answer 10

in case you desire to get carry of furnish money for climate study, do you think of which you gets a cheque in case you're saying," i choose the furnish, as i think of that i will coach that the figures that the present paradigm is predicated upon are incorrect" ? the super environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. there continues to be no shown causative link between the quantity of Co2 in the ambience, and a upward push in worldwide temperatures. The WWWF photos of the polar bears swimming have been taken in the Arctic summer season; while the ice cap partly melts, as they could not arise to photograph in the wintry climate. The ice became into too thick! The East-Anglian uni study figures. "Oh! The figures do not journey our expectancies. Oh nicely. save quiet. as a results of fact all of us comprehend that we are excellent." while the thought, and the religion is greater significant than squarely dealing with the valid doubts of a lot of non furnish-supported scientists, technological information has been superceded with the aid of religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully mentioned." I pray thee, in the bowels of Christ, evaluate that thou mayest be incorrect."