What is more annoying?

Question

What is more annoying: the fact that this world is going to **** or that there are people who are arguing that global warming is just a leftist popularity contest and doesn't exist, and in the process, trying to stop all global warming solutions? Seriously though I don't get why some people like to argue just for the sake of hearing their own voices! Global warming is real, its not a partisan issue, it is a MORAL issue. It sucks that progress has to be stalled so much by people who want to argue that it isn't true. Why can't people put aside their egos and political identity and just do what is right?!!

Answer 1

The problem of people refuting global warming is very much confined to America and I put much of the cause of this down to the interference of politicians and religion.

Outside the US the scientists have been able to go about their work, publish the results and people have been free to interpret them for themselves without being told what to beleive. As a consequence, the rest of the world is making huge technological advances, developing more fuel efficient vehicles, greener technologies etc etc.

Thanks to interference the US is getting left way behind and this is having a massive economical impact with the sale of US goods plummeting overseas.

Get politics and religion out of science then there won't be any of this propoganda, misinformation, lies and distortion. The real truth will then become much clearer and I'm sure many people would be stirred into action.

I'm in the UK and it saddens me to see how far behind the US is getting left. It's the one country that really could have made a difference and become a world leader in this area but instead many still have their heads buried in the sand whilst the rest of the world catches up and overtakes.

Answer 2

True. I was disheartened to read the responses to Nancy Pelosi's post. All science aside - if we are wrong and it turns out that global climate change isn't occurring what is the worst that can happen? But if the detractors are wrong than what?

It is similar to the evolution debate. The creationist, or in this case the non-global warming agenda is propagated by those who use half truths and distort science to their own end. They offer up papers that have not been peer reviewed published by groups like the Cato Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Institute and dozens of others that do not even perform research and are funded extensively by ExxonMobil as proof that the exhaustive research of thousands of scientists is false.

Answer 3

This world is not going to ****. People think their present day problems are the worst the world has ever seen, but it just isn't so. Global warming is no exception. The scientists say the Earth could get warmer than any time in the last million years, but they don't say it will get any hotter than in the last 500 million years. That is because it won't get any warmer than it was in the time of the dinosaurs. At that time there was no polar ice at all and the climate was much warmer than it is now, or than it is expected to get. And life flourished! The damage to human life caused buy cutting off fossil fuel generated energy too quickly would be much worse than any global warming effects.

You may think it is a moral issue, but it isn't. It is a scientific issue. What is needed is dispassionate scientific study and action, not holier-than-thou moralizing.

Answer 4

I agree that this is annoying: In light of overwhelming scientific evidence, the richest people in the world are still arguing that global warming isn't a problem because it's inconvenient for us. Mildly. We, who can get anywhere at amazing speeds, talk to nearly anyone instantly, and whose primary health problem is obesity, think that the fate of the entire planet is too much to worry about if it means we have to walk somewhere or turn down our heaters and put on a sweater.

Here's what annoys me most, though: The largest countries in the world, who are contributing the most to the problem (the U.S. and China) are both dragging their feet about making change. The excuse? "We won't do anything until everyone else does." China won't make changes until the U.S. does. The U.S. won't change until China and all of Europe do. Why not? If it's a real problem, and the scientific communities of all the world tell us it is, why wait to fix it? Aaaargh!

Ahem. Thanks for setting up a forum for rants.

Answer 5

Hmmm, enter the word "morality" now it does sound like a religion don't it.


The mentality of the "IF" crowd is insane. People when you use the would "IF" it assumes a lot of ignorance. Science does not like IF's this what Al Gore and the ecomarxists are using as their primary modus operandi. Playing on ignorance and fear.



Moonbats and sheep that believe the myth haven't sought ought the evidenciary information that counters the prevailing wind of the ecomarxist religion.

I don't think it is a political issue. It is an issue that science hasn't investigated enough.

There is proof the global mean temperature has risen 7/10s of one degree over the last century, It is the arrogant hubris of the ecomarxists veying for political and social control that want the sheep to believe it's caused by humans.

I have read Al Gore's tripe, I have read the IPCC cover to cover, and I've also viewed several documentaries and read substantial information that runs counter the prevailing stench of the ecomarxists.

It IS about politics. It is not about conservation or common sense. When I was in college 30 years ago I studied under meteorology under Prof Gray at Univ of Colorado. This is a man that knows climate. Prof Gray among many others have stated in no uncertain terms the "debate is not over" (per Albert Gorebot.)

The science of the IPCC report is weak in many ways, it avoided scientific peer review, it paraphrased evidence and disregarded evidence counter to the mess they created.

view these videos with an open mind and come back to the discussion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

Then re-read the IPCC with considering what you have ehard in these videos.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm

EDIT - SPARGAR, skeptic scientists are the "Creationists?" now that is rich, we aren't the ones claiming to BELIEVE something without the evidence to back it up. Our side has more evidence as in the case for evolution.

Answer 6

What is more annoying is people want to take action to destroy our economy when the jury is out on what is causing global warming.
Is pollution causing Mars to get warmer...?
Did pollution cause the medieval warming period....?
Would global warming be a bad thing? Really, if the world was more temperate and places like Russia, China and Africa were able to sustain themselves, that would be bad....? (more ice melt = more water in the air = more rain = more crops)
Did SUVs cause the C02 and temp levels the dinosaurs lived in....?
As said above, we need to look coolly at just the evidence and leave the moral religion types alone. They'll find some other bandwagon to jump on when human caused GW is proved false in 20 years.

Answer 7

Spoken by a true leftist. This world is going to *****. Those are leftist ideals. It is the ignoring of the good that we have done, that we have been cleaning up the environment, making more food, cleaner water, cleaner air, better technology, etc., yet all the left can see is how bad things are. Why don't you try and see some good for a change. It might help your attitude. And I don't want to be dictated by the likes of negative people like you who are unwilling to look at the whole picture instead of just seeing negativity. Go ahead put your ego aside and see some good for a change.

Answer 8

Global warming is not even close to being proven. The debate still goes on, and quite frankly it is about time dissenting scientists are heard.

I quote:

"Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.

The warming of about 0.3 _C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases."


Did you catch that? Primarily due to urbanization and land use changes......

Wait, here is another one.

"At first glance, the GHG proposition squares well with the Antarctic (Petit et al., 1999; Siegenthaler et al., 2005; Spahni et al., 2005) ice core data. The correlations between δ18 O and δD of ice (climate proxies) and the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in enclosed air bubbles are impressive (Figure 52). However, these correlations are discernible only if viewed at resolutions in excess of 1 000 years. Higher resolution records for all seven glacial terminations studied to this day show that the rise in CO2 postdates the warming by several hundred to 2 800 years (Fischer et al., 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004; Siegenthaler et al., 2005). Consequently, CO2 is likely a product of the ≈100 000-year climate oscillations, not their cause."

Did you catch that? CO2 rise post dates warming.....


Oh wait, here is another:

"We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005."

Did you catch that? Temp increases are similar in magnitude yet the rate was much faster in the 1920-1930 period......


Hmmmmmmmmmm......

Answer 9

Andy, I feel for you bro, I do feel that politicians just want to hear their own voices and that global warming is a very MORAL issue. I'm not taking sides here, but I think that politicians just want to have some say in our community and that disagreement is the only way. To the politicians, I would have to say that read a book for once and see the melting icecaps and actually do what's right!!

Answer 10

i don't know but global warming is a very important issue and something needs to be done about it. i'm in highschool and can't do anything now but someone needs to make global warming in the top 5 of the worlds to do list.