The future of Global Warming?

Question

Anyone else think Gore and the Man Made Global Warming crowd realize they're about as much good for the planet as a hysterical, screaming passenger is for a sinking ship?

Most people realize the world is getting warmer, but many dispute the cause. Gore and his cronies parrot this 'man made' crap, scoffing at any other possibility. With Martian icecaps melting, and the temperature of all celestial bodies in the area warming up, don't they realize how useless this makes them? It's not man made, which means we can't stop it by changing what we do. Shouldn't we be treating it like an impending asteroid? "There's nothing we can do but prepare for the effects, ride it out, and this too shall pass." If we keep focusing on cutting carbon, all we're doing is hurting ourselves for no good reason when we could be preparing for the inevitable. Right now, we're doing nothing to prepare, and crippling the developing world in the process. Not exactly the most effective approach?

Answer 1

Scientists aren't cronies.

That NASA was told to keep quiet by the present administration is proof enough that we need to address this matter seriously, and quit listening to big oil propaganda.

Besides, right now this government is about to try to get China to reduce carbon emissions.

Why? Because they have 10 times the population of the US, and when they start burning coal in earnest the pollution will be carried on winds over here.

Answer 2

The idea that this is a "Gore thing" is absurd.

SCIENTISTS (people who actually study things and know what they're talking about) all see what's going on.

When will the anti-reality crowd grasp this basic concept?

It's NOT about Gore.

It's about evidence and reason and science.

You seem to think that ignoring reality is preferable to dealing with it.

If a ship is sinking, you think it's better to pretend all is well, rather than doing what can be done to save lives.

Few people who have a hint of a clue dispute the cause. WE are the cause.

Again, Gore didn't invent this. He has been listening to people who know what they're talking about.

All the people who've been saying Gore invented this concept have been either deluded or lying.

What's happening in our atmosphere is NOT the same as what's going on elsewhere.

We HAVE been changing the atmosphere; refusing to acknowledge that have no more than one operative brain cell.

It IS man-made.

We COULD change what we do.

It isn't like an impending asteroid -- it is our doing; it isn't TOMORROW and nothing we can do about it; it's a slow process, and, being the cause, we could stop contributing to it.

If we keep up dumping greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at the same rate, we're hurting ourselves and every other living thing.

If we stop, we have a chance to reverse it.

If people who kept dismissing the problem would get a hint of a clue, we could reverse the damage.

Making changes to help the situation is MUCH more effective than pretending there's no problem, and wishing it weren't so.

In other words: Yes, it feels good to pretend there's no problem.

That guarantees the problem will get worse.

OR we can face reality, and first slow, then stop, the damage we're doing.

Rational people want to solve the problem.

You, apparently, don't care how much damage we do; after all, being heartless and braindead is easier for people who have neither brain nor heart.

Answer 3

The environmentalist movement didn't come from hard science, it came from a particular ideology, which adopted the creed of environmentalism to give it the veneer of legitimacy! If you peel back the junk science behind the environmentalism movement, you will see the core of the movement is rooted in the socialist/communist movement of years past.

Is there any surprise that there was practically no big "Green" movement before the 1980's. There were "environmentalists", but they were called "conservationists" and they pushed for reasonable measures, such as protections for forests, wildlife, endangered species, and reductions of known pollutants by moving to new more efficient industry. But today the "Green" movement has taken on a completely different tone. Rather than seeking alternatives to environmental harm, the environmentalists today seek a return to primitive society. This is is obvious when you see the things the "Greens" advocate... organic food, elimination of the automobile, building NOTHING, holistic medicine... and so on.

For many years there has been a push to adopt a more primitive lifestyle. This philosophy was enumerated by Jean-Jacque Rousseau, in the mid to late 18th century, who saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. Rousseau contended that man was good by nature, when in the state of nature (the state of all other animals, and the condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. This philosophy was adopted en-masse in the 1960's by the "hippie" counter culture, however, it was introduced within the construct of Marxism. When communism was proved to be a failure the Rousseauean philosophy, along with a large measure of Marxism, was then merged into the newly developing "Green" movement.

When the concept of "global warming" was dreamed up in the late 1980's early 1990's it was the perfect weapon for the anarcho-communist environmental movement. Because it blamed our impending doom on carbon-dioxide, a natural compound produced by any combustion or respiration, it was the perfect way scare people away from modernity, and toward a primitive agrarian, or better yet uncivilized, existence. Because C02 is such a catch all, there is really no way for society to exist without producing C02. Fire is the phenomenon that lead to the rise of civilization, and fire is at the heart of nearly everything done by humans. Fire is used to cook our food, warm our homes, produce our electricity, power our automobiles/airplanes/trains/boats/space ships, in short to do everything! Without fire there is no civilization, and the only way to eliminate man-made C02 is to eliminate fire! So by this logic, the only solution is to eliminate civilization. Therefore in this manner the "Greens" used the "global warming" banner to promote the overthrow of all modernity, especially industry, automobiles, modern agriculture, and of course, the "great Satan" the United States of America!

Currently, it doesn't matter that the science of climate change is bunk, because the furor with which the "Greens" are predicting Armageddon trumps all reasonable discourse on the topic. The "Greens" are so powerful now that even President Bush, a long time ally of modernity, has proclaimed his allegiance to the cause, despite the fact that the environmentalist movement exists for the sole purpose of eliminating the United States. Thus is the power of their dogmata!

Answer 4

Please take some time to learn about global warming.

Your 2 pieces of 'evidence' are both wrong.

1) The Martian icecaps are NOT melting. One of them is melting and one is growing!

"It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

"Remember, though," adds Smith, "there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing. It's a balancing act.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

2) You just proved why the sun isn't causing global warming - NOT ALL PLANETS ARE WARMING! Parts of Mars are warming (and parts are cooling), Pluto is (seasonally) warming, and Jupiter is warming. No other planets (besides Earth) are warming. If the sun were responsible, then every planet would be warming inversely proportionately to its distance to the sun.

Sorry, but there's no scientifically plausible alternative left.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiYUrYRGadqG8IBJkxgXFDDsy6IX?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX

Humans are causing the acceleration in global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 5

The truth about "global warming" is coming out everyday. You nailed it by stating it is not man made. Weather, weather patterns, clouds and our good friend, Mr. Sun all play a part. When "The Goreacle" points to Mt. Kilaminjaro's snow cap as diasppearing because of "global warming," he's out to lunch. The snowcap has disappeared because of cutting down trees and forests near the mauntain that helped stabilize the temperature. Bet if they replanted like they do her, You'd see it come back. The Ross Iceshelf is growing and just look t the weather in South Africa during the Live Earth concert, it snowed and temps hit record lows. Thank God for global warming otherwise we'd be fighting wooly mammoths and sabre tooth cats!

Answer 6

Gore spouts this Global Warming nonsense which is nothing but garbage designed to control you and wants people to pay carbon credits and I bet you didn't know that Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets ," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself !!!!

I believe P. T. Barnum was right when he stated - " there's a sucker born every minute " and that describes perfectly the people who believe this mans nonsense and utter crap .

Edit - I forgot to mention Gore never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to a vote in the United States Senate .

Answer 7

it is scientifically proven that global warming is real but are we the sole reason responsible for it?who knows but we should at the very least try to clean up our cars and use biodiesel or hydrogen cars.i do believe we are greatly contributing to this and i dont think that we can ride it out either.flooding of the world is a HUGE deal and all the refugees it will create could cripple a country so i think it is important to clean up our act in any area but transportation is the hot topic and it would be beneficial to have a source of energy that isnt oil and can be made here.norway powers things by hydrogen not just cars why cant we?

Answer 8

Nightshade -
of course scientists hang together do you *really* think they are so intelligent that they are immune from human emo? - liberals in colleges outnumber conservatives almost 8 to 1 (except in business schools). Anything to get funding and avoid criticism; remember cold fusion? polywater? global warming?

HahacharadeUR -
quote from your profile: All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident. end quote.

So is most propaganda. How about the *completely unfounded common knowledge* that we use only 10% of our brains (although most liberals seem to fit that description).
Why do liberals like the Kennedy family sue to stop wind power generators near *their* homes (not visible from, just near)??

Chef Trav -
see below, you should stock up on winter wear, not A/C equipment.

Babe - several points to help ease your mind and decision -

First, please see the SEPP site by S Fred Singer, reference 1 below. Dr. Singer is probably the foremost authority on this issue and has signatures from *thousands* of real scientists who object to the current *beliefs* about anthropogenic global warming.

For a more straightforward article, see any of the three links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Second, note that the rise in temperature will most likely trigger an ice age (as was thought 30 years ago); see ref 2.

Third, an investigation led one person to this conclusion in ref 3, quote:
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists --
end quote

Fourth, from ref 4, even one of the "believers" (Jeff Severinghaus) says the following.
quote:
So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. **No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie)**. The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth's surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.
end quote

Polaris -
You are **right on**
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Green Peace, quit because of the attempted world politics of the group, quote:
"See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement any more, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level."
end quote (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist))

Finally, I know it's a mess but don't worry - the Mayan calendar ends on 12/21/12, just before social security runs out of money....

Good luck,
t

Answer 9

People do not want to look at all the facts of global warming, the political agendas or corporate agendas. Lots of money can be made off of this at the expense of the tax payer. To create a debate is not permissible. You are ordered and shamed into just agreeing with the mass media frenzy.

Answer 10

I agree. I am going to have to see some credible scientist all agree on this before I start going nuts. I'm conscientious of my environment and ecological issues anyway. It saves me money in the long run. funny how these people do not believe terrorism is real, but will fall for this. simply amazing.

Answer 11

Thank you for your intelligent voice of reason. We need more people like you speaking up to counter the hysterical Chicken Littles that actually believe this nonsense and follow it like a religion. They are hell-bent on destroying our prosperous way of life all in the name of a false catastrophe that will never occur.