Global Warming a fake?

[pgrmdave]

I think that it is reasonable to look at the facts and interpret them either way. It is, or at least should be, difficult to come to a clear, definitive conclusion. However, if one comes to the conclusion that global warming is not caused by human activity, that is not the same as saying that human activity has no effect. It is still in our best interests to try to slow our advancement of global warming, even if it has no effect on global warming. The recommendations will all lead to improvements in quality of life through reduction of waste and pollution. I don't think that humans are a big enough factor in global warming to make a notable difference either way, but I think that doing things like reducing pollution, reducing energy use, using cleaner energies, and other recommendations to lower the effects of global warming, will be beneficial to humans anyway, so why not do them?

[InfiniteNow]

Global Warming! We're all going to die!

Originally Posted by moi

The Earth, and all things that exist for that matter, can be described in terms of cycles. There is validity to the concept that ice ages and heating cycles are occurring every so often, and not that far apart when held relative to geological time scales.

The Day After Tomorrow, while somewhat silly, at the VERY least brought these issues to the attention of an audience who might not otherwise pay much attention. It is (loosely) based on fact, and I enjoyed it myself. Had wonderful graphics... like the sequence where the tidal wave came in over Manhattan... that was righteous.

The bigger issue raised when Global warming is discussed is our impact on it. Clearly, millions and millions and millions of cars and factories (and...) burning fossil fuel are having an impact, and the shifts are more than just nature cycling.

[Jim Colyer]

I felt like Al Gore's movie started with the idea of global warming, then took evidence out of context to prove it.

[hbah427]

I wrote this letter to Amy Dewey, at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

Ms. Amy Dewey
USEPA Headquarters
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Mail Code 1702A
Washington DC, 20460

Dear Ms. Dewey:

I am Harlan Haskins, a student at the Charles Townes Center, and I am writing to you to say that Global Warming doesn’t exist! It is just a theory that has gained media attention by the Pew Foundation. The Pew Foundation is a multi-billion dollar company whose sole purpose is to hype Global Warming and give it media attention.

I hope that you have seen the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Global Warming is a JOKE!!! Al Gore is using the attention he is getting from the movie to put himself in the spotlight so he can run for president in 2008. You may think I’m crazy, but you’ll think otherwise when he announces he’s running. How do I know this, you may ask, well, if he wasn’t running, he would have released the movie in 2003 or 2004, but he waited until 2006, because it was the “midpoint” of the 2004-2008 presidential tenure. His rant about Antarctica was true. However, he only stated that 2% of the continent is melting, maybe the other 98% of Antarctica that’s COOLING just…slipped his mind. As for the melting North Pole Sea Ice, it just so happens that the South Pole Sea Ice is RE-FREEZING!
And in Europe, the heat wave/drought that killed 3,500 people is nothing compared to the 20,000 people who die from cold every year. If Global Warming was real, it would balance out the deaths. Plus if the ice caps were melting, the water that the ice caps would bring would evaporate faster, and the earth would save itself. Plus it has been said that the hole in the ozone layer will be patched up in 2050. Again, the earth, healing itself

All I am saying is that we would be spending about $250,000,000,000 on developing automobiles, machines, and electrical appliances, which give off “cleaner-than-air” emissions. By the way, do you know how many Greenhouse Gases Al Gore gave off to make the PowerPoint and the film? More than a factory would use in a week.




Your Friend,

Al Gore


Harlan Haskins

[hbah427]

TAKE THAT AL GORE!!!!!

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by hbah427

TAKE THAT AL GORE!!!!!

Possibly the worst post I have seen at Hypography in a long time. Is there a point anywhere in your "letter" above, and do you have anything to contribute as far as discussable data is concerned?

[orbsycli]

Are the things you stated in that letter true?

I would get a kick out of it if you provide some proof.

[Michaelangelica]

This was a facinating documentary watch it if you can
Four Corners
The same professor who was hired by the tobacco companies to poo poo cigarette health concerns is now on Exxons pay role and poo pooing global warming!

Four Corners

Behind the campaign to deny the science of global warming…
The Denial Machine

Reporter: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 26/02/2007

For years the global warming debate has swirled like a firestorm. Science has been tossed about in a tornado of spin from doomsayers and doubters, deep green activists and fossil fuel lobbyists.

How did the future of the planet become such a political battleground?

A few weeks ago the pre-eminent body of climate scientists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirmed that global warming is real, happening now and very likely caused by human activity.

Late last year a report to the British Government likened the potential economic impact of global warming to the two world wars and the Great Depression.

Yet some scientists insist that climate change, if it’s happening at all, could be a good thing.

This report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigates the campaign to deny the science of global warming and slow international action against it. It tracks the activities of a small group of North American scientists, some of whom previously worked for Big Tobacco and who are now receiving donations from large oil and coal interests. It also examines how key planks of the fossil fuel industry’s case were adopted by governments in the US and Canada…

As Australia stews over how far it should go to combat greenhouse emissions, "The Denial Machine" goes behind the debate - on Four Corners 8.30 pm Monday 26 February, ABC TV.

This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Wednesday 28 February; also on ABC2 digital channel at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday.
Reports, Transcripts and Links

Read extended interviews, key reports and international commentary on the global warming debate.
Feedback

Have your say in the Four Corners guestbook.
Tip Offs

If you have information relevant to this story, we'd like to hear about it.
ABC Online Home

[Michaelangelica]

There must be an awful lot of dumb scientists around, to believe all this global warming stuff
Climate change is a "threat to society" says largest scientific body

Climate change is a "threat to society" says largest scientific body
mongabay.com
February 18, 2007
The world's largest scientific society today voiced concern over global warming, calling it a "threat to society." It was the first consensus statement of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on climate change.
The announcement comes sixteen days after the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most recent report on global change.

Meeting in San Francisco at its annual conference, AAAS released a statement confirming that "global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
Noting that the present atmospheric carbon-dioxide level is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years, AAAS said "the average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years."

This summed up the arguments nicely. (The article goes on to ask for examples of scientific maleficence.)
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sceptics: Cards on the table please!

If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave.

If you dissent from the consensus, you take the view that public opinion and much of politics has embarked on a wild decarbonising goose chase which will break economies, restrict personal movement and distract resources from other important societal challenges.

When this fundamental divide erupts in parliaments, in media, in alehouse arguments, that is fair enough; much of society works, for better or worse, on the basis of airing disagreements and having a good old rant, with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of your argument.

It is not, however, the way that science should be.

[BEAKER]

Michaelangelica

...with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of (the other side of) your (the) argument.

Isn't that what you're doing now?