Global Warming: A Political Lie.

[8182KSKUSH]

You argued that I was wrong because I was looking at one scientist, yet in that paper, the only quotes you provide are from a politician. How exactly does that support your claims?

By the way, directly above this your last post I gave a very good site with a list of a lot of "scientists" who disagree with yourself and Al Gore. His Generation Investment Management private equity fund took a 9.5% stake in a company that has a one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world. Can you honestly believe he is an unbiased and credible source on the subject?

He is also the founder and chairmen of Generation Investment Management. Several sources claim they have major influence in carbon credit trading firms.

His companies site.

In regards to glaciers: from the icecap.us

[B]


By the way, you see the title "Dr." before their names, that means they are generally a credible source. Granted there are exceptions, however anyone is better than quoting a politician on scientific matters.

E-Gore is pretty much a scientest! LOL I mean, he invented the internet, and did you not see those really big line graphs and everything! LMFAO!

[JaggedEdge]

E-Gore is pretty much a scientest! LOL I mean, he invented the internet, and did you not see those really big line graphs and everything! LMFAO!

Haha, or he simply play's one at the pulpit. I will admit he is skilled at propaganda though. He can take those graphs that prove one thing, tweak them slightly, and get people to believe the opposite.

[8182KSKUSH]

I still want to know Garret, if it is CO2 in the atmosphere, why is the upper atmosphere not showing a corresponding warming trend?
And jagged, "tweak" is pretty generous, more like bastardized the information to make it fit. The truth that Garret does not want to acknowledge, is that temp increase results in more CO2, not the other way around. But once you acknowledge that, it throws the entire premise of "Global Warming" under the bus, therefore this is often glazed over by many true believers.

[Coelho]

I still want to know Garret, if it is CO2 in the atmosphere, why is the upper atmosphere not showing a corresponding warming trend?

Probably because CO2 is much heavier than air so it is more abundant in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and more rare in the higher layers...

To the OP: The problem with this question is that it is very much ideologically charged (probably as much as the MMJ debate) and so both sides simply ignore the facts the other side shows and cling to their positions. So i wont waste my time getting "facts" (or rather sites/videos/whatever on the internet), cause i know no amount of "facts" can change your (or anybody elses) mind if you dont want to. Also, nowadays its possible to back up almost anything with internet "facts", as the MMJ debate shows very well. Anyway, if you want internets "facts", look at Al Gores site, for example.

But, lets suppose for a moment that you are right, and the climate changes caused by humans are still too small. If the worlds industrialization keep its pace, how long it will take until all the things that the environmentalists claim now became actually true? How it will be when every inhabitant of the 3rd world were able to drive its car? How it will be when all the forests were turned into farms/fields/whatever? If the world still wasnt messed up enough by society, is it an excuse to keep messing it up?

If you want to know, i actually think the environmentalists are a bit exagerate (much like the defenders of MMJ that says its a completly harmless thing), but i think its needed. Maybe mankind still can revert (or at least diminish) the impacts of its society on the environment, but for do this it must start to act NOW. This things takes a very long time to change. If we keep living as if there werent tomorrow and wait until the problems knock on our doors to think about them, then surely it will be too late to do anything.

[yokinazu]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

[gypski]

One thing is for certain, based upon valid scientific evidence, even if man is aiding and abetting by burning fossil fuels, and acting as a proxy for natural events such as vulcanism, etcetera, that have caused the same type warming events in our planet's past, don't invest in oceanfront property. Unless you bet on it being further inland.

Now that's a fact Jack. :jointsmile:

[JaggedEdge]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

It is not the CO2 that is a problem! If you would have actually looked at any of those sources you would realize that. CO2 is extremely important to the environment, it is what our vegetation needs to survive, and in turn the vegetation releases oxygen.

For the 10,000th time, I agree with cleaning up our environment, but people are to stupid to even realize what is harmful to us and needs to be changed. Instead of focusing on actual pollutants people keep talking about CO2. The sheer level of ignorance on this subject, along with how deeply seeded it is, is astounding and quit scary.

[JaggedEdge]

To the OP: The problem with this question is that it is very much ideologically charged (probably as much as the MMJ debate) and so both sides simply ignore the facts the other side shows and cling to their positions.

No, the argument is ideologically charged on the side of those who believe and support the pseudo-science, however, the other side is actually looking at the facts and statistics.

You are correct though in comparing it to MMJ. Those like us, who are supporting MMJ have looked at the evidence and realized their is no scientific data to actually support the opposition's views. So, yes, just like with global warming, one side looks at actual evidence while the other is simply motivated by ideology.

So i wont waste my time getting "facts" (or rather sites/videos/whatever on the internet), cause i know no amount of "facts" can change your (or anybody elses) mind if you dont want to. Also, nowadays its possible to back up almost anything with internet "facts", as the MMJ debate shows very well. Anyway, if you want internets "facts", look at Al Gores site, for example.

Go read a book by a scientist than. That's where I initially got my information. You can't simply claim their aren't any credible internet sites. The sites I have posted are valid, in particular, icecap.us

I have done the leg work to present honest and legitimate sources, if you are unable to do the same I will continue to believe you have no evidence to support that crap you say. I have looked at Gores facts before and for the last time, he isn't credible. If you don't know why, read higher in this post.

But, lets suppose for a moment that you are right, and the climate changes caused by humans are still too small. If the worlds industrialization keep its pace, how long it will take until all the things that the environmentalists claim now became actually true? How it will be when every inhabitant of the 3rd world were able to drive its car? How it will be when all the forests were turned into farms/fields/whatever? If the world still wasnt messed up enough by society, is it an excuse to keep messing it up?

I am right, so assumptions aren't needed. Seeing as we are likely heading into a mini ice age, global industrialization would likely be beneficial. You argument is severely flawed in that it accepts that these environmentalists have identified the right cause. CAUSE AND EFFECT! You can't accurately predict an effect when you can't accurately pinpoint the cause. Which clearly they have failed to do.

If you want to know, i actually think the environmentalists are a bit exagerate (much like the defenders of MMJ that says its a completly harmless thing), but i think its needed. Maybe mankind still can revert (or at least diminish) the impacts of its society on the environment, but for do this it must start to act NOW.

You claim it may not be factual, yet you have completely bought into the fear mongers. If it isn't occurring, why do we have to risk actual harm to prevent something that isn't inevitable? We don't need to loose our rights, freedom, and wealth because something "might happen." If you base your life on that philosophy you might as well lock yourself in a cell for the rest of your life. We can take moderate steps to protect our environment, but drastic actions are not needed. Especially not at our lose of liberties and wealth as a nation.

This things takes a very long time to change. If we keep living as if there werent tomorrow and wait until the problems knock on our doors to think about them, then surely it will be too late to do anything.

You act as though you know what the problem is specifically, which you don't. To even try and drastically change something we don't understand is simply dumb. And yes, our environment is something we don't truly understand.

[8182KSKUSH]

wehter or not you think global warming is bullshit or not, or if its man made or just the natural course of the planet i for one dont mind living in a cleaner enviroment. so wether or not your a left winger, right winger, gore-ist, marxist, or a what everist the same holds true fro everyone: we canot breathe CO2 in large quantitys and live. clean air and water is a must and we should all act to clean up the enviroment immedietly surrounding us.

and if thats tree huggin hippie crap, well so i guess im a tree hugger.

I agree, I love nature. I have grown up in the midwest, and am an avid angler and outdoors man. I don't believe that not buying the bullshit, and being a good steward of the environment, are mutually exclusive. It's funny though, I have an aunt that worships at the pulpit of Gore, and anything that is ideologically based in liberal dogma for that matter, and she hates the outdoors. You will never catch her upity ass camping or fishing anywhere, ever. But she drives a hybrid, and loathes the fact I drive a suburban, and use it to pull a bass boat to tool around on the lake and fish out of. But she drives a hybrid LOL! Whoopty doo! Never mind the fact that it runs on giant batteries, that last time I checked are very toxic to dispose of, or the fact that it's mostly plastic, (which is a petroleum product LOL).:thumbsup:
I also agree we cannot survive in a super saturated CO2 environment, however, last I checked, CO2, makes up LESS THAN HALF OF 1% OF THE TOTAL GREEN HOUSE GASSES IN OUR ATMOSPHERE! So I have a hard time buying that is in fact the cause of our impending doom.
Oh, and of the LESS THAN 1 HALF OF 1%, how much is contributed by man? Yeah. Exactly my point, don't believe the hype. It's all about money, always has been. That, and giving people a scare, or something that they can "feel" good about. :jointsmile:

[BigLeagueJew]

I didn't think there were any people left besides the scientists George Bush hired that still believe man doesn't play a part in global warming.