Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

what the hell is HNN?

Headline News Network

It is an extension of CNN and basically it keeps repeating the major news stories from the day over and over. It usually takes about 45mins before it loops.

[Kevlar281]

Exposed: A Climate of Fear is up on youtube. It's worth a look regardless of what side of the debate you stand.

[axidgl]

After reading State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, I am very hesitant to put faith in the global warming theory; at the same time, I do not deny that we need to be more careful with the earth and make some changes to preserve it. While the book itself is purely fiction, the footnotes, graphs, and studies further prove that this theory is just a theory. I suggest this book to everyone, because whether you believe in the theory of global warming or not, the possibilities presented in this book are very, very real. The "threat" of global warming is only intensified by politicians and celebrities looking for causes to support and end up throwing their money at it to make themselves feel a little bit better about needlessly travelling around the world in their jets that cause 100x more damage than my SUV (that they also seem to drive when their little hybrids aren't convenient).

[RACooper]

Personally I'd have to call anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming/Human Influenced Climate Change as nuts... like anti-Evolution nuts - people more influenced by ideology than a rational and objective view. However I do understand why there are many in the US that don't believe it, simply because the issue has been seized upon by political factions and turned into a partisan issue, which is a shame since the partisan climate hinders any constructive debate.

One thing that I learned in taking courses on the life sciences or even Archaeology is that the ecology and climate is a finely balanced system, where humans can and have messed it up numerous times through their actions - so why should now be any different given the greater influence man has now (numbers, industry, habitation zones, ecological exploitation, etc.)? The only reason I can point to is political.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Personally I'd have to call anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming/Human Influenced Climate Change as nuts... like anti-Evolution nuts - people more influenced by ideology than a rational and objective view. However I do understand why there are many in the US that don't believe it, simply because the issue has been seized upon by political factions and turned into a partisan issue, which is a shame since the partisan climate hinders any constructive debate.

One thing that I learned in taking courses on the life sciences or even Archaeology is that the ecology and climate is a finely balanced system, where humans can and have messed it up numerous times through their actions - so why should now be any different given the greater influence man has now (numbers, industry, habitation zones, ecological exploitation, etc.)? The only reason I can point to is political.

good call

[macallan25]

RA, there is no proven human link to Global Warming. It doesn't exist. There haven't been any tests outside of mathematical models to legitimize the theories on human contributions to Global Warming/increasing CO2 levels.

I mean, what do you say to the scientists and astrophysicists that admit that there is a greenhouse effect, but that it is minor and difficult to detect. There are plenty of these people that have some pretty good evidence that can legitimately connect warming/cooling to natural causes and variations in the climate. Do you call them nuts too? I don't.

[Rudey]

People with no understanding of science are cute. But personally I think the cutest thing about global warming is the Exxon subsidization of the American Enterprise Institute when it provided cash to scientists to disprove global warming.

-Rudey

[axidgl]

RA, just because Global Warming has become a political issue does not mean that everyone should automatically believe in it. Do your own research, and don't rely on the media to do the work for you.

Should I think you're nuts because you DO believe in Global Warming? No, I think you are misinformed and have based your opinion on information that is skewed, and perhaps just plain wrong.

You are correct in saying that climate (and ultimately the environment) are finely balanced systems, but those very systems adjust themselves to remained balance-- in a way that goes far beyond ANY scientific knowledge at this point. No scientist can accurately predict warming, cooling, or stable temperatures. Period. The people we see in the media who call for drastic measures of change are PAID scientists who were hired by people who WANT to find a problem.

What they can do though, is present proven information fairly and accurately; this, unfortunately, rarely happens.

People are too often making environmental changes out to be a black and white issue; it either is global warming, or it's not. It's just not true. There are too many possibilities that affect these "facts" to make them 100% true or false. Data is sparse and usually does not take into account other factors that could affect their findings. They simply sample select areas where slight warming (despite the cause) is recorded, call these facts, and publish them. It is these published "facts" that too many people rely on to form their opinions.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by axidgl

RA, just because Global Warming has become a political issue does not mean that everyone should automatically believe in it. Do your own research, and don't rely on the media to do the work for you.

Should I think you're nuts because you DO believe in Global Warming? No, I think you are misinformed and have based your opinion on information that is skewed, and perhaps just plain wrong.

You are correct in saying that climate (and ultimately the environment) are finely balanced systems, but those very systems adjust themselves to remained balance-- in a way that goes far beyond ANY scientific knowledge at this point. No scientist can accurately predict warming, cooling, or stable temperatures. Period. The people we see in the media who call for drastic measures of change are PAID scientists who were hired by people who WANT to find a problem.

What they can do though, is present proven information fairly and accurately; this, unfortunately, rarely happens.

People are too often making environmental changes out to be a black and white issue; it either is global warming, or it's not. It's just not true. There are too many possibilities that affect these "facts" to make them 100% true or false. Data is sparse and usually does not take into account other factors that could affect their findings. They simply sample select areas where slight warming (despite the cause) is recorded, call these facts, and publish them. It is these published "facts" that too many people rely on to form their opinions.

Both sides rely heavily on sponsored research, so I don't think this point really supports your side as much as it really just points out what has quickly become my takeaway on the issue: there is no real certainty either way.

It is not difficult to believe that human consumption of fossil fuels has a detrimental effect on the environment, and it is also not hard to understand that the natural buffering of the environment can help obviate much of the issue.

The honest-to-God truth, however, is that our understanding of global weather is simply sparse - we can't really accurately predict weather, and this is mostly based on difficulty examining the root phenomena that lead to weather patterns. However, absence of evidence is clearly not evidence of absence - it's vital to improve our baseline understanding, so we can stop this sort of politicized and annoying back-and-forth where neither side gives credence to the other's evidence.

[FrozenHurricane]

I hated when many people jumped on to the global warming bandwagon after hurricane katrina hit new orleans. one major hurricane (or several) doesn't mean global warming exists.

[AGDee]

Under the premise "there is no real certainty either way", I'd choose to err on the side of safety (and enjoy healthier air, possible decreases in asthma and cancer rates, etc.). I think we have much to learn from the Native Americans who don't believe that land can be owned and see our resources as treasures.

[Texas Beta]

The government was behind 9/11.

Videos on youtube prove it.

[DSTRen13]

Personally, I believe in global warming. But I don't really see global warming as being the reason why we should take care of the environment - we should do that regardless of whether we believe in global warming and whether we like certain politicians or scientists or whoever or not. Global warming is just one issue - it's a FACT that we effect the environment, whether we're effecting it in that particular way or not. And it really isn't that hard to make some small changes and lead a "greener" lifestyle. A lot of those changes save you money too - what do you have to lose? It's a win/win proposition.