Gore's Inconvenient Truth required classroom viewing?

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

Actaully, no. If you get your information from a purely academic source - not from a website with an agenda you will see that the scientic community is in agreement that greenhouse gasses are contributing to global warming.

I do not know the answer, but I do know it STILL is under debate. I am just asking for the public schools to allow open debate on the subject.

I did speak to my daughter's school's principal about this very subject. He agreed that in the classroom news article about such subjects that are under debate should present all sides. He told me that he would rather see the kids involved in a "debate" on such subjects instead of a teacher just bringing in a news article which often is bias. I agree with the format he wants to implement for his school. He was going to discuss it with his staff.

I think it important for kids to discuss current events. But, they do not need to be fed bias information. By doing it as a "debate" the kids on different sides can research the material and present all side in class.

Not all agree . . .

Different opinion: (There are many, I will only post a couple)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming

ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.
________________________________________

http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html

As for 20th century warming, climatologists and paleoclimatologists alike agree that we are observing a solar-driven climb out of the Little Ice Age. In fact, most of the modern warming trend began prior to any substantial increase in CO2. Recent glacier retreats, breakup of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf on the north coast of Ellesmere Island, and permafrost degradation have been in the making since the end of this Little Ice Age. We know that the Little Ice Age was an artifact of solar variability, with key intervals of maximum cooling corresponding to historically documented minimums in solar activity when no sunspot activity was recorded. The cosmogenic isotopes, 10Be in ice cores and 14C in tree rings, are measures of solar activity, and they faithfully correlate with sunspots and with climate.

The return to warmer conditions began in the late 1800s (when ships managed to sail the Northwest Passage for the first time), and we find solar activity has greatly increased since this time, with sunspot numbers now at all-time highs. However, the scientific basis for climate change is poorly presented in the media. That The New York Times published rubbish about ice leads on the northern ice cap appearing for the first time in 50 million years is totally irresponsible (the Times was finally shamed into publishing a retraction). That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.

On the contrary, the role of solar activity on climate warming has been observed in real data sets collected at many different time scales. All are consistent in showing a relationship between changes in solar activity and temperature. Before spending futile billions on Kyoto implementation measures, perhaps we should pay more attention to the role that the sun plays. We know that it was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.

Dr. Ian Clark
Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic specialist)
Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology

___________________________________________________

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue/

Meteorologist William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert.

You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?

G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.

_________________________________________________

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html

"Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."


Nature still rules

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

 

[dcyates]

You are mistaken if you think that that the scientific community is still debating this issue of Global Warming and it's cause. It's not. Global Warming is REAL and WE are the cause.

This is not at all accurate. In fact, the number of scientists that were once advocates for anthropogenic climate change, but are now sceptics is steadily growing.

Bruno Wiskel, Professor of Geology, University of Alberta, once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the Kyoto Protocol, but after further examining the science behind Kyoto Wiskel reversed his view and became such a strong sceptic that he recently wrote a book titled The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming. "Instead, (I) realized the global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags', and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." He notes that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years: "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award-winning scientists. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." The C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence. Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that (the solar climate link) does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic-rays have on the atmosphere. Shaviv also wrote that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate," so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming scepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon acounting for the Australian government. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker--better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds. As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" Evans also noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist: "the political realm... fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed. The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were not initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification.... Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics."

Climate researcher, Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada. "I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously." Murty has also stated: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner & former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a sceptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock". According to the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed. The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything."

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland, NZ. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ but with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote, "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute."

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Dept. of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin (now the Dept. of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences) was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970s but has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. He was on the UN's Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson claims, "All this argument about the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.... However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem."

Global warming author & economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research. "I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics. After that, I changed my mind." Labohn co-authored the 2004 book Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm has also stated, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottawa. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," but said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific. (My conversion from believer to climate sceptic) came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principal investigator). Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances. As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate." Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." He now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate sceptics, "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority." Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth: "But if you listen to (Canadian environmental activist David) Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over. But it isn't--come out to a scientific meeting sometime." In a separate interview Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors sceptics: "I think the proof is in the pudding. Based on what (media and governments) are saying, we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution. With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies." Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a report in EIR Science entitled 'CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time': "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck, were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present." Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor for the Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark has said, "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol. Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the Protocol."

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of U. of Ottawa. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given. The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave a far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario. It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to a realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved. The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver."

 

[FrenchAffair]

we haven't even bothered to watch it

That is unfortinate as it is an award winning documentary and is a very well done edcuational tool.

 

[FallingWaters]

...
Bruno Wiskel, Professor of Geology, University of Alberta... but after further examining the science behind Kyoto Wiskel reversed his view and became such a strong skeptic that he recently wrote a book titled The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming. ...

... Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming scepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence.

... When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. ...As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" ...

Climate researcher, Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada. ... Murty has also stated: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

...Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed. ...

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson,..."Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” ...

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottawa. ...we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. ...They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over. But it isn't--come out to a scientific meeting sometime." ...

For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck, were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming.

Thanks.
Great quotes.

 

[Kristos]

So your strategy is to ignore the potential problem and just hope is goes away? This is immoral.

These quotes really don't amount to anything. Science works in a very formal way. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean anything - remember the Korean cloning thing? Data and theories must be published in scientic journal (not Discovery magazine) for scrutiny of the community. Then other scientist publish their findings on the theory and eventually, there is a consensus. The current consensus is that CO2 IS causing global warming. Those who deny this are misinformed or ignorant or own stock in an oil company. It's amazing how many people choose to ignore the fact just because they are afraid of what it would really mean to them. They are afraid of making real changes in their life that might reduce their "comfort".

Don't be misled. Don't believe the hype. This is real.

 

[FallingWaters]

So your strategy is to ignore the potential problem and just hope is goes away?

MY strategy is NOT to jump to conclusions before gathering all the information.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

So your strategy is to ignore the potential problem and just hope is goes away? This is immoral.

These quotes really don't amount to anything. Science works in a very formal way. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean anything - remember the Korean cloning thing? Data and theories must be published in scientic journal (not Discovery magazine) for scrutiny of the community. Then other scientist publish their findings on the theory and eventually, there is a consensus. The current consensus is that CO2 IS causing global warming. Those who deny this are misinformed or ignorant or own stock in an oil company. It's amazing how many people choose to ignore the fact just because they are afraid of what it would really mean to them. They are afraid of making real changes in their life that might reduce their "comfort".

Don't be misled. Don't believe the hype. This is real.

Your last statement "Don't be misled. Don't believe the hype. This is real." is one of the reasons I do not appreciate many that argue for global warming. They want to scare everyone into believing science that has not been proven.

It seems to me that you were shown evidence that not all scientist agree on this issue. It has been proven here that the issue is under debate. Whether or not you agree with the scientist that have been quoted here that do not support your current view is irrelevant. You can no longer say it is not under debate.

Maybe those willing to consider ALL views in the scientific community over only some are the open minded ones on this issue.

To listen to both sides of the argument is not "misinformed or ignorant". It is educating oneself on the issue before drawing a conclusion. It is being intelligent to NOT have a handful of people tell you what you must think.

In the good old days. . . we were taught to think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

This is the point that has been made of the public schools. This stuff should not be fed to the children without the other side being presented on controversial issues.

I do not understand why people object to that so much.

If the argument is so strong that humans caused global warming, why not allow the weaker argument be told with it. Maybe it is because if all the information gets out there, people will decide humans are not as bad as some make them out to be. Maybe funding will stop for many research projects and the money will be sent in other directions.

 

[FrenchAffair]

MY strategy is NOT to jump to conclusions before gathering all the information.

By which time 75% of the polar ice caps will have melted and the costal regions of the US will be underwater.

 

[Servant222]

Based on ice core studies, it is a fact that global CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in at least 900,000 years. It is also a fact that we are adding pollutants to our atmosphere at an unprecented rate, especially in countries like China where many new coal-fired generating plants are being built every year.

If we act now, and it turns out that global warming is less of a problem than we thought, we will at least have reduced the amount of atmospheric pollution.

If we don't do enough to deal with the issue, we risk very serious global consequences, especially in third world countries. We also provide no incentive for countries like China to try and reduce atmospheric emissions. It is worth keeping in mind that every time we claim there isn't a problem, China's industrial sector cheers- and keeps spewing more and more gases into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate.

 

[dcyates]

By which time 75% of the polar ice caps will have melted and the costal regions of the US will be underwater.

Well, my friend, this is among the very issues under dispute. I've come across highly qualified oceanographers who have assured us that the world's oceans are so huge that even if--and even with global warming, that's a big 'if'--75% of the polar ice caps did indeed melt, the average rise in sea-levels would not amount to anywhere near the 7 metres Gore speculates.

Let's remember, the northern polar ice cap is floating ice, and if floating ice melts it has no effect on sea levels. In fact, contrary to what you see in Gore's film, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water, let the ice melt, and your glass will NOT overflow--indeed the water level will actually drop a bit since, when it turns to ice, water expands. (Tellingly, when Gore's film illustrates this grade-school science experiment, rather than use something like time-lapsed photography--which would have shown that the glass won't overflow--he instead has computer animation, which was obviously manipulated to show the melting ice causing the glass to overflow--and to overflow quite abundantly, at that. Gore's "An Inconvenient truth" shows the glass so overflowing in fact that you would think it was the source of a natural spring!)

We can be confident in a lax approach to Poseidon’s wrath thanks to research coming from, among others, Nils-Axel Mörner of Stockholm University, who unlike the bulk of the IPCC’s panel is in fact a recognized expert on sea levels. Mörner’s research demonstrates that current sea levels are within the range of sea-level oscillation over the past 300 years, while the satellite data show virtually no rise over the past decade (N-A Mörner, “Estimating Future Sea Level Changes from Past Records,” Global and Planetary Change 40 [2003]: 49-54). The most alarmist extant report, the IPCC Third Assessment Report, in its politician/bureaucrat/pressure group-drafted “Summary for Policymakers” (yikes!), states the following about the past 100 years during which the alarmists state that we have seen unprecedented melting worldwide” “Tide gauge data show that global average sea level rose between 0.1 and 0.2 metres during the twentieth century” (Working Group 1, Summary for Policymakers: 4). This is the face-saving way of admitting that they can’t claim that Man sped up the expected sea-level rise that occurs between glaciations (ice ages), which is the period in which we happily find ourselves.

The IPCC foresees sea-level rise of between 14 and 44 centimetres (cm) by 2100, not the 20 feet that alarmists like Al Gore bizarrely threaten, seemingly cut from whole cloth and certainly ignorant (perhaps willingly so) of past warmings. The Earth experienced a sea-level rise of 20 cm over the past century with no noticeable ill effects, given in large part because the rate of rise, throughout history, has been hardly noticeable. And even if this rise were carried out over the course of several years, never mind several decades, this would hardly be the stuff of Hollywood thrillers.

Recently examined changes in ice mass “from elevation changes derived from 10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellite ERS-1 and -2,” report that the movements of these ice sheets have added .05 to .03 millimetres (mm) to the level of the sea per year. It is somewhat unclear where Al Gore gets his other 6095.95mm of sea level to reach the 7 metres he warned of in his film.

The website www.CO2Science.org puts this sea-level rise in perspective by stating that: “At the current sea-level-equivalent ice-loss rate of 0.05 millimetres per years, it would take a full millennium to raise global sea level by just 5cm, and it would take fully 20,000 years to raise it a single metre.”

So sleep well, folks. But in the year 22007, whatever you do, do NOT hit that snooze button! Rather, grab your snorkel, put on flippers, and swim to the nearest… uhh, I guess the nearest pitching mound.

 

[dcyates]

So your strategy is to ignore the potential problem and just hope is goes away? This is immoral.

What's immoral is the fear-mongering lies we're being fed by Gore, Hollywood airheads, sycophantic members of the mainstream media, and scientists who stand to gain financially via grant-money by propagating alarmist factoids.

These quotes really don't amount to anything. Science works in a very formal way. Just because someone says something, doesn't mean anything - remember the Korean cloning thing?

Are you seriously equating the widely-recognized experts that I cited with a bunch of quacks? C'mon, Kristos, get real.

Data and theories must be published in scientic journal (not Discovery magazine) for scrutiny of the community. Then other scientist publish their findings on the theory and eventually, there is a consensus.

First of all, I quoted from scientific journals and never once mentioned Discovery magazine (even as if that would be some sort of sin). Second, there is very rarely anything approaching scientific consensus on any topic. Especially when it comes to something as controversial as the issue of man-made global warming, whenever anyone shouts "scientific consensus!" they're really trying to stifle the genuinely scientific process of debate and have an agenda they're pushing.

Besides that, let me see if I've got this straight. You refuse to recognize the credentials of the scientists I've cited, but you're more than willing to listen to Al Gore, who has a liberal arts degree?!? And by the way, he didn't even do well in those classes. Al Gore's grades from college, as reported in 2000 by the Washington Post:
Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature): D
Natural Sciences 118: C+

The current consensus is that CO2 IS causing global warming. Those who deny this are misinformed or ignorant or own stock in an oil company.

How much CO2 does humanity emit on average per year? Do you know? How much CO2 is there in our atmosphere at any one time? Do you know? How much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere naturally, by the planet's oceans and land masses, per year? Do you know?
If you can't answer those questions, then who is the one who is "misinformed or ignorant"?

And by the way, Al 'The Huge Hypocrite' Gore owns stock in oil companies.

It's amazing how many people choose to ignore the fact just because they are afraid of what it would really mean to them. They are afraid of making real changes in their life that might reduce their "comfort".

Kristos, if you want to make sacrifices and don't mind reducing your level of comfort for the sake of the environment, by all means, go right ahead. I don't even mind you suggesting that others should do the same. But it's when the coercive power of government is utilized to MAKE the rest of us live that way, that's when I have a problem.

Don't be misled. Don't believe the hype. This is real.

No, I'm sorry, my friend, but it's you who is being misled and it's you who is buying into the hype. And as far as anthropogenic global warming is concerned, it's not real; humanity just isn't that significant.

 

[Everlasting]

Isa 30:26

Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.

Everlasting

Moon Over Key Biscayne
bn.com
ISBN# 1-4241-6884-8

 

[Kristos]

yates-

Odd that you want to categorize what I'm saying with what Al Gore says. Instead of refuting what I have said, you keep attacking Al Gore and what he says. I don't know Al Gore - I don't even like Al Gore and have never claimed to be "on his side" in this matter. I posted several scientific facts that have only been rebutted with random quotes from people with titles, but with no citation of any scientific study - only their opinions - which are like, ya know, and they all stink. I think it's also odd that you accuse those who advocate reductions in CO2 emmisions of being fear mongers. You are jumping to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what has been said. I never said ANYTHING about potential consequences of Global Warm. This is the realm of speculation. Stick with the facts.

Facts:

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
• A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
• The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

 

[dcyates]

yates-

Odd that you want to categorize what I'm saying with what Al Gore says. Instead of refuting what I have said, you keep attacking Al Gore and what he says. I don't know Al Gore - I don't even like Al Gore and have never claimed to be "on his side" in this matter. I posted several scientific facts that have only been rebutted with random quotes from people with titles, but with no citation of any scientific study - only their opinions - which are like, ya know, and they all stink.

Huh? Come again!?! I've included references to scientific journals in several of my posts. On the other hand, I've just now quickly reviewed your posted responses on this thread and haven't found a single citation!

I think it's also odd that you accuse those who advocate reductions in CO2 emmisions of being fear mongers. You are jumping to conclusions without even taking the time to understand what has been said. I never said ANYTHING about potential consequences of Global Warm. This is the realm of speculation. Stick with the facts.

Facts:

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

Sure. Just not by climate change alarmists.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

The truth is, water vapor makes up about 97% of all greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, CO2 constitutes only about 2%, and the remaining percentage point is made up of such gases as methane, etc.

All of human civilization emits approximately 7 billion tonnes (also known as gigatonnes; GT) of CO2 per year. (Actually, I've read that humans produce as little as 3 GT of CO2/year, but that was admittedly a figure provided by somebody arguing against man-made global warming. The 7 GT amount comes from sources advocating for a human cause. The truth--as always it seems--is likely somewhere in between, but for the sake of argument, we'll go with the higher figure.) Now on a human scale this may seem like a lot, but when we take into consideration that there exists between 750-830 GT of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere at any one time, making the range of fluctuation as much as 80 GT, humanity's contribution is hardly worth mentioning. Heck, our CO2 emissions are positively dwarfed by the 210 GT of CO2 emitted every year by the planet's own land and oceans.

Therefore, given that CO2 makes up only about 2% of all the GHG in the atmosphere, and that all of mankind contributes less than 1% of even that, let's face it, we're not the culprits in all this. Just as we weren't to blame for any of the Earth's past warming periods.

A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).

Well, your 1.5°F claim seems a bit on the high side. The consistent figure I've come across--and this has been from sources on both sides of the debate--pegs the rise at about 0.6°C, which translates into about 1°F. But I'll agree not to quibble over half a degree if you will. Nevertheless, big hairy deal! The majority of this rise in average temperature occurred during the first half of the 20th-century, prior to the massive explosion of industrialization which took place after World War 2. There was then a slight general cooling trend up until the mid-1970s, and since then it's been warming up slighty again. This is exactly the opposite of what we expect would have happened were man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming.

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

In reality, research strongly suggests that elevations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually FOLLOWS a period of general warming. In fact, the Vostok ice core samples Al Gore uses (or rather, abuses) in his film indicate this exact pattern. Although it must be admitted by both sides of this debate that the resolution from this data is not solid enough to afford certainty, nonetheless, this interpretation does make better sense. This is because the oceans, which hold about 50 times more CO2 and about 500 times more heat than the atmosphere, can absorb CO2 better when they're colder. Thus, when it warms, they release CO2 into the air.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

Which results in greater cloud formation which, in turn, cools the planet.

But even aside from that, this is yet another misrepresentation from the global warming alarmists. In mathematical terms, the CO2-greenhouse effect relation is logarithmic, not linear. That is, each molecule has less of a greenhouse impact than the molecule that preceded it. A doubling of the amount of CO2 in the air has the same effect as the previous doubling. In short, even global warming theory holds that humanity's emissions are insufficient to have caused the 1°C warming since the Little Ice Age ended.