whats your opinion on Global Warming...

[slurp812]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Hello -

Good thread. From what I have read, the current media model for Global Warming is the same as the media model for smoking and cancer. Create doubt and plausible deniability for as long as you can. In peer-reviewed scientific journals, the only debate is the extent of global warming, not whether or not it is happening. On the other hand, in the conventional media that you and I consume, the argument is maybe 50/50 as to whether or not it is happening.

Based on my information, there really isn't any doubt. We're just in ostrich mode, which is pretty normal for people. We'll change when we have to, but not before.

CarloSW2

I totally agree. Iv seen sites that claim it isn't happening at all! I also don't think we are the sole cause of the climatic change, but more than likely a contributor. Politics loves oil, and global warming says its bad, hence the denial.

[rvanengen]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Actually, smog/ozone are unrelated to the global warming issue. Smog is particulate matter, and not the stuff we call GHGs. Carbon emissions are not poisonous in the least, and don't really stick around the earth's surface. The ozone problem is actually the opposite of global warming (an oversimplification by a lot), because it is eliminating the stuff keeping uv out and heat in. If we got rid of the ozone, stuff would cool. So what's the issue with ozone? It lets too much bad stuff in, and a depleted ozone would cause cancer rates to soar.

This is why things like smog laws and the montreal protocol are so effective. You can breath smog and cough, see a hole in the ozone open up during certain days. Also, the things causing these issues are much easier to correct. Eliminating CFCs is easy compared to eliminating all fossil fuels.

I spend too much time on this site and not writing my papers,

Partially true. Pollution and Global Warming tend to go hand in hand. If we had completely clean use of petroleum and other GHG emitting fuels, it would be one sided...pure GW...However, some types of pollution actually help *reduce* the rate of global warming. This is because of the particulate and aerosols and you can do a quick search on global dimming.

For a quick read:
Cleaner air makes brighter skies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4520831.stm

Not sure that I would like to see more pollution to offset the increasing levels of GHG's...but it is an idea that has been proposed. I think the more serious proposals have been seeing the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures.

And just keep in mind that "dirty" power sources are a global problem, not only for GHG's:
China hit by rising air pollution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5241844.stm

[rvanengen]

sorry...hard to type with a 2 year old bouncing off you.. .:-)

"I think the more serious proposals have been seeing the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures."

should have been:

"I think the more serious proposals have been seeding the upper atmosphere to not only repair the ozone layer, but to also cause a drop in temperatures."

[bowtieguy]

i'm a GW agnostic, but this info is pretty compelling against the argument that mankind is mostly to blame.

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

doubtful that anyone could read this comprehensively and deduct that there is NO legitimate science aposing the movement.

[Mayhim]

Sure, the earth is warming. It'll warm more. Then it will cool. And then cool more.

I can't help but wonder about the tone of the conversation in the media as the next glaciers sweep down from the north and wipe clean everything down to the Nebraska latitudes. Who will get the blame for them?

[MiddleMike]

My opinion on it is that anytime I hear somebody say "the debate is over" and then force legislation on me at gun point, that usually indicates that the debate is not over and that somebody is trying to make a fast buck or gain power over me through chicanery.

Science is always about "debate". Even our soundest scientific theories can be challenged with new data. The debate is never over, otherwise it becomes dogma, the cornerstone of religion.

My opinion about the data present is uncertain. The numbers have been so twisted by both sides of the question that it is nearly impossible to arrive at any conclusions, especially for a lay person like myself and most people in the world. The entire subject became highly politicized extremely early and it is thus difficult to tell truth from fiction, even with numbers backing up whatever position. Additionally, given the huge heating and cooling cycles the planet has and will continue to go through, it seems to me that we're suffering from a form of collective narcissism combined with paranoia in the rush to essentially shut down all Western economies through massive legislation.

Simply put there is sooo much we don't know that it's nearly impossible to draw any conclusions at all about the topic. It may well be heating up, or not, but outside of that we know nothing from a hard data standpoint that cannot be refuted with other hard data.

The jury is still out in my view.

[jcp123]

I've seen it twice in National Geographic...there's a natural cycle to cooling and warming as we all know, and it seemed to be trending towards a slight natural warming again. It seems to me that it means that natural cycle is probably playing a major role in it. The jury's still out on if/how much we're exacerbating it.

[Sporkman]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[white90crxhf]

I want to stop real pollution and destruction of our environment. i don't 'believe' in global warming.

[lowbridescape]

1. Somebody with multiple mansions flies in a private jet around the world to address a group of 100 who could have been talked to by conference call how I personally have to give up my material possessions to SAVE THE WORLD.

I'll believe in Global Warming Crisis when the people who are crying about a Global Warming Crisis start acting like there is a Global Warming Crisis. moral: The messengers lack credibility.

2. I do computer modeling for a living. NONE of the global climate models that are the basis for ALL predictions of doom are have been validated by reality. The assumptions (and remember what your mother told you when you assume) are not supported by field research. Often, the reality is exactly the opposite of assumptions the Global Warming models were based on. They cannot predict past climates. Why should I believe their predictions of the future?

3. The Global Warming Crisis claims that the Earth's climate is spinning out of control. When was it ever under control? What is the standard for defining Earth's "normal" climate? The week they held Woodstock in 1969? For most of the Earth's history, it had NO ice caps. At some points in its history, it has been frozen over its entire surface. DO NOT tell me that the climate is "spinning out of control" until you can show me what the normal is supposed to be.

4. The Earth hasn't warmed up in 10 years despite the fact that the dreaded so-called GHG have been increasing. How long does it take to figure out that the Anthropogenic Global Warming predictions are completely and utterly wrong? Answer: Never. Predictions are always right when you start with the conclusion and torture or exclude the evidence to fit it.

5. The two goals of the Glowball Warmists hysterics always turns into acquiring power and money. Absolute total state control off EVERYTHING. Gee, could this be why the politicians are piling onto the bandwagon.

My opinion about Climate Change? Yes, it is. It always has. Just like tides, earthquakes and orbital mechanics, we're just along for the ride. Adapt or die.

I always thought socialism was the biggest hoax foisted on the Earth. I was wrong. The depressing thing is that even if the AGW hoax is put down, there will in all likelihood just be another behind it. There are just too many people willing to believe anything.