Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's just say Mr. Gore is right. (Which I personally do not believe he is)
Would someone please tell me how we are going to stop China from building
one coal refienry every day (recently reported) when they could care less
about this issue. And please don't give me the standard "establish a dialogue"
crap. Fact is they will just keep building them while the rest of the world runs around
like chicken little squandering resources to prevent global warming. Anyone knows
that the CO2 from China's coal refineries will be scattered by the winds throughout
the "Planet in Peril." while China sits back and continues to pollute the world. And they
have only just begun as their stated aim is to totally industrialize their nation. When
your country's population is faced with freezing to death in the winter global warming
is a moot issue.
Let's just say Mr. Gore is right. (Which I personally do not believe he is)
Would someone please tell me how we are going to stop China from building
one coal refienry every day (recently reported) when they could care less
about this issue. And please don't give me the standard "establish a dialogue"
crap. Fact is they will just keep building them while the rest of the world runs around
like chicken little squandering resources to prevent global warming. Anyone knows
that the CO2 from China's coal refineries will be scattered by the winds throughout
the "Planet in Peril." while China sits back and continues to pollute the world. And they
have only just begun as their stated aim is to totally industrialize their nation. When
your country's population is faced with freezing to death in the winter global warming
is a moot issue.
i am curious what you think is wrong with "mr. gore"'s belief in global warming. for example, there are few, if any, really fatal arguments with what he presents, and his arguments agree with what volumes of evidence suggest. i agree freezing to death may make global warming seem moot, but then, how about when, as things warm, you have a military or economic power knocking on your door to take what you now have and that power has lost, for example?
I have a feeling GW (global warming) is being blown out of proportion when I see commericals that say, "Global warming is not a choice."
Or when CNN (I think it was CNN) had a show called, "The Planet In Peril" without a question mark, meaning they are saying that the planet is definitely in peril.
And when Al Gore's GW "documentary" has one error after another.
As for hurricanes, I'll repeat: There were more category 4 and 5 hurricanes from 1900-1950 than there were from 1950-2000.
1 error after another? what errors do you speak of?
i agree it can be wise to make up your own mind rather than listen to sound bytes. in reading through this thread, in reading through the IPCC (and other statements concerning warming), in thinking in terms of common sense (when it comes to how some of the physics work), it can seem hard to deny that anthropogenic warming is real, can't it? if not, i wonder what your arguments are.
as for hurricanes, i'll repeat, as well: where does your information come from? what sources can you cite? have you read things such as the following (and sources cited therein)? Global Warming and Hurricanes (http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html - broken link)
i am curious what you think is wrong with "mr. gore"'s belief in global warming. for example, there are few, if any, really fatal arguments with what he presents, and his arguments agree with what volumes of evidence suggest. i agree freezing to death may make global warming seem moot, but then, how about when, as things warm, you have a military or economic power knocking on your door to take what you now have and that power has lost, for example?
Volumes of evidence suggest otherwise, also. I guess statistics don't lie,
but most staticians are liars as the saying goes. Goreites says the planet is hotter but forget to mention that so is the sun which makes us hotter. Also
forgotten is the mini- ice age of 150 years which ended in the 1950's. Then
all the experts said we were going to have an Ice Age. What is valid is that all
the experts continue to get proven wrong by mother nature who just won't do
what we geniuses say it will do. (Ie. the ozone scare which turned out to be wrong)
Did you mean that the economic power that will be knocking on our
door is China after we bankrupt our economy funneling trillions into
the Koyoto Treaty, while they sock their money away using coal refineries
and not having to pay Koyoto carbon credits or relying on fossil fuel anymore.
You still did not answer my question about what can we do about China's pollution.
i agree it can be wise to make up your own mind rather than listen to sound bytes. in reading through this thread, in reading through the IPCC (and other statements concerning warming), in thinking in terms of common sense (when it comes to how some of the physics work), it can seem hard to deny that anthropogenic warming is real, can't it? if not, i wonder what your arguments are.
Don't believe everything you read from the IPCC. The organization works for the United Nations. And its scientists are known for tossing out data which contradicts the global warming "religion."
Quote:
as for hurricanes, i'll repeat, as well: where does your information come from? what sources can you cite? have you read things such as the following (and sources cited therein)? Global Warming and Hurricanes (http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html - broken link)
The hurricane info was in print shortly after hurricane Katrina. Did you miss it?
Volumes of evidence suggest otherwise, also. I guess statistics don't lie,
but most staticians are liars as the saying goes. Goreites says the planet is hotter but forget to mention that so is the sun which makes us hotter. Also
forgotten is the mini- ice age of 150 years which ended in the 1950's. Then
all the experts said we were going to have an Ice Age. What is valid is that all
the experts continue to get proven wrong by mother nature who just won't do
what we geniuses say it will do. (Ie. the ozone scare which turned out to be wrong)
Did you mean that the economic power that will be knocking on our
door is China after we bankrupt our economy funneling trillions into
the Koyoto Treaty, while they sock their money away using coal refineries
and not having to pay Koyoto carbon credits or relying on fossil fuel anymore.
You still did not answer my question about what can we do about China's pollution.
where are your sources? please link them.
re the "sun is hotter" (and other "attributions"), here are some references that indicates that yes, the sun and other factors might play some role, though greenhouse gases must be invoked to account for warming (according to these studies):
re china, yes that is a significant issue among others. one thing that might help is to ratify the kyoto treaty rather than contribute to the "go it alone" mentality more than we already do. much like how the iraq and afghan wars were popular a few years ago while the evidence now has tipped the scale toward resistance even from former supporters, or like many international examples over the last century show that international collaboration can influence a society's direction, some concensus can sway, no?
Don't believe everything you read from the IPCC. The organization works for the United Nations. And its scientists are known for tossing out data which contradicts the global warming "religion."
The hurricane info was in print shortly after hurricane Katrina. Did you miss it?
many of the points in the "inconvenient truths" link you provide appear to be incorrect or massaged interpretation (and misquotes?). look back through this thread to see the evidence, e.g.. also, the links often provide no sources for their claims (e.g., that glacial melt has nothing to do with hydrocarbon burning, etc.). not to mention, many of them simply pick bones with some numbers without disproving the basic points (e.g., sea level will likely rise significantly; CO2 CAN and DOES result in warming whether or not there are episodes where warming can and does result in CO2 rise, etc.).
the IPCC is one of many reports from many different organizations that look into climatology. and, the IPCC is composed of many scientists working under many umbrellas. your links are from individual institutes - do you know where their money comes from?
as for the tropical cyclone point, what are you trying to get at? the work was done well before katrina (the receipt dates are printed with the articles - did you miss it?), and so what if it even WAS done after (which it was not - the peer review process takes time before eventual publication), so what? the data and reasoning say what they say either way.
the scientists are "known for tossing out data"? which scientists? which data? all of them? all of it? any of them? any of it? please provide some credible sources.
Last edited by hello-world; 11-26-2007 at 01:35 PM..
LOL... hey Dinosaurs must have driven big SUVs and had big factories, because the Earth was hundres of times warmer and wetter back in their days.
In the 1970s, they thought the Earth was going to freeze up. Now it is warm up. Wait a few years and it will be cool down again.
But as Gore presents it, no matter what happens (warming or cooling), it will be men's fault and only Al Gore is exempt from making it worse!!
hundreds of times warmer and wetter? i'd like to see your source for this.
look back through the thread to see arguments addressing some of your other points. e.g., how many lines of evidence point to some peculiarities re the data pertaining to recent climate change, and re how far we've come in our understanding of climatology since the 70s (aided by computinig technology, observation technology, paleological capability, etc.) and that, in fact, a warming can result in a later cooling (via ocean circulation changes due, e.g., to melt/ocean water density differences).
i am just curious; why deny with what appears to be empty nay saying in the face of mountains of evidence? if it's cash you're worried about, is it possible you could get creative and make some money on what appears to be the imminent scenario rather than doggedly gripping what appears to be empty denial? could your kids and grandkids appreciate it to boot, rather than footing the pain and the bill?
Last edited by hello-world; 11-26-2007 at 02:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but i will post links here as i come across them...
