"Gore and 'Green' Goonies" - Harvard Paper Debunks Global Warming

[mhouse2001]

If global warming's poster child was someone else, would you naysayers even consider its merits? Everyone seems to be judging the cart before the horse (forgive me if the expression is actually different from that, I have bad hearing!).

What difference does it make who the messenger is? Why do we tend to ignore the truth when it comes from someone we don't like and believe the lies told to us by people we DO like? Educated and intelligent people are better able to discern reality for themselves and not be swayed by foolish ignorance. That being said, I'd trust the scientists who've found a voice through Gore over any bunch of unqualified conservatives with an ax to grind.

And as a followup to my reference to the apparent insignificance of human actions like tossing cigarettes, etc., I believe people who regard the planet and the environment as insignificant do so precisely because they view themselves in the same light. Only insignificant people do insignificant things. When every action takes on a level of importance and that importance reaches the conscious mind, then a human being is truly on the way to enlightenment and wisdom. The time for sleeping while the planet crumbles around us must come to an end.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

The Harvard article is an opinion piece that doesn't debunk anything. And as for the other link, I am highly suspicious of the John Coleman article. I've seen him in action in both Chicago and San Diego as a TV meteorologist for many years. The writing style is nothing like his personality and the misspellings (a pet peeve of mine that utterly diminishes any web page's believability) make it suspicious.

I do know that energy companies hired people to contradict any evidence that human actions (especially those related to energy usage) would have any effect on the long-term environment, global warming in particular. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that these companies with all their power and money are afraid of a rag tag group of loosely organized scientists? In any situation, you gotta put your money on the ones WITHOUT all the lawyers, spin doctors, and moolah. If enough scientists are finding things out independently and then discovering trends quite by accident, I'd much rather side with their view of things than ever trust my future or my children's future on the misinformation paid for by some trillionaire oil barons.

Whatever the outcome, human beings are the worst thing that's ever happened to this planet. Without serious changes, Earth's viability will terminate. But, if you don't believe you have any impact at all on the environment and the sky can't possibly fall, go ahead, throw another cigarette into the street, or another plastic cup into the trash. It's all meaningless, right?

Agree. Who cares who the messenger is, and what politician doesnt live a lavish lifestyle, when compared to others?.

People talk about hypocrisy, I dont see Gore calling himself a man appointed by God, or other such delusional statements, as one may hear from the likes of a Jerry Fallwell or Jim Bakker. Hypocrisy is at its worst in religion, IMO.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

That being said, I'd trust the scientists who've found a voice through Gore over any bunch of unqualified conservatives with an ax to grind.

I'd trust the scientist more than I would Gore because he has a way of exagerrating the facts that does not go along with the very scientists he seems so fond of. At one point the IPCC was made up of the most brilliant scientists on the planet according to Gore and the media. Recently one came out to reject sharing in the Nobel prize because he did not feel that the work of the scientist in the IPCC has been represented in truth, but instead exagerration.
My Nobel Moment - WSJ.com

Guess what? Now suddenly he's no longer credible according to Gore, because he's not part of the "consensus" that Gore and the media DEMAND that everyone believe.

The bottom line is, the best we can do is make moves to reduce REAL pollution, you know, the ones that cause respiratory diseases and increase a wide number of other health risk categories. OR, we can try our best to reduce CO2, which is beneficial to plant life on earth, in hopes that we can slow down the temperature rise on earth, even though most scientists including the IPCC admit our impact even with the most stringent controls on CO2 would at best produce a very slight difference in temperature increase.

I prefer to face the real pollutants instead of having nightmares about the CO2 monster hiding in the closet waiting to kill me and the rest of the planet.

[ontheroad]

One of the most serious challenges with an issue like global warming is that its predictability will only be known when and if it occurs. So, I'd rather be safe than sorry on this issue.

And, in science like other disciplines, it is nearly impossible to get a room full of researchers on any subject to agree: it is all about theory or conjecture...that is, until it can be reproduced.

Now how would we reproduce global warming?

[karachie]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

The Harvard article is an opinion piece that doesn't debunk anything. And as for the other link, I am highly suspicious of the John Coleman article. I've seen him in action in both Chicago and San Diego as a TV meteorologist for many years. The writing style is nothing like his personality and the misspellings (a pet peeve of mine that utterly diminishes any web page's believability) make it suspicious.

I do know that energy companies hired people to contradict any evidence that human actions (especially those related to energy usage) would have any effect on the long-term environment, global warming in particular. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that these companies with all their power and money are afraid of a rag tag group of loosely organized scientists? In any situation, you gotta put your money on the ones WITHOUT all the lawyers, spin doctors, and moolah. If enough scientists are finding things out independently and then discovering trends quite by accident, I'd much rather side with their view of things than ever trust my future or my children's future on the misinformation paid for by some trillionaire oil barons.

Whatever the outcome, human beings are the worst thing that's ever happened to this planet. Without serious changes, Earth's viability will terminate. But, if you don't believe you have any impact at all on the environment and the sky can't possibly fall, go ahead, throw another cigarette into the street, or another plastic cup into the trash. It's all meaningless, right?

"human beings are the worst thing that's ever happened to this planet"- whoa, a misanthrope ,'mhouse2001',you must of course ,hate yourself also.I find this projection of humanity hating common in so called conservationists , "kind mother nature - bad,bad humans ", don't worry we only copy nature in the small scale - just one of her volcanic eruptions can emit more pollutants than man has since he first harnessed fire.e.g krakotoa , its conceited and grandiose to attribute man such influence. Our mark on earth is small and transitory,the earth cleanses itself of its own toxic waste and ours is small in comparison , over 4billion years the earth has existed , she has been massively bombarded by asteroids, had a total reversal of the magnetic poles, bore millions of toxic spewing volcano's, ice ages , massive solar storms,had massive shifts of the continents ,earthquakes and we think she is ,oh so delicate !She forms
and tears down mountain ranges , for Gods sake ! Volcanic vents undersea spew tons of heavy metal every day- she can handle it all .Our CO2 emissions don't do a damn - Ice core sampling shows CO2 rises because of global warming not vice versa. Biased findings are more likely to come from scientists in the "climate change field" than "big oil" cause that's where the research bucks are.Computer modelling is no proof, and do you know that most modelling never includes water vapour,clouding or precipitation? It still cant be predicted, we don't know enough to, yet water in the atmosphere is the major planetary governor of temperature and what creates the current "greenhouse"that sustains most life, and yet it takes no part in modelling , a bit like a car without engine,drive chain,wheels and cup holder- don't fear, there is an industry out there that thrives on it .p.s ,did you know that Al [the thinking man's idiot]Gore is a South American oil baron ?

[ottomobeale]

I hope its REALLY cold the next 10 winters in Europe... except then they would switch back to man causing global cooling.