Folks, let’s try to stick to the topic of this thread…

 

Although we’re told this is a scientific issue, and I know that scientists are busy studying it, I really don’t think it requires a PhD to comprehend or interpret some of the more obvious points of this debate.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the global average surface temperature increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the twentieth century.

 

According to this same august body, half of all global warming in the past century occurred between 1900 and 1945. If the burning of fossil fuels by humans was responsible for global warming, it would stand to reason that more warming would occur in the second half of the century when we burned far more fossil fuels than we did in the first half of the century. This did not happen.

 

More CO2 in the atmosphere actually helps plants grow, growing plants produce more oxygen. We humans like to breathe oxygen, and for the record, it only takes a four square foot area of grass to produce the oxygen necessary for one adult human to survive. Warmer winters allow crops to grow longer.

 

Serious concerns and a little panic about global warming pay huge dividends for those in the global warming research arena. Scientists and researchers simply stating the truth that global warming is merely the result of the planet going through it’s natural cycles and has very little if anything to do with the activities of man would not only be boring, but it provides no job security.

 

I do think we need to be good stewards of our environment, and should reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions much as reasonably possible, but it must also be acknowledged that it pays certain individuals to keep average folks concerned.

... Serious concerns and a little panic about global warming pay huge dividends for those in the global warming research arena. Scientists and researchers simply stating the truth that global warming is merely the result of the planet going through it’s natural cycles and has very little if anything to do with the activities of man would not only be boring, but it provides no job security. [/Quote] As much as it pains me to do so, I will have to concede this point to Fastbreak. By the same token, I'm also certain that a good many of the scientists that study global warming and are sounding the alarms are doing so from a position of personal concern over what their data tells them.

 

 

I do think we need to be good stewards of our environment, and should reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions much as reasonably possible...

Twice in one post ... Either I'm slowly turning into a conservative, or Fastbreak is beginning to morph into a Greenpeace supporter. I wonder if the temperature in Hades is dropping?

 

 

Frances

I think this is one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the debate over global warming. Both sides have scientists that give opinions, and we each quote those that support our views.

Very good point Frances, I couldn't agree more!

 

We need to identify a group of scientists that we can agree are unbiased, then give them the time to study it, and listen to what they have to say.

Again, very good point. However, I don't see this happening, sadly. With the existing political atmosphere that seems to have no end in site, both sides of the aisle will be at each others throat for a long time to come. Guy's like Al Gore making films like "An Inconvenient Truth" are just one reason why, and it isn't just Gore, there are guys on the Conservative side of the aisle as guilty and as bad.

As much as it pains me to do so, I will have to concede this point to Fastbreak. By the same token, I'm also certain that a good many of the scientists that study global warming and are sounding the alarms are doing so from a position of personal concern over what their data tells them.

I’m not going to argue that. The motives of “pro-warming” scientists are not the most significant issue here. From what reading and research I have done, I am convinced that there are far more scientists who interpret the evidence to conclude that although a certain amount of warming may indeed be occurring, it is inconclusive or even highly doubtful that human activities are to blame. Because this interpretation of the data isn’t as sexy and as alarming as those who say we’re all gonna fry and drown, it doesn’t get the media coverage the alarmists receive.

 

Is Al Gore truly Chicken Little?

 

Chicken Little was naïve, innocent and free from personally benefiting motives.

 

At best, Al Gore may be naïve.

 

Twice in one post ... Either I'm slowly turning into a conservative, or Fastbreak is beginning to morph into a Greenpeace supporter.

Regardless of the long term ramifications on the earth and environment, it makes no sense to foul our own nest for the here and now.

 

Being raised along the Ohio River, I recall the toxic mess the river had become 35 years ago. Left unchecked, we’d be looking at a dead river, or hooking glow-in-the-dark three-eyed mutants by now.

 

I love to eat fish. I would prefer it without mercury, and dozens of other industrial pollutants. They tell me it’s safe to eat fish from the river now, but I can’t get my mind past the greasy, smelly river of my youth. I would only eat Ohio River fish out of desperation.

 

Oh yeah… and, “Save the Whales.” :thumb:

RTS -

 

You are exactly right. When we watch the talking heads on TV, too few of us take the time to digest the issues that are on the table. It is far easier for us to simply swallow the vitriol they spew without chewing.

 

This is exactly why the use of gross generalizations should be avoided like the plague, and those that incessantly use obfuscation to feed the hatred and ignorance should be ignored. You are also spot on, when you say that both sides of the aisle are guilty of this tactic.

 

I've seen Al Sharpton make some of the most outrageous statements imaginable, while relying on emotional ploys to rally support for trumped up causes.

 

On the other hand, I look at Ann Coulter, and see a person that uses the exact same tactic for the sole purpose of driving a wedge between people to prevent intellectual debate.

 

The saddest part of the entire affair is that a significant portion of our population is either incapable of seeing these shills for what they are, or they are willing to embrace the garbage rather than try to find some common ground from which we can work together.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, or seeing an issue from opposite sides. In fact, that is actually one of the greatest strengths of our country. The shame of it is that the people that are screaming the loudest are the ones that are not intelligent enough to place value on the process of reaching a compromise. Too many of those with a microphone or an ink pen now have a "win at all costs" attitude.

 

We are all the poorer for it.

 

 

Frances

RTS -

 

You are exactly right. When we watch the talking heads on TV, too few of us take the time to digest the issues that are on the table. It is far easier for us to simply swallow the vitriol they spew without chewing.

 

This is exactly why the use of gross generalizations should be avoided like the plague, and those that incessantly use obfuscation to feed the hatred and ignorance should be ignored. You are also spot on, when you say that both sides of the aisle are guilty of this tactic.

 

I've seen Al Sharpton make some of the most outrageous statements imaginable, while relying on emotional ploys to rally support for trumped up causes.

 

On the other hand, I look at Ann Coulter, and see a person that uses the exact same tactic for the sole purpose of driving a wedge between people to prevent intellectual debate.

 

The saddest part of the entire affair is that a significant portion of our population is either incapable of seeing these shills for what they are, or they are willing to embrace the garbage rather than try to find some common ground from which we can work together.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, or seeing an issue from opposite sides. In fact, that is actually one of the greatest strengths of our country. The shame of it is that the people that are screaming the loudest are the ones that are not intelligent enough to place value on the process of reaching a compromise. Too many of those with a microphone or an ink pen now have a "win at all costs" attitude.

 

We are all the poorer for it.

 

 

Frances

:eek:

Once again, we are in agreement, what are people going to think? :lol: While I tend to agree more with Fastbreak's points on global warming than yours, JS's or some of the others on here, I respect all of your opinions and I do very much agree that we'd all be a lot better off if we could work more together to come to an agreed notion of what is really happening and what the culprits are. I'm very willing to listen to the opposing side of what my arguments are, as long as I don't feel I'm being preached to, which I haven't felt that I have been much in this thread.

For me, Gore is one of those that I have little respect for as I feel he has other motives for his film and his rants. It's hard for me to be willing to keep an open mind when Gore is the source, I hope you and the rest in this thread can understand that. It would be like you giving Ann Coulter much credence to her opinions on the subject.

RTS -

 

I fully understand your bias. We ALL suffer from that disease. The good news is that at least we recognize it. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

Being raised along the Ohio River, I recall the toxic mess the river had become 35 years ago. Left unchecked, we’d be looking at a dead river, or hooking glow-in-the-dark three-eyed mutants by now.

Whatcha talkin bout Fastbreak?

Whatcha talkin bout Fastbreak?

 

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I'm leaving today on a fishing trip with a buddy from high school and his family. I haven't fished in about 2 years. I searched through my garage and finally found my fishing pole and tackle box. I opened the tackle box to find only 1 lure and a box of hooks. That was it!!!! The pole has no line on it. Also, I have never cleaned a fish in my life (and I grew up on the lake). The family I am going with is HARD CORE when it comes to fishing. I'm not going to fit in very well am I? Good thing I'm taking a ton of beer with me I suppose.

LOL - sounds like you'll fit in just fine ...

 

 

Frances

Well -

 

Here we go. Let's see how those activist judges handle this little baby:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554243/

 

 

Forlornly,

Frances

Well -

 

Here we go. Let's see how those activist judges handle this little baby:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554243/

 

 

Forlornly,

Frances

Can't the 12 states regulate the CO2 in their own jurisdiction?

I am coming into this discussin obviously very late, but I have a question. If this is the hottest his planet has been in 400 years, why was it hotter 400 years ago when all of factories, cars, etc did not exist. It seems that flies somewhat in the face of the argument.

The truth is that there is quite a bit that flies in the face of the argument for global warming. That is why it's still an open question.

 

The trick is, "how open is it"?

 

 

Frances

I am coming into this discussin obviously very late, but I have a question. If this is the hottest his planet has been in 400 years, why was it hotter 400 years ago when all of factories, cars, etc did not exist. It seems that flies somewhat in the face of the argument.

Do you think you could come to a conclusion on the weather 400 years ago across the world if no one was keeping track and passing along the info???