More evidence that Al Gore's theory of anthropogenic global warming may be nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Has anybody else noticed the sudden drop in the number of global warming stories since sunspot activity decreased sharply and global temperatures have dropped?

 

I believe that this is one major issue on which Sarah Palin recognized the simple truth. McCain, Obama, and Biden would throw taxpayer dollars at remedies for a problem that increasingly appears to be a product of liberals' collective imagination. I am inclined to give Al Gore full credit for inventing global warming.

 

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

By Rick C. Hodgin

Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55

 

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

If a moderator wants to move this post to the existing thread on global warming news, that would be fine with me. I forgot about the other thread when I created this one. Thanks.

Come on, you know how conservative those cats in Massachusetts are Hoot.

 

They clearly have an agenda to smear the liberals. I'd guess that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barney Frank, Ed Markey and that conservative crew are behind this.

Come on, you know how conservative those cats in Massachusetts are Hoot.

 

They clearly have an agenda to smear the liberals. I'd guess that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barney Frank, Ed Markey and that conservative crew are behind this.

 

Just partially behind it. They were totally invested in Barnie & Freddie and gave more time to that.:lol:

Bottom line is that none of know 100% for sure, but if the possibility of it does exist, which is true then why not attempt to stop it. This the only place we as humans have to live. I think spending some money on the environment and research is very much needed if not for anything else other than simple survival.

Bottom line is that none of know 100% for sure, but if the possibility of it does exist, which is true then why not attempt to stop it. This the only place we as humans have to live. I think spending some money on the environment and research is very much needed if not for anything else other than simple survival.

The thing is, no one is making it illegal to fight global warming through private means.

 

The idea of Al Gore being wrong on global warming does not upset me. However, two things do:

 

1) He automatically dismisses any other viewpoint, claiming a "consensus among scientists" when anyone brings up a contradictory point

 

2) His willingness to throw incredible amounts of tax dollars at it

The thing is, no one is making it illegal to fight global warming through private means.

 

The idea of Al Gore being wrong on global warming does not upset me. However, two things do:

 

1) He automatically dismisses any other viewpoint, claiming a "consensus among scientists" when anyone brings up a contradictory point

 

2) His willingness to throw incredible amounts of tax dollars at it

 

People dismiss that novel idea, instead of counting on the government, why don't I actually do something about it.

 

As far as your statements on Al Gore.

 

1. He has way to much of his own money and pride invested to do anything else. I can't fault him for wanting to see his monetary investments do well. Though, I tend to believe that is where his heart really lies.

 

2. Agreed.

Regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, (and I do feel that certain environmental damage has been caused due to industrialization) it is irresponisble of us, as inhabitants of the earth, to not see that our actions affect the physical world around us. It is unfair of us to take the "if its not broke don't fix it" idealogy. We should be willing to take personal and social responsibility of the world around us, regardless of the evidence of global warming- there are countless other environmental detriments that are a direct result of our irresponsible actions.

Bottom line is that none of know 100% for sure, but if the possibility of it does exist, which is true then why not attempt to stop it. This the only place we as humans have to live. I think spending some money on the environment and research is very much needed if not for anything else other than simple survival.

 

I haven't agreed with many of your posts in the P&R forum, but I agree with you here.

Regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, (and I do feel that certain environmental damage has been caused due to industrialization) it is irresponisble of us, as inhabitants of the earth, to not see that our actions affect the physical world around us. It is unfair of us to take the "if its not broke don't fix it" idealogy. We should be willing to take personal and social responsibility of the world around us, regardless of the evidence of global warming- there are countless other environmental detriments that are a direct result of our irresponsible actions.

 

:thumb:

Regardless of whether or not global warming is occuring, (and I do feel that certain environmental damage has been caused due to industrialization) it is irresponisble of us, as inhabitants of the earth, to not see that our actions affect the physical world around us. It is unfair of us to take the "if its not broke don't fix it" idealogy. We should be willing to take personal and social responsibility of the world around us, regardless of the evidence of global warming- there are countless other environmental detriments that are a direct result of our irresponsible actions.

What if, in fact, the world's climate is entering a cooling phase or even a new ice age and we "fix it" on the mistaken assumption that global warming is occurring? Should our objective be to prevent the cyclical climate changes that have been occurring since millions of years before man's appearance on this planet? Is the current climate the right one or does it need to be a little warmer or cooler?

I dont think that our goal should be to "cool" or "warm" the world. Our goal should be to limit our lasting effect on the earth so that the earth can continue with its natural cycle or way of working. We don't understand the earth well enough and haven't been a part of it for long enough to understand these cyclical heating and cooling stages of the earth and how we fit into that equation, but we do have the ability to limit our affect on them. My stance is not one of political interest or anything related to that, but merely, in my opinion, a common sense approach to how we interact with the world we live in. In my opinion, God, in some way, created the earth that we live in and we should be gracious enough to be responsible participants in its care.

I dont think that our goal should be to "cool" or "warm" the world. Our goal should be to limit our lasting effect on the earth so that the earth can continue with its natural cycle or way of working. We don't understand the earth well enough and haven't been a part of it for long enough to understand these cyclical heating and cooling stages of the earth and how we fit into that equation, but we do have the ability to limit our affect on them. My stance is not one of political interest or anything related to that, but merely, in my opinion, a common sense approach to how we interact with the world we live in. In my opinion, God, in some way, created the earth that we live in and we should be gracious enough to be responsible participants in its care.

We are part of earth's environment just as much as every other animal, plant, and inanimate object is a part. It is clear that scientists do not understand what, if any, impact human activities have on our climate. If we do not know whether we are changing the climate, then taking remedial actions to mitigate our effect would be nonsensical, as the remedial actions could have a negative impact on the climate.

 

I agree that humans should strive to minimize their impact on our atmosphere by limiting the pollutants that are spewed into the atmosphere and into our streams and oceans but I see that as a separate issue from climate change mitigation, such as the goofy proposals that have made Al Gore the extremely wealthy, albeit clownish, man that he is today.

I dont think that our goal should be to "cool" or "warm" the world. Our goal should be to limit our lasting effect on the earth so that the earth can continue with its natural cycle or way of working. We don't understand the earth well enough and haven't been a part of it for long enough to understand these cyclical heating and cooling stages of the earth and how we fit into that equation, but we do have the ability to limit our affect on them. My stance is not one of political interest or anything related to that, but merely, in my opinion, a common sense approach to how we interact with the world we live in. In my opinion, God, in some way, created the earth that we live in and we should be gracious enough to be responsible participants in its care.

I agree with you- we humans should take care of the earth, but I will be against the ridiculous proposals that guys like Gore wants to enact.

What proposals and remedial actions would have a negative impact? I don't understand how striving to use less in general, seeking alternative and sustainable forms of energy, and doing our part to conserve the resources we do use through recycling and other techniques could have a negative impact on the environment.