We may not be smart enough but a lot of research has go into this subject. And some of it flies directly in the face of what the message has been over the last decade.

 

 

The message over the last decade has been that there are two distinct beliefs and both have "proof" that their belief is correct and "evidence" that the other side's belief is filled with inaccuracies.

 

There has not been "one message."

Clyde I agree that most or all people on here probably don't know much about the subject. My question however is why are the scientists who are supposed to know manipulating data? Why is it that mostly people who will profit from these crazy taxes and green industries at the forefront of the global warming will destroy the earth debate? Also, why are all the scientists resgining if they did nothing wrong?

Why don't we all pull a Jim Jones...Let's all drink cyanide and then at least the earth will survive forever. What a bunch of hogwash. The United States does and always will do more for the environment than any other country.

 

This planet was created for us by GOD. HE will be the one that decides when it's not fit for us to live on. That's my opinion, I hope you make it yours.

Since I haven't had an opportunity to really look into this, I can't comment yet. But, hacking into computers and e-mails is pretty obvious.

 

I'm just pointing out that what people perceive as "wrong" seems to be skewed depending upon what truth they're seeking.

 

True, or what truth they're avoiding.

Clyde I agree that most or all people on here probably don't know much about the subject. My question however is why are the scientists who are supposed to know manipulating data? Why is it that mostly people who will profit from these crazy taxes and green industries at the forefront of the global warming will destroy the earth debate? Also, why are all the scientists resgining if they did nothing wrong?

 

All very good questions.

Clyde I agree that most or all people on here probably don't know much about the subject. My question however is why are the scientists who are supposed to know manipulating data? Why is it that mostly people who will profit from these crazy taxes and green industries at the forefront of the global warming will destroy the earth debate? Also, why are all the scientists resgining if they did nothing wrong?

 

I didn't go back and re-read the thread but I don't recall the "manipulating data" part.

 

As I mentioned, the part where someone asked that the emails be deleted was what jumped out at me. Maybe that's why there are defections.

I didn't go back and re-read the thread but I don't recall the "manipulating data" part.

 

As I mentioned, the part where someone asked that the emails be deleted was what jumped out at me. Maybe that's why there are defections.

 

Again, I'm no expert, but it is kind of a big deal to me that the people responsible for the doom and gloom talk. The very reason there is a huge meeting in Denmark about the climate could be b/c scientists didn't let people see the real data. So all of these world leaders are getting on their private jets to talk about global warming all the while the globe is cooling. President Obama and his cap and trade plan could have passed b/c of this data and that isn't an issue?

 

 

As far as the expert thing goes. I'm not an expert on much, does that mean my opinion doesn't count?

Again, I'm no expert, but it is kind of a big deal to me that the people responsible for the doom and gloom talk. The very reason there is a huge meeting in Denmark about the climate could be b/c scientists didn't let people see the real data. So all of these world leaders are getting on their private jets to talk about global warming all the while the globe is cooling. President Obama and his cap and trade plan could have passed b/c of this data and that isn't an issue?

 

 

As far as the expert thing goes. I'm not an expert on much, does that mean my opinion doesn't count?

 

Your opinion is no different than mine on this subject. Its probably not very sound because we're not scientists and there's so much conflicting data.

 

What specifically in this latest report has you convinced that there is some hanky panky going on?

Your opinion is no different than mine on this subject. Its probably not very sound because we're not scientists and there's so much conflicting data.

 

What specifically in this latest report has you convinced that there is some hanky panky going on?

 

I've always believed it was a crock. It isn't as much the reports as it is people resigning. If there was nothing going on why hide anything? Why quit? I don't believe it's God's plan or man made. I just think the earth cools and heats b/c that's the way it is. I have a suspicion these scientists wanted somthing done so quickly to make a profit and to claim they were right when it started to naturally cool.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

 

Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

 

...

 

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

 

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing

 

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco.

 

Thanks Jane... To the contrary, I find it irresponsible to claim that there is a consensus that climate change is "largely the result of human activity". Interesting that 98% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere would occur even if humans were not on the earth. Yet that extra 1.8+% that humans contribute is "largely" the cause for climate change... I can agree that it may be a factor (a very small factor), but I am sorry there are hundreds if not thousands of variables in this equation and to attempt to pin it on one is not good science. I think the Earth will continue to warm and cool like it has for millions of years.

Edited December 3, 200916 yr by Gunner11

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing

 

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco.

 

Thanks Jane... To the contrary, I find it irresponsible to claim that there is a consensus that climate change is "largely the result of human activity". Interesting that 98% of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere would occur even if humans were not on the Earth. Yet that extra 1.8+% that humans contribute is "largely" the cause for climate change... I can agree that it may be a factor (a very small factor), but I am sorry there are hundreds if not thousands of variables in this equation and to attempt to pin it on one is not good science. I think the Earth will continue to warm and cool like it has for millions of years.

 

To be fair, you felt this way before this situation. It's not like this situation caused you to change your mind.

To be fair, you felt this way before this situation. It's not like this situation caused you to change your mind.

 

True! It has reinforced my belief that these scientists that are positing humans as largely the cause for climate change are letting their politics get in the way of their research. They are attempting to make the data fit that conclusion and introduce their own bias to the data set.

To be fair, you felt this way before this situation. It's not like this situation caused you to change your mind.

 

Do you believe that humans are "largely" the cause for earth warming?

Do you believe that humans are "largely" the cause for earth warming?

 

 

I do feel strongly that human activity with regards to industrialization and automation have harmed the Earth through depletion of the ozone, deforestation, the extraordinary "rape" of minerals and ores, and urbanization. I believe that from a logical, philosophical sense. There is evidence of the harm that these activities have.

 

This isn't a new philosophy for me. I've believed this way since I was a small child. I've seen the effects for myself. I believe in stewardship of the Earth for the benefit of future generations.