Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 181

Thread: The Real Reason For Global Warming!

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=beemer]Thank God I have a bunch of Jets fans to tell me that global warming isn't a real problem. All of those peer-reviewed scientific studies had me concerned, but the postings of a bunch of strangers on the Internet is a much more reliable basis for my decision.[/QUOTE]
    Yet the scientists who disavow global warming are "kooks"? Yes, they are out there, just never hear about them. The media is not interested.
    Surprised this hasn't been moved to they politics board yet.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=jetstream23]The problem is that there are just as many scientists saying this is a natural, benign process as there are scientists telling us to ban automobiles. It all depends on who you choose to listen to. And most people siding one-way typically have a certain political affiliation. For example, I don't know you obviously and you're citing scientists for your belief but I'd just hazard a wild guess that you're a Democrat! I have no idea but it's just a guess. If I turn out to be right it might lead me to believe that there is more than just "peer-reviewed science" behind your opinion.[/QUOTE]


    This is a fallacy, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that global warming is real, is dangerous, and needs to be dealt with. Its the lay press that stirs up the idea that it doesn't exist, with an assist from people who are financially motivated to keep doing what we are doing to the environment.

  3. #23
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    410
    [QUOTE=docdhc]This is a fallacy, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that global warming is real, is dangerous, and needs to be dealt with. Its the lay press that stirs up the idea that it doesn't exist, with an assist from people who are financially motivated to keep doing what we are doing to the environment.[/QUOTE]

    That's what they want you to belieave


    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle[/url]

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=jetstream23]Agree 100%. I support clean burning fuels, alt energy, and conservation I just hate when people have to invent a cause-effect in order to scare everyone about it. I mean I could say that at the rate we're killing trees and perpetuating deforestation the planet will not have enough trees to consume CO2 and create oxygen in 100 years...thus (drum roll please) start taxing the toilet paper companies IMMEDIATELY![/QUOTE]



    how about if we said something completely unintelligent ala "Global Warming hates our freedom and that's why it is occuring", is that kind of fear mongering ok?

  5. #25
    Maybe if the libs quit blowing hot air up everyone's butt we could be a couple of degrees cooler... :yes:

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]global warming has been actively taking place in just about every planet in our solar system.....google "global warming on mars" and see what you find...

    big sun....warmer planets....who woulda thunk it???[/QUOTE]
    That's because there's no Al Gore on those planets..Nothing like the Carbon Credit business Al has..The Limo Liberals get in their private planes and then buy stock in his company to erase their carbon footprints..Nice scam if you can do it.. :rolleyes:

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=beemer]Thank God I have a bunch of Jets fans to tell me that global warming isn't a real problem. All of those peer-reviewed scientific studies had me concerned, but the postings of a bunch of strangers on the Internet is a much more reliable basis for my decision.[/QUOTE]


    The ironic thing about your post is that there are virtually NONE saying what you claim they are saying. I don't believe for a second that anyone thinks that Global Warming isn't a real problem. The debate, if you have been paying attention, is what the CAUSE of it is. :rolleyes:

    I believe that there is a genuine concensus that we all need to work towards a greener planet with less emissions and more conservation.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,663
    Images
    142
    If, in the discussion of a poorly understood, highly complex system, somebody says, "We are 90% certain" or "The debate is over" or "The vast majority of scientists agree" or begin to characterize scientists who have legitimate questions about the science as "Deniers" ... you should be suspicious.

    The "consensus" often talked about relative to Global Warming is based on the IPCC (UN) reports. Some prominent, respected scientists have complained bitterly about their work being misrepresented by the IPCC. Scientists contribute to very narrow elements of the report, and then their names are associated with the entire report, and particularly the summary written by politicians, which goes too far in speculation, suggesting conclusions that outstrip the actual science. The UN is a political body. Politics is not exactly the most honest profession on the planet.

    Mainstream media then picks up the summary report, cherry picks the already-beyond-science suggestive language, and further enhances public perception that the situation is dire. Because, after all, it's easy to increase viewership/readership when doom is imminent.

    For those of you who are convinced Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and a dire threat to our future, I challenge you to examine some of the research, writings and views of the "deniers." Or of the scientists who simply feel that it is not a settled issue.

    You might be surprised by what you find.

    In high school science classes, I recall my teachers explaining that in order for a hypothesis to become accepted theory, a scientist must be able to, by experiment, consistently reproduce a result, having isolated and removed other variables that might cause the result and invalidate the hypothesis. That's basic science. I've read a ton of research on global warming. I haven't seen anything that resembles what was explained to me as being needed for "conclusive." In fact, I see quite the opposite.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=jetstream23]The problem is that there are just as many scientists saying this is a natural, benign process as there are scientists telling us to ban automobiles. It all depends on who you choose to listen to. And most people siding one-way typically have a certain political affiliation. For example, I don't know you obviously and you're citing scientists for your belief but I'd just hazard a wild guess that you're a Democrat! I have no idea but it's just a guess. If I turn out to be right it might lead me to believe that there is more than just "peer-reviewed science" behind your opinion.[/QUOTE]

    :clapper: :clapper: :clapper:

    no one is claiming the earth is not warming.....the entire solar system is warming....

    the first problem is when one challenges the eviro-kooks who claim man's way of life is the main cause of global warming they (the leftist enviro-kooks) automatically assume you are against things such as conservation, that you are pro-pollution, etc....

    the second problem is the eviro-kooks think global warming will stop if we drastically change our way of life....and they want everyone to change their way of life....except algore whose electric bill is more than $13K per year...and RFK jr who does not want alternative sources of energy like windmills in his back yard...

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Jersey shore
    Posts
    2,067
    [QUOTE=rbstern]If, in the discussion of a poorly understood, highly complex system, somebody says, "We are 90% certain" or "The debate is over" or "The vast majority of scientists agree" or begin to characterize scientists who have legitimate questions about the science as "Deniers" ... you should be suspicious.

    The "consensus" often talked about relative to Global Warming is based on the IPCC (UN) reports. Some prominent, respected scientists have complained bitterly about their work being misrepresented by the IPCC. Scientists contribute to very narrow elements of the report, and then their names are associated with the entire report, and particularly the summary written by politicians, which goes too far in speculation, suggesting conclusions that outstrip the actual science. The UN is a political body. Politics is not exactly the most honest profession on the planet.

    Mainstream media then picks up the summary report, cherry picks the already-beyond-science suggestive language, and further enhances public perception that the situation is dire. Because, after all, it's easy to increase viewership/readership when doom is imminent.

    For those of you who are convinced Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and a dire threat to our future, I challenge you to examine some of the research, writings and views of the "deniers." Or of the scientists who simply feel that it is not a settled issue.

    You might be surprised by what you find.

    In high school science classes, I recall my teachers explaining that in order for a hypothesis to become accepted theory, a scientist must be able to, by experiment, consistently reproduce a result, having isolated and removed other variables that might cause the result and invalidate the hypothesis. That's basic science. I've read a ton of research on global warming. I haven't seen anything that resembles what was explained to me as being needed for "conclusive." In fact, I see quite the opposite.[/QUOTE]

    Very well put! :clapper:

  11. #31
    You know the question I have always had? Scientist pretty much universally agree that there was an ice age several thousand years ago that froze much of the earth right? And that the planet then warmed up enough for it to melt so we are left with the planet they way it is.......... So how the heck did that happen? Both the dramatic cooling/ice age, and the warm-up afterwards?

    There were no gas guzzling SUV's, or airplanes, or oil refineries back then and yet we had DRAMATIC weather change, far, far more dramatic than anything that has happened since...... And it had nothing to do with mans pollution. Doesn't anyone find that a tad indicative that maybe man doesn't have complete control of what the weather does?

    And another thing worth remembering is that when all this global warming stuff first got started it was all doom and gloom that by the year 2000 there was going to have been a global warming of a significant number of degrees. Guess what? Didn't happen. I believe we have warmed less than a degree since that time.

    I mean lets be serious, when weathermen try and predict the weather outside of a 7 day forecast there aren't very accurate. If we cant even predict the weather for more than 7 days how am I supposed to believe we can really predict what the weather is supposed to be doing 10 years from now? Along with the reasons for it? And keep in mind that like I said the global warming supporters have been dead wrong about how much the glob was going to warm up by 2000, way off.

    That's not to say that we shouldn't be looking at cleaner/renewable energy, heck I think hybrids are a great technology, but I'm not sure I buy all this global warming stuff.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=rbstern]

    In high school science classes, I recall my teachers explaining that in order for a hypothesis to become accepted theory, a scientist must be able to, by experiment, consistently reproduce a result, having isolated and removed other variables that might cause the result and invalidate the hypothesis. That's basic science. I've read a ton of research on global warming. I haven't seen anything that resembles what was explained to me as being needed for "conclusive." In fact, I see quite the opposite.[/QUOTE]Which is why it makes it hard for me to believe this global warming stuff when they were so far off on how much the globe was going to warm up by 2000. What you are essentially saying is "Yeah, we were way off on how much its going to warm up........ But were still right!!!!!"

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    [B]It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded. [/B]

    [B]“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” [/B]

    Read the article...[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1730752/posts[/url]

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=jefethegreat]Regardless, the question is not why. The question is WHY NOT. Why not support a clean planet? Why not preserve the planet for future generations and support a green Earth? It's not wrong or sissy or liberal (which I am not) to believe in these things. People get hung up on Global Warming, but that should not be the only reason to support the environment.[/QUOTE]


    I agree 100%...

    and why not do what we can to limit our impact on global warming... on water pollution... on deforestation... on other species... etc

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Savage69][B]It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded. [/B]

    [B]“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” [/B]

    Read the article...[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1730752/posts[/url][/QUOTE]
    That's an outstanding article, especially the French guy who was a die hard global warming guy until reality kept not fitting what global warming advocates said would happen.

  16. #36
    Anyone who wants to learn the facts about global warming should really read Michael Crichton's state of fear. He is the author of Jurrasic Park, the Andrmedia strain, etc.., a Havard trained MD/scientist and has taught anthropology at Cambridge University.

    Not only does he challenge a lot of the current theories about global warming but he goes alot further. He actuallly argues that contrary to Al Gore making that world a better place that "environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s"

    Pretty interesting stuff.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=like2god]The Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and recent study shows that it might coincide with sun spot activity (which has been more active in the last 100 years than it has before). Humans do contribute some to global warming with pollution, but I don't believe that we are the main cause of what we are seeing now. It's a natural cycle IMO.[/QUOTE]

    I agree.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=woodside]Anyone who wants to learn the facts about global warming should really read Michael Crichton's state of fear. He is the author of Jurrasic Park, the Andrmedia strain, etc.., a Havard trained MD/scientist and has taught anthropology at Cambridge University.

    Not only does he challenge a lot of the current theories about global warming but he goes alot further. He actuallly argues that contrary to Al Gore making that world a better place that "environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s"

    Pretty interesting stuff.[/QUOTE] :yes: Very interesting and entertaining book.

  19. #39
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN, but originally from NW Mass.
    Posts
    1,748
    If indeed the whole solar system is being warmed up, to me that is even MORE reason to worry that we might be speeding up the process on our own planet.

    I haven't seen Gore's movie, and could care less where he stands, but I do watch a fair amount of the Discovery Channel and others like that, and their programming does seem to strongly suggest that humans are speeding up the warming of the planet. Admittedly, this is a small sample to draw conclusions from, but I'd guess most everyone on both sides of this issue (including myself) are drawing conclusions largely in ignorance.

    Shouldn't wanting to CONSERVE the environment be a "conservative," rather than "liberal" issue? Yet another reason why those two terms are, to me, nothing more than bullsheet.

    Should we be worried as China continues to gear up its industry? That country will end up producing a huge amount of greenhouse gases as it fires up new factories and hundreds of millions of new cars begin operating there...

    Actually, I'm with George Carlin on this. "F the environment!" he says. The environment is what it is...if the planet is a frozen iceball, then that's what it is. Tropical Paradise? Volcanic horror? Whatever. If we screw up the planet for ourselves, we get what we deserve. The cockroaches take over and the environment will probably be just fine for them... ;)

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=rbstern]If Al Gore wants to be president of Saturn, or any other planet in our solar system, he has my vote.

    When does he leave?[/QUOTE]

    This is a great idea

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us