Misanthrope wrote:One American Rover
Actually, no it's NOT a pile of crap.
And Bob- no one is denying that there's some climate change- but this doesnt automatically point to man made sources in order to tax us through guilt. There is also currently climate change on Mars. There was a period of much higher temperature during the medeval times. It's also interesting that industry increased MOST after WW2 and yet temperatures dropped for many years- so the man made CO2 relationship is not a clear cut one. DId you know that Volcanos produce more CO2 than all man made sources out together- including planes- cars factories etc etc. Things should be out into perspective. No one is saying we should do nothing about it- but the current leftie sandal wearing lenlitista are brainwashing too many young people in mainland Europe.
Correlation does NOT equal causation: this is usually very difficult for the pseudo scientists among us to fathom:
for example- in the month of October the entire population of Chinas intake of Mushrooms went up and in that same month people in the UK occurance of Asthma also increased- it doesnt automatically mean there's a link.
These SCIENTIFIC documentaries were shown on Chanel 4 recently
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/100307Swindle.htm
Try and QUESTION rather than believing like the heard. As Enviro-nut case lentilists or the cycling Nazis in Lycra are very much a new religion and anyone who questions their methods are heretics.
Chantelle- no one is saying it is NOT occuring- its just the causes amongst that are put in question.
One AMERICAN Rover- the IPCC is a political body filled mostly with managers and non scientific staff and personel. Just as the documentary states. They have a political agenda just like any other CORPORATE entity. I've dealt with this burecratic bunch of idiots-and they're a good macrocosm type representation of what the whole EU joke stands for.
I mention corporate- as that's EXACTLY what they're doing protecting their jobs, there are litterally tens of thousands employed trying to further propagate this myth and get more money off our taxes. It is currently a growth industry. They mostly believe it's true themselves. The documentry doesnt take anything as 'given' and doesnt assume anything- unlike alot of the drivle populated by the other side- it gives both sides of the argument. Please dont try to debate with me unless you've watched that documentary.
Scientists have been debating human made global warming since the 1970's and 80's, long before it became politicized. It doesn't change the science. This is an incredibly large and complex subject --
scientists who are experts in the field have debated it to death and come to a
majority conclusion (many times): We humans are largely responsible for global warming. Nothing that is said here is going to change facts or scientific consensus, including a documentary on Channel 4, I'm afraid. I encourage people to look into the facts, educate themselves and make their own determination, just as you are doing, but really it's impossible for a layperson or even a scientist outside his/her area of expertise to be fully in command of all the facts and concepts. Consequently most people have to put a certain level of trust in the scientific community as a whole. They are the most objective and rigorously analytical community of professionals out there, so you are in good hands.
The facts on which you are basing your argument and skepticism are incorrect. For example, you said: "Did you know that Volcanos produce more CO2 than all man made sources out together- including planes- cars factories etc etc."
No, volcanoes don't even come close. Volcanoes produce 130 million tons of CO2 per year. In 2005 industry produced 27
billion tons of CO2.
Reference: http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/
(the references for those figures are within the article).
Moreover, the effect on global warming by a volcanic eruption is only temporary, lasting several years at most.
To be frank, this conversation has lost my interest. A more fertile area for debate is: "What are we going to do about our effects on global warming? What's realistic? Where should our priorities lie in terms of technological innovation and resource allocation?" I think those are the exciting areas. I do agree that activists are using global warming as some kind of scare tactic for political reasons or because of lack of expertise. Global warming has taken center stage as the "environmental crisis of our time and of our children's time." That is a political movement, but so long as the debate remains close to the science, I'm willing to take it, because it encompasses and brings with it the solutions to many other problems and challenges we face, such as green energy/renewable energy, particulate air pollution, acid rain and water pollution, public health, etc.
You know better.
Sloppy reporting. It was a lot anyway. The authors are listed on the actual reported for anyone who wishes to tally them up.