# Poll



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Instead of my knee-jerk reacting to people saying Global Warming isn't real, I've decided to put this out as a poll.

But this is a poll where you have to provide information. I'll give you guys some solid sources in time, I just want to see where everyone's head is at (or where their brain has been washed).


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

I belive it's real, and I believe nobody is going to get off their asses about doing anything until it's too late, and we're going to see mass starvations and economic collapse as a result.

I just upped your "it's real" with a "we're all gonna die". What do you have to say about that, bucko?


----------



## Ratman (Oct 22, 2005)

For sure its real why the hell would the OUR goverments lie bout such a thing?


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

Its real and it makes sense scientifically.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

I think the results of your poll will be a direct correlation with who is brainwashed by the mass media and who actually reads scientific journals/news.


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

Acestro, i think you,re a biologist right ? Can you give us your opinion about gloabal warming ? Personaly, i believe it's true, there's no doubt about it. I just can't see why some people still think it's all b.s.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

elTwitcho said:


> I belive it's real, and I believe nobody is going to get off their asses about doing anything until it's too late, and we're going to see mass starvations and economic collapse as a result.
> 
> I just upped your "it's real" with a "we're all gonna die". What do you have to say about that, bucko?










idd were all fucked!


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> I belive it's real, and I believe nobody is going to get off their asses about doing anything until it's too late, and we're going to see mass starvations and economic collapse as a result.


I agree.
People are worried, but as soon as it means sacrificing privileges that our Western lifestyle offers we gladly adopt ostrich politics - but we'll pay the price for our indifference and arrogance, and by the time we are going to pay, we will pay big time.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

who knows, the earth warms and cools naturally. Has human intervention aided in the warming? Quite possible, but I dont believe to the effect some people want you to believe. Alot of scienctists debunk global warming.


----------



## oscared15 (Feb 3, 2006)

I thinks it's real :nod:


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)

we gonna nuke each other to death before we have

to worry about global warmming effect anyway, so

rip that catalitic converter off your exhaust and

never get a tune up then go burn all your old tires

in the back yard


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> I belive it's real, and I believe nobody is going to get off their asses about doing anything until it's too late, and we're going to see mass starvations and economic collapse as a result.
> 
> I just upped your "it's real" with a "we're all gonna die". What do you have to say about that, bucko?


:laugh: idd were all fucked!
[/quote]

This is where politicians abuse scientists. As a scientist you're supposed to be objective and not make huge or 100% predictions. I naturally would respond, "I dont know" about the 'we're all gonna die' aspect (bucko :rasp: ). There are models that try to see where all of the CO2 is going to go (to trees that we dont cut down, more likely the ocean bottom). We're not sure how much can be 'soaked' up and we're not sure what the effects of more greenhouse gas will be. It's tough not to think doom and gloom, but anyone who has kids, they'll get to see the impacts (yeah, it's happening that fast).


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Then you should talk to my old geology professor at UF. 
Tom, do you honestly beleive that we as humans are as responsible as the mass populas believes?
When I read that mt pinatubo blew more pollutants into the air that EVERY automobile ever made I was amazed. Imagine all the volcanoes over the past 120years that autos have been around. I think humans give themselves to much credit.

btw, before all the greenpeace nuts jump on me, I think its real, but i think the effects need to be studied more. I voted need more info.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

I voted not real. But I am not sure.

I think this is another thing that the media does to scare us. I think that the whole global warming thing is a cycle that the earth goes through...but I am sure that we don't help with all that we do.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> Then you should talk to my old geology professor at UF.
> Tom, do you honestly beleive that we as humans are as responsible as the mass populas believes?
> When I read that mt pinatubo blew more pollutants into the air that EVERY automobile ever made I was amazed. Imagine all the volcanoes over the past 120years that autos have been around. I think humans give themselves to much credit.


First of all, many geology folks have ties to oil. Probably not your prof, but there are a few geology folks that stand out on this. The volcano issue is ridiculous. When you (if you) see the graphs in the papers I'll eventually cite, try to explain the low CO2 from the year 1000 to the year 1850. No volcanoes erupted then?









I agree that there are stupid liberals that take this too far. Hurricane Katrina was not caused by global warming. It might have been more intense because of it, but the real issue was the levees of New Orleans and the horrible governmental response (at all levels, all political parties, dont get started on this).

But, liberals get too extreme and conservatives bury their heads in the sand. Dumb on both sides.

It's real, we did it, it has some potentially huge consequences.

Again, this ISNT a normal global cycle. In fact, since the 70s things have been changing really fast. You have to look at what are called 'meta-analyses'. That means multiple studies. Looking at any one study of any one part of the world can make you believe anything. But when multiple things point in the same direction.... that's scary.

actually I'd like to add that one of these papers does examine if volcanic activity correlates with global warming. It didn't. Solar intensity was much closer but the trend of the last 100 years correlates SOLID with CO2 emission. Volcanic eruptions actually cool the earth by blocking solar radiation... this stuff isn't simple.

Oops, turning into a mega-post here. Check this:



> The information we have found so far leads us to believe that volcanoes actually help cool the earth, not heat it. Although volcanoes release harmful gases into the atmosphere, they do not cause global warming.


and this... (speaking of the EXACT eruption you mentioned)



> The major climatic affect that volcanoes have is due to the aerosol particles that are exploded into the troposphere by large eruptions. Even though there are many more small eruptions, unless the aerosols (and ash) makes it out of the troposphere to the stratosphere, it will be rained or snowed out in a short time.
> 
> The aerosols that do reach the stratosphere can have two affects. If they are largeer than about 2 microns, they allow incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface but block outgoing heat radiation--this will contribute to global warming. On the other hand, if the aerosols are smaller than about 2 microns, they tend to block the incomming solar radiation--leading to global cooling. *Pinatubo, for example, caused about a 1/2 degree C cooling of the Earth for the year or so following its big 1991 eruption*


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Global Warming Video
A video, good video.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Tom,
Im not even gonna attempt to argue science with you because im sure you can rip almost anyone on this site a new rear in that department.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

ProdigalMarine said:


> Tom,
> Im not even gonna attempt to argue science with you because im sure you can rip almost anyone on this site a new rear in that department.


Hey, I just want to share facts. I got lucky getting data on the exact volcano you mentioned :laugh:


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

his credability was ripped apart by idiot republicans trying to dog his reputation. the whole internet thing was a completely misunderstood conflict and the republicans ultimately modified and created false information to try and make al gore look like a moron. too bad, i think he would've been good for this country, a lot better than kerry or bush...as a liberal democrat though, i would've liked to see john mccain win, not so much anymore, but last election, he's the best candidate imo...back on topic, global warming i feel is a serious issue, although the earth could just be in a cycle, but we did just break the record for most named storms in a season didnt we? with more on the way...and there is proof that CFC's and toxins in fuels destroys the ozone layer, is there not?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Yes, and we actually reversed that crisis. Sad that we dont hear more success stories like that.

Global warming will be waaaaaaaaaaaaay harder to reverse. And please, it's not a natural cycle. That seed has been planted in everyone's head, mine included. When I finally saw some graphs I finally said "This is bullshit, there is no way we are going through a natural warming trend"

republicans ultimately modified and created false information to try and make al gore look like a moron

Agreed, funny how Bush doesn't need any help making himself look like a moron








They're all weasels in my book. Bush is just a weasel that doesn't care at all about science


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

You think it's bad now, just wait until China gets going....


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

No doubt, China and India are really going to ramp this up.








And we're whiney scaredy cats when it comes to China. Actually both the US and China want nothing to do with the Kyoto protocol. China actually is trying to (or has?) fall under the 'developing nation' category. How can they be developing? They're the oldest f*cking country on the planet and they have nuclear weapons! But I digress...


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

acestro said:


> No doubt, China and India are really going to ramp this up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's actually one of the main reasons the US didn't think the Kyoto protocol was the right course of action. China supposedly was classified as a "developing nation" and thus exempt. Yet, with their lax pollution laws, their greenhouse gas output will dwarf most if not all other nations in the near future.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

i think its real 
but whats it really gonna do to us
make the waters rise
theres no way antartica is gonna melt 
or the artic circle for that matter
its not getting equator like further from the equator
i dont really think this is gonna effect people till like another 1000 years
and i aint gonna be alive
and nobody i know is gonna be alive
and as far as my legacey i dont know them

as far as katrina goes 
it hit the US were it did because of the sunami
that sunami tilted the earth 2 degrees 
thats why florida took less of the brunt last year
watch this year 
i bet luoisiana and texas get nailed again
my 2 cents


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hemi said:


> i think its real
> but whats it really gonna do to us
> make the waters rise
> theres no way antartica is gonna melt
> ...


The fact that we dont know exactly what will happen doesn't mean that nothing will happen for 1000 years.

Got any real data to back up the tsunami tilting the Earth? That's the silliest thing I've heard all day.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2006)

Im more worried about the destruction of natural habitat, or the existence of nuclear waste.

Global warming is happening IMO, happening slowly maybe, but I try to follow the saying "leave it better than you found it." I personally am a huge supporter of mass transit. If it was made more affordible and more practical, I dont think there would even be a reason for people to use their cars on a daily basis.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I hate how habitat is being lost, nuclear waste is bad but you need to see the size of our landfills. They dwarf the amount of nuclear waste.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2006)

True, although they are finding ways to reduce landfill sizes with new ways of getting rid of non-decomposing garbage, I dont think theyve found a way to get rid of nuclear waste tho.

Solar and Wind energy is infinite, too bad its so expensive.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

it was reported on cnn about the 2 degrees 
i think like 2 days after it happend
but who really cares about important news 
when the death toll is all that matters

9.6 earth quake 
shoulda done something to the earth

im not to hip on the fact finding


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Hemi said:


> it was reported on cnn about the 2 degrees
> i think like 2 days after it happend
> but who really cares about important news
> when the death toll is all that matters
> ...


Actually, the quake caused a wobble, not a shift in the axis angle.

Here's the link


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

wow i'm amazed at the number of people who voted not real


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
this says something about a shift also 
i remember hearing a tilt


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hemi said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
> this says something about a shift also
> i remember hearing a tilt


Cool info, I didn't know the whole earth 'shook'. I dont think it affected future climate tho.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I believe its real. There is global warming accuring, the 10 hottest years of the past 100 have all occured since 1990 - 2005. And temps continue to claim. I also believe the majority of humans are too stupid to take note of changes with our environment.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

I think what's interesting is that the 11 people who voted "not real", only one person tried to back up their position.

That's why we're all screwed ladies. People aren't interested in the debate, they've already made their minds up...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> I think what's interesting is that the 11 people who voted "not real", only one person tried to back up their position.
> 
> That's why we're all screwed ladies. People aren't interested in the debate, they've already made their minds up...


Exactly, which is why I added that stipulation to the poll. Seems that those folks cant read either. Props to Exodus for at least discussing the issue with actual information. I guess the rest of you pussies are scared of discussing it with me.
















..or.... you know the truth and actually choose to ignore it. THAT is a scary thought.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Im on the fence on this issue









In regards to the Koyoto protocol: (dont get pissed because I know this isnt the 'accepted" answer)

Why shoudl we punish American business by putting all these new regulations on them, costing them more money, in return costing Americans more money for goods and services. When you have countries like India and China who didnt sign the protocol why should we? I know this may be a fucked up respnse, and it may seem like I dont care about the earth.... I do, but I also feel we must protect our way of life.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I dont think that's a bad response, I dont think being on the fence is bad either. I need a scanner to show you guys some of the scientific literature but I promise I'll at least get the references up here soon. More facts (and the fact that the facts are from respected scientific journals) is what you and everyone needs.

Our businesses are very important and this issue isn't simple. The fact that it really is happening is simple... but the solution isn't.


----------



## Fry (Oct 9, 2005)

check this out!by 2050


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

What does undersea earthquakes has to do with global warming? I think its wrong to compare USA with India and China since USA is a more developed country, its better to help industrialising countrys to develop in a way that is cleaner for the nature and not make the misakes that Europe and USA already did.

Exodus, maybe ive read it wrong







but how can you care about the earth but in the same time you want to protect a way of living that destroys it?


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

User said:


> I believe its real. There is global warming accuring, the 10 hottest years of the past 100 have all occured since 1990 - 2005. And temps continue to claim. I also believe the majority of humans are too stupid to take note of changes with our environment.


occurring*

yYeah, 100 years of history is great, but what about the last 4 billion or so years that earth has been around? How do we know this hasn't happened before?

We don't.


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

Well, Im sure that the earth was pretty hot 4 billion years ago but if we talk the last century of human industialising scientists can see that we have had an impact.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

faebo_tarzan said:


> I think its wrong to compare USA with India and China since USA is a more developed country, its better to help industrialising countrys to develop in a way that is cleaner for the nature and not make the misakes that Europe and USA already did.


The number of people in the countries is what matters, not development. India has 1,095,351,995 people, and China has 1,313,973,713... Where as the US has 298,444,215. They far outnumber the amount of people in the US. More people to support = more "green house gas" emissions.


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

Gumby said:


> I think its wrong to compare USA with India and China since USA is a more developed country, its better to help industrialising countrys to develop in a way that is cleaner for the nature and not make the misakes that Europe and USA already did.


The number of people in the countries is what matters, not development. India has 1,095,351,995 people, and China has 1,313,973,713... Where as the US has 298,444,215. They far outnumber the amount of people in the US. More people to support = more "green house gas" emissions.
[/quote]

I dont agree with you at all. Lets say every person in china used as much energy as an American, China would use more than four times as much energy. Well, I can say that they arent there yet.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

faebo_tarzan said:


> Well, Im sure that the earth was pretty hot 4 billion years ago but if we talk the last century of human industialising scientists can see that we have had an impact.


The earth has been "cooled" for several hundreds of millions of years. We have no way of knowing if "global warming" happened in the past (at least aside from what ice core/rock samples tell us). With or without humans, we just don't know if global warming is a natural phenomenon. Ever think that maybe this is a natural cycle for the earth and we're just freaking out and over analyzing the situation?

Who are we to say that humans are the utmost cause of "global warming" when we don't fully understand or have the data to know the earth's natural cycle of climate changes in the first place?

Sure, humans produce CO2, and a lot of it... but I HIGHLY doubt it's enough to cause a global downward spiral of death via natrual disasters, heating and famine.

I'm going to bed, you tree huggin', whale savin', envronmental activist hippies.


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

[/quote]
I'm going to bed, you tree huggin', whale savin', envronmental activist hippies.















[/quote]
That comment showed me what low debatelevel you are on...
But anyways.. We already know that the earth goes thru natural cycles (warm and cold ones). The thing is that they use to change over several thousand years, now the climate has changed over the last 50 years. It was 430 000 years since we had never had this much CO2 in the atmosphere.








-out


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'm going to bed, you tree huggin', whale savin', envronmental activist hippies.















[/quote]
That comment showed me what low debatelevel you are on...
But anyways.. We already know that the earth goes thru natural cycles (warm and cold ones). The thing is that they use to change over several thousand years, now the climate has changed over the last 50 years. It was 430 000 years since we had never had this much CO2 in the atmosphere.








-out








[/quote]

Thanks for saving me the trouble. Gumby, how many times do I have to say that the "natural cycling" explanation is TOAST and has NO DATA supporting it. The other side DOES HAVE DATA supporting it. You realize that you have a choice here of being ignorant or not. Agreeing with the most educated and respected scientists doesn't make you a environmental activist, it just makes you an intelligent human being.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

umm did we all forget about the ICE AGE
i mean sh*t supposedly the hole earth got wipped out during it
now lets say the ice age really did happen
well WERE DID IT GO 
it killed everything cept prolly a couple of deep deep water creatures
now if ALL that ICE melted wasnt that the first GLOBAL WARMING
i mean come on guys 
use that brain humans developed
i know its happening 
but what are you gonna do about it 
even if everyone and everything was natural 
its still gonna happen
you know FARTING dont help
we all know tree huggin hippies 
who eat alot of veggies FART all the time 
there SO guilty
technology is KILLING us 
theres WAY to many people on this planet now 
no more gun wars killing off a few million men every 5 years
to much medicine keeping people alive forever
you wanna fix global warming 
kill every one but the BUMBS
itll take them forever to get back to were we are now
anyone who thinks all the ice on the planet will dissapere is insane

and as far as underwater earthquakes go 
alot of them release VERY HOT steam/lava 
that in turn releases HEAT
then ice melts
humans cant be stopped 
they will always seek new stuff to keep us alive longer 
to make living simpler 
and to kill the planet faster

i feel bad for the inocent animals 
poor bastards 
to bad they fart too


----------



## huntx7 (Nov 13, 2004)

How are people voting not real? I mean, do you really think that we can use up our planet's natural resources like this and produce harmful chemicals at an alarming rate without any reprecussions?


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

Hemi said:


> umm did we all forget about the ICE AGE
> i mean sh*t supposedly the hole earth got wipped out during it
> now lets say the ice age really did happen
> well WERE DID IT GO
> ...


haha LOL plz tell me you are joking.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

not kidding at all


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

there have been several ice ages, the last one ended 9000 years bc and there were only ice in the nothern and south regions of the earth, almost like we have today but further to the center of the earth. 
I dont think its the heat from vulcanos that directly makes the ice melt but they also release plenty of greenhouse-gases.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Gumby said:


> I believe its real. There is global warming accuring, the 10 hottest years of the past 100 have all occured since 1990 - 2005. And temps continue to claim. I also believe the majority of humans are too stupid to take note of changes with our environment.


occurring*

yYeah, 100 years of history is great, but what about the last 4 billion or so years that earth has been around? How do we know this hasn't happened before?

We don't.
[/quote]

Thanks for correcting my spelling. Mistakes do happen, like the two Y yeah.

So do you suggest since we don't know global warming hasn't naturally happened before, its something to brush off? The straw man arguement of "How do we know this hasn't happened before" is flawed and gives no evidence that its happened naturally before, or refet that global warming is being produced by humans.

The amount of carbon dioxide being produced from monotonically. Global warming by greenhouse gasses operates on a logarithmic table. A small change in human emmisions can have a large net impact on the environment. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by about 30% and 150% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750, and basic forest models cannot account for the increase. Its been noted "something" has caused an increase of CO2, and increases run parrell to global warming.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hemi
Please PM or email me
Before you make
any comments on anything
that is scientific.










And Gumby, you are now 'Dumby' until you actually produce some real data.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL ok


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

I think alot of the people who voted not real are reading the wording then you guys are flipping it back on them. It says real or not real with (HUMAN INDUCED). Which means you can believe in global warming but that it's not human induced which would qualify as a no statement by your design.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

global warming is real and its gonna casue an ice age sooner than expected by melting the caps thusforce cool the waters of the earth which in actuality maintain our global temps.
i doubt in our life time it will make much difference in terms that we will not see much happen but it will occur generations close down the line i believe.
i have watched many a documentary on these situations and feel the data studied to be solid and worthy


----------



## The Predator (Sep 28, 2005)

its real. Look at alaska it seems to be melting


----------



## Blitz023 (Feb 19, 2004)

the Aliens under the ocean are causing this.


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

joey said:


> global warming is real and its gonna casue an ice age sooner than expected by melting the caps thusforce cool the waters of the earth which in actuality maintain our global temps.
> i doubt in our life time it will make much difference in terms that we will not see much happen but it will occur generations close down the line i believe.
> i have watched many a documentary on these situations and feel the data studied to be solid and worthy


Actually it drops the salinity of the oceanic conveyor belts thus, the belt ceases to move and heat ceases to be spread through out the planet resulting in cooler temps at the poles and warmer temps around the equator.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2006)

Are ocenanic conveyor belts...currents?


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Are ocenanic conveyor belts...currents?


They are the BIG BOYS of currents yes.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

acestro said:


> And Gumby, you are now 'Dumby' until you actually produce some real data.:rasp:


Alright.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/...08651a0_fs.html

And a video:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

After all that research, I've decided that the science behind global warming is going to get us no where. Someone makes a finding on one side of the debate, and everyone from the other side of the debate jumps all over it to find flaws.

Also, in my research, I found that they've found a gene that makes people more inclined to party and drink.


----------



## Kemper1989 (Feb 14, 2005)

I dont believe global warming is real. I think the climates are just shifting.


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Like I said in the begining, I voted that we are not causing the global warming.

This does not make me an idiot...I am not a scientist. I hear all kinds of crap each day about this issue and have no idea who to believe in what?!? I saw the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" (very cool movie by the way) and it supposedly represents what is going to happen because of our global warming that we are supposedly doing.

Is this an issue? Yeah, I think it is. But until someone steps forward and acknowledges the problem, how am I supposed to decide? How am I supposed to know? This is not information that one can just go out and get on their own.

I did a search on this issue, and I found just as much data supporting natural global warming as I did for human induced global warming...so how is someone like me supposed to know who is right and who is wrong?


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> Like I said in the begining, I voted that we are not causing the global warming.
> 
> This does not make me an idiot...I am not a scientist. I hear all kinds of crap each day about this issue and have no idea who to believe in what?!? I saw the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" (very cool movie by the way) and it supposedly represents what is going to happen because of our global warming that we are supposedly doing.
> 
> ...


I think the main reason humans think we are responsible for the climate shifting is due to nothing more than our ego as a race.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You make excellent points Jeff. I'm in the middle of a modelling assignment for my PhD but I'll get the real references up here soon. There's plenty of misinformation and VERY CONFUSING information out there. But it's a bunch of packaging of data in different ways.

You have to look at consensus studies in very elite scientific journals. Some of those graphs in Gumby's link were almost cartoonish, you'll know the difference when you see the real stuff.



Gumby said:


> And Gumby, you are now 'Dumby' until you actually produce some real data.:rasp:


Alright.

After all that research, I've decided that the science behind global warming is going to get us no where. Someone makes a finding on one side of the debate, and everyone from the other side of the debate jumps all over it to find flaws.

Also, in my research, I found that they've found a gene that makes people more inclined to party and drink.








[/quote]

Yeah, the 'cheap date' gene! Was found in fruitflies right?

I dont have the time to work over every site and point out how things are being confused (either intentionally or not). There's a LOT of money behind 'proving' that global warming is not human induced (again, the oil giants), so dont be surprised at some 'pseudoscience' or 'cooked' results that are very clever in ignoring certain facts.

I'll call you 'Gumby' again









okay let's just go with this (and not a dazzling array of confusion and conflictions)....

We've increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 30% (and we know now that this ISNT from volcanoes).

okay.

Next we have the graph of temperature which was slowly and deliberately moving down (at about a 7 degree angle for over 1000 years.

Suddenly it shoots up right when that 30% increase in CO2 appears.

Well, that's almost enough right there, but you have to see what other things might be in play.

There's volcanic activity, there's solar radiation, and there's something else that I forgot...







Anyhow, these are graphed over 1000 years against the CO2 and temperature. The biggest correlation for temperature in the last 100 years (during the increase in temperature) is our CO2 production.

It doesn't have to get more complex than that. Sorry if I've been rude about this, but it's irritating how folks can ignore evolution and topics like this. I admit that evolution is a LOT more obvious but people will still try to disagree with even that. It's a choice to ignore science and people have been doing it for centuries.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Gumby said:


> Alright.
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
> http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp
> ...


I hate to tell you but I would be kicked out of grad school for that research (still have to give you credit for trying (sincerely)).... The first link is the best but very confusing in it's approach to facts. The second one is clearly biased from the first sentence on. The third link deals with politicians...







The last link doesn't work
















I'd also like to point out that I'm only starting to research the potential impacts of this. I know that malaria is moving up to higher altitudes in some tropical areas like Papau New Guinea


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

If people agree that global warming is happening why all the discord?

Scientists have learned from tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped inside ice that earth hasn't been as warm as it is now for a millennium or possibly longer. Something has dramatically made solar cycles and volcanoes unable to effectly cool the planet. (natural influences on earth temperature)

The most reasonable conclusion is humans have affected the balance, "something" is producing to much CO2. Other theories of the sun or solar activity isn't enough to cause global warming.

And you can't study "The aliens are making the planet hot so they may once more live on earth again" sh*t. The prophectic version that global warming is caused by God for pure judgment and wrath. Again you can't study that, *Its not scientific*


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Well, what's also difficult is you cant test anything the way science usually tests things (with experimentation). But you can use the ultimate tool of falsification and eliminate some things and show the powerful correlations in that context.

It's controversial because it's a huge deal and it's complex and we dont know what it will do to us AND because if it exists that could mean the loss of m-o-n-e-y for certain people (and political parties).


----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

acestro said:


> I dont have the time to work over every site and point out how things are being confused (either intentionally or not). There's a LOT of money behind 'proving' that global warming is not human induced (again, the oil giants), so dont be surprised at some 'pseudoscience' or 'cooked' results that are very clever in ignoring certain facts.
> 
> I'll call you 'Gumby' again


There is a lot of money on both sides of the global warming argument. I acknowledge that pseudo-science is a big part of the global warming debate(on both sides) and always will be.

I'd provide you with more reputable sources, but to be honest, it takes forever to find valid, non-biased evidence on either side of the argument. I found a ton of papers that supproted global warming as being a "hoax," or overrated, but the people for the global warming argument pick it appart. Same goes for vise-versa.

After all the reading I've done, I've upgraded my opinion to "MAYBE humans contribute to global warming" as compared to "There is no way humans contribute to global warming." I agree that global warming is an issue, no doubt about that... I just am not sure if the current "global warming" is a result of a natural cycle or caused by humans. 
I just question how much humans REALLY have to do with it. I feels like the media has blown it way out of proportion... kind of like they did wth the West Nile Virus or Bird Flu. BTW, I DO see Bird Flu as a potential major problem if it mutates to people-people infection. Like I said, "gigantic" world wide problems make good press and reporters will do everything in their power to stir sh*t when it comes to global warming and earn money. I think the Global Warming vs. Humans has nothing do to with Global Warming is a largely political battle(Oil, anyone?). In most case a political battle cannot be won especially in the aspect of an envrionmental battle.

Chalk my opninion up to this: I think the mass media perpetuates bad press for anything they see negative in order to increase their ratings, including global warming stories. Bad news makes excellent press. If something is bad, they blow it out of context and proportion in order to get more readers and opinions that agree with theirs' (coughcoughFOXNEWScoughcough). Do you agree, acestro?



> okay let's just go with this (and not a dazzling array of confusion and conflictions)....
> 
> We've increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 30% (and we know now that this ISNT from volcanoes).
> 
> ...


----------



## jiggy (Jun 27, 2004)

its real.. reefs all around the world r bleaching because of it


----------



## faebo_tarzan (Jun 5, 2005)

Gumby said:


> And Gumby, you are now 'Dumby' until you actually produce some real data.:rasp:


Alright.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/...08651a0_fs.html

And a video:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

After all that research, I've decided that the science behind global warming is going to get us no where. Someone makes a finding on one side of the debate, and everyone from the other side of the debate jumps all over it to find flaws.

Also, in my research, I found that they've found a gene that makes people more inclined to party and drink.








[/quote]

The NASA and senate pressrelease arent trustworthy because the governments dependence of oil. They dont want you to stop using oil because the country is dependent on it. The other links is all nonsens in my opinion.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I agree. All you need is actual articles with unbiased data (which is admittently not easy to find).

I'm with you on the 'hype' aspect Gumby. I wrote an editorial article about West Nile because they are spraying all over now and it's soooo stupid. Mostly because the spray kills things that eat mosquitoes









What is disconcerting is when the media grabs on to a REAL issue and makes it ridiculous. Global warming becomes a joke or is used to explain everything and loses credibility. It's still real, but now uneducated masses are argueing about the wrong things.

I also think there's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOT more money on the side against it. I have to think hard to think of any comparable money on the side of believing global warming (most scientists are rather poor).


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)




----------



## Gumby (Aug 13, 2004)

acestro said:


> I also think there's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOT more money on the side against it. I have to think hard to think of any comparable money on the side of believing global warming (most scientists are rather poor).


I don't know about that. As much as I hate to admit it, the concensus seems to be that human induced global warming IS real. I would think there are a lot of environmentalist organizations that would fund research that supports this view point.

I know some of my links are shady. I've done plenty of research for college research papers and research projects, so I know good and well what consitutes a good resource. The problem with finding good resources is that when you do a search of "global warming" in a scientific journal database, you come up with roughly 28,000-75,000 scientific papers, depending on the database. That last link I provided was to a credible, scientific journal that I accessed via my university's resources. To sift through all that data I'd need DAYS. Research projects are such a bitch









I remember doing research on yeast for research project/experiment that I did my sophomore year and I litteraly spent close to 8 hours reading through research papers. Damned college and actually having to do work


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> That last link I provided was to a credible, scientific journal that I accessed via my university's resources.


Unfortunately the rest of p-fury doesn't have your university's resources so we cant see the article.







And believe me I know what a pain research can be :nod:

I'm sure there's grant money for it but that's not like the billions of dollars big oil gets. You know, the same guys getting record profits when oil is supposedly in limited supply and gas prices are up. Those guys :laugh:


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

acestro, thx for sharing all that info. this has been an interesting read.

just saw a show on NG, that explained that in 10 000 (i think) because of the earths orbit around the sun, we will have another ice age. 
i dont think modern humans can stay on earth for nearly that amount of time anywhay, GB being one of several problems.
like jiggy said, coral cant tollerate even the smalles temperature changes. what do you think will happen when all coral dies?

the ice is melting, if youve looked at satelite images it would be very clear. earth is heating up.

and acestro should realy stop whasting the here and think of a solution!


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Whoah, that's a lot of pressure on me!

Actually biologists aren't as good as dealing with this problem as physicists or chemists. There's plenty of ideas of how to "grab" the CO2 out of the air. I honestly dont know which ideas are more or less feasible than others, but it is an interesting area of study.

Also, I've got the paper with the graph. I've got a crappy cell phone pic of it. I'll try to get a regular digi pic and post it up here. You'll see what I mean about a slow trend turned opposite to an extreme when you see it.


----------



## Scrap5000 (Mar 4, 2005)

I've seen the effects with my own eyes over my lifetime...used to have awesome summers...now they are sunny in the morning, then it gets cloudy, humid, and rainy by 1pm almost everyday. Scientists predicted NY would get a lot more rain, and I see it happenning (Global warming is not just the temps going up; it's lots of different weather pattern changes).

And the rain used to be rare & usually thunderstorms, exciting, and you could smell the ozone after that was created by the lightning...now it's mosty drab & nasty rain, hardly ever any thunderstorms anymore.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Scrap5000 said:


> (Global warming is not just the temps going up; it's lots of different weather pattern changes).


Exactly. There is solid evidence that amphibian decline in the tropics is due to global warming. There is a disease (chytrid) that does better with the new weather that is being experienced there (not as cool in the mountains at night, overcast days). It's really kind of scary.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Found out more info today. Seems that when we dont throw money at a problem that needs it we throw money at researchers to do further research (which is waaay less expensive). So it being true or not is immaterial to the researchers getting the money. In fact, researchers should want there to be a lot of doubt so they can be funded for more research :nod: So the 'money' aspect stands more behind the 'non-believers'. Interesting dynamic eh?


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

i can see that. just hope some research can provoke some action.
id hate to loose my dear polar bears in the nearest future.
theres a freaking flood in svaldbard right now, it has never been documented before. creepy


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Havnt read this is a few days. Have we found the problem and figured out a solution yet Tom?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Solutions aren't for biologists, although we might be able to suggest which carbon 'absorbing' organisms (trees, diatoms) might help. But autotrophs aren't going to get all of that CO2 out.

I found the graph though!!! Maybe this will help the few skeptics (which it's always fair to be skeptical, I was until this last class for my PhD when I had the right data finally presented before me).

notice the gradual downward trend that not only got suddenly reversed, but reversed and with a dramatic slope! Coincidence that CO2 production increased dramatically at the same time? No, not really.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

how bout a graph us older guys who dont have 20/10 vision can see


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Temperature on the y-axis, time on the x-axis. That's really all you need to know, but I'll try to get a larger view.

...or you could trade in your 4" monitor for something bigger :rasp:


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

acestro said:


> Temperature on the y-axis, time on the x-axis. That's really all you need to know, but I'll try to get a larger view.
> 
> ...or you could trade in your 4" monitor for something bigger :rasp:


I want to see the graph in greater detail to 'appreciate' it. I cant read the sh*t on the bottom and i want to see the 1800s-present in greater detail.

get working on my larger graph!!


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Here ya go bitch...










yes, that 1999 star was added to show where the temperature got to that year (this was published on data that ended before 1999). That star is reeeeaaalllly scary.









(also note that old blind people *cough*Exodus*cough* can 'click to enlarge'. If only that was true for all things in your life














)


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Did I scare Exodus away with facts? Are you hiding behind the posterboard G.W.Bush in your room?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Thanks for the larger graph









All this shows me thos is were is a slight warming period.

I wanted an enlargement of the OTHER GRAPH! That one had the 'reconstruction' and I think "industrial age" on its timeline. And NO, you cant enlarge that one









http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/16003C7D...&minorcatid=104

^^guess who already has his tickets?

Thats right.... Pfurys very own resident right winger


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Neal Boortz isn't too bad but most of those morons







Ask them a question about global warming, I'm curious what their pundit brains will allow them to say :nod:

You can find that first graph in Mann et al (1998) "Northern Hemisphere during the past millenium: inferences, uncertainties and limitations" Geophys. Res. Lett. 26:759-762.

But I think your education should help you to remember when the industrial age was.... I hope














And then, this is the hard part, figure out when the temperature skyrockets on the second graph (the one that barely shows up though the bifocals







).

(in all honesty the first graph is the better of the two and does illustrate well that 'slow downward trend' that got ABRUPTLY whiplashed)


----------



## Guru (Apr 20, 2004)

It's not that hard to see that the graph goes off the chart.


----------



## sid_the_kid87 (May 6, 2006)

CichlidAddict said:


> You think it's bad now, just wait until China gets going....


\

who is that in your picture


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

sid_the_kid87 said:


> You think it's bad now, just wait until China gets going....


\

who is that in your picture








[/quote]

Way to focus on a global topic.









She is hot though
















speaking of China, do you really think we can stop them? If we wont do anything about human rights, what makes you think we'd do anything about this?


----------



## black_piranha (Jan 12, 2006)

id say itz real. itz been gettin hotter every year! and less snow in my area.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> Thanks for the larger graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whoahwhoahwhoahwhoah... I just read this. A _slight _ warming period? Do you see the slope of that 'slight' warming period? Have you seen what is happening to ice everywhere on the planet? Do you know that mountaintops that have always had ice will soon have none? Slight? Again, retarded.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2006)

I read a cool article about a company that makes these SUPER thin sheets of some carbon material, and they cover entire glaciers with them. Apparently it made such a huge difference that it is becoming recognized by northern governments world wide. Its pretty cheap, if I remember correctly, aswell.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

acestro said:


> Thanks for the larger graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whoahwhoahwhoahwhoah... I just read this. A _slight _ warming period? Do you see the slope of that 'slight' warming period? Have you seen what is happening to ice everywhere on the planet? Do you know that mountaintops that have always had ice will soon have none? Slight? Again, retarded.
[/quote]

....

ALL that graph shows is there is a warming period. Deosnt show whats causing it or who is to blame. THAT was my point...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> Thanks for the larger graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whoahwhoahwhoahwhoah... I just read this. A _slight _ warming period? Do you see the slope of that 'slight' warming period? Have you seen what is happening to ice everywhere on the planet? Do you know that mountaintops that have always had ice will soon have none? Slight? Again, retarded.
[/quote]

....

ALL that graph shows is there is a warming period. Deosnt show whats causing it or who is to blame. THAT was my point...








[/quote]

You dont find it odd that the trend was a gradual decline in temperature and then right around the industrial revolution the trend reverses and now is doing so dramatically? Seriously, get out of Rush Limbaugh's colon.







ALL you said included the word 'slight'. I'm guessing you've had algebra and have made graphs with varying slopes. What slope would you say the line is from the year 1000 to 1850 and what is the slope from 1850 to 1999?

There are also graphs showing how CO2 levels correlate better than solar radiation, volcanoes, or other reasons. But you'll have to start doing your own homework now.







There really shouldn't be any need for further convincing, at some point I just stop caring about people that cant see what's going on. Time becomes better spent on folks that are paying attention and that dont blindly follow party lines... yet one more reason why pundits just make me sad for the human race.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Spare me the political bs. This has nothing to do with party affiliation. I was simply pointing out in that particular graph is showed a slight warming. An "anomalie" of 0.3c from 1900 - 1999 indeed seems slight to me, so I used the term. Wonder what we humans did so wrong in the 1450s to create such a cooling.



acestro said:


> Thanks for the larger graph
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whoahwhoahwhoahwhoah... I just read this. A _slight _ warming period? Do you see the slope of that 'slight' warming period? Have you seen what is happening to ice everywhere on the planet? Do you know that mountaintops that have always had ice will soon have none? Slight? Again, retarded.
[/quote]

....

ALL that graph shows is there is a warming period. Deosnt show whats causing it or who is to blame. THAT was my point...








[/quote]

You dont find it odd that the trend was a gradual decline in temperature and then right around the industrial revolution the trend reverses and now is doing so dramatically? Seriously, get out of Rush Limbaugh's colon.:laugh: ALL you said included the word 'slight'. I'm guessing you've had algebra and have made graphs with varying slopes. What slope would you say the line is from the year 1000 to 1850 and what is the slope from 1850 to 1999?

There are also graphs showing how CO2 levels correlate better than solar radiation, volcanoes, or other reasons. But you'll have to start doing your own homework now.







There really shouldn't be any need for further convincing, at some point I just stop caring about people that cant see what's going on. Time becomes better spent on folks that are paying attention and that dont blindly follow party lines... yet one more reason why pundits just make me sad for the human race.
[/quote]

1000? The damn graph starts ar 1400... Were talking about totally diffrent graphs


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Spare you the bs? What other reason could explain your calling this trend an "anomaly"???

In the 1400s there was the "little ice age".

"Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. "

That's the other thing, I keep putting out good facts and you call dramatic increases in CO2 and temperature rise anomalies. Kinda silly dont you think?

Here's a LONG term graph that shows how much more CO2 there is. Interesting how long this goes back and how there's never been CO2 like this before. Or I guess it could be another one of your "anomalies"

And the graph you are too blind to see starts at 1000. Hopefully you can at least see the line on it.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Words like "slight" and "anomaly" really insult this real data. Luckily, smart people will be studying this and hopefully wont have to worry about too many dumb politicians that fool (and are voted for by) their dumb constituents. Yes, politics is HUGE here. You dont think oil execs arent whispering into congressional ears these same dumb words while their hands are either giving cash or a reacharound? Seriously.

Also, dumb liberals take this too far the other way and abuse it as a tool against the republicans. They even embellish and ruin the credibility of the issue. It's like a nightmare how these sides play games with our futures.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

acestro said:


> Words like "slight" and "anomaly" really insult this real data. Luckily, smart people will be studying this and hopefully wont have to worry about too many dumb politicians that fool (and are voted for by) their dumb constituents.


I think you're overly optimistic Tom.

I for one can at least find a positive note in the massive economic upheaval which I imagine will also include a total collapse of both our social (education, priorities, consumerism) and economic systems as a result of severe climate change because it will be the most important time the human race has ever witnessed. It's a great time to be alive, because assuming there's anything left after this all hits the fan, we'll be the ones who get to create the society that sees humanity into its next era. I don't think there's any stopping the global warming because it goes much much much deeper than just "we need to make less CO2".

Our whole society is geared towards waste and consumption, and nobody is ever going to get anywhere saying "ok guys, this whole consumerism thing right, it's based on waste and superfluous production right, and as our production methods get more efficient and we use less manpower, we need to encourage more waste so that we can produce more stuff to keep the economy going, so we need to like, not do that" and it'll just never fly. But I'm a cynic so what can I say.

Good on ya for sticking up for what you believe in Tom, I think it's depressing that it's going to go to sh*t before we do anything about it, but such is the world we were born into to.

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful to what you're doing either, I only wanted to present my opinion why I believe it's hopeless. I don't disagree with your reasoning at all, even if I don't subscribe to it.

And this isn't to say I'm not an eco friendly person, I am in the hopes that some freak occurence is going to happen and other people will get onboard, but I'm just not that optimistic is all.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

acestro said:


> Words like "slight" and "anomaly" really insult this real data. Luckily, smart people will be studying this and hopefully wont have to worry about too many dumb politicians that fool (and are voted for by) their dumb constituents. Yes, politics is HUGE here. You dont think oil execs arent whispering into congressional ears these same dumb words while their hands are either giving cash or a reacharound? Seriously.
> 
> Also, dumb liberals take this too far the other way and abuse it as a tool against the republicans. They even embellish and ruin the credibility of the issue. It's like a nightmare how these sides play games with our futures.












wtf?

To my unscientific mind 0.3c is SLIGHT. Anomaly... they used the same damn word on the chart.

Again, politics has nothing to do with my views on Earth. Then again, you dont even know where I stand on ecological issues


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ah, you have a point Ex, I thought you were using anomaly in a different context though. Your political views have to be relevant if you listen to those conservative radio hosts everyday but I respect that you can differ in your view (although I see you resisting as much as possible in the face of this data).

Also, it's more than 0.3 degrees C and this is an average. It is also worth mentioning that the global minimum temperatures are rising faster than the global max. This confounds the data and also allows for insidious things like disease and invasive species to sneak in where they hadn't been before.

Sorry if I'm being too rude Exodus, I just get cranky when I provide all that data and have people still question the phenomenon. Downward trend, then industrial revolution, sudden upward trend and sudden upward trend of our CO2 (30% more than before industry). And that CO2 is going to only increase.

I agree with you Twitch, I'm just still in denial. I cant stand how ignorant people are about this and I'm overly optimistic that we'll get a global consciousness but it's extremely unlikely. I just hope that (for the people on this board with kids) we can make it halfway decent for their golden years. They project that we might even have 2X the CO2 originally in the atmosphere by the end of this century. We can only dream (nightmare) of what that will do.

Either way, evolution will continue without us or whatever disappears, but it would be sad to be the reason for deaths and extinctions when we are the only beings ever on this planet that can be introspective and actually realize our actions and their consequences.

In the end it appears as though that unique human trait of self-awareness will almost become irrelevant as our fingerprint will be no different than any other selfish and shortsighted blob of hydrocarbons that has ever wandered the planet.


----------



## altimaser (Jul 10, 2006)

MR.FREEZ said:


> we gonna nuke each other to death before we have
> 
> to worry about global warmming effect anyway, so
> 
> ...


I agree, were gonna nuke each other first


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Serious bumpage


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I dunno Ex0000dus.... someone must have voted to make this bump up...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Now I bump this.


----------



## moron (May 26, 2006)

voted


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

I fear mad cow and bird flu more than global warming. Just wondering how many people have died from global warming. What effects dose global warming have on me day to day.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Heres my view.....I couldnt care less. I like golf and would actually like to see it a little warmer in the winter here. Not enough to melt the polar ice caps or anything...but enough so I dont have to wear a jacket in January to swing a club....5 or 10 degrees would be nice








I believe I have a different view of life then most though....I think most people view their life as something more then it actually is. Also..... anyone that drives/rides in a car, bus, airplane, boat or any other mode of transportation that give off the slightest bit of pollutant...and then run around and create hysteria about a problem they are contributing too...would not only be a hypocrite......but an asshole....just my opinion though.


----------



## Dairy Whip (Mar 26, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Heres my view.....I couldnt care less. I like golf and would actually like to see it a little warmer in the winter here. Not enough to melt the polar ice caps or anything...but enough so I dont have to wear a jacket in January to swing a club....5 or 10 degrees would be nice
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree with you GG


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I dont want people to get the wrong idea about me though...I do recycle..probably more them most. Just because I see it as creating jobs and reducing waste....and if it helps the environment...all the better.

I guess I view this kind of like I view the existence of God. I live my life how I do, and treat people how I do, not because I fear being judged by some God...but because to me it seems like the right thing to do. If there is a God....sweet....if not......oh well....I enjoyed my life. Same with global warming...I do what I do because it seems right...not because I subscribe to a theory that we are all going to boil some day....or sit in a corner worrying about something I ultimately have no control over. To me that just seems like a lot of wasted energy.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> I fear mad cow and bird flu more than global warming. Just wondering how many people have died from global warming. What effects dose global warming have on me day to day.


Well, disease is one of the biggest concerns with global warming. Prepare to see some spreading of disease (and possibly new diseases) because of global warming.

GG, I get what you're saying about hypocrites (Gore in particular), but I really think it's about understanding first. I'm not saying we all need to drive hybrids and be more pro-active. That's each person's choice. But we shouldn't be spreading mis-information or ignoring REAL scientific evidence.

and we shouldn't be wearing clothes like this


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

Ive heard we are headed towards another ice age...Ive heard we are all going to get baked amidst Global Warming. Ive heard each point of view from respectable, scientific sources. Funny how one scientific community can come up with two polar (no pun intended) opposite theories. Sometimes I just think Im being sold on something for somebody else's gain.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

PygoFanatic said:


> Ive heard we are headed towards another ice age...Ive heard we are all going to get baked amidst Global Warming. Ive heard each point of view from respectable, scientific sources. Funny how one scientific community can come up with two polar (no pun intended) opposite ends. Sometimes I just think Im being sold on something for somebody else's gain.


or... one leads to the other. With a ton of fresh water from melting ice in the north Atlantic a lot of ocean cycles could get messed up and actually lead to cooling. It's more of a matter of instability. But I get your frustration in the matter (we are psychic after all...)


----------

