Over 400 Scientists Challenge Gore's Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Comanche
I am still waiting. It is cold outside.

Coldest winter in Canada in thirty years.
Coldest winter in Australia in twenty years.
Glaciers growing in New Zealand.

First time in 40 years they have seen icebergs off the coast of New Zealand.

Ice pack getting thicker in Antartica
Ice pack getting thicker in Greenland.
Record freezing of Artic Ice Pack
Glaciers growing in Europe

And, it is cold outside. When are we going to see warmer temps?

You have any proof of the bolded?

I have not heard any of that in fact have seen only the opposite.

The reason you are seeing Icebergs is because the shelf has been breaking off and you're seeing leftovers not building up.

Please go back to school. You missed a lot of science class.

Oh that's right, you're probably a youngster and science class has been replaced with creationism. My bad, you'll just go throughout life confused and wrong.

Enjoy

Coldest in 15 years

First snowfall in Sydney since the 1830's

Growing glaciers in New Zealand

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year

Dozens of ski resorts across the Alps have begun running their lifts after unprecedented levels of snow this month.


Go home little boy. You're out of your league here.

edit: took out the personal flame. It's too easy though.

Most people measure Global Warming by the increase in average global temperature, not by snow fall amounts or regional temperture fluctuation. Sorry, time to burn your strawmen.

edit Quote from {additional snowfall}"The new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new result supports global warming." When you gonna read your references? I did, they don't support you at all.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
How much does Gore make per presentation? 100k? How many presentations has he done? 1000 or so?

What does that have to do with the global warming issue? Like I've said before, Al Gore is a sideshow to the scientific debate. The ONLY reason people go after Al Gore is that he's an easy target, while well researched and well argued peer reviewed scientific papers are somewhat more difficult to argue against.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
How much does Gore make per presentation? 100k? How many presentations has he done? 1000 or so?

What does that have to do with the global warming issue? Like I've said before, Al Gore is a sideshow to the scientific debate. The ONLY reason people go after Al Gore is that he's an easy target, while well researched and well argued peer reviewed scientific papers are somewhat more difficult to argue against.

Yep, and if he never had a 'D' next to his name you'd see a lot less mud flung his way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
How much does Gore make per presentation? 100k? How many presentations has he done? 1000 or so?

What does that have to do with the global warming issue? Like I've said before, Al Gore is a sideshow to the scientific debate. The ONLY reason people go after Al Gore is that he's an easy target, while well researched and well argued peer reviewed scientific papers are somewhat more difficult to argue against.

Yep, and if he never had a 'D' next to his name you'd see a lot less mud flung his way.

Of course, and it's pretty easy to understand why this is a political debate rather than a scientific one. Folks pretending global warming is some sort of unique issue in this respect are forgetting that virtually EVERY environmental issue comes down to right vs left.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Coldest in 15 years

First snowfall in Sydney since the 1830's

Growing glaciers in New Zealand

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year

Dozens of ski resorts across the Alps have begun running their lifts after unprecedented levels of snow this month.


Go home little boy. You're out of your league here.

edit: took out the personal flame. It's too easy though.

Good job on taking out the personal flames. :roll:

If you were really interested in climate change, instead of just the politics surrounding climate change, you'd know that "global warming" does not mean it is getting warmer every single second everywhere on the planet at once. In fact, there are several theories that suggest, with pretty ample scientific backing, that as the average global temperature goes up over time, certain parts of the world will actually get colder due to secondary effects of global warming. For instance, warming trends in northern Atlantic Ocean will result in a change in salinity, which will in turn disrupt the currents that carry warmer ocean water from more southern areas to northern Europe. Since those warm water currents are what gives England and other places in northern Europe a warmer climate than their northern location would suggest, the absence of the currents would actually cause those areas to get colder.

There is a reason that "climate change" has become the more adopted term in scientific circles...because it's more accurate and doesn't lend itself to the intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of what "global warming" really means. Your links pretty well demonstrate that this is a problem, since the awesome arguments you've thought up do nothing to prove the point you think you are making.

And what point exactly do you think Im trying to make? Out of curiousity. It may be I didnt articulate well, becaue my point is based on common sense. Which I assume you have.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I wondered to myself the other day if Rush Limbaugh had been the one to get on the GW kick and not Al Gore, would more people in this country take the matter more seriously or less?

Or would we have a complete flip flop on the issue with conservatives erring on the side of caution and the liberals attacking the message and messenger?

If the latter is the case, isn't GW just purely partisan? I'd like to think it is not but from what I have read the past few years, it seems for the most to be a party issue. There are of course exceptions as evidenced here in P&N.

I dont think so. It's not the partisan coverage thats at the heart of the issue, its GW itself. There are experts on both sides, with compelling evidence to support their thoery. But the bottom line is the same: we dont know how much of an impact man has had in GW, we dont know IF man can even change the trend, and history tells us this isnt the first time (or the second for that matter) this has happened. I dont understand why all of a sudden its an emotional, emergency situation. It's the friggin planet doing its own thing.

That's not true. Climate change is not settled science in the same way that orbital mechanics are, but to suggest that we don't know anything at all is just silly. We have a pretty good idea, and as time goes by, our understanding gets even better. And while there are certainly scientists suggesting human beings do NOT contribute a significant amount to climate change, there are many times more scientists who suggest that we DO...and more importantly, they make a better argument.

Science is almost never 100% certain about anything, especially new ideas, but you are trying to magnify that uncertainty to claim we're just stumbling around in the dark. In reality, that's not even remotely the case, certainly not enough to justify throwing out the entire theory. The planet might "do it's own thing", but that doesn't mean WE can't possibly have an effect either.

And let's be honest here, this is almost entirely about partisan bickering. Climate science is pretty complicated, and I think this thread, and every other thread on the topic, demonstrates that most people couldn't tell climate science from a hole in the ground. Yet most people feel incredibly strongly about the topic one way or the other, a split that seems to almost entirely line up with their political leanings. Tell me this is just honest scientific debate that happens to be conducted on partisan lines by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about...because I'm a little doubtful.

When did I elude to not knowing anything at all? I think I was pretty clear when I said "But the bottom line is the same: we dont know how much of an impact man has had in GW, we dont know IF man can even change the trend, and history tells us this isnt the first time (or the second for that matter) this has happened"


Do you dispute that statement?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: umbrella39
I wondered to myself the other day if Rush Limbaugh had been the one to get on the GW kick and not Al Gore, would more people in this country take the matter more seriously or less?

Or would we have a complete flip flop on the issue with conservatives erring on the side of caution and the liberals attacking the message and messenger?

If the latter is the case, isn't GW just purely partisan? I'd like to think it is not but from what I have read the past few years, it seems for the most to be a party issue. There are of course exceptions as evidenced here in P&N.

I dont think so. It's not the partisan coverage thats at the heart of the issue, its GW itself. There are experts on both sides, with compelling evidence to support their thoery. But the bottom line is the same: we dont know how much of an impact man has had in GW, we dont know IF man can even change the trend, and history tells us this isnt the first time (or the second for that matter) this has happened. I dont understand why all of a sudden its an emotional, emergency situation. It's the friggin planet doing its own thing.

That's not true. Climate change is not settled science in the same way that orbital mechanics are, but to suggest that we don't know anything at all is just silly. We have a pretty good idea, and as time goes by, our understanding gets even better. And while there are certainly scientists suggesting human beings do NOT contribute a significant amount to climate change, there are many times more scientists who suggest that we DO...and more importantly, they make a better argument.

Science is almost never 100% certain about anything, especially new ideas, but you are trying to magnify that uncertainty to claim we're just stumbling around in the dark. In reality, that's not even remotely the case, certainly not enough to justify throwing out the entire theory. The planet might "do it's own thing", but that doesn't mean WE can't possibly have an effect either.

And let's be honest here, this is almost entirely about partisan bickering. Climate science is pretty complicated, and I think this thread, and every other thread on the topic, demonstrates that most people couldn't tell climate science from a hole in the ground. Yet most people feel incredibly strongly about the topic one way or the other, a split that seems to almost entirely line up with their political leanings. Tell me this is just honest scientific debate that happens to be conducted on partisan lines by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about...because I'm a little doubtful.

When did I elude to not knowing anything at all? I think I was pretty clear when I said "But the bottom line is the same: we dont know how much of an impact man has had in GW, we dont know IF man can even change the trend, and history tells us this isnt the first time (or the second for that matter) this has happened"


Do you dispute that statement?

I'm sorry, does the phrase "we don't know how much of an impact man has had on global warming" imply something OTHER than "we don't know anything"? We DO have strong evidence to suggest that man has a significant impact on the climate. And because of that, we presumably can effect a change down the road. As for "history tells us...", the point (which has been made MANY times) is that your statement is irrelevant. Whether or not it has naturally happened in the past has no bearing at all on whether or not it's happening naturally NOW. All your saying is that climate change CAN happen naturally, which is not a point anyone is arguing. I'm saying we're significantly contributing to it NOW.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Coldest in 15 years

First snowfall in Sydney since the 1830's

Growing glaciers in New Zealand

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year

Dozens of ski resorts across the Alps have begun running their lifts after unprecedented levels of snow this month.


Go home little boy. You're out of your league here.

edit: took out the personal flame. It's too easy though.

Good job on taking out the personal flames. :roll:

If you were really interested in climate change, instead of just the politics surrounding climate change, you'd know that "global warming" does not mean it is getting warmer every single second everywhere on the planet at once. In fact, there are several theories that suggest, with pretty ample scientific backing, that as the average global temperature goes up over time, certain parts of the world will actually get colder due to secondary effects of global warming. For instance, warming trends in northern Atlantic Ocean will result in a change in salinity, which will in turn disrupt the currents that carry warmer ocean water from more southern areas to northern Europe. Since those warm water currents are what gives England and other places in northern Europe a warmer climate than their northern location would suggest, the absence of the currents would actually cause those areas to get colder.

There is a reason that "climate change" has become the more adopted term in scientific circles...because it's more accurate and doesn't lend itself to the intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of what "global warming" really means. Your links pretty well demonstrate that this is a problem, since the awesome arguments you've thought up do nothing to prove the point you think you are making.

And what point exactly do you think Im trying to make? Out of curiousity. It may be I didnt articulate well, becaue my point is based on common sense. Which I assume you have.

I think you are trying to make the argument that examples of cold weather disprove global warming. At the very least, I think you are making the argument that "it was really cold yesterday" is important to the climate change debate AT ALL. And for my part, I'm saying that what ski resorts in the Alps are doing this winter is not a good way to debate large scale global warming.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Coldest in 15 years

First snowfall in Sydney since the 1830's

Growing glaciers in New Zealand

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year

Dozens of ski resorts across the Alps have begun running their lifts after unprecedented levels of snow this month.


Go home little boy. You're out of your league here.

edit: took out the personal flame. It's too easy though.

Good job on taking out the personal flames. :roll:

If you were really interested in climate change, instead of just the politics surrounding climate change, you'd know that "global warming" does not mean it is getting warmer every single second everywhere on the planet at once. In fact, there are several theories that suggest, with pretty ample scientific backing, that as the average global temperature goes up over time, certain parts of the world will actually get colder due to secondary effects of global warming. For instance, warming trends in northern Atlantic Ocean will result in a change in salinity, which will in turn disrupt the currents that carry warmer ocean water from more southern areas to northern Europe. Since those warm water currents are what gives England and other places in northern Europe a warmer climate than their northern location would suggest, the absence of the currents would actually cause those areas to get colder.

There is a reason that "climate change" has become the more adopted term in scientific circles...because it's more accurate and doesn't lend itself to the intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of what "global warming" really means. Your links pretty well demonstrate that this is a problem, since the awesome arguments you've thought up do nothing to prove the point you think you are making.

And what point exactly do you think Im trying to make? Out of curiousity. It may be I didnt articulate well, becaue my point is based on common sense. Which I assume you have.

I think you are trying to make the argument that examples of cold weather disprove global warming. At the very least, I think you are making the argument that "it was really cold yesterday" is important to the climate change debate AT ALL. And for my part, I'm saying that what ski resorts in the Alps are doing this winter is not a good way to debate large scale global warming.

You misread again Rains. What I didnt say was man hasnt had an impact. What I did say was, we really dont know how much. I realize its not an easy thing to quantify, but IMO its not as bad as many as claiming. There are many "experts" who agree with me also. There are also many experts who say mankind has essentially taken a shit on our environment and that is causing a huge amount of warming *shrug* We believe in the experts that match our personal beliefs. Which tells me, we really dont know shit. One side critizes the other blah blah blah.

Also, I guess you missed what I was trying to say. I dont think anywhere in *MY* argument I said anything about "man its cold outside its not warming!". Im not using that ludicriss argument at all. What I *am* saying is there are an awful lot of places in the world experiencing the coldest weather in decades, in some cases over a centery. Not days or weeks or even a year. Again, its all in the interpratation of the...ahem...evidence.

My only position is, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Considering how fragile mankind is in regards to the universe or even this planet, to think we could have such a huge impact is, IMHO, prideful. Yeah, I think we've had SOME impact, but not to extent so many, including on this board, say we have. And yeah. I have experts backing me up on that.

It's all cyclical. Obviously this planet has gone through periods of warming and freezing before. Did man influence it then also? No? Then wtf makes people think we do now? People just need something to get emotional about is all. The arguments for a "green" society are so full of holes its not even funny. Take cars. It takes at least 25% more end result energy to produce a hybrid car than a traditional car. Is it worth it? Fuck no. It makes us FFEEEELLLL good though.

Anyway. Not sure I can be any clearer. *shrug*

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...
Coldest in 15 years

First snowfall in Sydney since the 1830's

Growing glaciers in New Zealand

The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year

Dozens of ski resorts across the Alps have begun running their lifts after unprecedented levels of snow this month.


Go home little boy. You're out of your league here.

edit: took out the personal flame. It's too easy though.

Good job on taking out the personal flames. :roll:

If you were really interested in climate change, instead of just the politics surrounding climate change, you'd know that "global warming" does not mean it is getting warmer every single second everywhere on the planet at once. In fact, there are several theories that suggest, with pretty ample scientific backing, that as the average global temperature goes up over time, certain parts of the world will actually get colder due to secondary effects of global warming. For instance, warming trends in northern Atlantic Ocean will result in a change in salinity, which will in turn disrupt the currents that carry warmer ocean water from more southern areas to northern Europe. Since those warm water currents are what gives England and other places in northern Europe a warmer climate than their northern location would suggest, the absence of the currents would actually cause those areas to get colder.

There is a reason that "climate change" has become the more adopted term in scientific circles...because it's more accurate and doesn't lend itself to the intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of what "global warming" really means. Your links pretty well demonstrate that this is a problem, since the awesome arguments you've thought up do nothing to prove the point you think you are making.

And what point exactly do you think Im trying to make? Out of curiousity. It may be I didnt articulate well, becaue my point is based on common sense. Which I assume you have.

I think you are trying to make the argument that examples of cold weather disprove global warming. At the very least, I think you are making the argument that "it was really cold yesterday" is important to the climate change debate AT ALL. And for my part, I'm saying that what ski resorts in the Alps are doing this winter is not a good way to debate large scale global warming.

You misread again Rains. What I didnt say was man hasnt had an impact. What I did say was, we really dont know how much. I realize its not an easy thing to quantify, but IMO its not as bad as many as claiming. There are many "experts" who agree with me also. There are also many experts who say mankind has essentially taken a shit on our environment and that is causing a huge amount of warming *shrug* We believe in the experts that match our personal beliefs. Which tells me, we really dont know shit. One side critizes the other blah blah blah.

Also, I guess you missed what I was trying to say. I dont think anywhere in *MY* argument I said anything about "man its cold outside its not warming!". Im not using that ludicriss argument at all. What I *am* saying is there are an awful lot of places in the world experiencing the coldest weather in decades, in some cases over a centery. Not days or weeks or even a year. Again, its all in the interpratation of the...ahem...evidence.

My only position is, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Considering how fragile mankind is in regards to the universe or even this planet, to think we could have such a huge impact is, IMHO, prideful. Yeah, I think we've had SOME impact, but not to extent so many, including on this board, say we have. And yeah. I have experts backing me up on that.

It's all cyclical. Obviously this planet has gone through periods of warming and freezing before. Did man influence it then also? No? Then wtf makes people think we do now? People just need something to get emotional about is all. The arguments for a "green" society are so full of holes its not even funny. Take cars. It takes at least 25% more end result energy to produce a hybrid car than a traditional car. Is it worth it? Fuck no. It makes us FFEEEELLLL good though.

Anyway. Not sure I can be any clearer. *shrug*

It's pretty simple really. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It is getting warmer. Ergo, man is causing global warming over and above any natural cycle. And therefore man can reduce global warming by reducing CO2 emissions. Because global warming can lead to catastrophe for human on the planet, we also need to reduce emissions. It's really very simple.

 

[blackangst1]

Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'm trying to be moderate on this issue, but I never got something. What impact does Global Warming have on us? Or even on a global scale?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I'm trying to be moderate on this issue, but I never got something. What impact does Global Warming have on us? Or even on a global scale?

The government vacuum attached to your wallet will suck faster.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I wondered to myself the other day if Rush Limbaugh had been the one to get on the GW kick and not Al Gore, would more people in this country take the matter more seriously or less?

You are YOUNG. Rush was on GW years ago. For us older folks, remember when he interviewed Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, former governor of Washington State, numerous times. The gist of those interviews was global warming is a myth. This was over 10 years ago now.

It's pretty simple really. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Moonbeam, I am surprised you would make this statement without the other half of the equation.

What turns CO2 into O2?
What gets cut down by acres and acres a year?
Wasn`t there a company started that was supposed to be buying land in this area to protect it?

Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist

See above. Dinosaurs didn`t have chainsaws.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If I thought it would help, I might. The problem is that I don't think the issue here is a lack of understanding, I think it's an agenda that science doesn't play a very big part in. Folks clearly don't understand the science involved, yet they've also clearly already made up their minds ABOUT the science. Certainly a better understanding of the science is needed, but it seems like the first step is to get people to think about this issue in terms of science. Science is irrelevant when science isn't the central focus of this debate.

Such a bullshit argument you bring up there, Rainsford. You either increase the energy in the system or you do not have global warming. It gets down to a simple gigo formula and this whole global warming debacle is nothing but trumped up chicken little doomsday tomfoolerly. You are touting science as the proof but then demonstrating how science cannot provide the answers. Your science cited in this case is to feed bullshit unquantified data into the global warming arguments which is exactly why the result of the data out is nothing but garbage. All the theory in the world on global warming is pure speculation and has no foundation on facts if it ignores the simplest rule of thumb which is the conservation of energy.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
What turns CO2 into O2?
What gets cut down by acres and acres a year?
Wasn`t there a company started that was supposed to be buying land in this area to protect it?

Corn can convert your silly CO2 back into carbon and O2 nearly as fast as you can feed it the CO2. The problem is that we - as in the world - are nowhere near the theoretical problem levels of CO2 that are necessary to cause unfettered global warming. It is only when speculators in the scientific community tweak their data do they get simulations that give them the doomsday image they seek. Let's face it, science needs money. And no facet of science needs more money at this current time than science revolving around oil independence. Without global warming we are running into roadblocks for reasons to dump money into conservation science. Either the public throws its money at the real problem - dependence on oil for energy needs - or we will reach a rapidly approaching global apocalype when oil supplies begin to dry up.

 

[OokiiNeko]

And no facet of science needs more money at this current time than science revolving around oil independence.

How old are you? We have been hearing that crap since the 70s during the first gas crisis.

Better to ask who has received how much (of our tax) money and not produced squat?

I`d like to hear more about the corn. Is that natural or genetically modified?

 

[MadRat]

The rise in the price of oil is seriously devalueing our money across the board. As oil increases in price our purchasing power abroad decreases due to their tight link.

Not produced squat? Please. Would good ole Uncle Sam allow research time and money to go to waste? /sarcasm

btw - Take your age question and repeat it to the mirror. That was inappropriate in a serious discussion.

 

[NeoV]

suck on this boys and girls - big surprise, the 400 'scientists' is a bunch of crap, just like pretty much everything that moron from Oklahoma has to say

http://climateprogress.org/200...s-in-2007-andy-revkin/

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: NeoV
suck on this boys and girls - big surprise, the 400 'scientists' is a bunch of crap, just like pretty much everything that moron from Oklahoma has to say

http://climateprogress.org/200...s-in-2007-andy-revkin/

seems to match the people on the IPCC who came up with thier study and won the nobel prize.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Sorry, Al. If I had to take the word of a significant number of scientists or yours, I think the decision is pretty easy. It's laughable how the media has annointed Al as some kind of Einstein when the guy has no credentials. Zero.

Originally posted by: NeoV
suck on this boys and girls - big surprise, the 400 'scientists' is a bunch of crap, just like pretty much everything that moron from Oklahoma has to say

http://climateprogress.org/200...s-in-2007-andy-revkin/

LMFAO. Who the one with the credibility issue again Pab?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

Then why were "pre-human levels" of CO2 frequently higher than current levels?

I try to be nice when arguing this issue, but the fact is that 99.9% of the people arguing about it on the internet are utterly clueless about it, except for whatever some partisan politics have force-fed them.

I doubt that most people here could even say what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 without googling it first.

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

THAT is the scientific consensus. The alarmists and the deniers -- both of whom are arguing an idiotic false dilemma of being 100% right and the other side 100% wrong -- are both sides obsessed by partisan hackery and are utterly unscientific. There's no nicer way to put it.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Vic

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

you have over reacted to Gore's message, probably due to some other hidden bias you harbor against the man. his message is not meant to panic or shock the public. his message is to educate the public on how energy consumption contributes to global warming. making people aware of this, in a passionate and sincere effort, is more than the world's governments could do for the human species since the industrial revolution began. that is why he won the nobel prize.
its funny to me how a man comes along with a POSITIVE, educational message on how to make our lives better, and morons come out of the woodwork to argue.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: gururu2
its funny to me how a man comes along with a POSITIVE, educational message on how to make our lives better, and morons come out of the woodwork to argue.

It's further evidence in support of Robert Heinlien's observation:

The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.