Global Warming: The New Religion

[Old Wizard]

Originally Posted by Njaco

No, you make sure everybody knows and is educated on how to drive a car. The minimal requirement for a license nowadays allows people's personnal habits to dictate how they drive. Putting on make-up, reading the paper, no turn signals, on and on. Instead of seat bets how about making sure people don't have accidents in the first place.

Maybe they should mandate special electronics that will stop a vehicle from turning or changing lanes if the signal lights aren't on....just kidding.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by renrich

Seat belt laws are a good example of how one government excess leads to another. If government is responsible for health care then they say that you must wear a seat belt for the common good and to keep health care costs down. The infringement of liberties keep piling up.

I dont think making people buckle up makes much of an indentation into the liberties of society but it is a fact it has saved many lives and yes, money. That can be put to better use than patching up kids who have been fired through windscreens for the sake of a few dollars off webbing.

Sorry guys i've push the thread a bit off course.

I still think that just denying the issue of climate change as a very viable concern because we do not want to give up our extravegant life styles
is definately isolationist and the world is far to small for that.

[renrich]

Some people believe that GW is a fact and that man has a major role in causing it. Many others disagree. I disagree and am not willing to allow government the control and power needed to take the measures the enviro wackos say are necessary. We don't need more government but less. Particularly I am not ready when the two countries which cause the most pollution are not going to do anything and particularly when the foremost advocate for the GW baloney in this country doesn't believe in the BS he has foisted on the American public and continues to contribute the amount of CO2 he does to the atmosphere. If he believed his own preaching he would be afraid to continue his extravagant lifestyle.

[Flyboy2]

Originally Posted by renrich

when the foremost advocate for the GW baloney in this country doesn't believe in the BS he has foisted on the American public and continues to contribute the amount of CO2 he does to the atmosphere. If he believed his own preaching he would be afraid to continue his extravagant lifestyle.

I do love in his movie how he's driving around in his private limousine when telling us that we should definitely cut down on using our cars. Oh yea hypocrites........

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

Some people believe that GW is a fact and that man has a major role in causing it. Many others disagree. I disagree and am not willing to allow government the control and power needed to take the measures the enviro wackos say are necessary. We don't need more government but less. Particularly I am not ready when the two countries which cause the most pollution are not going to do anything and particularly when the foremost advocate for the GW baloney in this country doesn't believe in the BS he has foisted on the American public and continues to contribute the amount of CO2 he does to the atmosphere. If he believed his own preaching he would be afraid to continue his extravagant lifestyle.

So you want the ex VP of the US of A to drive around in a Ford Fiesta I would think the man is still entitled to some security measures and a Limo or larger SUV only makes sense in such a situation ,
I also can understand your concern about Gore flying GA jets as opposed to commercial air which would be much kinder to the enviroment but then again that might also be for security or i assume he has a "posse" so flying General Aviation jets might be less damaging and less expensive .
I must ask have you ever watched the film or are you relying on second hand reports and if the latter it would make it hard to make or form a knowledgable or impartial decision

[Matt308]

C'mon Pb. Please tell me you are not supporting the Gore religion are you?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Matt308

C'mon Pb. Please tell me you are not supporting the Gore religion are you?

No I don't like people from Tennesee I watched the movie it had a lot of validity but I was already aware of GW and do believe GW is a very serious threat . I just do what I can myself and hope the powers to be will get a grip.
I am not one to say it is gods will and just carry on my merry way
and as the old Lithuanian saying goes
"the longest journey starts with but a single step"
I just hope my little step helps

[Matt308]

okay.

[renrich]

PB, I have not seen the movie nor do I intend to see it. I would not believe anything that Al Gore says as he is well known for mendacity just as most of his ilk. The reports are that he owns a huge house and his utility bills have been published and they are larger than my income. I believe he has the right to live in as big a house as he wants to, but if he really believed all the nonsense he spouts he would substantially reduce his "carbon footprint." You would not find that very many of the leftwing elitist types like him curtailing their lifestyle to reduce their role in GW. They are all a bunch of windbags that believe, "do as I say, not as I do." That is one reason they have no credibility with me. If you want to see a true environmentalist, take a look at President Bush's house in Texas.

[Flyboy2]

An Inconvinient Truth has some very valid points, but even these valid points are blown way out of proportion. To me it seemed like Al Gore was just mad he lost and wanted to go out kicking.

Just to give some good anti-global warming facts, i did a research paper recently against global warming and here are some good sources i used

-http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
-http://www.fdrs.org/arguments_against_global_warming.html

I think you may find these interesting and there are alot more, i just can't find them

[Flyboy2]

And here's my paper, sorry its a little long

Global Warming. This has been the subject of much controversy and arguments in the past two decades. Recently, this topic has reached a fever pitch. With movies such as the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and action movies such as the The Day After Tomorrow the mass public has been exposed to a heavy dosage of pro-global warming opinion. It seems as though global warming must be happening, and we all must be at risk. The average person could recall the computer generated models from An Inconvenient Truth that show coastal cities such as New York City and San Fransisco being washed away from rising sea levels. However, global warming is not as significant as it is made out to be and will have little to no negative affect on the world population.
To begin, one must understand the science behind global warming. Generally speaking it involves greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. When solar energy enters our atmosphere it hits the ground and is reflected back out into space. Because of the Earth's atmosphere, gases trap some of this energy and keep it on earth. This is what allows our planet to be survivable. Without these greenhouse gases we would be a cold, desolate planet such as Pluto. Global warming activists are enthralled with the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from cars and factories will increase the thickness of the atmosphere and will not allow as much solar energy to escape, thereby increasing the world wide temperature and thereby either increasing the overall temperature or decreasing it by disrupting the ocean currents.
From a scientific standpoint, these arguments do not hold up. Global warming activists mostly argue against carbon dioxide emissions from most of civilizations technologies. Carbon dioxide is a completely natural gas. All humans and animals emit carbon dioxide and have been emitting them much longer than cars where ever invented. Therefore, to completely cut back on carbon emissions, it would be best for everybody in the world to quit breathing.
Most scientists agree that global warming is occurring. Recent satellite weather readings have detected a 0.03 degree Celsius decrease of temperature per decade. Even this is not a completely accurate number. Part of the reason for these temperature fluctuations are orbital decay and changes in solar output. Factor this is and the temperature has only dropped 0.01 degrees Celsius over the past decade. This means that in the past three centuries, Earth temperature has only fluctuated 1 degree Celsius. One of the reasons for this trend can be found by looking at temperature changes on other planets. Mars, Jupiter and Pluto have all experienced notable temperature changes. If “global warming” is occurring on other planets, where there is no human life to emit carbon dioxide, something else must be going on with the sun.
With these new satellite readings, the ordering of hottest years have changed. It seems as though the often quoted numbers from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are completely wrong. With new information and numbers, it has been shown that 1934, not 1998 was the hottest year on history. Indeed, of the ten hottest years on history, seven occurred between 1880 and 1940. Also during this time the Arctic temperature was actually hotter than it is now. This either shows an error in the United States temperature system or a trend that reveals an even more likely truth when it comes to the subject of global climate change.
Why would seven of the hottest years on history occur in between 1880 and 1940? During these years, their where much fewer people and most of them did not own cars. The only likely explanation is that Earth's climate goes through cycles. Looking at the climate history of the world we can defiantly see this.
The Earth goes through a cycle. Looking at ice core samples from Greenland, we can see that the temperature of the Earth shifts about every 1,500 years. Looking at 14,000 years of vegetation and ice core examples, we can see that the Earth's climate has shifted nine times. Most of these where before humans even occupied the Earth and occurred long before humans began burning fossil fuels. The most notable of these is the First Ice Age which froze most of the Earths surface. Even more beneficial to global warming skeptics is the two periods in Earth's climate history known as “climatic optimum”. The first of these occurred around 5000-3000 BC. During this period the Earth's overall temperature actually increased. At this time, some of the first civilizations began to flourish. The second occurred around 800-1200 AD and this time allowed some of the Medieval organizations to explore and flourish outside of their home. Faced with these facts scientists James Plummer and Frances S. Smith stated: “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.” According to these highly respected scientists, global warming can be a good thing.
Even if we did want to change something, the ability for humans to change the whole weather pattern of the Earth is completely impossible. It is implausible to believe that by not driving cars, we can reverse a cycle of Earth weather conditions that has been occurring for thousands of years. Part of this belief stems form the idea that the world is a much smaller place then it used to be. Although technologies such as airplanes and boats have made the world seem smaller, it actually is still the same size it was two hundred years ago. Because of the huge above ground volume of the Earth, the carbon dioxide emitted by cars is like dumping two gallons of food dye into the ocean. Although it seems like a lot from our small human perspective, the food dye will have little or no affect on the ocean. The same can be said about global warming.
Aside from the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence against global climate change, the world has been blatantly fed false information. Most of this false information has circulated around the movie An Inconvenient Truth where former vice-President Al Gore quoted completely wrong figures that where proposed by an extremely small group of independently funded scientists.
Most scientists do not agree with the global climate change theory and model. In fact 19,000 scientists signed a petition at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating that there is no compelling evidence posed by the recognized scientific community that proves that greenhouse gases emitted by modern technology is making a complete climate change. Also the IPCC study which is so often quoted by global warming enthusiasts does not conclude that humans are causing a global climate change and that we can not accurately predict the future climate on Earth. The IPCC stated: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.” This is not a acceptance of global warming as so many enthusiasts have come to believe. Many scientist also point out that only about thirty years ago we where concerned about going into another Ice Age, and now we are worried about the Earth getting hotter. A final argument from the scientists is that while one polar ice cap is melting, another is actually growing. This phase shifts over time, sometimes Antarctica is melting and the Arctic is melting, sometimes it is the complete opposite.
This brings us to another point. The current forecast models that predict a global climate change are to crude to accurately make predictions and the temperature numbers that are given by global warming alarmists are not an accurate form of data. The current forecast models are driven by relatively crude computers that only can make predictions based off of current trends and rising or declining temperature and barometric readings. They are, in a way, an over sized fortune teller. They can not make accurate predictions about the Earths climate because the Earths climate is a dynamic force and does not always follow the trends that the computer models rely on. Also, the scientists behind the temperature models are known for “fluxing” the data. This means that they bend the numbers so to provide a model closer to the designers original specifications. Although this occurs throughout the scientific community, weather scientists are extremely notorious for doing this type of information falsifying.
The type of temperature readings that global warming alarmists use is an inaccurate form of temperature recording. The temperature readings they use are known as ground readings, or the temperature taken at ground level. A more accurate temperature reading is taken by satellites high in the upper troposphere. Here, the readings reflect the true air temperature. Where ground readings record a 15 degree Celsius increase, the satellites record a 0.01 degrees Celsius change. This is because ground readings are extremely suspectable to different variables on the ground. These may be as diverse as the air being cloudy or the wind being very high. This type of ground reading are those quoted by global warming alarmists.

[Flyboy2]

The political and economic ratifications of the carbon emission plans are staggering. Looking at the plans in light of the new global climate change information, it seems as though such plans such as the Kyoto Treaty will actually hurt the world more than it will help it. If we look at the actual numbers from the Kyoto Treaty we can see how much such a treaty would hurt our economy. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 7 percent before the year 2012, we would be doing a lot of economic damage to the world. 2.4 million jobs would disappear and so would $300 billion state dollars in exports and imports. Accompanying this would be the drop of house value by $2,700 and the tax revenues would decrease by $93.1 billion. All of this would decrease the temperature by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius by 2100.
It has seemed that the politicians who back “global warming awareness” never actually fallow through with their promises. Even with all of the press coverage concerning global warming, few programs have been actively pursued and even then, most of these programs have hurt more than helped. Scientists Dave Zanotti stated: "It’s become the default throw-over issue. When politicians don’t have anything else that’s working for them they talk about global warming to get the cheers…you’d like to think it’s just cheers. But it’s going to cost America a lot of money. Billions."
There is positively no point in pursuing an anti-global warming project right now. The computers are to crude, politicians are to worried about pleasing the masses and the masses are to brainwashed to convince the politicians otherwise. Scientists believe that the best strategy is “no regrets”. This means that politicians should do absolutely nothing until the science behind global warming becomes more compelling and more correct. Washington Post commented on this problem: "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming." We should not start risky and ultimately destructive anti-global warming policies until we completely understand what is going on with the weather in our Earth. Doing something right now is like cliff diving with out knowing exactly how deep the water is and what is at the bottom. Both actions are extremely risky and both will probably cause you more harm then good.

[pbfoot]

An inconvienent Truth is just a primer to get folks thinking and it served its purpose. Myself I tend to go with thevery large majority of the scientists that say it's fact. I'm not bright enough to figure out Kyoto for myself but from what I've read its ineffectual.
Flyboy2 you're pretty young and should be the most concerned about the possible effects of warming because it will affect you more then it will some of the old geezers like me . So look into it and make up your own mind and don't always believe what the old farts like me say

[Flyboy2]

Alright will do.... these are just my points but i believe that like any other controversy, there really is no right or wrong point... guess we'll just have to wait a thousand years to see who was really right

[renrich]

Very good FB2 but in the meantime the left will use "GW" as the means to advance their true agenda-more government, more government control. Call it what you want, Socialism or Communism but they don't believe most individuals have enough sense to make decisions for themselves. Scratch a dimocrat and you will find mostly a left wing collectivist. Hang in there FB2, use your own common sense and don't believe the malarkey of the left.