JW Muller

Not so fast on the incontestable. Global temperatures have been stable since 1998, and in the last year have become cooler, despite a 4% rise in C02. The past global warming models do not correctly predict the moderate temperatures we are now experiencing. It is easy to detect a shift in world opinion away from global warming, despite the more desperate efforts of the alarmists to keep people believing.

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off

dmission

And a cleaner environment is worthless to you?
(Also, how is is wasting if we prevent it?)

Arsenal0328

I'm all for recycling and not dumping sludge into rivers etc. but the idea of carbon credits and the like is complete bull ****.

and you're the one who put "nothing happens" at the end of BOTH of them.

Jakor

Agreed, Smallz3141, that seems the most reasonable explanation.

I think we should pursue renewable measures not just because there is some effect on our actions (I can't imagine burning 20.68 million barrels of oil a day in the US alone doesn't impact the earth at least a tiny little bit...), but also because it would probably improve the quality of life in our cities (air pollution/smog obviously exists!!!) and would be the smartest thing to do in a time of constrained resources.

josh5sox

I'm also pretty sure that most Americans had heard of Global Warming before Al Gore's movie/research. The idea of Global Warming started WAY before 2006. On top of that, the last time I checked they weren't just handing out Nobel Peace Prizes to just anybody. You cannot discredit all of the research he did because it is obviously (somewhat) sufficient if he won a Nobel Prize.

Obstinate

It may or not be real, but either way, Al Gore is brilliant. He's getting people to really think about their carbon footprint and stuff.

But I'd just like to say, if I hear the phrase "going green" one more time, I'm gonna go burn a tree.

Ironically, I don't even drive. I bike, train, and bus everywhere. I really don't care about the environment all that much.

Dr.Horse

The problem I have with this situation is the third world nations which depend on fossil fuels to survive. If the big nations like the USA, Japan, India and China(which is now considered third world) cut the demand, the prices will just go up. If we then as a global economy try to limit the extraction and refining of these oils, the price will then go up. When this occur, which I predict it will, the nations who are now developing or about to start developing will be completely screwed. What very little infrastructure they have now, will break down and halt. You cant expect a third world nation to go from nothing or very little to hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels. We didn't.

While I dont neccasarily care about those nations or those people. If America wants to be great and reguarded as so, it needs to have a history of non exploitation.

Hippo724

Personally, I think we need to invest in a hell of a lot more nuclear power plants for national electricity needs. It is a proven safe technology, and is completely emission-free.

I agree with this. France has a similar system and it's become a very clean, effective country (despite all the dog **** that apparently is widespread in the streets of Paris). However, it would be very difficult to get this implemented in the US. There is a very big stigma and fear against nuclear power in this country. What with the fact that to most people, nuclear energy=nuclear bombs and conjures up images of us either bombing Japan, or them hiding under desks in school to protect themselves from Soviet missiles, it'll be a while until such a plan of action would be deemed acceptable.

yawn

You don't *honestly* believe humans have had the same net effect on the planet as all other species, do you?

Show me a panda bear that has deforested thousands of acres of rain forest, and I'll believe you.

applejack

You do realize that many people who went to college and actually learned the statistics behind climate change were well aware of the situation long before Al Gore spoke out, right? There seems to be this lust to "burn the messenger" amongst conservative circles if someone disagrees with the message. Discredit Al Gore (or Obama or Hillary or whomever) and you can discredit the message.

The tobacco industry spent decades putting false research out to keep the public in doubt before they finally had to admit that cigarettes kill. The same tactics are being used by the energy industry. And if you listen to talk radio, keep in mind that for someone like Rush Limbaugh to admit to global warming would mean that his fundamental ideology is flawed (unregulated markets), so they will fight until the end.

The stats demonstrate all the greenhouse gases rising exponentially since about 1872 (birth of the industrial revolution) after thousands of years of consistent rates. Could it be coincidence? Perhaps. But probably not, and to dismiss people who study the statistics of climate change as uneducated, followers of Gore, or unable to think critically is rather ignorant. There's a LOT of data out there, and one need only look at satellite pictures of earth to see just how much of this planet we control. The argument that we're just a little species who couldn't possibly impact this tiny planet is absurd.

But, at the end of the day, who cares? We have a major economic crisis in our country. The world has major environmental crises of all sorts and wars are constantly being waged over dwindling oil supplies. Just like we did with industrialism and information technology, why don't we use our American ingenuity and develop sustainable technology industries because it's the right thing to do and it would be good for us economically, socially, politically, and militarily?

Why fight innovation and ingenuity?

JBVirtuoso

But WHO? WHO do so many people believe this?

misralz

"You cannot discredit all of the research he did because it is obviously (somewhat) sufficient if he won a Nobel Prize."

Firstly ,I don't really have a valid opinion on global warming mostly because all of my information on this issue comes from the media, but I'd just like to point out that the Nobel Peace Prize can be very politically motivated and is based on contemporary opinion and subjective judges appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.Winning the peace prize does not validate his research in anyway. The nobel people have been known to screw up on giving out awards. Yasser Arafat, a man many considered to be a terrorist who stirred up hostilities in the middle east, won the peace prize.

LogicWarrior

Greenhouse gas global warming isn't a new idea that Al Gore came up with. It's been around since 1992.

"An Inconvenient Truth" isn't a good source of information because it brushes over natural factors like water vapor and volcanoes as well as man-made factors like methane. (technically natural, but a lot of it comes from agriculture)

There's a near-consensus in the scientific community that the earth is heating up, and that greenhouse gases are contributing to this. There is a good amount of variation, though, with some scientists blaming greenhouse gases almost exclusively and some blaming natural factors almost exclusively.

As for the people who think that the earth isn't heating up or that greenhouse gases have no effect, remember that some people still think 9/11 was an inside job. Conspiracy theorists don't listen to rational argument.

Dr.Horse

Well Logic the same can be said for the majority. If the minority belived 9/11 was a inside job and they were right, then the majority obviously didn't listen to the rational argument. I personally hate the idea of government, so the idea of a inside job to instill fear in the populous, for the direct injection of fascism is really not that hard to believe. We have seen it happen many times before. The idea of the leviathan is quite old, but usually always works.

Global Warming is nothing more than another leviathan, just so happens that the world is actually heating up. The problem is why is it heating up. The majority of scientists, at least from what Ive read have all said that human intervention is so minuscule that the heating is unlikely to be human caused. Those same scientists usually also mention the relation between solar activity(flares) and global temperature, which have a direct relation.

If it is natural which it most likely is people are being scammed. Its hard to believe people are still buying indulgences in the 21st century.

Smallz3141

Well that's not really true, or you're listening to scientists on only one side of the issue. That is really the debate: how much human activity is influencing Earth's increasing temperature (which again, I must reiterate, is happening). Some people state that things like a single volcano sends up more greenhouse gases than humans, that's incorrect. While carbon dioxide is certainly in the 'smoke' the vast majority is sulfuric compounds which is not a greenhouse gas.

In terms of solar flares, there is no hard scientific evidence to show that solar activity such as flares, prominences, etc, have any direct correlation to earth's overall temperature, let alone impacting global warming. This activity largely releases charged particles towards earth, not the flares themselves. This directly leads to increase auroras, not increased temperatures. I worked directly with a planetary astrophysicist, discussing these very issues.