<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t even have to be that extreme. Simply reducing your meat intake can make a large impact. This line sounds like a “go vegan” campaign ad to me…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Source? I’d suspect that it’s due to either sunspots or something else sun related…</p>
<p>I haven’t made up my mind on global warming. It’s obvious that the Earth is in fact warming, but how do we know it is warming due to man-made causes?</p>
<p>From the article posted earlier in the thread</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the article, they say that this is the “most compelling evidence yet” that global warming is in fact caused by humans. If “models” are the most compelling evidence yet, - wow - </p>
<p>Give me some concrete evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember that “models” are based on the data itself. These same “models” you decry are what put new airplanes in the air. I wouldn’t just dismiss them…</p>
<p>Well as I said, I’m not convinced either way. But I don’t trust that a model can account for the millions of variables that can affect climate change. I’m not totally discounting the model, but for me to accept that global warming is caused by humans, I need conclusive evidence that this is the case. The models are not conclusive evidence, unless accompanied by a bunch of other evidence. </p>
<p>Heck, I’d like to believe that we’re causing it. It would give me some hope that the devastating effects of global warming can potentially be tempered. I just haven’t seen the evidence yet, though.</p>
<p>“It doesn’t even have to be that extreme. Simply reducing your meat intake can make a large impact. This line sounds like a “go vegan” campaign ad to me…”</p>
<p>If you do a search on John Robbins vegetarian you will find his books and in them he provides all the sources. Very well documented.</p>
<p>The link I provided was definitely a ‘go vegan’ site. That doesn’t make the info invalidated.</p>
<p>I agree that people don’t need to go totally vegan to make a difference. If everyone cut their meat consumption by even 50% that would have a huge impact. Obviously, the more they cut their meat, and the more people to do it, the bigger the impact.</p>
<p>Personally I am a vegetarian but not vegan. However, I buy only eggs from free-range chickens and organic, hormone-free cheeses. And then use them sparingly.</p>
<p>They don’t have to be strict vegans. If everyone just drastically reduced their animal foods consumption, and ate animal foods as condiments or special treats, like small amounts or a large amount just a couple of times per week, the way the Asian cultures historically did, rather than having it be the main course 2-3 times a day, the impact would be huge. They’d be a lot healthier, too.</p>
<p>“I need conclusive evidence that this is the case. The models are not conclusive evidence, unless accompanied by a bunch of other evidence.”</p>
<p>I think there is already ample evidence to compel us to take action. If you insist on waiting for ‘conclusive’ evidence then it will be TOO LATE to do anything about it!!!</p>
<p>Living in NY, I sort of like the idea of global warming. This winter has been warm so far, but even a few more degrees of warmth would be welcome.</p>
<p>It is interesting that the speculation on global warming seems to show a split between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are inclined to believe that man’s activities are causing global warming. If so, that means we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels. Wind and solar might help a little in the short term, but in the long term the only major alternative appears to be nuclear energy…not something most liberals want to see happen.</p>
<p>“I sort of like the idea of global warming. This winter has been warm so far, but even a few more degrees of warmth would be welcome.”</p>
<p>If you were to research the topic, you would be disconcerted to learn that global warming only lasts a few years, then triggers an ice age. Just the other day we saw something on Discovery Channel about most of our continent being in an ice age very soon due to global warming. Ice ages have historically hit very abruptly, within a decade or 2. People living up north should be investing in Arctic wear.</p>
<hr>
<p>“Liberals are inclined to believe that man’s activities are causing global warming.”</p>
<p>You are trying to make this political. You are right, unfortunately, that liberals tend to be more open-minded about it, but I disagree that it is because they see it as an excuse to pursue their agenda. Rather, it’s just that liberals tend to be more open-minded in general. Conservatives, by their very definition, tend to favor keeping things as they are. Also, a great many conservatives believe in the biblical rapture, so they see no need for conservation since they think the earth is Satan’s domain anyway, and they don’t need to worry about leaving an inhabitable planet for their grandchildren since they think the rapture is imminent. I’m not saying all conservatives believe that way, but it seems to be a substantial percentage that do.</p>
<p>"You are trying to make this political. You are right, unfortunately, that liberals tend to be more open-minded "</p>
<p>Believing the same dogma isn’t open-minded. Following each other and relying upon Mr. Gore’s questionable facts isn’t open-minded either. Being willing to listen to all possibilities, not just the popular one, is open minded.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I seem to not fit the mold here: I’m a liberal who is (as of this writing) still skeptical that humans cause global warming. If someone can provide a link that lays out sound evidence to the contrary, I am very willing to change my mind. I also have no issue with nuclear energy being expanded, provided the radioactive waste is responsibly handled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some models say that it will keep getting warmer. This model says there will be an ice-age. Which model am I to believe?</p>
<p>“I seem to not fit the mold here: I’m a liberal who is (as of this writing) still skeptical that humans cause global warming. If someone can provide a link that lays out sound evidence to the contrary, I am very willing to change my mind. I also have no issue with nuclear energy being expanded, provided the radioactive waste is responsibly handled.”</p>
<p>Now THIS is open minded. See the difference?</p>
<p>“Believing the same dogma isn’t open-minded. Following each other and relying upon Mr. Gore’s questionable facts isn’t open-minded either. Being willing to listen to all possibilities, not just the popular one, is open minded.”</p>
<p>Of course. But, generally speaking, most liberals I know DO tend to listen to all possibilities! Gore’s info is just one of many, and the only reason it’s being mentioned at all is that it is an attempt to reach the mainstream. Mainstream sources of info are more effective at reaching the people who tend to just listen to the dogma from their church leaders.</p>
<p>As I said in my earlier post, the bottom line is that why even bicker about it? The consequences of assuming that humans aren’t causing it are so potentially great, can we AFFORD to wait for more ‘conclusive’ evidence? Why not err on the side of caution? It certainly can’t hurt! Whereas, IF it’s true that humans are accelerating it (note I said, accelerating, not causing) then why take that chance???</p>
<p>“…Why take the chance that the scientists who say that humans have accelerated gw (and there are MANY scientists who agree on this; it’s not just the liberals) may be RIGHT?”</p>
<p>
To be truly open minded you would have to have evaluated both (or all sides) of the issue. Since you claim that “it wouldn’t hurt”, you are implying that those who oppose “solutions” to global warming are acting with reckless abandon. If that is the case you should be able provide an answer as to why it is that the US Senate was unanimously against the key provisions of the Kyoto Accord. </p>
<p>The fact that the proposed solutions to global warming are indeed so contoversial and that you claim otherwise tells me that you really have’t looked at both sides of the issue.</p>
<p>Global warming isn’t very controversial in the scientific community; there’s near concensus that we are a major cause. The right seems to have a problem with global warming, but there aren’t too many scientists on their side on this issue. The U.S. is the only industrial country that still seems to be in denial -our Senate isn’t known for using emperical evidence to make policy decisions (see Iraq).</p>
<p>Also, having an opinion doesn’t mean you’re close-minded. He seems to have looked at both sides. Disagreeing with you does not equate to being close minded, despite what you’re inferring.</p>
<p>For some it’s kill the messenger. They can’t believe it because the “noise” of the information provider blocks their hearing. Others feel it isn’t happening because they can’t see it when they step outside. Personally, the earth is finite, it only holds so much. If we continue to polute and process, especially when we know we can make changes that may cost a bit up front, but long term will either slow or bring things into balance, there won’t be a world left. We’re in a mayonaise jar, just like a bug. We can either figure out how to prolong life or foolishly behave because the we know the dire results won’t happen in our lifetime, so who cares? </p>
<p>Most are no different than those folks who laughed and said “hey Noah, why ya building a boat here? The water’s over there.” the more things change…</p>
<p>“To be truly open minded you would have to have evaluated both (or all sides) of the issue.”</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>“Since you claim that “it wouldn’t hurt”, you are implying that those who oppose “solutions” to global warming are acting with reckless abandon.”</p>
<p>That’s exactly right. I think it is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility to think that people can continue to consume the earth’s resources at such an alarming rate, with no regard for the state of the planet that our children and grandchildren will inherit. It’s selfish and greedy and reprehensible.</p>
<p>“If that is the case you should be able provide an answer as to why it is that the US Senate was unanimously against the key provisions of the Kyoto Accord.”</p>
<p>That’s easy. $$ of course.</p>
<p>“The fact that the proposed solutions to global warming are indeed so contoversial and that you claim otherwise tells me that you really have’t looked at both sides of the issue.”</p>
<p>I never said it wasn’t controversial. I said that people need to wake up and get their heads out of the sand. If people can at least agree that we DO need to find a solution, then the problem of WHICH solution can be worked out. The issue is that too many people don’t give a damn, and too many others are just too greedy and short-sighted.</p>
<hr>
<p>Thanks, Fitter and Opie! I agree completely!</p>
<p>Ever notice that most of the alarmist theories come from scientists making a living doing climate research? A couple of years ago, we had a cold winter. We then heard that global warming meant erratic weather and even cold weather was a sign of global warming. This Fall we were warned about an upcoming bad hurricane season due to warming in the Atlantic. Somehow that did not happen but if it had been a worse than usual season the newspaper would have been full of global warming warnings. Within the next few months, it will likely be too cold, too hot, too dry or too wet somewhere. When that happens, we will surely hear about the global warming theories and models. Sooner or later, someone will decide that earthquakes and volcanic activity are also due to global warming. Maybe global warming will even cause an asteroid to collide with the earth.</p>
<p>"Ever notice that most of the alarmist theories come from scientists making a living doing climate research? "</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Who else could be better qualified than them?</p>
<p>"those folks who laughed and said “hey Noah, why ya building a boat here? The water’s over there.”</p>
<p>are you one of them?</p>
<p>Amazing…The earth is Flat.</p>