<p>Check out articles on Greenland ice cores and Milankovitch cycles. Also check out data about temperature and CO2 levels in ppmv that go back over 100 thousand years. This warming period was supposed to end before humans even had civilization. There is no way that global warming is entirely man-made. However, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing. There is no way to determine the consequence of this on recent global warming g because we don’t even know what effect it has had on the climate, or to what extent. Temperatures have been increasing in the last 150 years, but they’ve been steady or increasing for literally thousands of years. We are facing something for which we have no data.</p>
<p>But anyone who says that global warming would not exist without humans is wrong.</p>
<p>I will post links, but I’m typing on my phone and I can’t copy and paste links.</p>
<p>alh…I don’t know how many ways I can say it…and to be honest, this is getting old. I think my point is and was clear…I don’t believe professors should be talking about controversial topics as if only one view should be the accepted view.</p>
<p>How many people, with what qualifications or credentials, have to disagree with the scientific or academic consensus on a given subject in order for it to be considered “controversial”?</p>
<p>The reason I asked why you guys “needed” GW to be true is because in all my dealings with people…conservatives and moderates, some believe GW to be true, some don’t, some just don’t know…However, every liberal absolutely believes it to be 100% fact…why is that? seriously? It makes me wonder if some some Republican was the frontman instead of Gore, would these liberals still be so adamant?</p>
<p>I was completely serious about Bill Ayers. His bombs were all places in locations that would not hurt anybody … he just wanted a reaction when they went off. Human life should never be harmed, but there is nothing wrong with a little revolution now and then … it’s what the founding fathers would have wanted. It speeds up the political process - one that has become all to slow due to apathy. </p>
<p>And he was never involved with the nail bomb. As a previous poster stated, he was on the opposite side of the country and out of communication with the group.</p>
<p>Well Geeps its something I suppose you would never understand. Then again … I’d be curious to hear your opinion on the Boston Tea Party - the largest act of vandalism in US History.</p>
<p>i don’t “need” global warming to be true (sic.) What I need is some confidence that industrial society can do something about it – in case it does exist.</p>
<p>Well of course. There are natural cycles. The question is will the human CONTRIBUTION to global warming in this cycle be sufficient to put the global climate over a tipping point that results in drastic climate change that has the potential to severely threaten much of human life on the planet.</p>
<p>The planet will still be here even if most of human society is eradicated.</p>
<p>I think you need to emply a bit of historical perspective. Until very recently it was ASSUMED that newspapers had a bias, and not only on the editorial page. People bought them with that expectation. The idea of even attempting “unbiased” journalism is a comparatively recent invention.</p>
<p>Okay, here’s another one: should professors in literature and philosophy classes speak of or assume the existence of a Supreme Being? Ie, treat it as a “fact”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do realize that discussion of global warming was around before Al Gore became prominent on the subject, right?</p>
<p>but geeps does bring up a very good philosophical point. Are liberal’s hatred for conservative/republicans so great that if the whole global warming (climate change) topic had been revealed by prominent CONSERVATIVE scientists, would the liberals still be as PASSIONATE about the topic and mankind’s contribution to it? Or, would there be an automatic opinion that there was a hidden agenda and therefor the findings are not credible. And we’re assuming the question isn’t posed to people who believe stereotypes that conservatives are all capitalists, and therefor only believe in money, and therefor are closed minded to the planet and anything that would affect the capitalism; and thereby would NEVER have come up with such a finding.</p>
<p>And his/her point that it “Seems” that those most passionate about global warming and man’s involvement appears to be liberals, is also very interesting. I know many conservatives who believe in global warming. Myself included. I just don’t believe that mankind has as much influence over the planet and mother nature as others believe. I believe “Climate Change” for lack of a better phrase is a natural occurrence. And while mankind has an affect on the planet; just by his mere presence; is not that significant in the contribution.</p>
<p>“I think my point is and was clear…I don’t believe professors should be talking about controversial topics as if only one view should be the accepted view.”</p>
<p>Your point has only become less and less clear to me as the thread has grown. But I freely admit to being at a most muddleheaded stage of life.</p>
<p>Someone (well, some committee), somewhere decides what will be taught in colleges. How do you want them to decide? What authority do you respect to make the decision? Is there some educational model you admire?</p>
<p>This whole global warming tangent has obscured the larger point. Any number of polls and research studies clearly reveal that the vast majority of university faculty are politically liberal folks. Anyone who thinks that these faculty check their liberal biases at the door when they enter the classroom is delusional. There is a decided left-wing bias at most universities, particularly those that regularly appear on the short lists of the ambitious students and parents who read these boards. Prospective students who don’t share the knee-jerk liberal views that permeate most top-ranked schools are wise to consider this factor when they choose a college.
The funny thing about reading this thread is the immediate scolding the OP received, as compared with the solicitude shown the parents asking about schools that are “gay-friendly.”<br>
Apparently, tolerance and acceptance only go one way. Too funny, even if entirely predictable.</p>
<p>The OP is giving conservatives a bad name. Someone who believes manmade global warming isn’t real is ignorant, and is not entitled to have his ignorance pandered to in the classroom. </p>
<p>But what of the conservative student who believes in (let’s say) lower taxes, gun rights, and who deplores homosexuality, premarital sex and abortion rights. THose are matters of opinion, not fact. How will that student fare in a liberal LAC? Offhand, I’d say Dartmouth might be a good place for him, and Macalester a bad one.</p>
<p>Flang…thank for the insults…sorry you believe everything the media feeds you…man made GW is not a fact…you can say it is as much as you want, but that doesn’t make it true</p>