 B Rosen says: More from my GW Debunked research. This particular article focuses on recent studies showing how the sun and cosmic rays have been responsible for centuries on the normal warming and cooling of the Earth. So, what's the point of debunking global warming? Are you saying that we just stop talking about it and should just keep drilling for fossil fuels (which are, I'm sure you know, a finite resource)? Are you just trying to flatted a left-wing pet cause? If you've seen An Inconvenient Truth (and done any research to double-check the stats shown in that movie) you'd know that while many factors have contributed to the cycles of heating and cooling the earth naturally goes through, nothing has ever happened that is remotely close to what is happening today. They can track these temperature fluctuations back 600,000 years. Are you saying that we should just sit back and not do anything? Actually, it is widely known that the stats in An Inconvenient Truth were distorted and misrepresented. My personal belief is that Al Gore sees the global warming issue as his ticket into the whitehouse in 2008. If big oil companies came out with a movie tomorrow saying that global warming isn't real and presented all kinds of evidence to that end, would you believe it? I think not because big oil would stand to benefit from that movie a great deal. So why trust Al Gore and his movie when he stands to benefit so much from it? The root of all of the evidence for man made global warming as well as forecasts of our doom come from ice core samples and computerized predictions. There is... Hello, it is widely known that the stats in An Inconvenient Truth were distorted and misrepresented.Could you give me a name of any papers on a journal like Nature which argue this point? I'll search this database for digital articles. I'm sure there must be several papers as the misrepresentation is widely known. yes, as bferman states, while i don't think theres anyone that will argue that we could decrease pollution, its silly to think that we are years away from global disaster due to something that is merely a THEORY... this is something that everyone forgets because the media never mentions it, but Global Warming is not fact, its Global Warming THEORY, and there is no real solid evidence that we are doing ANYTHING to cause the slight changes in the planets temperature. This link gives a lengthy look at the disputed data in An Inconvenient Truth with links to references on most points. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html I guess I'm just trying to figure out why there are so many people trying to debunk the human-caused global warming theory. It is a theory; it might be wrong. But, do we "decrease pollution" (as you say) slowly, over centuries, so that it is easier for us? And hope that the worst-case scenarios don't happen? Or, do we take the advice of the IPCC (at least) and decrease pollution to the 2000 levels and below? And, if you agree that we should drastically reduce our carbon emissions, what's the prob? =) tripc, again, yes, i agree we could always reduce emissions, but i dont like the idea of the media terrorizing the world about Global Warming when we may have absolutely no effect on it. Elections are being won and lost, debates are being viscously argued, on a topic that we have no way of knowing at this time. I would like the pro-global warming camp to take a step back and look at the data more closely, so that each side could come together more and do more research together, rather than have our news outlets and politicians screaming fire and brimstone. Every few years (since the early 90s) the IPCC meets and issues a report about global warming. Each report becomes more and more definitive about the dangers of greenhouse gases and their affect on climate change (as the evidence mounts). In 2001, they said they felt there was a 66% chance that humans were affecting climate change. In 2006, it is up to 90%. They have been studying the issue and publishing reports for 16 years - how long do you want them to "step back and look at the data"? How high do you want that percentage to be before you take this seriously? A few centuries ago, there was 26,000 Norwegian farmers in Greebnland, they went all the way up the St Lawrence river, wich they called Vinland for it's luxuriousness. Then the warming subsided, they all starved to death and the St Lawrence gulf was called the "Land of Cain" by Voltaire. I love the Goregasm global warming, its minus 40 here, we are plagued by only four inches of snow and New York got eight feet!!! Teach them to vote for Hillzilla Rodham!!! But, do we "decrease pollution" (as you say) slowly, over centuries, so that it is easier for us? And hope that the worst-case scenarios don't happen?Pollution yes. But CO2 isn't pollution. It is a vital component of life. We need CO2 to survive. Plants breathe CO2 the same way we breathe oxygen. But many people seem to think that somehow CO2 is a pollutant now. What next? Ban water vapor which makes up over 95% of greenhouse gases? Rosen, thanks for info!  the media terrorizing the world about Global Warming when we may have absolutely no effect on it.I agree with this point. If global warming is due to us (indeed for the moment that is thought so), existance of neutrality is required in the mediasphere, if a little. Interesting and worth concerning point is, if in future IPCC will deny man-made global warming, how media like ABC, CNN, NYtimes and Washingtonpost, which have greater authority than other media like blogs respond to their change of stance. If they change their stance as soon as IPCC did, they are nothing but opportunist. It's same as they've done already in those years for the Iraq war. According to his comment... this is something that everyone forgets because the media never mentions it, but Global Warming is not fact, its Global Warming THEORY, and there is no real solid evidence that we are doing ANYTHING to cause the slight changes in the planets temperature.Uh, ok. I've seen this one all over the net. Maybe you should actually look at what a scientific 'theory' is. It's isn't a speculation, like 'gee, maybe it could be, but we're not really sure'. It is an explanation based on given evidence. Science is made up of theories and laws. There are actually very few laws. Most of science is made up of these theories that you think we should ignore just because they are 'theori... and there is also tons of evidence and research that supports that global warming doesnt exist. Don't patronize me and tell me i get all my info from blogs after reading a single clipmark of mine. A Theory is "a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject" You cant compare flying in an airplane to this...we can see that we stay airborne...there is no hard inconclusive evidence to support global warming theory. Even its biggest supporters admit that. Popped for above comment. People forget that a theory is just that. It is based on findings brought together but is NOT conclusive. That means a theory is possible, but also not possible. There is NOT enough data and fact to prove or disprove it. That's why Einsteins theories have been around as long as they have, nobody has conclusive proof that he was wrong. |
View the Top Clips from February 11, 2007
|
||
|
|
|||
and are there any peer-reviewed articles on the movie? thanks. 
