Not All Scientist Believe In Global Warming

[JoeRedskin]

As was stated earlier, there is little dispute that global warming is occurring; the only real dispute is how much human activity affects it.

Obviously, the melting caps is a concern. Will it have dramatic effects on human devolopment? probably yes. Is it the end of the world as we know it? probably not.

Again, humanity and the earth have adapted and modified over thousands (i.e. longer than the caps have been around) of years. The Sahara was once a lush area that supported human life but over the span of ~300-350 years it became desert as the earth changed its rotation (think of that - the Earth changed its axis and human life survived. That is some significant adapting).

Given the vast increase in population and creation of cities - global warming will have significant affect on humanity over time. It is my belief, however, that any number of unknown scientific breakthroughs (neccessity being the mother of invention) will probably prevent the doom and gloom predictions of those milking the tit of global warming fear.

At the same time, perhaps now is not the time to invest in that beachfront property.

[That Guy]

thread title is WRONG. global warming is pretty well accepted as fact - as for what causes it and who to blame for what percentage... well, there are about four million theories on that.

[Monkeydad]

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Buster

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

I agree that we don't know the cause of global climate change. However, that article is almost worthless.

First, the author repeatedly states that humans are not the cause of global climate change, yet it NEVER gives any evidence -- not even once. If you can find some evidence there, please correct me.

Second, he asserts that Michael Crichton is a scientist and he cites one of his recent works: "State of Fear". While Michael Crichton does have degrees in anthropology and medicine, that would hardly qualify him as an acceptable source on climate change. Also, the book "State of Fear" is a fiction -- how can anyone possibly cite a work of fiction to support an argument, and expect to be taken seriously?

Third:

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Judging by this statement, the author is receiving funds from "fossil fuel companies". Yet, rather than apply a sound defense to the accusation, he resorts to the "red herring" fallacy. Everyone has an agenda -- especially if you are receiving funds from a large interest group.

[dmek25]

i think you summed it up best by saying everyone has an agenda. we are pretty foolish to think that all this crap we are putting into the environment has little or no effect on it

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i think you summed it up best by saying everyone has an agenda. we are pretty foolish to think that all this crap we are putting into the environment has little or no effect on it

I agree!
However, if we don't a handle on world population, nothing else really matters. It all springs from to damn many people for the planet to support. I will have to stop here or launch into an 8-day tirade of the ills of the planet

[JoeRedskin]

The End is Near - Repent Now.

Oh wait, they've been saying that for a few thousand years.