Not All Scientist Believe In Global Warming

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I clicked onto your first site and they circle where ice was but if you look to the left it looks like they forgot the new ice that has formed. I read its melting, getting thicker, is growing etc.. I guess one day we will find out if it happening or not. I know they said in the 70s that we where told abou global cooling.

To the left all I saw was blue water and siberia.

If you are referring to the large lump of white to the right, that's Greenland - Two things about Greenland - (1) it doesn't count as part of the arctic ice cap and (2) being an island it doesn't melt.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Buster

I have heard scientists say that the Arctic ice IS melting, but the Antarctic ice has gotten thicker. Perhaps the orbit has changed slightly or the axis has adjusted somehow. I don't know HOW that would happen, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation.

There is a big difference between the North pole and the South pole. Antarctica is a land mass (continent) covered in ice -- the Artic is not.

Also, a common misconception is that the Earth will be warmer EVERYWHERE as a result of global warming. You can't cite more ice in Antarctica as evidence against global warming. Much of the Earth's climate is influenced heavily by the ocean currents, and the absence of the ice caps will most likely affect the currents drastically. This effect could be a much colder planet, or much warmer. I don't think anyone is certain about it, yet.

Originally Posted by Buster

You're right though, there's nothing we can do to change this, mainly because there is nothing we did to cause it.

The jury is still out on that one.

[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.