Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Both your points are valid and should be addressed. For the most part they have been in developed countries, though there is still room for improvement. However, the "cure" for the global warming "crisis" is to increase the cost of emitting CO2. This doesn't address the items you brought up, it only makes existence for most of the world's population that much harder.

I'm all for alternative fuels whether they are carbon based like natural gas or biofuels, or non-carbon based like nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, H2, or solar. But all these alternatives have their drawbacks (as do coal and oil) and will take a long time to implement effectively. Why must we tie one hand behind our back with inane and expensive carbon taxing and trading schemes while we seek alternative answers?

Also, the main groups in opposition to creating alternative energy sources are environmental groups. According to them:

You can't drill for natural gas because it will destroy habitat and poison the seas.

You can't create biofuels because the increased agricultural production destroys habitat (it also drives up the cost of food).

No nuclear because of the radioactive waste, plus a reactor could blow!

Wind turbines kill migrating birds and ruin the view.

Hydro dams destroy habitat.

Solar panel farms require a lot of area, again destroying habitat.

H2 destroys habitat indirectly because the energy needed to create it has to come from somewhere.

I haven't heard any complaints about geothermal - yet.

The environmentalists complain that man is destroying the earth, but don't want us to solve the problems they say exist.

You're right. I've wasted about 20 minutes of my life responding to your inanities. Now I know not to bother anymore.

And yet you continue to do so, what's up with that?

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

OK, one scientist screwed up.

What about the other couple thousand?

Proving a scientist here and there did sloppy work proves nothing.

It's hard to really offer all the aspects of my viewpoint on global warming without rambling forever. I attempted to simplify the debate. I think you're looking too far into what I said. According to the information I've come across in my life, I certainly believe global warming is based on hard evidence from decades of research. I think if we don't do any sort of mitigation activities, we're screwing ourselves for the future, both with regards to the climate and our dependence on finite sources of energy.

True, my life probably won't be altered much except for higher gas and energy prices. Maybe those higher prices will encourage me to not waste as much energy.

And I think there are limits to the ballot box in our country. Once the head honchos are elected, they don't act in their voters interests as much as they should. I mean who has more influence on Capitol Hill - corporations and lobbyists or citizen advocacy groups? Now at the local level, I've seen masses of citizens cause proposed measures or developments to be scraped. We really can influence local politics beyond the ballot box. But the higher up they get, the more it seems elected officials and their appointees stick to party politics and well-funded interests. Between the ballot box every couple years, there must be well-thought out activism if we really want to influence political decisions.

I do agree the best way to address fossil fuels is to increase the cost of carbon. It seems the best way to influence our behavior and work in line with market forces. Although it will screw people living on the fringes, even in this country.

And I certainly agree with the limits of alternative sources. Nothing seems able to replace the cheapness, efficiency, and transportability of coal, oil and gas. I don't think geothermal is applicable or profitable in all locations on a massive scale and there are problems with transporting that energy to distant markets.

And as for destroying earth, I don't think we are destroying it. The earth existed before us and it will exist after us. We just are altering it so much that it will not be livable for the current amount of humans on the planet right now. If we want to prevent resource shortages or mass human suffering, we have to greatly reduce our impact on Earth's ecosystems and our usage of resources. I am concerned about our impact on the environment for the sake of human societies not for the Earth's sake (although I do like animals).

The "one" scientist in question was head (until climategate) of Britain's CRU, one of the world's leading authorities on global warming. This is much more significant than it being just "one" scientist.

Maybe, but is it enough to declare all the research on the matter void?

You're fighting an uphill battle trying to prove an entire scientific field wrong simply by pointing to a few screw-ups, or the fact its de facto spokesman (not a scientist) Al Gore made money off of it, or that there exists a few dissenting scientists, etc.

Didn't say that it did. Just pointing out that when the former head of the CRU says the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than now, and that there hasn't been any significant warming for 15 years, despite his unit's press releases to the contrary, you can't dismiss it as insignificant.

BTW, most research papers don't take a stance one way or the other on whether or not humans cause the current warming.

Well, yeah. In scholarly journals you won't find tell-all articles that say "here's why man has caused global warming." The real articles cover much more limited research subjects. You only find stuff like that in like a newspaper article. But what does pointing out that prove? How does that help your argument?

What argument? I was pointing out that research doesn't have an opinion.

You pointed out that research doesn't have an opinion. Well, duh. Why'd you point that out? In what way does that help you? What are you trying to imply?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Solar panel farms require a lot of area, again destroying habitat.

put'em on the roofs of houses. done

-random guy saves the day

"Maybe, but is it enough to declare all the research on the matter void?"

Maybe I inferred to much from your question. I thought you were implying that research has shown man is the cause of warming. That would mean research has stated an opinion. If that's not what you meant, then I needn't have made my statement.

But then why did you ask that question? I never said Phil Jones incompetence (or possible dishonesty) invalidated any research, though it certainly makes CRU's press releases suspect.

only me wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Maybe I am, I don't really care. But you haven't been able to make a logical argument about anything else, so you're probably wrong about this too.

And yet you've been arguing with me for 11 pages - what does that say about you? Nothing complimentary, that's for sure!

You obviously also don't know the meaning of complimentary, because you are trying to sound smart and are "in a snit."

If you don't refuse to study the science, then stop pushing the "majority" in my face and give me some scientific facts as to why anthropogenic climate change is true, and tell me something it predicts which has happened.

Notice how these global warming threads have now devolved into argument over the majority of scientists instead of actually discussing science. They used to, but now it's gone against the proponents so they have to go back to pushing the majority as their only hope for making any headway.

only me wrote:

And yet you continue to do so, what's up with that?

So, basically what you're saying is you're an idiot who is not worthy of attention and calling him out for answering your questions? I think you need to get a few screws replaced upstairs.

816runner wrote:

Well, yeah. In scholarly journals you won't find tell-all articles that say "here's why man has caused global warming." The real articles cover much more limited research subjects. You only find stuff like that in like a newspaper article. But what does pointing out that prove? How does that help your argument?

I think what he's trying to get across is that science doesn't address long-term, unscientific "guesses," the point being that they are not testable or observable, and thus not scientific.

816runner wrote:

Maybe, but is it enough to declare all the research on the matter void?

You're fighting an uphill battle trying to prove an entire scientific field wrong simply by pointing to a few screw-ups, or the fact its de facto spokesman (not a scientist) Al Gore made money off of it, or that there exists a few dissenting scientists, etc.

It's not an uphill battle, it's more like the snowball is rolling downhill and it's going to crush us all.

Isn't global warming just the democrats "WMD's"? Everyone knows it's a scam but it's too big to stop and there are millions and millions more for Al Gore and friends to make (just like the war in Iraq was solely for Chaney and Halliburton). Either way the majority of passionate people arguing that global exists is getting a dry fist up their ass.