Global warming, yes or no?

Who cares? If I think it's too warm, I just crank the A/C a little more. That usually takes care of it!

We had globle warming in North America over 300-400 years ago as near as I can tell. Looks to be about 10-15 years long. Before the white man came with a load of thought, dull but calulating, slow but meandering, few but unending. Gore might have a thought and has the slows, and is dull but he is at his end.

Yes. I really hope that everyone who argues the contrary is kidding...

Yes.

Currently 8:7 in favor of yes. However I vote no.

So now it's a dead heat...8:8.

Yes.

Americans are in denial regarding the degradation we are causing the planet. We are proud to be Americans and we do whatever we damn well please.

pop politics wrote:

My brother is in a Ph.D. program that studies climate change and when I told him that a good number of people don't belive in human caused global warming he didn't belive me.

Shows how out of touch the academic community is on this issue with the rest of society. I suppose your brother is one of those people amazed Bush managed to win the election. I mean EVERYONE he talked to was going to vote for Kerry.

I believe in global warming (and I'm one of those knuckle-dragging Christians that are supposed to deny it according to the NYT and 'Time').

All I can say is that the city of Kyoto can start by living up to its namesake: as a city they haven't even been close to hitting the same standards they expect the rest of the world to adhere to.

One hundred percent guarantee climate changes are predominantly determined by solar output. Humans might have contributed some minuscule change that seems to be driving environmentalists crazy at the moment, but the sun is the ultimate source of all energy on Earth, and it will most likely steer us toward far more of a cooler climate within 20 years anyway.

Humans adding to global warming is not an undetermined event, its a fact that our actions increase temperature ie; burning fossil fules, deforrestation etc. What some say is not clear is how much. No one can say we dont ADD to the temp.

Take a look at global dimming which begins to help quantify the effect.

no

So who caused the global warming that melted the glaciers to end the ice age?

Al Gore wasn't flying around in his private jet whining back then was he?

pop politics wrote:

My brother is in a Ph.D. program that studies climate change and when I told him that a good number of people don't belive in human caused global warming he didn't belive me.

Actually, manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities. Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. The higher the Earth's temperature, the higher the carbon dioxide levels. In other words, carbon dioxide levels are a product of climate change. Some scientists argue that the greatest influence on the Earth's temperature is our sun's sunspot activity. The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk. Throughout the Earth's billions of years there have been countless periods of global warming and cooling. In fact, in the year 1,000 A.D., a time when there were no SUVs, the Earth's climate was much warmer than it is now. The Vikings were farming in Greenland. It wasn’t long ago, in the 70’s as I recall, the worry was that the Earth was cooling! Just what would be the optimum temperature for the whole planet of Earth - and how would we begin to ensure climate stayed exactly at that level?

Kyoto first wrote:

I believe in global warming (and I'm one of those knuckle-dragging Christians that are supposed to deny it according to the NYT and 'Time').

All I can say is that the city of Kyoto can start by living up to its namesake: as a city they haven't even been close to hitting the same standards they expect the rest of the world to adhere to.

You do realise it wasn't named after the city of Kyoto because all the people there were up in arms about global warming?

bingo wrote:

I don't "believe" yes or no. It's a fact.

Ha.

YES

And for those who say no ... you need a reality check.

moosehead wrote:

You do realise it wasn't named after the city of Kyoto because all the people there were up in arms about global warming?

And here I thought that Montreal was the center of anti-ozone depletion activism.

No.

I'm swimming in the river of denial: NO