Global warming, yes or no?

I stated that if the ONLY thing that were to come of this was a mild temperature increase then that would be great. Its what that temperature increase brings with it that is the killer. My saying that I wouldn't mind it warmer is true but only if it didn't spell disaster for much of the world. Also Alaska's temperature has already risen 6 degrees average in the winter and according to the USA Today

A landmark 2001 report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast that the average global surface temperature will increase 2.5 to 10°F above 1990 levels by 2100.

That means that there is a possibility of a HUGE climate change that would truly alter the climate of the world as we know it.

no

Science is the new religion - couple this with a poorly educated populace and people will accept the proclamations of experts as revelation.

On one side of the aisle, you have people who think the earth's 6000 years old and know that everyone else is going to hell. On the other side you have worshipers of the Unlimited Faith in the Endless Progress of Science Church. Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically considered to be at least a Seventh Day Adventist. If you don't accept their precepts then it means that you want to turn America into a theocracy or worse, a cabal of wizened old white men who hate women, homosexuals, blacks, jews, and all other miscreants.

I'm sick of these dickholes on both sides dominating American politics and trying to bring everyone into their tent. I hope the middle rises up and burns both of their tents down.

As for global climate change, I could provide a list of things that the leading scientists (read consensus) of the day proclaimed to be true and were later found to be utterly false, but most of you wouldn't read it or acknowledge the possibility because you are true believers in the Unlimited Faith in the Endless Progress of Science Church, and true believers don't need facts or logic to support their positions.

Newly minted members of the Unlimited Faith in the Endless Progress of Science Church have fallen in love with cause and effect. Much like a child with a hammer, they try to use it in every problem that they encounter. They are unable to see that you can't extrapolate every recent trend or that complex interrelationships may preclude them from using their favorite tool. They are even more frustrated when they find out that a tool hasn't been developed for understanding a system as vast and complex as Earth's climate. Undeterred (& after consulting their WWRDD (what would richard dawkins do?) braclet), they plow ahead with their hammer, secure in the belief that they are on the path to salvation.

When confronted with facts and evidence that suggest that their conclusions are premature, believers in the UFEPSC lash out angrily, burn witches of skepticism at the stake, and repeat their mantra "Charles Darwin have mercy upon us" over and over.

So for all those technocrats out there who believe that you've cast off the yoke of belief, I've got a surprise for you. The new boss is the same as the old boss.

Honestly, I have to agree with you to a fairly large extent. I grew up going to church every week and being taught creationism etc. Having since switched my views you would think that it would be easy for me to sympathize with the conservative wing but I find myself very often getting frustrated when I cannot make others see and understand my point of view (i.e. this debate). I am aware of this flaw but it still comes out on a fairly regular basis. Maybe its just me but I doubt it, I think man simply has a hard time when others don't see things in the exact same light.

NO, but the popular thing to do is say yes

hey ambulance chaser, don't you need to start thinking up a nick name like "bulldog", "avenger" or "justice" for your ad on the back of the phone book?

The Washington Times published an article surveying a number of top hurricane scientists, whom it found to be "divided" on the merits of Gore's claim. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center even doubts that hurricane intensity has increased as much as claimed over the past thirty years, pointing out that scientists couldn't accurately measure hurricane wind speeds until 1984. We don't know how much of the increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes recorded in recent years is due to an actual increase or whether it is, as he puts it, an "artificial increase," an illusion produced by our improved ability to measure hurricanes.

Meanwhile, Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, points out that increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been balanced out by a decrease in the number of tropical storms in the Pacific. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."

The May 30 Los Angeles Times carries a profile on Klotzbach's mentor, Colorado State University professor emeritus William M. Gray, who pioneered the science of forecasting hurricane activity. The article notes: "Like many hurricane forecasters, Gray rejects the theory that the recent uptick in storms is due to climate change. He points out that the US had an unusually low number of storms from the 1970s to the end of the century and says the law of averages is simply catching up." At age 76, this distinguished scientist is devoting his retirement to refuting the entire notion that global warming is caused by human activity, an idea he describes as "one of the greatest hoaxes ever." Gray is "not one to just go along with the crowd," Klotzbach concludes.

Now isn't that interesting? It turns out that the man taking an independent stand and refusing to "just go along with the crowd" on global warming is not a lifelong politician rewarded with a fawning documentary and inside-the-beltway adulation--but rather a distinguished scientists who is a global warming skeptic.

First, Have I mentioned anything about the Pacific? By saying that there is a decrease in storms in the Pacific but that the total is the same you are saying that there is an increase in the storms in the Atlantic, proof of which we have already seen in the raw data. Also, why don't you go tell Japan that there are less storms in the Pacific so they will stop worrying about the record number of typhoons that they've been seeing. And yes, while Dr. Gray is considered a Pioneer, he is one of the very, very few people who refuse the fact that global warming is caused by humans, despite the fact that it has increased faster over the last century than anytime else in history so far as we can tell.

"Gray's record, over about 20 years, is one of the most reliable. But he was way off last year. In 2005, [Gray] said there would be 15 named storms, but there were 27. He also expected eight hurricanes, four of which would be intense. But there were 14 hurricanes last year, and seven were major, including Katrina, which left more than 1,800 people dead."

"Snow noted that Gray's view on global warming is "at odds not only with former vice president Al Gore, but with over 2,000 of the world's leading climate scientists"

-CNN

Of course, everyone makes mistakes, even the top climate predictors. And this is not meant in sarcasm. You're right, you found a skeptic and it would appear that there are some out there and I'll give you that. I'll also admit that the hurricane debate is one of the most debated issues involving global warming, but I have looked at the data, and read both sides and made a decision regarding my opinion and haven't seen any good proof to change it. You have to call into question anyone who refuses to believe in the basic premise that we are warming the globe because all you have to do to see that is to look at the average temperature for the last hundred years.

Also, lets dispense with the name calling, shall we? After law school I plan on going into the JAG and then assuming I still feel the way I do, doing environmental work for some organization. If I wanted money I would probably have been better of staying an engineer.

Gray's area of expertise is weather, not climate. Despite his lack of knowledge, even he concedes that the globe is warming and Humans are the cause (his problem is the the amount of effect).

" I don't question that [warming], and humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming."

However, He is not offering data or research indicating this view that the warming is part of a natural cycle. I happen to see a lot of Gray (being in Colorado myself). He is trotted out for every anti-global climate change piece in the new. He strikes me as a cranky old man who hasn't accepted gravity let alone climate change.

Why use the 2001 report, when there's a 2007 report? Because you've lost the argument. You didn't do your research, you conceded too much, and generally, you blew it. The jury finds against you.

Did you read this report? It basically says global warming is happening and that the faster we react the better. Check out the link below, its just a summary but a pretty good one. It even states that hurricane intensity is likely to continue to increase. Thanks for pointing this out, it was very helpful