Global warming?

[pearljammer]

mr.elite said:

pearljammer said:

mr.elite said:
its fake. get your info from somewhere other then the tv and al gore.

Question- why did the founder of THE WEATHER CHANNEL want to sue al gore?

Answer- for making up global warming.

How come 40 years ago people were talking about global cooling. They wanted to put soot on the ice caps to speed up melting. Dont believe me? Look it up. Global warming has one purpose, acquiring grant money for scientists/meteorologists who got their PH.D for weather. Without a problem their degree is shit. And CO2 from humans... dont get me started, humans account for .01% of the co2 in the atmosphere. Again don't believe me look it up.

The whole topic is ridiculous. And to the guy who said "why dispute whats fact" or w/e in like the second or third post. It isnt a proven fact, dont tell lies, it is a theory at best. Oh yea, the temperature of the Atlantic ocean is ... get this COOLING...

Do some research before you respond to me or i'll light you up again

I can gauruntee you that I have not recieve any of my information from Al Gore nor from TV. I've spent 4 years studying Quaternary Geography at university. While it isn't paleoclimatology, it certainly doesn't make me any bit of a major authority on the issue, it certainly qualifies me to address some of the falsehoods you have said here.

Firstly, I wouldn't, nor should anyone, claim 'global warming' as a fact. A likelyhood? Maybe. But a fact? Far from it.

40 years ago, yes, some were worried about cooling. But you have to understand, there are so many factors that control the global climate other than CO2 in the atmosphere. The most glaring example would be of the dynamics of oceans and sunspot cycles(less is known about these, however).

Now, I'm with you when it comes to how silly it has become sensationalized. The problem with the is now people have become so skeptical of anyone who approaches the topic now that many credible scientists are being ignored due the 'Al Gore' effect.

Again, this certainly is not a fact and is very much still in its infancy of study, as many samples needed for comparison are very difficult to procure (floor of the Pacific Ocean), but it really is something I think we all should be aware of. After all, someone didn't just get a hunch one day based on nothing and nearly the entire scientific community thought that there was at least some merit to the hunch.

Off topic somewhat: While I enjoy this topic very much, it's something I very much hate discussing over forums because we are discussing something that is still very much controversial and this isn't exactly the best medium to exchange opinions and information. Nice break from the Console Warzz though.

Edit: Oh, I had forgotten about this: 'Oh yea, the temperature of the Atlantic ocean is ... get this COOLING...' That's an easy one. Although the earth's temperature is undisputably rising, there are several areas of regional cooling (the same for sea level). Parts of the Atlantic are cooling overall due to the addition of cool water coming from the Gulf Stream as the result of melting glaciers.

I pretty much agree with you. I dont understand what your claiming is a falsehood in my post. The only thing I see if the 40 years ago putting soot on the ice caps. Even though now thats a mockery, then it was a serious possibility. I Stated it to give some perspective as to what people want to do with the global "warming" crysis. Drastic action without proper diagnosis. We could very easily look back 40 years from now and again say wtf were they talking about

 

I didn't mean to imply that your entire argument was a falsehood, just the two points(40 years ago and the Atlantic Ocean thin was misleading).

While I agree with you that it would have far too many radical economic implications to make any drastic actions, I certainly think that if we have money for space exploration it certainly could not hurt investing in some preventative measures here. Hell, putting less CO2 into our air will do wonders for our communities and overall improve city life regardless. Without any drastic, needlessly quick changes people could look back in 40 years and be thankful for cleaner cities and dodging a potential problem

All I'm basically saying is, we don't to to drastically change our lifestyles immediately, but it would be to our advantage to change regardless of whether or not we are contributing to global warming. It's not something we necessarily need to be screaming about, but we should certainly be cognizant of. It could be very dangerous to go to the extreme on either side of the coin, I would suggest to be a bit conservative (and I don't mean politically, boo )