I doubt McCain actually believes in all the global warming fear-mongering, rather it's the simple fact of saying things that will make him look good in the eyes of the voters.  And to whoever started this thread, I think the joke's on you for believing this 'scientist.'

Yes, global warming does exist, but so too does global cooling.  The Earth's temperature is cyclical in nature, it goes up and goes down.  Right now in time, it could simply be going up.  It is also possible that humans are the cause.  The point is, no research has proven conclusive either way, and in particular there is NOTHING at this point that points to man's increase in CO2 output as the sole reason why the Earth is warming.  At most we have 200 years' worth of temperature records, and this amount of data is essentially useless when compared to the millions (if not billions) of years the Earth has existed for.  Therefore we have nothing to relate the recent data to.

Personally, my guess is that humans couldn't alter the Earth's climate significantly even if we wanted to.  Obviously our increase in CO2 output does have some effect, but it is just too tiny to even be measurable.  Also, if there are 4.5 BILLION people breathing CO2 constantly out of their bodies, then that amount of CO2 has to dwarf the amounts put out from industry.  So I really don't buy that argument.  The whole global warming scare is blown out of proportion, but that is exactly what liberals like to do.  With the help of the media they try (sometimes successfully) to tell people how bad something is, and how bad their life is or how bad their life could become, and they blame conservatives for not doing enough about it.  By essentially fabricating and exaggerating problems with the country, they make it so there are constantly 'problems' to solve, and that's basically how they continue to be put into office.  There is a reason why most smart and intelligent upper-class people are conservative, but this is all just my opinion. :) 

Huh.

 

I'm pretty impressed. I really didn't expect such responses. I thought the majority of people accepted that we humans do indeed have an impact on climate.

Well, apparently not. Insane conspiracy theories seem to be more reliable than the data of scientists that spent years in researching global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Well, I don't really want to fight anybody, everyone should take a look at the 'facts' and make his own opinion, but there certainly is a high level of ignorance here.

Well, no matter what, most scientists seem to agree that the greenhouse effect (the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphare warms the planets surface ) exists, although it's still not clear how Big the impact is.

Secondly, there's also the normal change of the earths climate. Check your history book and there you have it. Really not a new thing to us, it seems.

 

Well, I do believe in both theories. The faster climate change (which keeps getting faster) makes me believe this the most. The glaciers are melting pretty quickly, the freshwater makes the gulf stream cool down and god knows when the scots finally have to get some pants.

 

There's nothing wrong about trying to help the nature.

EPP said: There's nothing wrong about trying to helping the nature.

Fixed.

There's nothing wrong with helping nature. There's nothing wrong with trying to cut back on pumping exhaust into the air, ensuring that water is kept clean and resources are recycled as much as possible.

The problem is that there has been CONSTANT issues where people try to help the environment, but in reality, DON'T. All that is done is that it causes more problems as they force inneffective replacments on us and ban the actual working products that were in place, when just as often as not, their assumptions are wrong or exaggerated to the point of fearmongering.

Slimebeast said: whatever said: http://www.realclimate.org If it weren't so sad, it would be funny that in the face of all the data we have, people will still deny that human activity has a HUGE impact on the planet. Can you define "huge impact" please. No, I didn't think so.

Hugh - colossal, enormous, gigantic, grand, immense, mammoth, massive, monumental, prodigious, tremendous, vast

Impact - affect, influence, sway

 

Bullshit until know the impact is at best superficial. Some glaciers have melted, there is one or two additional hurricane in the atlantic and one or two less taiphuns in the Pacific, we had some warm summers (but will probably have a colder decade ahead, thats the difference between weather(short to middleterm) and climate(longterm)). Some ice fields in the west antarctic are smaller, some ice fields in the east antarctic are thicker.

To summarize: Climate change is a serious problem and will (most likely) have serious implications for our lives in 30, 40, 50 and really significant 80-100 years. But scientists should say that and not succumb to sensationalism to get the world to do something.
It only needs one or two colder years and people will not believe them anymore. Cry wolf you know. Besides that its insulting to human intelligence.

In the end all the climate warners, greenpeace activists and Al Gores of the world won't have 1/10000th of the effect of the rising oil price in CO2 reduction. That has indeed the potential to help research into alternative energy and mitigate climate change.

Grey Acumen said: EPP said: There's nothing wrong about trying to helping the nature. Fixed. There's nothing wrong with helping nature. There's nothing wrong with trying to cut back on pumping exhaust into the air, ensuring that water is kept clean and resources are recycled as much as possible. The problem is that there has been CONSTANT issues where people try to help the environment, but in reality, DON'T. All that is done is that it causes more problems as they force inneffective replacments on us and ban the actual working products that were in place, when just as often as not, their assumptions are wrong or exaggerated to the point of fearmongering.

 

I guess you're right that politicans use this problem for their populist campaignes. I hope that won't be a backslash for us all sooner or later.

It's not just the politicians, they can only do as much as the people who support them let them.
The problem are those people who are willing to go along with anything that's supposed to help the environment without first checking to make sure that the reasoning behind it is sound, and also considers the numerous external variables that are present in a non closed system.
Then with that they need to consider more acceptable methods of phasing in these advancements in environmental standards than lying about the benefits and punishing those who don't buy into it.

heck, I pointed out the mercury issue with the lightbulbs, but I actually like the halogens a lot better than the regular lightbulbs. It uses less energy, so I'm not paying as much to have them on. They've got those goofy plastic bases, so if I want to unscrew it after having just had it on, I'm not going to burn myself doing that. On top of that, the light is brighter, and also not as dingy, as just about all the incandescents gave off this drab yellow light that I've always hated. they also do seem to last longer than regular lightbulbs, though I have already had a few burn out on me.
Environmental issues aside, the halogen lights just straight out work better than the regular light bulbs, so I have no issues using them. This is how environmental advancements should be made. So that it benefits not just the environment, but the people who use it as well.

whatever said: http://www.realclimate.org If it weren't so sad, it would be funny that in the face of all the data we have, people will still deny that human activity has a HUGE impact on the planet. Unless you want to believe "scientists" that are paid by Exxon. These are the guys that are making money off this, not the scientists that spend years sitting on an ice shelf taking samples and analyzing them. There is a lot more money to be made by being a climate change "denier". If you can't see this, then you too are burying your head in the sand.

 

We don't have any real data on it. Because we have no clue exactly how much carbon dioxide the planet creates normally... as well as other greenhouse gasses. Honestly if you look at it objectivly and look at all the actual data.

The conclusion you should come to is that neither side has shown any actual data... just minor correlations that show nothing because you don't have a majority of the factors listed.

From what we do know is that while we don't know exactly how much greenhouse gases are produced normally. It's vastly more then Human made greenhouse gases. The assumption is that somehow human made gasses are "different" somehow despite having the exact same atomic compounds.

That for some reason natural carbon dioxide cycles out why unnatural CO2 doesn't.

It seems unlikely. There is always the "play it safe" motto but you can only go so far with that.

Broncos724 said: I doubt McCain actually believes in all the global warming fear-mongering, rather it's the simple fact of saying things that will make him look good in the eyes of the voters.

No... he really does. He's actually better on the issue then Obama is.

Obama seems to be in the ethanol lobby's pocket... which at best is only slightly better then regular gas, and is more then likely actually worse then regular gas. Usually ethanol consumes more resources in it's making then it saves vs regular gasoline. Not to mention it's poor gas that lowers your gas mileage.

While McCain wants to get rid of the Ethanol lobby and focus on real change. It will also lower the price of food all over the place since 30% of the corn we grow in this country goes to ethanol... and corn is in everything. Even steak and chicken. (by way of feed.)

Here is a summary of some of the points made from my link above along with the sources they provided, these are some of the problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming:

Part 1) Some 84% of total anthropogenic hydrocarbon output has occurred after 1940, and yet the rate of temperature change has remained the same.

Part 2) According to ice core records an increase of 7% C02 should correspond to approximately a 1C increase in temperature. Yet over the last century we have seen a 30% increase in C02 and only a 0.5C increase in temperature. (note that the data actually suggest Temperature drives C02 and not the other way around which is precisely why this flaw exists).

Part 3) Temperature variations on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and Triton all mimic the changes here on earth in trend but not in magnitude. This heavily implies that they are both responding to the same factor but are getting different amounts of exposure. The sun fits this description perfectly. Also note that these planets not being inhabited by mankind could not have anthropogenic global warming and thus the cause is clearly not related.

Sources Part 1:
Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,

Sources Part 2:
-Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
-Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.

Sources Part 3:
-Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
-Fenton, L. K., Geissler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
-Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
-Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Russell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
-Hammel, H. B., and Lockwood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
-Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.


The paper goes on to note that even if we do continue to see natural or anthropogenic increases in temperature it would be a good thing and not a bad thing. It makes this point by citing numerous studies that have shown C02 & temperature increases cause plant life to flourish and as a result animal life as well. Longer growing seasons and increases in workable lands would also be a result, which would in turn mean a greatly improved situation globally for countries where food supplies are scarce. In short, even if the worst of the realistic alarmists scenarios were to occur we would see tremendous net positives.

They also point out that tales of increased storm frequency, strength, etc... are exaggerated and that no increase has occurred in the last century based on undisputed empirical evidence and even the best storm modelers now agree that global warming would actually have a positive impact on storm activity for mankind and not a negative.

In short, from start to finish the scare about global warming being a threat is bogus, and the idea that global warming is caused by mankind is equally bogus. You need not look further than the likes of Enron to see the source of the hysteria, its no coincidence that the dissenting view finally started being heard around 2001 when Enron went out of business, and their enormous financial and political clout was no longer being brought to bare. And it should come as no surprise that Mr. Gore was one of Kenneth Lay's biggest supporters (and vice versa) during his vice presidency. Of course in fairness Lay was concerned with keeping all politicians in his pocket and had a long list of them from both parties, who happily went along provided they stayed in power.

The moral outrage about global warming is the work of a puppet master pulling the strings he knows will get the strongest response from an uninformed and mislead public who would rather buy into it than look into it. If you are interested in this matter you owe it to yourself to hear both sides of the issue and I urge you to read the report I linked to above, I read realclimate at least once a month to catch up on the other viewpoint and believe it or not I used to be of the other viewpoint. If you can't make it through the 12 pages (extremely short for a research paper like this actually) and follow along with the subject, then you're breaking a basic tenant of science by not considering all of the evidence.

In science no debate is ever finished, even Isaac Newton was once defeated on his idea that light was a particle by Dutch physicist Christian Huygens who believed it was a wave. Huygens devised an experiment known as the "double-slit experiment" which proved light behaved like a wave. It took more than a century before that settled matter was revisited and Einstein, working from a theory suggested by Richard Feynman, was able to show that it was actually both, in effect proving Newton, Huygens, & Feynman were ALL correct. And Feynman's assertion was that each photon traveled through both slits...pretty weird huh? But to this day that is still the prevailing theory...and yet it too could one day be challenged. So again, this idea that a debate ends in science is ridiculous. The fact that someone would even declare such a thing should be reason enough to thoroughly scrutinize anything they've proposed, especially the matter they claim to have ended.

 

@Kasz,

You said that "neither side has shown any actual data". But the document I linked to goes through a great deal of empirical evidence to support the position.