Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DeanPatsFan, Jul 5, 2006.
You know, I really don't know what I think about global warming and the spiraling (upward) cost of energy.
But three things I do know:
1-100+ years of fossil fuel emissions has to have some effect on the atmosphere. How much? Who knows.
2- I do believe that we will run out of crude oil at some point in my lifetime, and that Peak Oil, when production cannot keep up with demand any longer, is on the horizon and closing fast. Some believe it is here already.
3-The big boys Shell, Conoco, Exon, Chevron etc. DO NOT want alternative fuels developed. That's why those companies spend millions buying up patents to keep them out of development
John stossel is not the most trustworthy reporter on science, ya he sells book's, it's always good to cross check his purported truths. Try googling john stossel lies, just like you did with ann coulter lies, and his truth's become apparently false. Just a public service announcement for people who are unaware, so you don't get duped by a suppossed dupe slayer
Here's one link of many john stossel facts exposed as bullsh--!!
The malthusian are always proved wrong by human creativity.
see the rest at: online.wsj.com
Stossel is a conservative. Gore is a liberal. What I'd like to see is some analysis from someone who doesn't have a political ax to grind.
I think most people who disagree with Gore's viewpoints simply do so because they don't like the messenger. Stossel would fall into that category.
Also Stossel makes a bit of an error in his essay. He ridicules the man who predicted the world would be energy starved by the year 2000. Well, it's 2006 and I think we're clearly seeing signs with the exploding demand in India and China that indeed there is a bit of an energy choke off developing. So the guy was 6 years off. Big deal.
There was a british report ,where the world science community agreed on the need to keep studying global warming. I imagine if you google you will run across the scientific community research papers on global warming, there are consensus reports out there, I will see if I can find it. It was in a debate I was following among a scientist discussion board. Or you can listen to foxnews or al franken they seem to be factual Check out the science community.
Here is a link to another thread on Bill Gray one of the leading climatoligist in the country. It was posted as a thread a few weeks ago
The first post. there are other linked articles in the thread.
I don't understand why you're so convinced this new possibility will work; but that global warming is an unfounded or not sufficiently founded myth.
I for one figure we should do something just so that Glacier National Park could have a couple of glaciers in it. I'd really hate to start having to call it Dirt National Park. That name strikes me as defeatist.
The climate is always changing if you look at tempature charts covering the last million we are just going through a normal cycle.
Maybe the righties should see Al Gore's movie, rather than embarrass themselves by posting shallow political commentary. The majority of scientists around the world believe that global warming is partly caused by men (and even common sense supports that view), and the best they have is something by John Stossel. LOL.
MORE ON GLOBAL WARMING ,nasa-charts and a long article
Those glaciers are all about retreating - cut and run - they have no idea how close the other glaciers are to total victory in the War on Warming!!
Cowardly glaciers...I hate them!
Where and when did this happen?
Hey Boss, THE PLANE THE PLANE!
"normal cycle"?????? Can we all laugh now...a normal cycle????? SOrry..but this is the 21st century equivalent of the flat earth society.....
A week ago, the National Science Foundation, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, if not the world, released its evaluation of the evidence for global warming, at a request from the US Congress.
Its conclusion: Global warming is real, dangerous and caused, at least in part, by human activity.
Why have we politicized this issue? Will we still be arguing about it after Logan is underwater?
Patsfan13 is absolutely right about one thing: human ingenuity has often time averted a Malthusian crisis. I think it's time that we start using a little human ingenuity to avert this one.
2 reasons to politicize the issue. $25 billion in Global warming research dollars up for grabs and it provides a reason for more centralized controls of economic activity. So we have moved from science to sensationalism.
Can you supply any evidence of a link between dishonest science and the $25 billion global warming research dollars? I think you should do that before you accuse the world's scientists of being opportunistic frauds. Please support that outlandish and offensive claim.
Though there are always a tiny percent of dishonest scientists (as in any field), I think in the last 50 years, on issues from tobacco to water pollution to ozone, it has been demonstrated that there is some scientific fraud in the business community. But, I don't think you can show the same thing is true in academic research.
I published the interview of Dr Gray and how his research dollars were cut off due to his hersey's challenging the Global warming 'crisis'. This was posted in mid June.
That's your evidence? One instance of possible fraud leads you to condem the hundreds if not thousands of grant recipients? Besides, Dr. Gray seems to have made an accusation without any evidence to back it up. Why are you playing so much politics with this issue? Provides something substantive to make your case, not just some vague reference to some old link about one cranky old guy.
Separate names with a comma.