Is global warming real or a hoax?

[fab]

Originally Posted by robmac

its too cold in the UK anyway - bring that nice Florida air to London

So try UK warming, just don't heat us up!

[H2FC]

Originally Posted by fab

It would be nice if you would invest your time and efforts in doing something practical instead of trying to belittle everyone who disagrees with you, and bullying your points, for no practical good

Belittling everyone who disagrees with me? Are you nuts?? My postings are the ones the minority naysaying skeptics are "Belittling" I'm on the side of the large majority who KNOW mankind is severely damaging our environment by burning fossil fuels for energy. This is no longer in question and its an insult to all who love their planet and their children when the die hard misquided skeptics continue to make fun of it.

Since the continuation of your statement is hard to believe.

This makes no sense at all...what are you talking about?

Alternative fuel sources have lots of potential benefits, not related to the environment, like eliminating US and other countries dependency on foreign oil. Lower costs, etc.

FYI alternative fuel sources are DIRECTLY related to the environment. Its the environment thats MOST important here. Do you think we would be trying to develop new alternative energies if not for the potential and severe damage to our planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels for energy? If you do you're dumber than I thought you were. If its wasn't for the severe damage to our environment and health we would be drilling for oil in every backyard and public park in America.....and in fact all over the world. Not only that but we would be building coal fired energy plants everywhere we could find a place to put them. Make no mistake about it....its the damage to our health and planet thats the main force driving the search for new clean alternative energies. Everything else is secondary.

Statements like:
1. Economical,
2. Lowering foreign energy dependence,
3. and environmentally clean;
would get "your" cause much farther.

Which do you think is more important...your childrens lives and your planet or these three things you've listed?

[fab]

Maybe you can explain why more people aren't doing more to protect the environment then. How many people buy hybrid cars - electric cars, and how many of them buy for the GW - environmental reasons?

[tas38]

Well thanks to all that sign their name, to save the polar bears here is some very good news if you did not hear yet.

We won this one battle, YAHOOOOOOO!!!!

( Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne said today he will list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

That will provide polar bears with a variety of protective measures from the federal government, though under the terms outlined by Kempthorne there will be provisions to allow continuing exploration for oil and gas in the Arctic seas where the bears live.

The debate over the bears had become one of the most heated environmental issues of recent years. Advocacy groups had called for the bears to be protected, not from hunters or developers, but on the grounds that their habitat was threatened by global warming.

"I wish the decision could be otherwise," said Kempthorne at a Washington news conference. He said the decision would do nothing to prevent the warming of the climate.

"I believe this decision is most consistent with the record and legal standards of the Endangered Species Act, perhaps the least flexible law the Congress has ever enacted," he said.

He cited evidence from the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies, predicting that without action, melting sea ice in the Arctic might wipe out two thirds of the polar bear population by 2050. )

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Wea...4855050&page=1

Edited In:

And look how many people that said, we the people could not make a difference. Well we are making a difference, and people will do the right thing if giving a choice. We have come a long way already, we standed our ground, and just kept telling the truth and people knew the truth when they heard it.

[H2FC]

The same legal strategy that brought down Big Tobacco may be used to bring down Big Oil.

In February, Steve Berman and Steve Susman, two attorneys who opposed each other back in the 1990s during the Big Tobacco Wars filed suit in federal court against 24 oil, coal, and electric companies, claiming that their emissions are partially responsible for the coastal destruction in Kivalina Alaska. More important, the suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking—by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus.

This second charge arguably eliminates the need for a judge to determine how much greenhouse-gas production—from refining fossil fuel and burning it to produce energy—is acceptable. “You’re not asking the court to evaluate the reasonableness of the conduct,” Berman says. “You’re asking a court to evaluate if somebody conspired to lie.” Monetary damages to Kivalina need not be sourced exclusively to the defendants’ emissions; they would derive from bad-faith efforts to prevent the enactment of public measures that might have slowed the warming.

Berman and Susman aren’t alone in drawing parallels between the actions of the defendants and those of the tobacco industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy group, has accused Exxon­Mobil of adopting the cigarette manufacturers’ strategy of covertly establishing “front” groups, promoting writers who exaggerate uncertainties in the science, and improperly cultivating ties within the government. The oil company, it says, has “funneled approximately $16 million to carefully chosen organizations that promote disinformation on global warming.”

“The strategy to foster doubt is very effective,” says Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California at San Diego. Oreskes is writing a book on the similar methods that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries have used to challenge unwelcome scientific evidence. “If ‘nobody knows,’” she says, “then nobody is to blame. If ‘nobody knows,’ then how can we do anything about it?”

The research and public-awareness efforts funded by Big Oil involve some of the same scientists and other professionals who once worked on behalf of Big Tobacco. For instance, Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, who died in March, served as a research adviser for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and then founded the George C. Marshall Institute, an ExxonMobil-funded think tank that has challenged the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming. (The academy dissociated itself from Seitz’s conclusions in 1998.)

The energy industry’s ties to government, like the tobacco industry’s, have been unusually tight, and its lobbying efforts demonstrably effective. Philip Cooney, a liaison between the Bush administration and federal environmental agencies, edited uncertainty into reports on global warming by top government scientists from 2001 until 2005, when he resigned after examples of his changes were published by The New York Times. Before joining the White House, Cooney had worked for the American Petroleum Institute; a week after his departure, Exxon­Mobil announced he was joining the company. “In a sense, ExxonMobil walked right into the room of the science program,” says Rick Piltz, the federal official who blew the whistle on Cooney. A government memo obtained by Greenpeace outlines a State Department official’s talking points for a meeting with energy-company lobbyists: the president, the memo says, “rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.”

Proving that energy companies tried to slow government action on global warming won’t be hard. The challenge in the Kivalina case, as it was in the breakthrough tobacco cases, will be to prove that these companies lied in the course of their business, and were aware that the consequences could be dangerous. “You don’t want to interfere too much with efforts by people to lobby,” says Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. “On the other hand, if they’re deliberately engaging in deception, there’s a stronger argument.” http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/conspiracy/2

Added note...its just a matter of time before Big Oil is exposed for their lying and misconceptions on manmade globalwarming just as Big Tobacco was in the 1990s for their misconceptions on the health of smokers. The only difference this time is that it won't take near as long to expose their lies. All the MMGW skeptics should be reexamining their positions on this important issue before they make greater fools of themselves.

[000]

Thanks H2 for the illuminating parallel. The war against big tobacco greatly enriched many law firms. Tobacco company shareholders took a beating. Tobacco smoking has become no safer but is more expensive and popular than ever. Today, about one in three adults, or 1.1 billion people, smoke. The total number of smokers is expected to reach about 1.6 billion by 2025. (source: worldbank)

Expect similar results from the war against big oil. Enriched law firms, oil company shareholder losses, higher prices and higher consumption.

Future Marxist targets: big pharma, big agriculture, big religion, big family, big booze, big free media, etc., wherever conflict exists between the powerful and the subjugated.

[H2FC]

Originally Posted by 000

Thanks H2 for the illuminating parallel. The war against big tobacco greatly enriched many law firms. Tobacco company shareholders took a beating. Tobacco smoking has become no safer but is more expensive and popular than ever. Today, about one in three adults, or 1.1 billion people, smoke. The total number of smokers is expected to reach about 1.6 billion by 2025. (source: worldbank)

Expect similar results from the war against big oil. Enriched law firms, oil company shareholder losses, higher prices and higher consumption.

Future Marxist targets: big pharma, big agriculture, big religion, big family, big booze, big free media, etc., wherever conflict exists between the powerful and the subjugated.

I agree tobacco smoking is more expensive but its certainly not more popular comparably speaking. By that I mean if not for the truth about tobacco it would be much more widely used now than it is. As for shareholder losses, well they certainly didn't have to hold those shares....do you know about selling shares short for a profit? That was used quite often with big tobacco trades and the same can be done with big oil shares.

Higher oil prices will happen no matter whether the big oil lies are exposed or not. Higher consumption will only continue until the people wake up and put a gigantic effort toward eliminating this huge financial and destructive burden on humanity by developing and implimenting clean green alternative fuels for our energy production. Please don't tell me its not feasible. It appears to be expensive in the beginning but it is possible and it will prove to be well worth it. All the major economist are already saying this but the big oil lies are drowning out their voices.

Its the MMGW skeptics who are fighting green energy development that are causing great harm to our world by their misquided opinions. The continued association of the green movement with Marxism and a communist or socialist economy by the skeptics is absurd to say the least. It serves to prove the extent of ones misconception of the serious MMGW problem.

[000]

The clever unveiling of the convenient marriage between Marxists, Wall Street short sellers and trial lawyers is an eye opener. Thanks for connecting the dots and reminding us that innovation comes from human ingenuity and risk capital, not coerced social engineering, financial market manipulation or legal extortion. Peak oil production will happen in the first half of this century. The energy business is changing fast and will be radically leaner and greener by 2050. Investors and the energy industry will finance and produce the changes. Politicians, lawyers and environmentalists will skim profits and claim an inappropriate share of the credit. Technology marches on. Human nature does not.

Originally Posted by H2FC

The continued association of the green movement with Marxism and a communist or socialist economy by the skeptics is absurd to say the least.

Marxist and green interests share many beliefs including a desire to deconstruct capitalism. Posts vilifying big business can be found throughout this and related threads. Attacks are launched first at easy targets such as big tobacco and big oil. The process continues over time, with incremental bits of the bourgeois system chewed up and spit out. These people work like termites. Today MMGW activists are not eager to publicly embrace Marxism. They are more likely to support the Green Party. Green is a friendlier word than Marxism, much better for recruiting and public relations. Let's look at the Green Party of the United States Economic Sustainability Platform 2004:

Economic growth, as gauged by increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a dangerous and anachronistic American goal. The most viable and sustainable alternative is a steady-state economy. ... an equitable distribution of wealth among nations is required to maintain a global steady-state economy. ... The current level of influence now being exerted by corporate interests over the public interest is unacceptable. ... We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. ... The Green Party proposes a third alternative to a job or no job dichotomy: that is to provide everyone a sustainable livelihood. The need of our times is for security, not necessarily jobs. We need security in the knowledge that, while markets may fluctuate and jobs may come and go, we are still able to lead a life rooted in dignity and well-being. The concept of a "job" is only a few hundred years old; and the artificial dichotomy between "employment" and "unemployment" has become a tool of social leverage for corporate exploiters...

[Warrior]

I dont like getting into these types of discussions because it often leads to NOWHERE, but I've seen so many of these threads I just have to chime in.

The Earth is Warming, that we know and can all agree on. The debate is; Is Man the cause? NOBODY on this planet knows for certain, Not the Scientists, Not Al Gore, Not the IPCC, Not Enviromentalists. Man Made Global Warming is based on a "Theory" an UNPROVEN Theory.

Insulting and berating other members because they DONT beleive in what you do, is really irresponsible, It does NOT advance your cause.

[sdsinc]

It's not just about GW. The full picture is about pollution, depletion of natural resources etc and there is no doubt it is man-made
The debate on GW is just one convenient smoke screen for the naysayers

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by sdsinc

It's not just about GW. The full picture is about pollution, depletion of natural resources etc and there is no doubt it is man-made

And just what are you doing to the environment shooting off what appears to be a AK47?

[tas38]

the debate is; Is Man the cause?

We already know it's well beyond anything, that could be natural already so yes it is man made.

H2FC this is not the same as tobacco at all, and sueing them got the gov't lot of money from tobacco makers. And got a super tax put on smokers, we have a free choice to smoke or not. We do not have that choice with oil, the more fuel goes up the more it hurts everyone.

For anyone to ever think rising fuel cost so high, that it forces people to stop using it is nuts at best. What it will do is crash the markets, enrich the gov't wallets as we all pay the price. You know why prices keep going up in the stores, as the price of oil keeps rising ???

Well it's because shipping cost keep going with oil cost, energy costs keep going up with oil cost. Heating cost keep going up as well, local gov'ts are being hit really hard by this sky rocketing oil prices. They keep rising taxes and fees to try and keep up with it, biz lay people off and cut corners to try and keep up with it.

And as the markets feel the pain from high price oil, so do the people and that slows down going green. So what you are saying makes no sense what so ever, and only serves to hurt going green. Like obama claims he is going to help so much, but the facts are he couldn't help anything. Till he gets the markets back on track, or rise taxes and that will hurt the markets even more.

As this will be driven by the markets, or by tax players with small returns as they will have every reason, to keep stalling to keep collecting that big tax just like smokers pay now. Will cigg makers stop selling ciggs any time in our life times now, they are now selling to a all new gen of hoked smokers, and the gov't love to keep collecting the super tax on ciggs.

To say hurting big oil to rise the price sky high, only hurts the poorest people the most. The very people we don't what to be hurting, and that MMGW will also hurt the most, as high prices are hurt the poor already really bad. It's also hurting all markets across the board, every time I go to a store prices went up and up. And if prices are still so high when, the heating season comes back around it's going to hurt people really bad.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by tas38

We already know it's well beyond anything, that could be natural already so yes it is man made.

Dismissing the alternate hypotheses so easily? Try looking beyond the atmospheric causes for a moment. You dont beleive that climate change could be controlled by cyclical eccentricites in the earth's rotation and orbit? as well as variations in the sun's energy output?

[tas38]

We already know that it's not warming on planets closer to the sun, there for it's has to do with earth it's self. We also already know the CO2 heats the earth already, or it would be so cool all life would frezze to death in short order. And we already know that the only time temps rised so high so fast, it was not natural and we also know how it was when oil and other dirty fuels was made.

There for if we burn all the dirty fuels, and cut down all the trees the earth would not be live able for humans. Unless they lived in protected area's, like mad max and the thunder dome. We are also wipping out wild life very fast, we are dumping trash so much, that no place on earth don't have human trash anymore.

All this stuff is not hard to under stand, be sides we got the techs and can get the tech to go green. So we don't need to be doing this to our planet, nor do we have to wipe out all the resources in our life time. Just where would that leave our kids, it would force them to start playing god. Some people may think that ok, but if they are forced to play god.

Then things could well happen, that leads to untold problems that could even wipe out humans. Like they could play with human DNA and design, humans that could better live in such a earth or other planet. But do we really want to force that on them, to try and live on a hell like earth. And may be some thing they did not think of happens, to the DNA that could well wipe them out.

And the higher number of mutations could do very bad things, as when the earth changes more and more mutations in wild life takes place. Viruses are the biggest problem, that not even taken into account. A virus that been frozen for millions of years, could come back after melting ice caps release it. There unknown things could happen, we under stand some people don't care.

But most people do care and we are going green, and we would run out of dirty fuels in our life times anyway. We would see all trees gone in our life times as well, and most of all wild life as well. So we got no choice as all the resources would be gone in our life time, we would live to see what we put on our kids and grand kids. Only in a short time it will be to late to help at all, and we would not miss the worst MMGW would bring on humans.

We would live to see the hate for us and what we have done, when we are old and our kids and grand kids. Will surely ask us why we done such a thing, and did not even try even though we knew. And we could have stop the worst of it with the techs we have, they would know it was pure greed and us not caring about them. If we don't go green now, then we will have history pass judgment on us all. They will speak of us all as evil people, that was selfish and out of control it's that simple.

[Ed30]

Originally Posted by Warrior

The Earth is Warming, that we know

Actually it isn't.

[H2FC]

tas38...nothing in my post said I'm for higher oil prices...I am for putting a stop to the lies big oil is saying about MMGW and thats why I posted that story about big oil being sued with a lawsuit similar to the one they used against big tobacco. Big tobacco was exposed for their lies and that was a good thing....big oil will be exposed as well and that will be a good thing.

Taxes on tobacco and taxes on oil are two different things all together. The majority of the people will agree to taxes on tobacco because that will help deter the use of tobacco...not so with oil. Nobody likes higher oil prices but they will continue to rise until new alternative fuels are developed and used for energy......and thats why our gov't and individuals MUST impliment a serious and GIGANTIC program to impliment the use of green alternative fuels. In order to do this the people and elected leaders must all be behind it and it will greatly help this effort to expose the lies big oil are saying about MMGW.

We must build enough solar and wind energy farms to replace the use of oil and coal....its the only way to put a stop to this madness. In addition to a solar and wind farm electric grid we must also make solar panels on every rooftop affordable to us all. I can't see that happening until big oil is brought to their knees by exposing their lies and misconceptions of MMGW. Maybe then the common people such as the skeptics we have here will wake up to the truth.