I know this is piling on, but

[clocker]

The question that keeps going through my mind about man-made global warming is this...

We know there were ice ages in the past, before humans ever even built a factory. What made the ice melt away back then? How do we know for certain that whatever made the ice melt away back then is not responsible for global warming today?

You raise an excellent point, and that's not fair.

You only think it's an excellent point because you treasure your ignorance and prejudices over even a basic understanding of the problem.

Like many on the right, an issue must be reduced to the level of a third grader for you to grapple with it and by doing so, the nuances which might provide your answers are distilled away.

If ignorance is bliss, you two must be perpetually ecstatic.

[j2k4]

Well, answer the man's question, then, you AlGore sycophant.

Do it with science; enlighten us...relieve us of our ignorance...show us the light...

[clocker]

Oh, like I didn't see that coming.

What I find most ironic about the right wing's denial of global warming is that it's predicated on the fact that the overwhelming bulk of evidence is wrong/unconvincing.
The scientists behind it have an agenda or are simply stupid.

Now for the irony...
When scientists say that we can safely/productively drill for oil in say, the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, or nuclear power is safe/economical...why, that's just great, "Look, science supports my position!".

In other words, you cherry pick the situation where science is beneficial to your preconceptions and dismiss it when it's not.

There's no point in offering any data to support global warming because your objections are all based on economic considerations, the science is just an inconvenient (see what I did there?) obstacle, easily overcome by demonizing the "elite" who produce the data.

[999969999]

You didn't even try to answer my question.

[clocker]

You didn't even try to answer my question.

OK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).

No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.

Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.

Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?

Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?

Wonder about that.

[999969999]

You didn't even try to answer my question.

OK, here's the kindergarten explanation (it's assumed that anyone beyond that level would have used Google to find the info).

No one denies that there has been a naturally occurring cycle of warming/freezing.
Well, no one besides evangelicals who believe the earth is only six thousand years old.
The difference now is that our impact has increased the severity of the cycle, potentially beyond the ability of nature to maintain balance.

Now, let's make it even simpler.
Divorce our irrefutable impact on the environment from long term climate change considerations altogether.

Even if our current course doesn't kill us, is it still acceptable to pump millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere?
Is it OK to use the oceans as a dumping ground and continue degrading the ozone layer to the point that you need SPF 50 just to get the morning newspaper?

Is it logical to rely on an energy source- oil- that is as imminently finite, requires such a convoluted supply chain (with all the national security implications attached) and inherently inefficient?

Wonder about that.

Global warming has become like a religion for a large number of people and when anyone tries to question their beliefs in any way they feel threatened and react much like a religious person by lashing out angrily and trying to demonize and humiliate anyone who would dare question their faith.


You jumped to the conclusion that I am an evangelical. I'm not even religious. I don't believe there is a God, and I don't believe in any afterlife.



What I do believe is that humans are an insignificant speck on a huge planet that is dwarfed by the size of our sun. Have you ever seen a model of our solar system, and how small the earth is in comparison to the sun? Well, I think that if you looking for what is warming up the earth, you might want to look at the sun. It's what controls how hot and how cool the earth will get. It goes through cycles of its own and we have no control over it.


By your own admission, there are natural cycles that cause warming and freezing of the earth. I would love to see the experiments and the scientific method being used to exclude these variables.


All the global warming enthusiasts seem to think that if we all lower our standard of living back to the 1800s, we might be able to somehow change the climate. No thanks. I'd rather take my chances with the possibility of global warming-- which may not be as disasterous as you predict-- than lower my standard of living back to that of my ancestors. Hell, the weather forecasters can't predict weather a couple of weeks out accurately, and yet you believe that we can predict the weather 50 or more years into the future. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the religion of Global Warming. I don't have that faith.

If you want to voluntarily lower your standard of living in the superstitious hope that you can change this huge planet, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect me to follow your religion.

[jibblet]

For an interesting example of how strongly we influence the environment, do a google search for "global dimming bbc" and read the articles on the BBC website.

Basically, after Sept 9/11 all flights were cancelled in the US, and this had a dramatic effect on our climate. Easy to read and simple proof.

@999969999 - What made you suddenly start talking about lowering our standards of living to combat climate change? As far as I am aware, our standards of living can only improve...

[clocker]

You jumped to the conclusion that I am an evangelical. I'm not even religious. I don't believe there is a God, and I don't believe in any afterlife.

No, I did not.

What I do believe is that humans are an insignificant speck on a huge planet that is dwarfed by the size of our sun. Have you ever seen a model of our solar system, and how small the earth is in comparison to the sun? Well, I think that if you looking for what is warming up the earth, you might want to look at the sun. It's what controls how hot and how cool the earth will get. It goes through cycles of its own and we have no control over it.

I'm sure you think you're making a telling point here.
You are not.

By your own admission, there are natural cycles that cause warming and freezing of the earth. I would love to see the experiments and the scientific method being used to exclude these variables.

If you'd "love to see" how the scientists arrived at their conclusions, quit dicking around here and start googling.
It ain't terribly difficult to find this info.

All the global warming enthusiasts seem to think that if we all lower our standard of living back to the 1800s, we might be able to somehow change the climate. No thanks. I'd rather take my chances with the possibility of global warming-- which may not be as disasterous as you predict-- than lower my standard of living back to that of my ancestors. Hell, the weather forecasters can't predict weather a couple of weeks out accurately, and yet you believe that we can predict the weather 50 or more years into the future. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the religion of Global Warming. I don't have that faith.

If you want to voluntarily lower your standard of living in the superstitious hope that you can change this huge planet, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect me to follow your religion.

You are resolutely determined to not only wallow in ignorance but to reinforce it with spurious assumptions.
Sure you aren't an evangelical?

[j2k4]

You are resolutely determined to not only wallow in ignorance but to reinforce it with spurious assumptions.

So what you are saying is you believe the issue has been irrevocably decided, and there is no room for countervailing opinion.

Google me some boiler-plate for that supposition.

Surely you have something better than ridicule to support it?

See, Saul's little book-o-tactics doesn't work so well on the interweb...

[999969999]

For an interesting example of how strongly we influence the environment, do a google search for "global dimming bbc" and read the articles on the BBC website.

Basically, after Sept 9/11 all flights were cancelled in the US, and this had a dramatic effect on our climate. Easy to read and simple proof.

@999969999 - What made you suddenly start talking about lowering our standards of living to combat climate change? As far as I am aware, our standards of living can only improve...

If the green movement prevails, gasoline and other reliable sources of energy will increase in price, in an effort to get us to use less of the supposedly planet killing substance. If I have to spend more on energy, then there will be less money left over to spend on everything else. Thus, my standard of living will fall.

Like I said, I am more than willing to take my chances with global warming. I think there is a very good chance it won't be a big deal at all.

I'm for freedom of choice. If someone wants to be green and deprive themselves, I say that's fine with me. But don't try to take away my freedoms. Don't try to make me swallow the global warming dogma and lower my standard of living for some pie in the sky idealism.

As for Clocker... you love to get all angry and hurl insults at me, because you believe in the global warming religion and its dogma and you can't stand the fact that I'm not a believer. It's not good enough for you to just lower your own standard of living, you want to bring everyone else's standard of living down with you. You figure if you have to suffer, then so should everyone else.

Science should always be open to debate. Otherwise it is no better than religous superstition.

Here are a few books that I found interesting...

Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming By Bjørn Lomborg.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. By Lawrence Solomon.