Gore Launches concert for Global warming

bubbamackdaddy69

dg1979us wrote:

Your point? Since your post lacked any signicant debate, I cant quite find your point.

Yeah my post was short and didn't really feel like getting into it since it's late..but mainly I was just ranting on the stupidity of the whole Global Warming media propaganda that's going on... I believe in Environmental issues but not Global warming and that humans are the ones to blame as Al Gore points out..that's all..and please don't say well.."the scientists say"...lol

dg1979us

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Yeah my post was short and didn't really feel like getting into it since it's late..but mainly I was just ranting on the stupidity of the whole Global Warming media propaganda that's going on... I believe in Environmental issues but not Global warming and that humans are the ones to blame as Al Gore points out..that's all..and please don't say well.."the scientists say"...lol

Yes. Who cares what people that actually study the issue would say, what am I thinking. And ya know, there is credible debate on both sides, even though, with the stuff I have read I lean towards the side that says humans are at least partly responsible. But at this point, the outcome isnt even what concerns me, it is the idea that we actually have powerful people that will take it seriously and look into it. Because if it is real, then it is the biggest threat to the world, and I would hate that we have politicians that have no concern to even looking into it.

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Yeah my post was short and didn't really feel like getting into it since it's late..but mainly I was just ranting on the stupidity of the whole Global Warming media propaganda that's going on... I believe in Environmental issues but not Global warming and that humans are the ones to blame as Al Gore points out..that's all..and please don't say well.."the scientists say"...lol

Ok, so you're a skeptic. Why?

Do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect? On what scientific basis do you contest climate change?

bubbamackdaddy69

sourdough wrote:

Ok, so you're a skeptic. Why?

Do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect? On what scientific basis do you contest climate change?

I'm a skeptic because of the lack of real facts rather than specualtions..
And Climate change and Global Warming are 2 totally different things..so I'm not sure what you want me to answer here

dg1979us

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

I'm a skeptic because of the lack of real facts rather than specualtions..
And Climate change and Global Warming are 2 totally different things..so I'm not sure what you want me to answer here

But dont you think there is enough information that we should at least be taking it seriously?

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

I'm a skeptic because of the lack of real facts rather than specualtions..
And Climate change and Global Warming are 2 totally different things..so I'm not sure what you want me to answer here

Climate change and global warming are the same thing. Global temperatures are rising, however not in the same degree. Furthermore, some areas become drier, some wetter etc, so climate change is a more descriptive term for global warming. Same phenomenon.

Lack of real facts? How about over 650000 years of climate data including temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Do you dispute the greenhouse effect?

jlew24asu

earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. just thought i would point that out

sourdough

jlew24asu wrote:

earth is 400,500,000,000 years old. just thought i would point that out

Yes, you are correct, however during that time there has never been one species with the capability and record of being able to alter their environment in the scale that humans have. We have already demonstrated that we are capable of drastically altering the atmospheric composition when we severely damaged the ozone layer, so why do people think its such a radical idea to comprehend that we have the ability to effect our atmosphere?

Once again, do any of the skeptics here dispute the greenhouse effect?

bubbamackdaddy69

dg1979us wrote:

But dont you think there is enough information that we should at least be taking it seriously?

Don't get me wrong..I totally agree we should always want to be cleaner and such to our environment but I don't buy into this whole Global Warming scare..Yes some scientist say ..ooooo watch out for Global Warming.... but what about all the other scientists that say the opposite..?? and trust me there are alot of them...but the media only talks about the ones that are in agreement with Global Warming...
Sad but true but most of the scientist that are in agreement of this Global Warming theory are getting funded to do so..of course they woulld support that theory..hell why not..they are getting $$ for it..
And yet the others , who don't care about $$ or are retired that believe the opposite are not taken seriously.. Politicians don't want to believe that..because if they did then there goes everything !
I'm just your average Joe but seriously...watch in 30 years...I bet there will be some other type of debate of Global Cooling or something

bubbamackdaddy69

sourdough wrote:

Climate change and global warming are the same thing. Global temperatures are rising, however not in the same degree. Furthermore, some areas become drier, some wetter etc, so climate change is a more descriptive term for global warming. Same phenomenon.

Lack of real facts? How about over 650000 years of climate data including temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Do you dispute the greenhouse effect?

WOW...they took records back 650000 years ago...in pen or pencil? lol..come on..

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Don't get me wrong..I totally agree we should always want to be cleaner and such to our environment but I don't buy into this whole Global Warming scare..Yes some scientist say ..ooooo watch out for Global Warming.... but what about all the other scientists that say the opposite..?? and trust me there are alot of them...but the media only talks about the ones that are in agreement with Global Warming...
Sad but true but most of the scientist that are in agreement of this Global Warming theory are getting funded to do so..of course they woulld support that theory..hell why not..they are getting $$ for it..
And yet the others , who don't care about $$ or are retired that believe the opposite are not taken seriously.. Politicians don't want to believe that..because if they did then there goes everything !
I'm just your average Joe but seriously...watch in 30 years...I bet there will be some other type of debate of Global Cooling or something

Firstly, there is NOT a lot of scientists who dispute climate change. I won't say that there are none, but they are in the vast minority. Skeptics are often over-represented in the media so there appear to be more than there actually is. The media often will try and balance the story by finding a skeptic even when there really is no debate or balance in the scientific community. Many of the skeptics are funded by oil companies or conservative think tanks such as the Fraser Institute. (not all but many prominant skeptics). Lastly, I challenge you to find just one peer reviewed journal or sources from any credible scientific journal. There are none, because the science is overwhelmingly in support of climate change.

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

WOW...they took records back 650000 years ago...in pen or pencil? lol..come on..

Ice core samples which date back 650000 years, tree ring analysis and pollen samples are just a few methods they have been able to retrieve climate data that old.

What is your scientific argument against climate change?

lukin2006

gabers wrote:

Everyone likes to take shots at Al Gore. At least he is trying to make the world a better place. More than I can say for a lot of politicians. You haters might surprised in 2008. I think Gore could take Guiliani or McCain.

He should be able to take those two he's younger and probably 50 pounds heavier than them.