Global Warming Poll

[Al Agnew]

And Muddy, it's obvious you've been listening to those who have a serious ax to grind with the whole issue. Do you honestly think that the research stations set up on asphalt even exist, let alone are common? Is there bad data out there? Probably. But is most or all of it bad (which would go back to my point that the vast majority of scientists are deluded, dishonest, or incompetent)? Believing that shows an appalling lack of respect for science and scientists--except for the few who dare to buck the trend, who are all honest and competent and not at all in the pockets of the fossil fuel industries, of course.

I enjoy the debate, but sometimes I just wish people would try to answer the arguments they don't agree with, instead of continuing to parrot the same stuff and ignore the arguments that have been put forth against it.

[Tim Smith]

I have never been good at e-arguments because they are as useful as tits on a boar hog.

...and yet here you are.

I do like your metaphor since pig-headedness is the main reason online debates go bad. Suit yourself about sticking with the discussion or not. I would be glad to have a civil debate.

I am not saying we have no effect on the world, but until we can come up with UNBIASED scientific evidence( the term scientific consensus is the biggest farce of all)...

To your credit, you've skipped past the data and gone straight to your bottom line. That saves lots of time. Unfortunately your bottom line is that you think thousands of scientists all over the world are lying to you. I find your position saddening, but at least you're upfront.

...I refuse to give up my way of life.

Also to your credit you have clearly put your core stance on the table.

Many others have been far less honest.

I hate hearing about global warming "research" stations being setup next to AC units or on blacktop asphalt.

Here is where your problems start.

The technical points people usually raise here have already been answered long ago.

Are you saying there are stations that don't meet monitoring protocols so the global temperature monitoring data isn't valid? There was indeed a survey of monitoring stations a few years ago. Of the thousands of global monitoring stations all over world, a few of them didn't meet standards, that's true. But global temperatures show exactly the same trends with and without data from the stations you're objecting to. Your asphalt stations make NO DIFFERENCE in the over all trend in rising temperatures. So what is your objection here, really?

Are you trying to say you know better than climatologists how to measure climate? Are you trying to say that there is insufficient evidence that global temperatures are warming (including an average retreat of glaciers all over the globe, increases in global satellite temperature data, the retreat of the Arctic ice sheet, the changes Al mentioned, the progressively earlier ice-out on temperate lakes and on and on and on)? If that is your point, you are standing in agreement with 3% of climate scientists, and most of those are either funded by big oil or dribbling oatmeal down their shirts in nursing homes.

Surely you're not going to take us down that road because that hog will get butchered quick.

Your best bet here is to stick with the paranoia/conspiracy theory. You need to explain why 97% of climate scientists are lying to you and why the vast majority of scientists in other fields (scientists who COMPETE with climate scientists for funding) agree with 97% and not the 3%.

[David Unnerstall]

I am more inclined to believe man is having an impact on climate change. The majority of scientists do believe this. There are those who don't but I have found that some of those have ties to the oil industry, political think tanks or some other organization who will gain from skepticism on this. The email scandal in the UK, called ClimateGate, did not actually indicate a conspiracy. It just gave the skeptics something to run with. We seem to have a propensity to believe what is convenient and also to distrust the so called experts and I believe that is what is going on, here.

[FishinCricket]

Seems this conversation is bringing out the "...and you can keep your darn change" attitude in some people... lol

[Wayne SW/MO]

That's probably a good place to start, Wayne.

In the short term there is no political will to lower emissions (primarily due to a hellacious amount of misinformation but also because it involves real economic adjustments that most people don't want). The option we have left is to get ready for it, or to use one of Cold's buzz words, "adaptation".

The World Wildlife Fund specifically calls for "no regrets" adaptation. Do the things you should be doing anyway (planting and conserving trees, preventing coastal erosion, reducing pollution, increasing energy security) until the pain from climate change is great enough for people to start taking it seriously and address the underlying causes (if you want to see the front edge of the "pain" google "Marshall Islands" and "climate change").

As for making billionaires, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with involving capitalism in climate change adaptation. Pretty much nothing happens in this world without a business behind it to drive it along. For instance, I have a Belizean friend who is making a living restoring mangrove forests. He's not a billionaire, but he does feed himself and his family on the profits, and I couldn't be happier that he does.

I agree with some of that Tim and there are more important things, to me at least, that could be done. We could start by working a lot harder on preserving trees that are still standing and planting more. Find ways to recycle that are friendly. Work on ridding the environment of heat projecting surfaces and work on realistic energy programs.

Capitalism is a key to making progress. Profit tops the job security influence of the research grants. The problem I see is that when you hear that 2 companies are going to split 28 billion for windmills and solar panels, neither of which has been proven to be environmentally friendly or to be a real solution.

Where's the money for research in making hydrogen and natural gas a realistic fuel? Why is there still a freeze on nuclear plants? The whole civilized world is turning to them, but no us.

Scientific accuracy? Don't make me bring up YK2.:lol:

[Justin Spencer]

darn you people I thought I ask for no debate! Since that didn't happen here's a comment.

windmills and solar panels, neither of which has been proven to be environmentally friendly or to be a real solution.

How are windmills and solar panels not environmentally friendly. May not be a solution, but other than killing a few birds (which my windows do on a daily basis) I think these things are pretty environmentally friendly.

I think nuclear plants are a good solution to reduce greenhouse gasses, but we are creating another type of waste that will have to be dealt with at some point in the earth's history. I don't really know how I feel about nuclear power but I do know it is not a source without some sort of future consequences to deal with.

[flytyer57]

The only real solution to this global warming thing is to nuke the whole darn planet and let it start over all by itself.

If there is a god, it was his biggest mistake putting us here.

[Justin Spencer]

If there is a god, it was his biggest mistake putting us here.

Pretty entertaining though!

[gotmuddy]

If there is a god, it was his biggest mistake putting us here.

yep.

As they say, talk is cheap. I am curious to know what all the climate change people drive? Both of my vehicles are diesels('05 beetle TDI, '96 f-350). Both can and have run renewable fuels and if it was available here I would buy it over diesel any day.

[flytyer57]

yep.

As they say, talk is cheap. I am curious to know what all the climate change people drive? Both of my vehicles are diesels('05 beetle TDI, '96 f-350). Both can and have run renewable fuels and if it was available here I would buy it over diesel any day.

You know what I drive.