Last Year At This Time, Global Warming(Climate Change) Was A Big Topic Here

[jeb]

Global warming, Gun Control, even hog farming can all be thought of as politically motivated as politics does play into them to diffrent degree's. If all people talked about was the outdoors things would get old real fast. Its important for a website to be able to have discussion on multiple topics for it to survive. The topic in and of itself is not the problem it is the people posting to it. Emotions and Views vary which is a good thing for thought. The issue arises when people intentionaly attack other members.

Ive been in Phils place you can either allow topics and moderate them or be heavy handed and not, but how much of a persons time should be spent keeping adults in line?

As little as possible, which is why I liked and tried to abide by the no GW discussion rule. I'm an admin on a large international motorcycle forum and I know what a PITA those threads are, so I was hoping the hardline in Phil's rule would be enforced. But it is what it is, and it's all out in the open now. So forward we go.

I agree that it's hard to not call a GW debate political!

[Justin Spencer]

As little as possible, which is why I liked and tried to abide by the no GW discussion rule. I'm an admin on a large international motorcycle forum and I know what a PITA those threads are, so I was hoping the hardline in Phil's rule would be enforced. But it is what it is, and it's all out in the open now. So forward we go.

I agree that it's hard to not call a GW debate political!

Should be nothing political about global warming. It is a fact that the majority in all parties agree is happening.

[ozark trout fisher]

I agree that it's hard to not call a GW debate political!

Global warming is only political if you make it so. Whether or not our planet is warming, and assuming it is, what may or may not be causing that, are two patently scientific issues. A lot of people have made it political but there's really no reason why it should be.

How do I know this? You can have an entire, intelligent debate about global warming without mentioning the words republican or democrat, right or left, even once. Only the legislation that may be passed regarding climate change is blatantly a political issue.

[Jerry Rapp]

it is not political, just common sense. Here is a 1975 Newsweek article back when pollution, smog, CO2 was much worse.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/

[Justin Spencer]

it is not political, just common sense. Here is a 1975 Newsweek article back when pollution, smog, CO2 was much worse.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/

CO 2 levels were about 330ppm in 1975, now they are 400, so yes common sense says that part of the pollution (greenhouse gas) is getting worse, and because it has been proven that higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to an increase in temperatures common sense supports the science of global warming.

[Jerry Rapp]

what was the CO2 level in 1965 before the global ice age was about to start in 1975? You didn't post here back then. How was CO2 measured back then compared to now?

[Al Agnew]

I wish you guys would realize that the global cooling theory was NEVER endorsed by anything close to a majority of climate scientists. Yes, it got a lot of play in the press because, like global warming, it was a gloom and doom scientific topic that was put forth by legitimate scientists. But science worked the way it's supposed to, and as more evidence came in and more scientists reviewed it, it became obvious it wasn't right. The entire "life" of the theory lasted what, maybe three or four years in the 70s?

Compare that to the current global warming "theory", which has been gathering momentum for three decades, and which is endorsed by the vast majority of climate scientists.

I would also note that scientists are smart enough to take into consideration differences in the accuracy and methods of measuring things like CO2 as technology improves.

[jdmidwest]

I wish you guys would realize that the global cooling theory was NEVER endorsed by anything close to a majority of climate scientists. Yes, it got a lot of play in the press because, like global warming, it was a gloom and doom scientific topic that was put forth by legitimate scientists. But science worked the way it's supposed to, and as more evidence came in and more scientists reviewed it, it became obvious it wasn't right. The entire "life" of the theory lasted what, maybe three or four years in the 70s?

Compare that to the current global warming "theory", which has been gathering momentum for three decades, and which is endorsed by the vast majority of climate scientists.

The reason it has caught on more is the political movement behind it.

[jeb]

Should be nothing political about global warming.

It is naive to think politics don't play a major role in this. There is a lot of evidence that this is largely an international power play, especially at the U.N. level. And the vast majority of research money here in the States to keep the gravy train rolling for the army of scientists and their facilities comes from tax dollars, so politics are hugely important there. Like it or not, it literally pays to be on the side of AGW/CC in most of these fields. And those paycheck are mostly signed by Uncle Sam. That makes politics intrinsic to these discussions.

[Justin Spencer]

Look at my statement. I said there should be nothing political about it, it is obvious that there is. It is sad to me that our nation and even the world can't come together to try and stop the damage that we are causing the planet. Unlike the older people on here who may only have another 10 or 20 years to live, I hope to have another 40 years or so on the planet, and it is a fact that even if we take action to slow CO2 emissions, the world will be a very different place in just a few decades. When my grandchildren are old and grey I am scared of what the world might look like. The politics behind it is what is slowing our reaction to the problem, by golly if one party is going to think one way, the other seems to oppose it just for the sake of arguement, even if we know we need to act NOW.

It is naive to think we can keep kicking the can down the road on this one, putting off dealing with debt and spending is bad enough, playing with our future is dangerous.