That Man has single-handedly caused global warming is the biggest hoax ever!!! People are just afraid to say it. There is simply no clear scientific connection between greenhouse gases and the temperature increases of the Earth. NONE. Consensus is NOT science. It appears more likely that other factors outside of the earth (like increased solar activity, for one) and the natural evolution of the Earth itself are more responsible than anything else. In fact, many scientists continue to ponder whether or not the Earth is in an actual state of cooling, rather than warming. If these scientific experts who dispute these warming theories were ever permitted to speak openly and get face-time on our TVs, we'd all realize that they make a lot of logical sense.
No. This whole thing is so politicized and is such a joke, it's utterly laughable. Why is it that every answer to this problem involves reaching into the back pocket of American taxpayers?
And before anyone starts in on me for challenging warming assertions, prove that WE, mankind, is at fault, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And then explain how there could be temperature increases on Mars that coincide with Earth's. I'm a scientist myself (10+ years in the water purity business), so I have a bit of knowledge concerning the scientific method and it's abuse in this case. Don't take my word for it, but this guy reflects my feelings on this over-hyped issue: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm The sun's direct role, another theory: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html Interesting climate change on Mars iself, with references to solar radiation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 I'm not telling you to see things my way, just to keep an open mind. And with that, I am DONE with this topic.
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that increased solar radiation is causing global warming? Are you telling me carbon dioxide does not trap infrared radiation? There are solutions that don't cost a ton of money, just look at what I posted earlier in the thread.
I don't buy into extremist biased propaganda from both sides of the debate. I do my part by making smart choices when the possibility is there, I recycle, I don't waste, but I'm no tree-hugger either. As D_C and certainly many others did, I made my own research. The conclusions I came with were that there is obviously something wrong going on, something that could end up causing irreversible damage to LIFE on this very planet. It's easy for people to put their head in the sand in the name of brutal profit. (I'll try really hard to not make this political…) The corporations lobby for their "freedom" to make money, no matter the human and environmental consequences. They get tax cuts, when that money could be used by the governments (and I emphasize the "S", because it's not only the United States) to come up with infrastructures to enforce proper environmental protocols. The solutions are there, we can all do our little part. But to deny that there is nothing going on, to say that global warming is another Y2K boogieman hoax invented by hippies, that's just not looking at the big picture. Oh, and if the planet is "cooling", how come the planet's temperature has been slowly increasing for the past years?
Falsifiability and consensus are at the very heart of science. One scientist who refuses to be convinced isn't going to change that.
You do realize that in trying to debunk "global warming" as a white elaphant and poltical tool, you post an article from a right wing canadian tabloid, and information about a Duke study into solar radiation that is really stating that increased solar activity is probably contributing ALONG SIDE greenhouse gas emmissions, right?
See? This right here is why politics pisses me off. Nobody's listening to anybody on 'the bad side' while swallowing what anybody on 'the good side' says.
The CFP article was filled with right wing political jargon, and should never have been used. The leftist equivalent would be like posting something from Moveon.org as hard evidence. The Duke article is better, but I am guessing he didn't read the entire thing, because the researchers themselves say it in no way debunks gas emmissions as a reason for global temperature increases, and that solar fluctuations are basically working in tandem with them. So I fail to see how I was not listening to anyone on the "bad side".
NASA models show Greenhouse Gases responsible for Northern Hemisphere warming American Association for the Advancement of Science link warming to greenhouse gases Summary of article in the journal Nature reveals link between atmospheric warming and greenhouse gases You want to complain about consensus? Consensus based on science? Give me something that's not a biased article to show me there's no link. Dispute one of these, even just one. I do like how your biased article doesn't even really provide solid facts or evidence - it's just a guy saying "I've been around for 30 years and it's warmed and cooled each time!"
I'm no scientist. Hell, I'm not even that bright. But I trust Al Gore. I trust the many scientists that back him up. I should add that An Inconvenient Truth is not propaganda - it is a documentary. And like any nonfiction book or any other documentary, the author(s) is/are going to present their own argument. That's normal. The difference between documentary and propaganda is that the latter intentionally misleads or uses fallacies in order to try to persuade. I know what I've seen with my own two eyes - bizarre weather patterns, Hurricane Katrina, species extinction, etc. I've been to Ecuador and I've seen crude oil running down the side of roads because the oil companies are too cheap and lazy to prevent it or clean it up (and the government is too weak to control the oil industry). Bees are suddenly disappearing. Furthermore, the "consensus != truth" argument doesn't really hold water in science, because almost everything in the hard sciences is a theory. There are many more theories than there are laws, and even the laws have been known to change when someone like Einstein or MC Hawking comes along and changes everything. I've no doubt that this planet isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Our planet has seen plenty of horrific things. The question is - will our species survive? People used to think we were going to wipe ourselves out of existence with nuclear weapons - now it's becoming clear that we're more likely to go into extinction because of negligence than anything else.
As much as I would like to see him "debunk" these articles, he already gave himself an out by saying he was done with the thread. he's not going to pop in and respond to any of this.
And the other thing I hate about politics is that whenever you say something that doesn't support either side, people will assume you're for whatever they're against.
The only thing I assumed is that your first post was directed toward me. I have no idea what your thoughts on the global warming issue are. perhaps you could enlighten us?
propaganda is the information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. "An inconvenient Truth" could fall into that category, by definition.
That is an awfully broad definition, though. "Buckle up in case of car accident" could be propaganda, or "Don't stick your head in the stove".
If you launched a "Don't stick your head in the stove" campaign which consisted of marketing materials, articles, broadcasts and other TV and radio advertising, then I would classify that as propaganda. Especially when there is a large sum of money involved in spreading the message. Propaganda doesn't always mean that an evil force is behind it, or that the message being spread is nothing but lies. It is meant to sway public opinion.
