What Do You Think of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize?
10-13-2007, 05:53 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2007
Location: ...
Posts: 1,554
For what its worth, since gobal warming is usually atributed to the Democratic side, the Bush Admin has finally admitted that global warming is a trend. That it is human-influenced is left up for grabs. So you have acknowledgement of the trend by both parties.
We're not talking about Mars, and if you want to get into a debate about historically accurate data and measurability of change vs. known history etc Mars is a much more difficult example to argue in favor of global warming for obvious reasons.
You can go on calling global warming a myth all you like-- that puts you in the minority even within many of the anti-global warming community because most acknowledge that there is in fact a warming trend, the big debate is the question (as Shaginwgn touched upon) as to whether or not human activity is influencing it.
I happen to believe, after doing my own reading too thank you, that there is a link between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the widely acknowledged trend of global warming.
To deny that the trend is happening is to move closer, as more research comes in, to being in the fringe group instead of the mainstream on the issue.
To admit the trend exists is to put you into one of the two mainstream camps: 1. The trend is a natural cycle, or 2. The trend is human influenced. Actually #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. One can take the position that it is a natural cycle but that it is being aggravated by human activity not only emissions but activity that is stripping the planet's ability to mitigate the trend.
So choose your camp, my fellow EPA certified Green Vehicle owning friend, are a mainstream trend acknowledger/influence debater, or a fringie trend denier?
We're not talking about Mars, and if you want to get into a debate about historically accurate data and measurability of change vs. known history etc Mars is a much more difficult example to argue in favor of global warming for obvious reasons.
You can go on calling global warming a myth all you like-- that puts you in the minority even within many of the anti-global warming community because most acknowledge that there is in fact a warming trend, the big debate is the question (as Shaginwgn touched upon) as to whether or not human activity is influencing it.
I happen to believe, after doing my own reading too thank you, that there is a link between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the widely acknowledged trend of global warming.
To deny that the trend is happening is to move closer, as more research comes in, to being in the fringe group instead of the mainstream on the issue.
To admit the trend exists is to put you into one of the two mainstream camps: 1. The trend is a natural cycle, or 2. The trend is human influenced. Actually #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. One can take the position that it is a natural cycle but that it is being aggravated by human activity not only emissions but activity that is stripping the planet's ability to mitigate the trend.
So choose your camp, my fellow EPA certified Green Vehicle owning friend, are a mainstream trend acknowledger/influence debater, or a fringie trend denier?
10-13-2007, 06:46 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-21-2007
Location: Limerick, Pa
Posts: 387
You can go on calling global warming a myth all you like-- that puts you in the minority even within many of the anti-global warming community because most acknowledge that there is in fact a warming trend, the big debate is the question (as Shaginwgn touched upon) as to whether or not human activity is influencing it.
10-13-2007, 07:04 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
For what its worth, since gobal warming is usually atributed to the Democratic side, the Bush Admin has finally admitted that global warming is a trend. That it is human-influenced is left up for grabs. So you have acknowledgement of the trend by both parties.
We're not talking about Mars, and if you want to get into a debate about historically accurate data and measurability of change vs. known history etc Mars is a much more difficult example to argue in favor of global warming for obvious reasons.
You can go on calling global warming a myth all you like-- that puts you in the minority even within many of the anti-global warming community because most acknowledge that there is in fact a warming trend, the big debate is the question (as Shaginwgn touched upon) as to whether or not human activity is influencing it.
I happen to believe, after doing my own reading too thank you, that there is a link between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the widely acknowledged trend of global warming.
To deny that the trend is happening is to move closer, as more research comes in, to being in the fringe group instead of the mainstream on the issue.
To admit the trend exists is to put you into one of the two mainstream camps: 1. The trend is a natural cycle, or 2. The trend is human influenced. Actually #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. One can take the position that it is a natural cycle but that it is being aggravated by human activity not only emissions but activity that is stripping the planet's ability to mitigate the trend.
So choose your camp, my fellow EPA certified Green Vehicle owning friend, are a mainstream trend acknowledger/influence debater, or a fringie trend denier?
We're not talking about Mars, and if you want to get into a debate about historically accurate data and measurability of change vs. known history etc Mars is a much more difficult example to argue in favor of global warming for obvious reasons.
You can go on calling global warming a myth all you like-- that puts you in the minority even within many of the anti-global warming community because most acknowledge that there is in fact a warming trend, the big debate is the question (as Shaginwgn touched upon) as to whether or not human activity is influencing it.
I happen to believe, after doing my own reading too thank you, that there is a link between greenhouse gas emissions from human activity and the widely acknowledged trend of global warming.
To deny that the trend is happening is to move closer, as more research comes in, to being in the fringe group instead of the mainstream on the issue.
To admit the trend exists is to put you into one of the two mainstream camps: 1. The trend is a natural cycle, or 2. The trend is human influenced. Actually #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. One can take the position that it is a natural cycle but that it is being aggravated by human activity not only emissions but activity that is stripping the planet's ability to mitigate the trend.
So choose your camp, my fellow EPA certified Green Vehicle owning friend, are a mainstream trend acknowledger/influence debater, or a fringie trend denier?
10-13-2007, 07:41 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2007
Location: ...
Posts: 1,554
Why do you insist on making it a political issue? There are thousands of scientists worldwide without a dog in the political fight who have a stance on global warming. When I refer to the issue I refer to the tons of Ph. D's that support the concept of a warming trend. Not Al Gore. Or any other politician... left, right, or centrist. I will agree with you that Gore, Edwards, and some other left wing pols have seized upon the debate in order to use it to their political advantage. That's the main reason I cited in my post above about the Bush admin conceding that a warming trend is apparent, to try and show that both parties have acknowledged it, if anything the fact that both parties have acknowledged it should take some wind out of left leaning pols sails.
I get tired of being called a leftist just because I am in the human influenced global warming camp. True, there are leftists there, but there are also bi-partisans and non-political people as well.
As for a silent majority, that is a contradiction because obviously if they are silent no one can quantify whether or not they qualify as a majority.
I get tired of being called a leftist just because I am in the human influenced global warming camp. True, there are leftists there, but there are also bi-partisans and non-political people as well.
As for a silent majority, that is a contradiction because obviously if they are silent no one can quantify whether or not they qualify as a majority.
10-13-2007, 09:24 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: 10-14-2005
Location: Rochester,N.Y.
Posts: 9,121
Its sad that you can get the Nobel Peace Prize for spreading propaganda, wasting time, wasting money, and setting our race back. Most environmentalist propaganda is crap and what little is true is blown way out of proportion. The planet is going to die someday people. There is nothing we can do to save it. Driving green vehicles, alternative energy, planting trees, ending deforestation, wearing recycled underwear, or any of that hippie crap isn't going to save us or prolong the inevitable. And I don't want to hear that our children's children crap because it will happen way beyond any generation of your family that you would ever meet or care about. Who's going to get the next Nobel Peace Prize......Michael Moore? 
So while I may or may not have a more extreme view, you're not alone in thinking it's crap mizzouHHR . 
So while I may or may not have a more extreme view, you're not alone in thinking it's crap mizzouHHR .
10-13-2007, 10:55 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
Why do you insist on making it a political issue? There are thousands of scientists worldwide without a dog in the political fight who have a stance on global warming. When I refer to the issue I refer to the tons of Ph. D's that support the concept of a warming trend. Not Al Gore. Or any other politician... left, right, or centrist. I will agree with you that Gore, Edwards, and some other left wing pols have seized upon the debate in order to use it to their political advantage. That's the main reason I cited in my post above about the Bush admin conceding that a warming trend is apparent, to try and show that both parties have acknowledged it, if anything the fact that both parties have acknowledged it should take some wind out of left leaning pols sails.
I get tired of being called a leftist just because I am in the human influenced global warming camp. True, there are leftists there, but there are also bi-partisans and non-political people as well.
As for a silent majority, that is a contradiction because obviously if they are silent no one can quantify whether or not they qualify as a majority.
I get tired of being called a leftist just because I am in the human influenced global warming camp. True, there are leftists there, but there are also bi-partisans and non-political people as well.
As for a silent majority, that is a contradiction because obviously if they are silent no one can quantify whether or not they qualify as a majority.