Global Warming Debate

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:30 pm

My guy Greg Gutfeld interviewed this Mr. Coleman about the lack of willingness for any kind of debate since there have been differing opinions on this "science data". I mean 30,000 scientists (9,000 PhD's) aren't allowed to have their say on this topic? Why? My theory is that Al Gore and his croanies don't want to allow debate because when the earth cools, they want to claim it as their doing and he become heros. Whatever.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:49 pm

Al Gore's also heavily invested in the cap and trade scheme from what I hear...maybe his heart's in the right place...but he's done a huge disservice to any meaningful discussion about this topic. Everyone on the left seems to accept it as gospel....kinda freaks me out truth be told...seems like a cult or something.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:32 am

not only is it accepted as gospel, but your lambasted as a moron with your head in the sand if you dare to question it.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:04 am

Having never seen the whole inconvenient lie movie I can't say for certain that the entire thing is a lie, but the one clip that is I guess the cornerstone of his argument is a graph where he shows global temperature and CO2 levels on two separate lines that appear to mirror each other. And thus CO2 must = global warming. But this has been debunked by scientist because what you can't tell from his graph is that with millions of years compressed into his timeline a couple of hundred years are not even a blip. Well if you stretch that timeline out and examine it in increments that are not as vast it becomes apparent very quickly that CO2 lags behind the temperature curve by about 800 years on average. Thus what SHOULD have been deduced from the research is that global warming CREATES CO2, not the other way around.
I suggest you look here for more info.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/climate-change.html

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:48 am

^^^Yes...I recall hearing about this first a year or so ago from John Stossel on ABC actually...he did a piece on 20/20 and showed that exactly. I think people are too afraid to say that it's false because that would mean we could go on chopping down trees and burning coal like there is no tomorrow. I personally think they are missing the point. I just think that while it's good people should turn off their lights more and use less energy, I just don't think there is a mandate that we need to force companies to comply with unrealistic expectations because if we don't the world will come to an end. It's just not true.

My friend is now living in China and she was telling me how filthy it is over there...obviously, they are not going to comply with any emission standards, etc. So is that right? No, but if that happened here, people just wouldn't live there anymore...again, the free market system and our ability to move freely about helps with this issue...you wouldn't choose to live somewhere that was filthy so companies know that if they are going to remain profitable they are going to have to do their part to keep their communities clean so they can retain a workforce.

I mean why doesn't the gov't mandate to airlines that they need to find a way to start teleporting people instead of using airplanes? That would be nice, but come on. When it comes to cars I'm concerned about the safety of these energy efficient vehicles...so far, I haven't heard of a metal that is strong enough, yet light enough to make a car that is as safe as the vehicles now being produced.

Bah...I'm annoyed by this topic, can you tell? For a group like the left is about transparancy and TRUTH, they sure don't want to apply those principles to this topic.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:30 pm

The left SAYS it's about transparency and truth. That's a far cry from sincerely valuing those concepts. In reality they are mainly concerned about control, coercion, and force (not unlike the neocon Repubs).

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:10 pm

I agree with your thoughts M7, we should conserve because that is the right thing to do for the planet and the future and to become less dependent on others for fuel, but please don't package that BS in a "Global Warming" wrapper. To me it is a severe disservice that has been done to the conservation effort to create a scare campaign that is based on a false premise. Eh, this topic pisses me off too.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:50 pm

^^^Well put 95...thanks for summing up my ramblings so nicely!