What is really significant about this debate is ...THERE WLL BE NO DEBATE!!! I casually raised the issue at a dinner party last weekend and was told -by everyone at the table, that I was ill-informed and just another right wing denier (politely of course, or perhaps "smugly") I responded (equally politely) that I merely needed to see more of the other side before I made up my mind. I explained that what we have now aren't scientific FACTS, which are indisputable. Until all parties agree it's not science, it's dogma . Didn't matter. Agitator. Off with his head....
What is really significant about this debate is ...THERE WLL BE NO DEBATE!!! I casually raised the issue at a dinner party last weekend and was told -by everyone at the table, that I was ill-informed and just another right wing denier (politely of course, or perhaps "smugly") I responded (equally politely) that I merely needed to see more of the other side before I made up my mind. I explained that what we have now aren't scientific FACTS, which are indisputable. Until all parties agree it's not science, it's dogma . Didn't matter. Agitator. Off with his head....
Thats really my whole problem with this issue as well. As you say, if you bring up the "other side" of the issue, you are a communist wife-beating pedophile all of a sudden. I find it quite perplexing. What's going on?
Thats really my whole problem with this issue as well. As you say, if you bring up the "other side" of the issue, you are a communist wife-beating pedophile all of a sudden. I find it quite perplexing. What's going on?
Are you sure its not a "conspiracy" (theory)? Which Canadian political party is making great fodder out of this?
It's easy to target the Dems in the US because of Gore. But it's strange that the nay-sayers all seem to be from the far right of the political spectrum.
Give me a break. There is more science to support global warming as there is to say it's not happening. Look for it and you will find it. Or spout off about the small handful of scientists who are against it, but get the most press. The fact of the matter is that in our narrow minded, look for controversy media world, finding the naysayers is more interesting than talking to the thousands of scientists that support the idea and the huge amounts of data that show greenhouse gases are effecting the planet. They have gone up immensly in the last generation. Sure our climates change, but not that drastically over such a short period of time. Yes there is a middle ground, but I never understand this vehemt argument against it? Why? Because it effects your life? Because it will cost companies a bit of profit? Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? And do you honestly believe it's all about money for David Suzuki? Sure he is in it to make a buck as well. But to say he's coming up with this theory only for the money is like saying George Bush went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people restore democracy.
Give me a break. There is more science to support global warming as there is to say it's not happening. Look for it and you will find it. Or spout off about the small handful of scientists who are against it, but get the most press. The fact of the matter is that in our narrow minded, look for controversy media world, finding the naysayers is more interesting than talking to the thousands of scientists that support the idea and the huge amounts of data that show greenhouse gases are effecting the planet. They have gone up immensly in the last generation. Sure our climates change, but not that drastically over such a short period of time. Yes there is a middle ground, but I never understand this vehemt argument against it? Why? Because it effects your life? Because it will cost companies a bit of profit? Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? And do you honestly believe it's all about money for David Suzuki? Sure he is in it to make a buck as well. But to say he's coming up with this theory only for the money is like saying George Bush went into Iraq to help the Iraqi people restore democracy.
I don't think anyone said global warming wasn't happening. Is it all man made and can we stop it?
There's the question. If we only contribute 1% of the CO2 produced by the earth, can we make a difference IF that's the problem in the first place?
If it's the sun and a NATURAL phenomenon, maybe we just have to make the best of it...soon the earth will COOL naturally.
It's like saying we can stop earthquakes and hurricanes by reducing CO2.
Reducing CO2 isn't a bad thing but it won't stop global warming...humans don't have that power.
I agree with you that global warming is a natural trend. In the past there have been natural, and sometimes very quick, drastic changes to the environment. But the fact of the matter is that in the industrial age, and especially since the 50's, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has gone up at an extremely alarming rate. Human impact (burning fossil fuels) has produced these gases faster than our systems (plants) can soak them up. We are ripping down rainforests and trees.
And I am no saint either, I drive a car. And I know that even if we completely cut out our C02 production, it still wouldn't be enough to stop the warming. But that is not a reason to not try and to say that it's all a bunch of bunk and faulty science. The science is there, just look for it. it's not hard to find real, balanced facts from credible, nuetral sources. Not a biased, incredibly right wing narrow minded article. Let's face it the reasons for making change are 99% of the time noble, and because people are worried about the planet (yes there are people also making money from environmental causes). The reasons for not doing anything are based on inconvenience and the allmighty dollar.
"But the fact of the matter is that in the industrial age, and especially since the 50's, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has gone up at an extremely alarming rate."
From 1940 to 1975, there was a documented cooling of the earth to the point that scientists in the '70's were predicting an ice age by 2005.
"L.A. Times" in 1978: "No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere".
"TIME" magazine`s big spread from 1974, asking "Another Ice Age?"
"Newsweek" said global cooling evidence had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it."
There was a time when they thought the earth was flat too, but science has progressed just a little bit in the last 3 decades. There was a lot less data in 1974 or 78. It's obvious that there is a lot of exaggeration being used on both sides and we can probably both throw article links up that say whatever we both want them to say. I agree that we should not take anything on the internet, or from the media at face value. There is always an agenda.
Once again, I think we agree that there is a middle ground here. But to just blow off global warming as a myth based on principle is a scary thought. If we are going to make any difference, even if it is tiny, (and why wouldn't we want to?) it has to start sooner rather than later.
"...If we are going to make any difference, even if it is tiny, (and why wouldn't we want to?) it has to start sooner rather than later...."
Okay. You tell the emerging nations they can't develop. I'm going to wash up for dinner after I take out the garbage.
There is an incredible arrogance in the position that suggests if the first-world nations gut their economies, this will be, somehow, "good" for the planet.
Maybe God is wheeling into another one of Her self-loathing rages about screwing things up - again.... and is going to take it out on, oh... I dunno....US!
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Logged
