|
|
Post by Jack Carney on May 20, 2008 12:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kenb321 on May 20, 2008 13:33:27 GMT -5
It seems like a large number. I wonder how many scientists agree with the possibility of global warming? Also, this petition is over 10 years old. Have any of the scientists that signed it in the beginning want to change their mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 20, 2008 19:00:46 GMT -5
I've read pretty astounding headlines in the National Enquirer too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 20, 2008 21:21:48 GMT -5
That website looks very objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on May 21, 2008 7:37:02 GMT -5
Science is neither objective nor subjective it is merely the facts as they can be determined at the time unless you are a liberal democrat then no matter what the facts say if it is politically correct you must agree with it. The point is Al Gore is a fraud and if anyone argues with him they are demonized. Respected scientists are immediately branded as "right wing tools" if they state a different opinion even though Gore's Hollywood production has been shown to have exaggerated many findings.
And did you know that carbon emissions have gone down by three per cent during W's tenure? No thanks to Al and his humungous carbon footprint.
|
|
|
|
Post by robreddy on May 21, 2008 8:49:13 GMT -5
FYI - Jack really wants to have Al Gore's baby - heard it in the Star - shhhhhhhhh
;]
r
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 21, 2008 11:13:41 GMT -5
I haven't seen the Al Gore movie so I can't comment on that. But I do recall, from my public school education (and a lot of CSI), that science is a process. Observe, hypothesize, test the hypothesis, come to a conclusion. Those conclusions are "put to the test" by other scientists in a process of peer review. More and more peer review supports or denies that conclusion. And at some point, if there is enough support, you get to where you have a general consensus. That's what we have now with climate change. Petitions circulated by itinerant Web sites aren't generally a part of the scientific process. The current scientific consensus on climate is summed up in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Human activities are having a detremental effect on the climate. We need to reduce our production of greenhouse gases to prevent a catastrophic result. Even the Bush administration agrees with this conclusion of the IPCC (what it doesn't agree with is what to do about it www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/09/28/afx4167654.html). Is this really a conservative vs. liberal issue at this point? And, from the man who gave us "Ah'll be baaack": "Imagine your child is sick with a rising fever. If 98 out of 100 doctors said the child needed immediate treatment . . . and two doctors said the child was just fine . . . who would you listen to? The 98 or the 2? Should we do nothing about global warming on the slim-chance a few skeptics who deny its existence may be right? No, we should not. " That's an analogy Arnold Schwartzenegger has used a few times in recent years. *** In my (and others') opinion, it's disappointing that we are not looking at clean energy as the economic opportunity that it is. Something that many people believe could transform our economy. Our leadership is particularly weak on this. Candidtates aren't talking about it in a serious way. Most recently, Congress hasn't extended the energy production tax credit to companies producing solar and wind technologies (though, it has extended it for oil compnaies). So what are those companies doing? Opening plants in Europe. The biggest producer of solar panels is based in Perrysburg, Ohio. But it does most of its production in Germany, where it employs Germans, of course. We pregnant dog about what to do about jobs leaving Ohio. Well, there go some jobs. Ach, du lieber! As a related aside, I read a news story last week that T. Boone Pickens, the famous oil man, put in an order with GE for $2 Billion for wind turbines for a wind farm he's building in Texas. It will be the country's largest. So maybe Pickens' action will get Congress to act. |
|
|
|
Post by alison on May 21, 2008 12:05:55 GMT -5
The company I work for is currently being sued because the wind farm they invested in kills bats and, allegedly, the designers didn't properly address this risk. Then at the corporate office there are daily protesters unhappy about a proposed new "clean" coal plant. Then on the other side, energy costs are rising and investing in renewable resources can still be pretty risky and affect the cost, too. It is difficult for an energy company to not look like a villain these days.
I would also argue that the climate consensus does not necessarily include the human factor. From what I understand, most scientists agree it is a possibility but won't put their money on it (or won't affirm it in a scientific paper that could come back and bit them).
Alison
|
|
|
|
Post by robreddy on May 21, 2008 12:52:28 GMT -5
i read in "scientist & athletes magazine" that a study proved that due to the running boom of the 70s and 80s combined with the tri boom of the 90s and 00s - all the excessive farting that these people do have raised the average world temps by 2 degrees and hastened the melt of the polar ice caps by something like 100 years.
go figure - even triathletes are killin the planet - but aint scince interesting
PS - this is not a conservative or liberal view point - rather an idiots
;-0
later
r
|
|
|
|
Post by TimAckley on May 21, 2008 12:52:42 GMT -5
When we can swim in the lake Erie in Jan.. for more than 2 minutes... I will start to think about Global warming.. I really do not see any signs of global warming in Cleveland..
I do not think the majority of the population is to worried about global warming.. Since the County stopped recycling here.. I think my wife is one of two people in our neighborhood who still recycles..
I think its more so the world going thru its change.. Maybe its having a Mid-Life Crisis.. Or maybe Al Gore just doesn't like to golf and needs something to do... The Ice started to receded long before man had something to do with it..
I have no sympathy for energy companies.. They can go whine to the Gov. and get bailed out of any crisis.. Just like some banks or investment compaines..
|
|
|
|
Post by Angie on May 21, 2008 13:55:55 GMT -5
As a scientist who has been following the scientific literature (not the lay media) about global warming for the last couple of years, I thought I would contribute my opinion. I did see Gore's movie and while he presents some interesting data, it is also clear that neglected to show all of the data. Some of his graphs only showed selected time periods -- showing all of the data would have made his point less dramatic. The data is real and accurate for the time periods that he showed. Here are my conclusions based on my research. 1) Human activity contributes to disruptions of the atmosphere and this can alter the climate. 2) The earth's temperature has been going up and down for millions of years... we had an ice age at one point and now we are warmer. There are clearly areas of the world that are warming (and ice is melting) but other areas that are not getting warmer. 3) This is not a crisis---- these types of dramatic changes that the media are proposing will not occur for a long time--- our culture loves to be in a "State of Fear".. see book recommendation below. The politicians and media love to promote it as well.  4) Whether or not we believe in global warming, we SHOULD minimize our energy consumption by turning off the lights, buying efficient products and automobiles, recycle, and invest in alternative energy sources. It is good practice now and for the future. In addition, stop whining about gas prices and do something proactive like getting rid of the gas guzzling monster mobiles. 5) If you want an interesting and fast read regarding global warming, get Micheal Crichton's book "State of Fear" . It has a pretty well researched view of global warming. In addition, it has sex, violence and all those good things that we all love.  :) ANGIE |
|
|
|
Post by Aussie Rob on May 21, 2008 17:34:07 GMT -5
A work of fiction written by an open opponent of global warming? Now THAT'S science!  Most of you know my position on the subject, so i won't restate it (Matt sumed it up pretty well anyway). I hate Al Gore. Not because i think he's a bad person, or because i disagree with him....it's because merely by his presence in the debate he makes it a partisan issue....and i think climate change is far too important to be a petty partisan issue. I honestly believe many opponents of climate change in the general population are so because they are simply placing themselves on the opposite side of the fence from Gore; just because of who he is. Conservatives agreeing with Clinton's no.1?! Blasphemy! Why would the average person be against climate change? Having the country invest in renewable energy brings in jobs, helps the economy (which helps unrelated industries), reduces pollution (which at the very least looks bad, smells bad, and is bad for our lungs), and will eventually lower energy costs for us consumers. Even if you hate the idea of the problem....the solution is good for the average American. Why people insist on acting against thier own interest is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 21, 2008 18:14:46 GMT -5
The company I work for is currently being sued because the wind farm they invested in kills bats and, allegedly, the designers didn't properly address this risk. Then at the corporate office there are daily protesters unhappy about a proposed new "clean" coal plant. Then on the other side, energy costs are rising and investing in renewable resources can still be pretty risky and affect the cost, too. It is difficult for an energy company to not look like a villain these days. Alison I place an examples like these under the category of "problems caused by the leadership void." |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 21, 2008 22:41:15 GMT -5
I agree with Angie on alot of points. With Matt on some and Alison. I also agree it should not be political. I also agree with Rob about Al Gore being a problem . Whether right of wrong he has discredited himself in many other areas. If he is wrong that alone does not prove or disprove it. It comes down to the facts. The problem with the facts is simply; who says something is a fact and do they have an agenda in promoting what they call facts. I am not sure if any of us have true access to unbias facts. One thing for sure is that it is not a concensus amoung scientists. If anyone portrays it as an established fact they are wrong. There are many good scientist on both sides. tyr this ; simply Google " facts on Global warming" you will get sites 180 degrees opposite from each other. which is right? How can we tell? Here is one www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htmhere is another completely opposite www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011I think the real challenge is to find scientist that are honest and do not have an agenda they are trying to promote. The danger is to be dogmatic when we do not have the data ourselves to stand upon but base our opinions on what we read from others. There are two issues. 1. Is it happening? 2. if it is. What is the cause? Neither answer is clear. I think there is an underlying issue. How can two people look at the same data and say it means two different things? Is it that they look at the facts and come up with a world view based on the facts? or is it they have a world view and interpret the facts to fit that world view? This would explain the extreme attitudes involved that borders on hatred of the opposing side. This is more troubling than the issue itself. also off the subject. I just found something I can agree upon with Obama and Hillary. Obama thinks Hillary should not be President and I agree. Hillary does not think that Obama should be President and I agree with her. Also Last week I had the chance to be in Washington D.C. in the House of Representatives and to be in the Senate, to actually sit in their seats. A congressman took a few of us late at night into both chambers of the Capitol. He also took us other places that the tours will not take you. It was pretty cool. My son and I got to meet Senator Voinovich also. An interesting point. The Senators are seated according to time in office. The longer they have been in the Senate the closer to the front they can be. There has been one recent exception. A first time Senator is in the front row. Anyone like to guess who? mike |
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 22, 2008 7:26:50 GMT -5
Well I don't think I'd ever recommend anyone base their opinions on what comes up on the first page of google search results! it may represent "the wisdom of the masses," but its not necessarily informed.
If you're skeptical of the science, skeptical that human activity is having any impact at all on warming, or skeptical of the nature / degree to which its having an impact, that's your choice. But putting that science aside, there remain, I think, some very, very compelling reasons for the US to commit itself to an energy policy focused on being the leader in developing and deploying clean energy technologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2008 8:05:14 GMT -5
Well I don't think I'd ever recommend anyone base their opinions on what comes up on the first page of google search results! it may represent "the wisdom of the masses," but its not necessarily informed. If you're skeptical of the science, skeptical that human activity is having any impact at all on warming, or skeptical of the nature / degree to which its having an impact, that's your choice. But putting that science aside, there remain, I think, some very, very compelling reasons for the US to commit itself to an energy policy focused on being the leader in developing and deploying clean energy technologies. I agree completely about USA developing new technology and energy sources. I did not say I was skeptical about science of global warming but I am skeptical on how to know which science and whether it has an agenda. You tell me which is correct and how to know? I have never personally kept track of the worlds temperatures the last 5000 years. ( no one has ). Right there you have a major area for error in any discussion. Personally I believe that global warming is coming and is inevitable but I believe for different reasons than most would. Matt any guess on who has a front row seat in the Senate as a first time Senator? mike |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on May 22, 2008 8:27:45 GMT -5
I have a feeling said senator will be in the white house shortly.
I also have a feeling that climate change is happening, but we could argue (and conduct experiments/models) all day and never come to a definitive conclusion about the cause.
And, I also have a feeling that if renewable sources of energy were mandated (or at least traditional forms no longer heavily subsidised), that we'd gain a few manufacturing jobs.
I'm putting down my stick, because the proverbial horse looks like it's had enough ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2008 8:31:02 GMT -5
I have a feeling said senator will be in the white house shortly. You just gave me an anxiety attack. Are you trying to give me nightmares? mike |
|
|
|
Post by kenb321 on May 22, 2008 8:57:52 GMT -5
I am not sure why having Al Gore at the front of the issue is a bad thing. Several of the posts mentioned a lack of leadership. Once someone tries to be a leader of an issue, they always seem to get attacked by opposing interests. That is why I feel we have a lack of real leadership on many issues in this country. Why stick your neck out if it is going to get chopped off. I don't think someone standing up for something they believe should be enough to discredit them.
And Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. He simply stated that he was on the commitee that helped provide financing for the first generation of the web. So if that is what you are holding over him as a credit issue, get over it.
If we cannot expect or hope our government leaders to get in the front of an issue, who should we count on. Bono and Sting cannot lead all the issues in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on May 22, 2008 9:09:46 GMT -5
I have a feeling said senator will be in the white house shortly. You just gave me an anxiety attack. Are you trying to give me nightmares? mike ha ha! All politics gives me nightmares Mike!! I often wonder why I immerse myself so deeply into them...I think there is some masochistic tendency there....which also explains my enjoyment of this sport, I suppose :-) |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2008 9:12:02 GMT -5
I am not sure why having Al Gore at the front of the issue is a bad thing. Several of the posts mentioned a lack of leadership. Once someone tries to be a leader of an issue, they always seem to get attacked by opposing interests. That is why I feel we have a lack of real leadership on many issues in this country. Why stick your neck out if it is going to get chopped off. I don't think someone standing up for something they believe should be enough to discredit them. And Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. He simply stated that he was on the commitee that helped provide financing for the first generation of the web. So if that is what you are holding over him as a credit issue, get over it. If we cannot expect or hope our government leaders to get in the front of an issue, who should we count on. Bono and Sting cannot lead all the issues in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2008 9:15:36 GMT -5
I am not sure why having Al Gore at the front of the issue is a bad thing. Several of the posts mentioned a lack of leadership. Once someone tries to be a leader of an issue, they always seem to get attacked by opposing interests. That is why I feel we have a lack of real leadership on many issues in this country. Why stick your neck out if it is going to get chopped off. I don't think someone standing up for something they believe should be enough to discredit them. And Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. He simply stated that he was on the commitee that helped provide financing for the first generation of the web. So if that is what you are holding over him as a credit issue, get over it. If we cannot expect or hope our government leaders to get in the front of an issue, who should we count on. Bono and Sting cannot lead all the issues in the world. The internet issue never crossed my mind. There are many others though. The main one is the fact that he was at one time opposed to abortion and then switched. He seems like someone who is more interested in himself than the things he stands for. He seems to be weak as a person. No back bone. An overall wimp. There are other things but I am not sure you would want to hear. mike |
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 22, 2008 10:38:41 GMT -5
A freshman senator in the front row. I don't know. Sherrod Brown?
Look. Science is one way understanding the world. I also happen to think its the best way, by far, that we've invented to do that. I'd like to say I apply science to everything I do, but I don't. I am not Mr. Spock. But when the power goes out and I just have time to sit in the dark and think about things, I think, "yeah, science is best."
There are also a lot of people out there passing off crap as "science." The Web has really provided them with a fantastic tool to reach more people than ever before. And there's no one-size-fits-all method to determining the crap from the science. Sometimes you consider the source. I am guessing a Web site with links to sellers of Ronald Reagan tee shirts is going to offer a skewed perspective on things. But in the end, you fall back on your education, your personal experience, your own internal BS-meter to decide.
A couple people here (including an actual scientist) have pointed out to me that scientists are not in consensus as to the true extent/nature of the damage we are (or aren't) causing to the environment. I know there are good scientists who disagree with the IPCC (which has, I remind myself, been criticized for being too political). Mea culpa.
So while Lake Erie may not be warm enough to swim in in January yet, I am aware that there's proof, elsewhere in the world, that the global temperature is rising. Reliable people have observed this. (Similarly, I've never been to the moon, but others have, and I believe them when they say its not made of green cheese.)
And while there is some disagreement among scientists as a whole as to why this is happening, there is a good portion that believes that humans are, to some extent (including Rob R's farts), responsible for accelerating and intensifying that warming. Enough to motivate most of the nations of the world to take action.
Could they be wrong? Maybe. But I think I'll hedge my bets on this one. Particularly when you take into account the additional good geopolitical and economic reasons to develop this industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Carney on May 22, 2008 10:47:52 GMT -5
Climate change is happening there is proof of that but how much if any is man made is up to debate. Al Gore states that anyone who disagrees with his findings must also believe the earth is flat. 6000 scientists with PHDs disagree does that not mean anything?
Anyone who thinks Al Gore is so committed to this cause needs only to look at his lifestyle jetting around the country and living in houses bigger than hotels to realize he has no credibility. Like most politicians he tells us what we must do while the rules are different for him. I'm sure he makes himself feel good though by screwing in a few curly light bulbs. What a humanitarian.
As far as other sources of energy I agree they are needed and it will be a great day when we can tell the middle east to keep their oil. Too bad we don't use what we have here.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 22, 2008 11:31:06 GMT -5
To the extent that Al Gore - his tactics and his personal history - are turning people off, that is truly a shame. But I think we can separate the man from the message.
I don't agree with everything the NRA does, or has done, or the way it does it, but I still think people should be allowed to own guns. And I still think Ben Hur was a pretty good epic movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by robreddy on May 22, 2008 12:56:45 GMT -5
look bottom line - all this stuff was proved in the later 60s (I believe) or maybe early 70s - watch the first Planet of the Apes movie - at the end when Charliton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty - man killed the planet - we just have not yet caught up to the facts of the movie
so I say "god damb you, god damb you all to he ll"
r
|
|
|
|
Post by TimAckley on May 22, 2008 13:07:27 GMT -5
4) Whether or not we believe in global warming, we SHOULD minimize our energy consumption by turning off the lights, buying efficient products and automobiles, recycle, and invest in alternative energy sources. It is good practice now and for the future. In addition, stop whining about gas prices and do something proactive like getting rid of the gas guzzling monster mobiles.
I agree with most of this.. except for the gas guzzling statement about whinning..
Some people with larger families need to buy the guzzling monster mobiles in order to go some where together and actually bring something in the vechile with them.. What would the difference be if the family took two cars to go some where?? You would be burning just as much or more fuel..
A family of 5 or more cannot fit in a compact fuel efficient car made for 2-4.. There is no efficient car other than a gas guzzling monster for larger families.. But it looks like soon there might be gas guzzling hybrids.. but like anything new the price will be high due to the so call demand for them and U will not see your benefit from the hybrid for a while if any at all.. with fuel prices being so high..
So I think some people do have the right to complain about fuel prices or fuel guaging..
Especially the tradesman that have no choice but to drive a gas guzzler.. I do not know how many tools and ladders U can fit in a mini cooper.. or any efficient automoblie on the market today..
Why is diesel fuel more than gas, when its a bi-product?
Whine away.. The fuel executives said yesterday the are feeling the affects of the high price per barrel.. its affecting there profit..
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2008 14:32:24 GMT -5
I do not have a problem with science. I have a problem with those who have an agenda and twist things in the name of sicence to fit what they already want it to be.
I agree Ben Hur was awesome.
rob I agree that world would end the same as Planet of the Apes except I believe someone is going to step in before we do it to ourselves.
I am certain that global warming is going to get worse than anyone has imagined and I would not be suprised if we do it to ourselves but I am not worried because I know what the end will be.
also Tim I drive a 15 passenger when the whole family travels but have a couple of gas savers when just a few go out. I used to have an airport shuttle, you know the kind that are 15 feet high with the school bus doors . I thought it was great but my wife hated it. She felt like she was hauling around kids from an institution.
mike
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on May 22, 2008 15:48:02 GMT -5
have a problem with those who have an agenda and twist things in the name of sicence to fit what they already want it to be. Well, then it's NOT science. It's something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 22, 2008 16:23:23 GMT -5
Regardless of what we believe in politics, science, and religion, the basic premise of respecting your neighbor should carry some weight.
I try to be mindful my waste.
|
|
:)
