Global Warming, Fact or Fiction

[enigma]

Ive seen some intresting documantires over the last few months which has touched on this subject.

The first was quite a while ago now were a scientist was stating how after several studies he concluded that the Earth was returning to his normal temp following the Ice Age, i.e. the planet is still recovering.

A recent one pointed out several studies which have been made which all conclude that its not mans fault.

One stated that they had found that the temp is effected by the Suns activity. If there are sun spots etc it effects the global temp increasing or decreasing it etc
Another which talked about "cosmic rays" and other solar activity which effects the planet.

Another scientist pointed out how from ice they have drilled out the South Pole etc they have been able to chart the planets temp and the Co2 levels.
The results showing that the planets temp was not effected by the CO2 in the air and that the CO2 levels followed the Earth temp but lagged behind.


Yet another scientist pointed out how CO2 is quite natural for the Earth as were all made up of it. He went on to point how the worlds Volcanos pour out more CO2 then all the worlds factories, car, planes and other man made carbon emitters.
He pointed out how the sea is the largest emitter of CO2.
(another documatry i saw years ago cited that the rice fields in Asia pour out more CO2 then anything man made)


Finally (i only watch a bit) there was a dude who stated back in the 70s, Maggie wanted a report which stated Nuclear Fuel was safer and more eco friendly then coal to brake there backs so to speak.
Money was placed on the table and the dudes were given the objective of finding proof which they did.
The guy went on to say how the people who did the research had ignored all pervious information collated to do with the Earths temp etc etc and created new findings.
Basically they told em what they wanted to hear because they wanted the money.



Another intresting point is how in the 60s and 70s, the scientists were concerned with Global Cooling and that the temp was dropping they feared a new Ice Age!



So what do you think, fact or fiction?



I guess it does seem like a oad of crap doesnt it ...

[typhaon]

The earth is heating up... thats a fact... and I think its both natural and manmade... no matter what caused this the more important question is: who can we deal with the consequences? I'm alsmost sure that we cannot stop global warming just slow it down... so what can we do against the water, that will be rising and threatening coastal towns?
What will we do with the new clima?

I don't know... and I'm almost sure that nobody knows... thats what's frightening me...

[Cias]

do you honestly believe its a load of crap? this winter was the warmest winter on record, and so was last years. i suggest you watch an inconvient truth, will shed some light on all of the stuff thats going on. you say how CO2 is natural right? well that is true... but check out the graphs on how high CO2 has been goin, thats not natural...

[Minicow]

Global warming? Fact.

Man-made global warming? Fiction.

It's real, but climate change is normal. There's nothing we can do to significantly effect it one way or the other.

PS: Recommending "An Inconvenient Truth" in a serious discussion is just going to hurt your credibility.

[SuperSoldier]

Yes an Inconvenient Truth was made by a man who used (i think it was) about 20 times the national average of electricity in a year. Not to mention man-bear-pig.:p

[lazlazlaz1]

It is fiction.

But we should be more worried about Yellowstone blowing up than global warming. It is more imminent and much much more deadly.

[NortherlyNanook]

If global warming really was happening, heck, I'd like to see those glaciers melt. I hate those things.

[Lt. Hanley]

Yes an Inconvenient Truth was made by a man who used (i think it was) about 20 times the national average of electricity in a year. Not to mention man-bear-pig.:p

And who invented the internet.

Fact that our temps have been warmer than average recently, but I have serious doubts that humans are the sole cause of this, mainly for some of the reasons you posted. I see the whole "global warming because of humans" as more of a political bandwagonning and agenda scheme more than anything right now. The science, as far as I've researched, is inconclusive that we are the direct cause.

[RonanHayes]

When Ireland get's hit by Hurricanes you know you are in trouble.

[OliverMarshall]

I know that the globe is heating up naturally, but I think the overall effect man has is not too great. Obviously heavy industry is not great but I think cutting down on everything is a bit extreme.

[ChrisHunt]

The globe is heating up naturally? Pure coincidence it is happening right after the industrial revolution and the last 200 years of industry and human population explosion? Sure, I can run with that...

We have messed up the planet, we cut down forests, we pump billions of tonne's of shit into the air, not enough vegetaton to suck in the CO2 and pump back out oxygen. 2 + 2 = ?

It is not only the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases spewing into the air and trapping heat from sunlight that is warming the planet, it's also the amount of land clearing we have done. Normally forests would absorb and reflect back the sunlight, keeping below the canopy cool. Take away the forests, more heat hits the barren ground and has nothing to soak it up, the ground gets hot, the planet gets hotter. It's probably cool for you Northern Hemisphere bods, but in Australia we are feeling the effects of global warming. What we are experiencing now in terms of warming is the result of what was pumped into the air and land clearing done in the 50's, 60's, 70's. Come back in 30 plus years plus and it's we'll be feeling the effects of what is happening now, it's not going to be very pleasant.

Anyone who says the planet is heating up naturally is wrong. Don't kid yourselves, if it was heating up naturally it would not be happening this quickly.

I'm sure everyone knows what they can do to combat climate change, take whatever measures you can, think globally, act locally.

[Cias]

couldnt of said it better cees

[enigma]

do you honestly believe its a load of crap? this winter was the warmest winter on record,

Ive spent most of it freezing my knackers off :eek: :o :(


Ill see if i can hunt down some of the graphs etc they kept showing later when am home.


When you had them worried about Global Cooling just a few decades ago and now there worried about Global Warming ....
Then you have several different documantres, citing a wide range of scientists with a wide range of theroys and backed up by evidence etc

Yes one does seem the Global Warming the media and the scientist goes on about it probably aload of garbage.



The globe is heating up naturally? Pure coincidence it is happening right after the industrial revolution and the last 200 years of industry and human population explosion? Sure, I can run with that...
I do ask, why were they worried about global cooling in the 70s?


I do understand that greenhouses gases (does lead also count as cars also pour out a hell of that due to leaded fuel) are also playing a role but havnt seen anything on that for now am just questioning the information behind CO2 effect on it all. For example as one scientist pointed out, Volcanos pour out more CO2 then anything man made.

[lazlazlaz1]

Yes there is global warming, thats why in the middle of March it snowed in England. Before 4 years ago there had been no snow for 8 years, then for the last 4 years we have had pretty heavy and repetitive snow falls.
Clearly global warming causes more snow.

edit: btw this is for very south coast of england.

[Cias]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17632043/

as i said... warmest winter on record

[BillSpargo]

Yes there is global warming, thats why in the middle of March it snowed in England. Before 4 years ago there had been no snow for 8 years, then for the last 4 years we have had pretty heavy and repetitive snow falls.
Clearly global warming causes more snow.

edit: btw this is for very south coast of england.
There is a difference between weather and climate. What we're talking about is climate change not unusual weather events. The vast majority of scientists and published studies and articles in reputable scientific periodicals points to clear trends towards the warming in both the atmosphere and oceans. It's unclear what if any new equilibrium the Earth will reach in the coming centuries. There has been an increase in unusual and extreme weather events - the insurance industry is well aware of this and very concerned by it and lobbies government towards more sustainable industries and better disaster prevention and management strategies.
Even several decades of sustained weather patterns is not necessarily an indicator of climate change. The first half or more of the 20th century was unusually wet in Eastern Australia but has now become what climatologists believe is the norm over the previous centurys of lesser rainfall.
The debate is all but over in the scientific community on climate change and global warming. However it is not over in the media or by politicians and certain interest groups.

[enigma]

The debate is all but over in the scientific community on climate change and global warming.
There verdict?

[BillSpargo]

There verdict?
Their verdict is that the Earth is definitely in a period of warming.

[RonanHayes]

Well with the amount of shit people talk no wonder it's heating up....

[enigma]

Well with the amount of shit people talk no wonder it's heating up....

All that Methene gas can be bad! :eek:

[biggles]

Well with the amount of shit people talk no wonder it's heating up....

Hah! good one....:)

Well....earth heating up, we all know that. And sure, I think that the population of earth is contributing to that but not as much as the media wants us to think.

Came to think of something.......

What did it look like during WW2? The entire world was building up it's military strength(sp?) and the factories must have poured out smoke etc....and during a large-scale war, noone (at least very few) thinks about the enviroment then, and when Germany,Sovjet,U.S.A and countless of countries builds even more than usual.....then it have to be bad for the earth.....right? Anyone knows if the war did contribute to a warmer planet?

btw, Ronan? when was Ireland hit by a hurricane?

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Their verdict is that the Earth is definitely in a period of warming.

True. It isnt proven it's caused by the greenhouse effect or something else.
History has showen that after every period of global warming (not to be mistaken by the greenhouse effect) theres a period of well let us call it the global cooling. Ice ages are a good example of it.
The fact is that we're running out of oil. So that already gives us enough reason to look at alternate energy supplies. And if we counterfeit the greenhouse effect with it, its only a welcome side-effect :)

[Minicow]

Yes there is global warming, thats why in the middle of March it snowed in England. Before 4 years ago there had been no snow for 8 years, then for the last 4 years we have had pretty heavy and repetitive snow falls.
Clearly global warming causes more snow.

edit: btw this is for very south coast of england.

Actually, global warming would make the British Isles colder. Supposedly it'll shut down the North Atlantic Current.

Look on a map, Britain is on the same latitude as central Canada. I don't know if "central Canada" is actually a real term, but whatever. It ought to be rather cold, but it's blessed with a nice little current from the Gulf of Mexico. If that goes away, things are going to get a lot colder in Europe.

[lazlazlaz1]

Well yes, but that is a delayed effect. I have heard from one place (everywhere disagrees, because we just don't know) that it will get like southern Spain in Britain, then a few years after that the Gulf Stream will fail and we will freeze.

[Blame Canada]

Came to think of this article by Dr. Michael Crichton:

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from "State of Fear" - Michael Crichton http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html)

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in state from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded American's, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.

Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.

Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.

By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any bias for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.

Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

[BillSpargo]

An article devoid of any scientific principles.

[Blame Canada]

An article devoid of any scientific principles.

Yeah... it's hard to believe he's a doctor right? :D

[Xendance]

Well, here in Finland we just broke our all time temperature record. + 18 degrees C TODAY! In march! Wtf!?

But, global warming = I know it exists
Man accelrated global warming = agreed

It's stupid to think that the cars, factories etc. don't accelrate global warming.

[Lord Justin]

PS: Recommending "An Inconvenient Truth" in a serious discussion is just going to hurt your credibility.

Lol...nice.


Not to mention man-bear-pig.:p

Dude...ManBearPig is a serious threat. I am being super serial.


The globe is heating up naturally? Pure coincidence it is happening right after the industrial revolution and the last 200 years of industry and human population explosion? Sure, I can run with that...

We have messed up the planet, we cut down forests, we pump billions of tonne's of shit into the air, not enough vegetaton to suck in the CO2 and pump back out oxygen. 2 + 2 = ?

Anyone who says the planet is heating up naturally is wrong. Don't kid yourselves, if it was heating up naturally it would not be happening this quickly.

No, you have no right to say that people are wrong for that. You don't know for sure, and therefore you cannot disprove anyone's ideas or theories simply by presenting your own theories which are accurate in your opinion.


It's stupid to think that the cars, factories etc. don't accelrate global warming.

Again, it's not stupid. What's stupid is telling people their theories are wrong, with no evidence of your own.

People...wake up and smell the propaganda. We're being fed information by our governments and you're eating it up as expected (some of you...I was surprised at the amount of logical people here). Nobody knows anything for sure, and no one has any right to disregard any solid theories. Please try to keep your minds open.

In my opinion, human interference has small effect on global climate change. The earth is still coming out of the Little Ice Age, and the reason we are only seeing such dramatic shifts now (since the Industrial Revolution) is because now we're really paying attention to it.

HOWEVER, I am completely open to the fact that I am blatantly wrong and that the changes in climate are due to deforestation, greenhouse gases, the ozone, bigfoot, UFOs, or the 9/11 conspiracy. All these theories are as legitimate as mine, or anyone else's.

Although I can't pinpoint the cause of global warming, it's happening, and anyone who denies that really is stupid. We have facts and figures showing temperatures going from a certain region of averages into a general trend toward a higher averages. Sounds pretty convicning.

And though I can't say for sure, I think that most of the global climate change is caused by the steady decrease in Pirates since the 18th century:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Therefore, I vote for getting eye-patches, peg legs, and parrots, and then sailing in Pirate ships giving candy to passing children, as is prophecized in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Be a Pirate and pray to the FSM. Remember, think globally, act locally.

[Gien]

We all know God is punishing us sinners....embrace the Lord and save yourself.

Ok in all seriousness though, Global Warming is real and needs to be dealt with though I seriously doubt theres much we can do. So....All in favor of increasing the amount of Pirates say Aye!

[Byron]

I agree global warming is fact - but of course the media and everyone else blew it way out of proportion. Im sure most of you have seen Inconvient Truth (sorry for spelling im doing this kinda fast), sure it makes a lot of good points, but I can guarentee that some of the information they acquired was either complete bullshit or exagerated. If you don't think the world that has been around for way too damn long cant take care of itself then what you need to do, is live in the f*cking state of california with all the other liberals who complain about every little freakin thing that MIGHT go wrong with the world. The planet earth has stages - there are warming trends and there are cooling trends - we are obviously in a warming trend at the moment - and probably at the complete end of this cycle there will be yet another ice age - just as there has been for (millions?) of years, the severity of the ice age is unknown, but I can assure you that in the coming future it is bound to happen. Watch nova those of you in America - it gives a good explanation of what I am attempting to explain. And for you liberals that completely disagree with me, Im fine with that, becuase I know all liberals are jsut wannabe republicans who just screwed up a bit early in their life.

Yes as you can see I am not a fan of (hippies)

[Strangel]

I just want to commend all of you and express my happiness at finally finding a bunch of gamers that can debate whatever and not blow it out of proportion. S!

I believe the earth has natural warming periods and this is one of them. I also believe that we are helping it along quite nicely. It's not a matter of "How to stop it" as much as it is a matter of "How to live with it." I think we'll be alright. We just need to think a bit differently.

It is too bad that much of the ocean life could possibly die from all this, though. I mean, coral reefs around the world are already dying and showing signs of the effects of warming. If you raise the ocean temps by a degree and a half, they're all dead. And when they die all the plantlife and other creatures that live in them will die. And when those guys die all the bigger fish that eat them will die and when the big fish die... well... guess we'll be eating alot more chicken and pork and beef. Poor, poor little fishing villages. They won't stand a chance. Oh, well. They're going to have to pack up and move anyway cause when the polar icecaps melt their houses are going to be under water.

The future looks cozy! Get to know your neighbors! They'll be VERY close (at least they won't smell like fish anymore). But not for too long. The ice caps should freeze right back up in record time. But they won't stop where they left off last time. They'll come visit the whole of Europe and South Africa, half of Asia and a good portion (nearly all) of Australia, and North America down to Mexico, and South America up to Bolivia. Then we'll all be cozy again, indeed!

Jihad will finally be over and a new war will start. We'll call this war "A War Worth Fighting." It'll be about survival and survival only (some of you might know it as BF:2142, lol).

I think it's about time to start colonizing a new planet. I hear Mars is lovely this time of year...

[Colonel von Luger]

My opinion: 50-60 years from now we'll all be fried to a crisp.:eek:

[Byron]

I believe strangel haas it down pretty well

[BlackDragon]

Its the whole cycle of the earth thing my dear thread starter it has to due with how close we are to the sun because everyone has this idea that we revolve around the sun in a perfect circle which is not true. So depending where we are at....thats why its warmer and frankly I doubt we will have an ice age any time soon.

[Byron]

no ones saying anytime soon, but with a couple hundred years, I guarentee it

[Appleskates]

As much as i find Al Gore and his electricity mongering house not to my liking, I would agree that some form of Global Warming is happening.

[Sgt So and So]

True, true, yet the data from past years shows both the temperature is slowly rising AND that the Earth is due for another Ice Age. Battlefield 2142, anyone?:D

[Byron]

I don't get the BF 2142 joke someone wanna explain that?

[SuperSoldier]

I know this is a REALLY old topic but I thought I'd post this.
http://stage6.divx.com/user/krahosk/video/1174924/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

As for Battlefield 2142, the world is in an Ice Age in the game.

[lazlazlaz1]

we should kill all the cows, they pump out more greenhouse gases than the human race.

[Moseman872{White Tiger}]

Global warming? Fact.

Man-made global warming? Fiction.

It's real, but climate change is normal. There's nothing we can do to significantly effect it one way or the other.

PS: Recommending "An Inconvenient Truth" in a serious discussion is just going to hurt your credibility.

I agree with that. I don't think global warming in general is true at all, in fact I think it's a load of bull.
A thousand years ago it was warm enough in Britain to grow wheat. Today it's to cold. I don't think that it's really a warming process but rather a climate fluxuation.

[Total_Overkill]

we should kill all the cows, they pump out more greenhouse gases than the human race.

haha... i remember that from... i think it was that stupid "SeaQuest" show, were they killed all the cows, and eating beef was illegal :D

Oh man... i really could not handle that, i like my meat to much! :o