Has anyone changed their minds about global warming?

[MikeWaters]

The argument used to be whether the earth was warming or not. Conservatives said the earth was not warning. Frequents posts could be found on CB, "It's -10 out, global warming my ass, it's the coldest day in 10 years".

I think most intelligent people have moved on. They will admit that the earth is warming. There is a good chance that there will be no ice at the north pole later this summer. No freaking ice at the North Pole. A huge ice shelf in the Antarctic, that was supposed to break off in 30 years with global warming, appears to be about to break at any point not, with huge fissures where the ice attaches to the land-ice.

Now the debate is whether any of this is man-made, and whether the CO2 in the atmosphere has anything to do with it, and whether co2 release by human polluntants has any relations to the co2 level in the amtmosphere.

The critics say "there is no convincing proof that human activity is related to global warming."

I'm afraid, that in not too long, the next argument will be, "well, it's too late anyway to turn back the clock."

Maybe human intervention wouldn't work. Maybe it would. It seems the entire Republican party is willing to gamble that it wouldn't work.

Does that not scare the hell out of any of you?

[Levin]

The Republicans will lose on this issue -- they already are. Therefore it's not cause for fear, but anger.

[il Padrino Ute]

Of course the earth is getting warmer. It also gets colder. The earth goes in cycles like this.

The question is whether or not it is accelerated by humans. Perhaps so, but I don't believe it is at the rate that greedy liars like Al Gore claim it is, who have made millions of dollars scaring people with their hyperbole. The global warming crowd is all about politics and forcing people to live the way the global alarmists want us to live, not the climate.

[il Padrino Ute]

And I'll tell you why it doesn't scare me, Mike. Hundreds of years ago, Greenland was just that - green. Not ice. They grew grapes there because it was warm enough to grow grapes there. And I don't think there were many cars back then.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The argument used to be whether the earth was warming or not.

No, the argument has always been whether man causes warming.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There is a good chance that there will be no ice at the north pole later this summer. No freaking ice at the North Pole.

That's interesting, considering how the North Pole ice has thickened each year for the past hundred years or so.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The critics say "there is no convincing proof that human activity is related to global warming."

And they are right. Perhaps next we'll hear how humans caused the dinosaurs to go exinct.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The argument used to be whether the earth was warming or not. Conservatives said the earth was not warning. Frequents posts could be found on CB, "It's -10 out, global warming my ass, it's the coldest day in 10 years".

I think most intelligent people have moved on. They will admit that the earth is warming. There is a good chance that there will be no ice at the north pole later this summer. No freaking ice at the North Pole. A huge ice shelf in the Antarctic, that was supposed to break off in 30 years with global warming, appears to be about to break at any point not, with huge fissures where the ice attaches to the land-ice.

Now the debate is whether any of this is man-made, and whether the CO2 in the atmosphere has anything to do with it, and whether co2 release by human polluntants has any relations to the co2 level in the amtmosphere.

The critics say "there is no convincing proof that human activity is related to global warming."

I'm afraid, that in not too long, the next argument will be, "well, it's too late anyway to turn back the clock."

Maybe human intervention wouldn't work. Maybe it would. It seems the entire Republican party is willing to gamble that it wouldn't work.

Does that not scare the hell out of any of you?

I DON'T KNOW. Is this your field?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I DON'T KNOW. Is this your field?

May not be Mike's field, but isn't it something we should educate ourselves about as much as possible, considering the truly historic costs associated with any policy choice. You're "I DON'T KNOW" isn't an excuse not to have an opinion about it. And you should, considering it is a primary issue in the campaign and it may affect whom you vote for as your leaders and representatives.

And Mike was just making an observation on the shifting of the political debate wrt to Republicans, and it's a true description.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

May not be Mike's field, but isn't it something we should educate ourselves about as much as possible, considering the truly historic costs associated with any policy choice. You're "I DON'T KNOW" isn't an excuse not to have an opinion about it. And you should, considering it is a primary issue in the campaign and it may affect whom you vote for as your leaders and representatives.

And Mike was just making an observation on the shifting of the political debate wrt to Republicans, and it's a true description.

I don't think Mike's summary is accurate. Anyway, I'm all for reducing consumption of fossil fuels for lots of reasons. To stick it to the Arabs, for one.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

To stick it to the Arabs, for one.

And Hugo Chavez, the Russians, and the rest . . . Forget about the environment, we should do it for national security.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I DON'T KNOW. Is this your field?

Of course it's his field. HE has yet to find one that isn't.