Do you think it is sad that people still buy into the global warming propaganda?

Question

Do you think it is sad that people still buy into the global warming propaganda?

Answer 1

No. not at all.

While I'm not convinced that the Earth warming isn't part of a natural cycle that has been going on for millenia, the evidence is pretty strong, and it's not something that we can afford to wait for concrete proof on before taking action.

Answer 2

totally lol if glaciers can sink a cruise ship i doubt there melting

Answer 3

It is only a matter of time before the theory of global warming is either rejected or greatly modified.  In 2007, a great deal of peer-reviewed literature was published showing that rising CO2 is not going to be catastrophic - at least over the next 50 to 100 years.  Perhaps you are unaware of the research.

Roy Spencer from University of Alabama in Huntsville published his observations on a negative feedback he and his team found while studying the troposphere over the tropics.  They identified this at the "Infrared Iris Effect" hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT.  This is very important and explains, in part, why the temperature has not risen as much as predicted.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07...

Peter Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab published an article on the cooling impact of aerosols and found it to be much lower than expected.  He also concluded the climate was not as sensitive to rising CO2 as once thought.

http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate...

Stephen E. Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab, and the scientist responsible for the Acid Rain legislation in the 1990s, published a peer-reviewed paper with a new estimate of climate sensitivity of rising CO2.  He concluded the climate is only about one-third as sensitive as the IPCC had estimated.  

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCa...

Just recently, people have begun to do "forecast verifications" on predictions about global warming.  James Hansen offered one prediction before Congress in 1988 (when Al Gore was still a senator) and the IPCC published one in 1990.  It seems both of them dramatically overestimated how much temperatures would rise.  We now have 20 years of data to look at and they were just flat wrong.  

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

Why should we spend billions of dollars to mitigate something   the science tell us is not going to be a problem?  We should be investing our money into developing new energy technologies, not into carbon credits.  Al Gore's company will make hundreds of millions of dollars trading carbon credits and we will not be any closer to independence from foreign oil.

Answer 4

yes, and i dont buy into those carbon offsets either. Al gore is wrong, scientists cannot agree, and even climatologists say the earth has cycles its cooler , cycles its warmer. i wish people were not sheep, followers.  i dont buy it and i never will, to think we can change the climate of the earth is very arrogant on our part.

Answer 5

Look, the problem of global warming has been backed up with so much scientific evidence that it is not longer controversial.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Answer 6

No, but what i do find sad is when people have to try to insult people just because you believe in something different than them.

Get a life

Answer 7

It is not a myth. People should believe it. I live in an island and the I can see it clearly. Every time I go near the ocean I see that the see level has gone up.

Answer 8

Sure.  The propaganda that says it isn't real, and mostly caused by us.  You know, the propaganda you've bought into.

99+% of scientists around the world believe global warming is real and mostly caused by us.  And any number of very distinguished people, too.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics.  Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

These conservatives don't buy the propaganda:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 9

yes..in fact i had heard on the radio a man was talking about how we should eat less beef to make less cows..because cows f**t and that causes gasses that promote holes in the ozone layer..thus causing global warming.  So yes, people still buy into it.

Answer 10

no shortage of wine on your island eh Don

nobody who answers questions on this site has a life beensave.we are all in this together...yet so alone

Answer 11

I don’t know anything about global warming, but I think that it's sad that people still buy into this nonsense known as “the Spring season”:

"Doubts about the Advent of Spring"

A "consensus view" amongst climate scientists holds that the Northern Hemisphere will be warming in April, as spring is coming. This is thought to be due to the Earth's orbit around the sun and the inclination of the Earth's axis, tilting the Northern Hemisphere progressively towards the sun throughout March and April and increasing the amount of solar radiation received at northern latitudes.

In a new novel, State of Euphoria, bestselling author Michael Crikey uncovers major flaws in this theory and warns against false hopes for the arrival of spring.

This is not merely fiction: Crikey underpins his thesis with numerous scientific diagrams. He presents measurements from over a dozen weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere where temperatures show a cooling trend in March. He further cites scientific results which show that in some places, snow and ice have increased in the past weeks, counter to climatologists' claims that they should be melting away in the spring sun. He further argues that even the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has not increased steadily; during one week of March, it showed a slight cooling despite the increase in solar radiation.

"This casts a grave shadow of doubt on the theory of the seasons", says Crikey. "Consensus science is not good science." He says we should not trust computer models projecting that June will be much warmer than March in most of the Northern Hemisphere. "These models cannot even predict the weather in two weeks time - why should we believe what they say about temperatures in two months?" He also says that only six months ago, scientists were predicting a cooling.

”Nobody can predict the future,” asserts Crikey. Farmers risk wasting billions of dollars if they trust the warming forecast; Crikey urges them to wait with sowing until it is clear that summer temperatures have indeed arrived.

Crikey argues that climatologists cling to the ill-founded theory of seasons for political reasons. "Scientists have promoted their orbital theory of seasons for centuries without questioning it," says Crikey. "It has become like a dogma. They cannot admit that it is wrong without suffering a serious setback in credibility and research funding".

Crikey's book was welcomed by many organisations, such as the Science and Environment Propaganda Project (SEPP) and the Frontiers of Fallacy Foundation (FF). In an emotional speech, Senator Outhofe urged his colleagues to take the time for reading the novel. He called seasons a "great hoax" and emphasised that "science is overwhelmingly on the side that, in fact, they are not occurring, and if they are occurring, are not a result of the Earth's orbit".

Climate scientists, on the other hand, quickly jumped up to reject Crikey's claims. "We have a curve called the 'tennis racket' which proves seasons are real," says NASA's Gavin Schmoot. "It is based on a sophisticated statistical analysis of the isotope composition of sediment in old French wines. In fact, we have many rackets so it is more like a tennis club."

Answer 12

Gosh, as a follow up to your other classic questions such as  "What made you realize global warming was a scam?" this is a real toughie. ermmmm let me think about that, any clues with this one? Is it OK if I confer with my partner? errrrm   errr gosh, still thinking.......OK, got it, how about 'NO because I don't believe it is propaganda', gosh your so crafty, you nearly caught me out with that one!!

I have posted some links for you. I think you will be able to manage these and after you have looked at the nice pictures we can move on to something a bit more complicated.

Answer 13

People don't seem to differentiate between scientific theory and fact.  That's ok, people should have the right to believe anything thay want and have faith in whoever they want.

What's I find sad is when innocent people suffer because of other peoples beliefs.  Many people have been sent to prison based on forrensic evidence which was flawed for the simple reason that juries have blind faith in anyone with a lab coat and a microscope.

Answer 14

It will be a lot sadder if we get this wrong!

Answer 15

OK...like evolution...just because you refuse to understand science...doesn't make global warming a myth...get an education BEFORE you come trolling

Answer 16

there is absolutely NO credible evidence that humans have caused global warming. IT'S A SCAM and i can prove it!

here's a link to another site that has OVER 250 LINKS to other sites that debunk the whole global warming scam..  the REAL science numbers don't add up!

oh yeah, those links, REAL science from places like NOAA, NASA, U of COLORADO etc... RESPECTED institutions that do NOT have a liberal agenda

Answer 17

Yes, it's sad that you buy into the propaganda.  Some of us "buy into" the science.  What's your excuse?

Answer 18

what did you expect from public school/gov. education of the population.they are turning out functional morons.

Answer 19

I think it's only a few that distribute propaganda, for the most part this discussion is much like our modern day court system. Both sides just try to prove their side. Both sides have extreme activists.

Al Gore really stands out and has really hurt the Global Warming cause with his commentary and egotistical version of the earth's natural Climate changes. His movie an inconvenient truth is a really bad movie by the way.

There is a small amount of fact there, but little to no absolute truth as to what or who caused it.

The only difference is that the global warming issue has no definitive answer equivalent to jury and /or Judge.. only the time holds our future or fate.

I do not believe that we are causing a doom & gloom warming catastrophe.  I do know that we need to prepare now by conserving energy, preserving nature and preparing for the next climate change.

Answer 20

Global warming has been irresponsibly represented by science, government, and media, and after sifting through the propaganda, I do buy into global warming. The main reason is the statistically unnatural looking tendencies that begin after the industrial revolution. I think this could be most easily noted in An Inconvenient Truth, which is a highly biased, though, accessible source. I've come to believe it from more scholarly sources than that. I'm not sure which comment I read before, but I also agree that offsets are really shady, and also unsustainable. So, in the end, it would be kind of dumb for me to think it's sad since I buy into it.