Why do Liberals say the debate on global warming is over, when it is not?

Question

They say it's over because 2,500 scientists names were attached to ipcc report. However, not all the scientist agree with the report and some have sued to have there names removed from it. And the ones that do agree are looking a big fat pay check from the UN, fedral government, basicly tax money in the form of grants. They also never mention the Oregon Doctoren, where 16,000 scientist signed a petition stating that there is no conclusive evidence that there is any link to man made global warming.

Don't belive the hype, read both sides of the argument, do your own research. There is more to "global warming" then trying to save the planet. And for God sakes, if they bore your children with Al Gore's movie, at least have them show the The Great Global Warming Swindle to conteract. It's not a consenses when you brainwash the next generation into sheeple.

Answer 1

The scientific debate over global warming *is* over. Nobody, and I mean nobody, today doubts that the earth is warmer than it was a century ago. That's because we have temperature records that go back that far. Would you like to see them? Here they are:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabled...

You might find a few (and I mean a very few) climate scientists who doubt that human beings are what's causing the rising temperatures. But there is a broad scientific consensus that yes, we are causing it. That Oregon petition was written back in 1999, before the best modern climate work was done. When Scientific American recently contacted a sample of those who signed, most said they wouldn't sign it today.

Oh, and that "great Global Warming Swindle"? If they're so confident of their facts, how come they had to dupe a scientist  into participating? Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the program, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component".  Remember, this is one of THEIR OWN scientists who is saying this!

Answer 2

debate? science has proven and defined the facts of global warming.thats not debatable,whether it is reversable,and to keep life as it is on earth,THATS debateable.someone once said "you cannot enter a room,or leave a room,without leaving something or taking something."that room here being earth,same effect.more people enter, more is left behind.polution,destruction.there is no debating,fact is we must try to slow the destruction down.maybe give earth another 100000 years.but it will never be the same.

Answer 3

The fact that the earth is hotter than 50 years ago does not prove that it is caused by man.  The earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today and life managed to survive.  Further, all the carbon that is now stored inside the Earth as oil and coal was once in the atmosphere.  I'm not saying we should put it back, but life again managed to survive.  The earth is always going through these cycles of warm and cold.  Unfortunately, the only real way to test if man is the cause is to create a second Earth with everything the same except for no mankind.  Referring to computer models that predict global warming is ridiculous.  These same computers can't even predict the weather next week.

Btw, the most significant greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapor.  Noone even mentions this.  Of course, clouds can have a cooling effect since they reflect sunlight.  A lot of the scientific critiques of global warming models focus on the fact that the effect of clouds is not properly accounted for.

Now, if one believes that global warming is caused by man's CO2 emissions, the comforting thought is that means that the collective actions of mankind can actually change the climate.  We need, then, to think about things we CAN do to cool the Earth down.  I'll start with a few ideas.  First, I think we could make more clouds by seeding the atmosphere.  This would have the immediate effect of reducing the sunlight that reaches the Earth and cooling us down.  Second, we could all mount mirrors on our roofs.  This would reflect more sunlight back into space reducing the energy available to warm the Earth.  We'd have to come up with a material that reflected in all wavelengths, of course.  I'm sure if we put our heads together, we could think of some more.

Then, when the Earth starts cooling again, as it naturally will, we can say it's because of the changes we made.

One final thought, this blanket of air that we have around our planet is the only thing that keeps our planet from being colder than it is.  From that perspective, greenhouse gasses are actually a good thing.

Answer 4

Because no one (reasonably) can deny that global warming is occuring?

Answer 5

Yes! Couldn't agree more. I like to ask people who believe in global warming if they know what the ice ages were- everybody says "yes." Then, I ask them why we don't have ice covering everything right now, because at some point, the earth had to warm up, and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Wool E. Mammoth wasn't driving his S.U.V. around. So, obviously the earth goes through phases of temperature changes. I'm still waiting for a good answer. Sure, I think we should be conservation minded, but settle down Al Gore. If you really wanted to save energy, cut back on those double cheeseburgers.

Answer 6

Global warming is most certainly happening. When you examine the past 100 years anyone can see that this is clearly the case.  That it is warming, is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is the "why".  Our planet is millions if not billions of years old. Man has only existed on it for a tiny fraction of that.  Ice ages have come and gone and man did not have anything to do with those anymore than he has anything to do with the current warming trend. When one examines the past 100 years, he notices that the earth went throught a warming period from the early 1900s up until about 1945 when temperatures actually took a downturn for more than 30 years.  It seems interesting that temps were going down when automobiles (10 mpg automobiles mind you) were at their height of production and cities were much more polluted than they are today.  Current upward trends did not begin until around 1975.  That is why scientists of that day talked about the coming ice age.  CO2 is a natural element of our environment.  It is produced every time we exhale.  It is not a pollutant anymore than oxygen is.  As has been said before, volcanos, decaying plant life and the oceans produce much more CO2 than man ever has, or ever will.  The current IPCC gurus are just the latest doomday prophets to peddle their junk science to the masses who gobble it up in order to appease their guilty consciences for consuming more than the less fortunate.  Many of the signers to the IPCC are not even scientists, but are listed as such in the bibliography in order to add crebibility to the cause.  For those who are legitimate scientists, many have requested that their names be removed from the list because they disagree with the findings.  Including Paul Reiter of Paris Pasteur Institute who actually sued to have his name removed.  Be sure of this the current global warming hysteria is a new religion and it's followers are zealots who are every bit as devoted to their high priests (aka scientists) as anyone from any cult.

Answer 7

You sound open minded.  Separate the media and popular literature from the scientific journals that undergo intense peer reviews.  The scientific community IS virtually unanimous.  I do not think you automatically discount other views just because they are in the minority (see Copernicus and Galileo), but look at the dramatic effects on the polar ice caps.  I find the premise that warming is most intense and noticeable  in the poles and in dense urban areas fairly alarming.  

Finally, there is the notion of risk management.  The more dire the potential consequences, the more necessary the need to pursue mitigation plans.  If the dire consequences do not emerge, the cost of being prepared is relatively minor compared to the catastrophic costs of being wrong and unprepared.  There is a potential cost to managing risks, but it ids plain necessary in many cases  (think life or car insurance...no one wants to buy it, but the alternative can be unthinkable).

Answer 8

because they get nailed with the truth rather than psudoscience....truth and facts scare the h**l outa them folks. OMG, i've had my gun setting on the desk here all day and not once has it tried to kill anyone!!  the first casualty of war is the truth!

Answer 9

Saying "the debate is over" is a way to dismiss the opposition without having to defend your point of view.

Answer 10

Because Al Gore is their god of global warming.

He invented the Internet. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

Answer 11

you cant be so judgemental of people who say that global warming is fact, if they believe it then let them, arguing would be like arguing Christ's existence with a devot Christian, its their opinion, and it is amazingly widely accepted

besides even if you dont believe the facts of global warming, you have to agree that all this pollution and such cant be a good thing

Answer 12

don't worry in a couple days the prozac will wear off buddy

Answer 13

I've read a lot on both sides.

The Oregon Petition is a very dubious document.  Many of the names are obvious fakes (celebrities names).  There are other problems with it.  Details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Peti...

The "swindle" movie is simply wrong.

It is simply a political statement which distorts science.  The director has a history of putting out misleading stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durk...

History of the director.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Liberals aren't the only ones saying the debate is over:

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"I'm trying to learn [about greenhouse gases and global warming]. The more I learn, the bigger believer I become."

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican, South Carolina

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."

President George Bush

Answer 14

I totally agree with you.  It is a liberal scheme to scare people and have us willingly give them more of our money for taxes.  And from one Michael Savage viewer to another, they say the debate is over because Liberals have a mental disorder.  It is one of the symptoms unfortunately.  They state "facts" and refuse rebuttal.

Answer 15

whilst there are rational and scientific reasons for withholding agreement with the "global warming is very very bad and we must act now" paradigm, some bordering on the "we don't know enough to know if it will work, so is this the best way to spend money?"

saying "the debate is over" is code for "i really hope we're wrong, but what if we're right and we did nothing at all?"

Answer 16

Because global warming is their current great hope for achieving there long time goal of complete government control over every aspect of your life (and mine too).  Their continued claims that the debate is over is a typical propaganda technique:  If you say something loud enough and long enough some people will come to believe it no matter how wrong it is.  These new believers will then add their voices to the growing cacophony bringing in still more believers.

Answer 17

Saying the "debate is over" is a way of misleading the uninformed into believing that your theory is a fact. I agree that each person must do their own research and make up teir own mind.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

(Sorry, I don't remember who said this but it is not an original from me.)

BTW I don't believe that any scientist says that the globe isn't warming, the debate is if man plays a significant part in this warming or if man is just along for the ride. (man meant in a species kind of way and not in a s*x way)

Answer 18

I completely agree with your opinion.  I just finished STAR testing at my highschool and 15 of the 66 questions said directly or indirectly that humans are releasing too much CO2 into the atmosphere.  It is considered by some of my peers to be brainwashing.  They should not be allowed to teach theory (especially disproven theory) at schools as fact.  I am lucky to have a teacher that admits that they are theorys.

In order to prove that global warming is not human caused, even though we already know that it is a natural cycle, just ask any educated scientist to compare the carbon output of recent volcanoes to that of human beings.  If they decline for a stupid reason or dismiss your opinion then that there is your proof that all global warming propaganda is a load of hype.  

I also wonder if it is possble to sue a school district for teaching disproven theory as fact?  If it s possible I would lke to know how.  They can sue for including "under God" in the pledge of allegience so they should be able to sue the other way too.

Answer 19

wake up.

even bush says it's over.

you know, oil man bush.

the only question now is what will be done about it.

and when.

there is NO, peer reviewed literature that indicates that global warming is not true.

and btw, which scientists "have sued to have there names removed from" the IPCC report?