"'The Inconvenient Truth' is indeed inconvenient to alarmists"

Do you realize that CO2 levels were 10 times as high as they are now during the points the planet was in an ice age?

And yes, that was before the industrial age, cars, styrofoam containers for McDonald's hamburgers, landfills, rainforests.

Man and power plants are not the only things that cause a small rise in CO2 levels.

Let me ask you this Red, with all of the science out there for and against man's role in "Global Warming," what is your motivation for being so absolutely certain that man is causing this warming trend?

I'm objective. I don't care if man is causing this or not. But you are determined to say man is the cause. There are scientists who say man is causing it, scientists who say there is no evidence of this. What will happen if it is proven that man is not the cause and this is another hoax like "The Population Bomb?" Then what?

This is a case of environmentlists crying wolf for so long, one of which is that man was cauing an ice age, that people need more evidence before they start living in huts and push our cars into the landfills.

 

First of all, you aren't saying anything....let's get that straight. You are regirgitating questionable and disputed "evidence" that it is happening and that man is causing it. You are NOT objective....anything that flies in the face of your ideology or your religion as Coulter calls it, is ignored, poo-poo'd or attacked....with anger, not with reasonable scientific conclusion or debate.

Environmentalists have an agenda and most of these scientists that are on the front lines of this debate are not objective scientists.

And everyone but you sees the problem with environmentalists.......pronoucing doomsday scenarios that never come to fruition should change ones tactics but it never does. So now, no matter what any of them say, no one is listening and if they are, they are questioning the science. And to me, with environmentalist's history, I can see why.

 

Typical answer from man without his own ideas. Go pull up some more talking points from moveon.org.

 

Glad Clinton didn't sign Kyoto. Romania was the only country to sign and it tanked their economy.

Global warming? The guy who came up with that one renounced it. Yeah, humanity can warm up the earth just with emissions. And I can fart my way to the moon.

 

Boy oh Boy. Thats like all those people who say Patterson and Gimlin admitted their Bigfoot film was a hoax. Where in the world do you come up with this?

 

Just because you can't convince someone of your viewpoint, or do a poor job defending it, doesn't mean that your opponent is spewing myopic idealogy.

martin, you make some really good points. My argument is a bit more fundamental, as I haven't really researched global warming all that much. But it goes beyond just greenhouse gases, and encompasses the general pollution to our environment that so many are oblivious to, often by choice. I had to take several Environmental Engineering classes when I was in school, and learned about some of the impact of everyday things that humanity does with no concept of consequence. Problem is, by the time we're actually faced with those consequences, it will be far too late to do anything about it.

Manufacturers are frequently given free passes on things like sustainability and mitigation because they're such enormous revenue generators. As red pointed out, there are oftentimes alternative ways to do many of the things that happen on a daily basis. But it usually cuts into a company's bottom line, thus the idea is instantly nixed. That's the sort of thing that I would like to see changed.

Manipulation of our environment is the defining characteristic of mankind. But I think we need to be a bit more cognizant of the responsibility that accompanies such a capability.