I'm back, BUT...

---

http://softpixel.com/eof/1998,9/volcanoe... Warming2.htmthats for sdp

congratulations!you found a web siteoh, so did Ihttp://www.fightglobalwarming.com/dangers.cfm

well my point isn't to beat you in the amount of articles I can find. it's to always do your own research and never take what the media tells you as the truth.

ERROR 13Hurricanes "getting stronger"Gore says scientists had been giving warnings that hurricanes will get stronger because of “global warming.” They will not. Over the past 60 years there has been no change in the strength of hurricanes, even though hydrocarbon use went up six-fold in the same period. Research by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, cited by Ms. Kreider, has been discredited by more recent findings that wind-shear effects tend to nullify the amplification of hurricane strength which he had suggested, and, of course, by the observed failure of hurricanes to gain strength during the past 60 years of “global warming.”Hurricane Katrina was only a category 3. it was the failure of Gore's party to act in the 90s when the corps of engineers warned that the levees would not hold up from a strong hurricane.

sighit seems that a small mind can't comprehend how global warming can cause a cold winter eh?But really, I often wonder what the science of climate change has to do with religion. Yet, don't you find that the line is often drawn in the same place at times? It's a fascinating, albeit a mostly American phenominon

Well the 35 inconvenient truths went to court and they won the case.

An Inconvenient Truth can no longer be shown in elementary and middle schools. And in high schools the article must be presented to the children.

ok, have a look at this this fellow, though long winded and admittedly in love with his own voice, makes a very valid argument. If you believe in global warming or not, inaction is worse than action. Just watch it all the way throughTake his challenge, try to debunk his conclusion

I've seen that like 6 times before.I think we're gonna act on global warming and find out it's not true and wreck the global economy. We don't know enough about it to make policy decisions.

Do you ever, ever look at Web sites that don't confirm what you already know what you believe?A.W. and Cooldog, you both seem absolutely certain in your views on global warming, and the part that man may play in it, as you are in your religious beliefs. The problem is that that subject is in the domain of science, unlike questions on the existence of God.There is evidence opposing the idea that man has an effect on the climate. There is more evidence that that man's activities do have an effect. There is some evidence against global warming. There is far more evidence in favor. Keep in mind that those are two different issues. The great majority of climatologists and atmospheric scientists believe that there is a climactic warming occurring. Some of those scientists stood in opposition to the idea a while back, but as data has mounted, they perceive a trend toward global warming, and man's effect on the climate.A.W., do you understand that it's not just heavenly things that affect earth's climate, but that the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere itself has a very large effect? That is well understood and well accepted by planetary scientists. Average global temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere track very closely. What effect man has on the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is debatable, but the graphs are once again compelling.So, for whatever reason it's happening, if the Earth is warming, then some people will benefit by warmer temperatures, and some people will be displaced. Some of the poorest (and wealthiest) areas of the world will be flooded if the warming trend continues.By the way, some scientific models show a cooling trend at the poles as the Earth warms up; weather dynamics is not a simple thing.I don't see how either side can be so certain, as if it's a question of faith. It is not a question of faith. If there's a possibility that the Earth is warming up, then we need to at least think about how the changing climate will affect people, and how it will affect global politics. If millions of people in Bangladesh get permanently flooded out, what then? If people living along the coast have to relocate, what to do? If the warmth leads to serious and sustained population growth of insects that attack our crops and trees, do we just stand around while they chow down?Science is not religion, not politics, not philosophy, and science does not prove anything. Science, over time, converges on the correct explanation for natural phenomena. A.W., what you say about planetary physics is the result of scientific effort; it does not come from the bible. But when you quote scientific findings. It can (but should not be) used wrongly and out of context to promote a political agenda.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2

Hurricane Katrina was only a category 3. it was the failure of Gore's party to act in the 90s when the corps of engineers warned that the levees would not hold up from a strong hurricane.
Did you just reveal your political leanings?

If what you say is true, isn't Bush's party equally at fault? Bush was in power for over five years, most of that time with his party in the majority in both houses of Congress for almost the whole time. What did they do to improve the levee situation?

My recollection is that the Army Core of Engineers thought that the levees were fine. They claims that a storm of the power of Katrina was unforeseen. I know there was some modeling done that showed that the levees were not as strong as they needed to be to protect the New Orleans area, but the Army Core dismissed the data.

Do you have any reference to back up your political claim?

Army Corps Is Faulted on New Orleans Levees (Panel Says Studies Foresaw Failure, Urges New Scrutiny) 25 March 2006

Ok even if Global Warming is true, it doesn't have any drastic affect on us or future generations. All we can do is invest in new technologies to prevent us from running out of natural resources. That's it!

Yeah I do this: Gore says Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. It was caused by the failure of Gore’s party, in the administration of New Orleans, to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers that the levees – dams that kept New Orleans dry – could not stand a direct hit by a hurricane. Katrina was only Category 3 when it struck the levees. They failed, as the Engineers had said they would. Gore’s party, not “global warming,” was to blame for the consequent death and destruction. - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

holy fuckare you a member of the scorched earth scociety?you didn't even watch the video because I just did and you replied before it was over.is an economic crisis or a global crisis better? Simple question!you can keep praying you your various gods while sticking your dick in mother nature's ass or you can wake up and smell the smoke.Rome is burning Caesar, what cha gonna do?keep pumping that $140/barrel shite into your american, union-made tug boat.Believe that Katrina was god's punnishent for fags... hell, it was mostly just them niggers that got hurt anywayget down on your knees children and for the love of god, never look upwho the fuck needes polar bears anyway, never did nuthin for me!keep showing those corpses in the streets od Baghdad on the 6 o'clock news but god forbid we should accidentally see a boobie during the superbowl.c'mon kiddo, keep eating that pablum you've been fed. Put a bag over your head. Life is so easy when you hide from it.good luck man, you're gonna need it

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2Ok even if Global Warming is true, it doesn't have any drastic affect on us or future generations.Us? Maybe not, if we're lucky. But future generations? Absolutely.It seems like you have this looney idea that the Earth is going to be just fine with the future years of all the pollution and other man-made waste and useage.Whether you choose to not believe in global warming doesn't change the fact that we are changing the way nature works.

Ok I've seen the video

He gives 4 scenarios in a box

scenario 1: we act and it turns out no to be true and we throw ourselves into a global depression

scenario 2: we act and prevent it and it turns out to be true

scenario 3: we dont act and nothing happens.

scenario 4: we dont act and the world practically ends as we know it.

however we can eliminate scenario 2 and scenario 4.
because...
one, our impact has been proven to be insignificant.
two, the effects of global warming aren't as they were portrayed by Gore.

now the choice is whether we won't act and nothing will happen. or that we act when the next president gets elected and creates all these dictator policies and global warming turns out not to be true and we go into a global depression because of the strain on certain industries.

by the way, I don't drive and I'll probably buy a prius so that I don't spend a $100 to fill up my parents escalade each time.

"Heavens" covers quite a lot. The writers of the bible seemed to have little understanding of planetary mechanics, such as that the Earth goes around the Sun (the Sun was stopped in the sky?), the axis of the Earth is tilted, etc.Ethanol in the U.S. is not made from wheat. It is made from corn. That is very fundamental. The corn ethanol program was pushed hard by Archer Daniels Midland (a huge agricultural company), which lobbied hard for it. That company has given far more in political contributions to the Republicans as the Democrats, especially to folks like Bob Dole, the former Republian senator from Kansas, who pushed hard for the corn ethanol program. Both political parties and President Bush have been very strong advocates. But the program advanced quite a bit during the time Bush was president, with a Republican congress.Do you really mean to smear environmentalists rather than politicians?Many environmentalists saw the folly in the corn ethanol program long before it went into effect. The U.S. subsidizes corn enormously, and has trade barriers with other countries so that it's financially impractical to import ethanol from places like Brazil, where it is efficiently made from sugar cane.Brazil is energy-independent. Many if not most of their cars can run on the ethanol that they can produce relatively cheaply and easily. Sugar cane is a renewable resource. They won't run out.Fuel can also be made from grasses, which would have been a far better idea than corn. The problem is that a lot of established interests make money from corn, and they wield a lot of political influence.

Isaiah suggested a spherical earth as well.

We can't keep running to every different thing to produce gas.We need to invent a new technology. Because at the end of the day we'll have no oil, no grass, and no wheat. Soooo....

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2one, our impact has been proven to be insignificant. It has not been proven. Science does not prove. Science makes hypotheses, tests things, and builds evidence.The scientific community is unaware of any such proof. Do you have some revealed source of knowledge?Oil is a finite resource and will eventually run out. Even oil industry executives agree with that assertion. There is debate on when we have or will run out of oil that will be economically feasible to recover, but it's not infinitely far into the future. Another question is when we will reach the point that oil production does not match needs. China and India are very populous countries, and they are industrializing rapidly.So, can you explain how moving away from oil will wreck the economy? How reducing our dependence on politically unstable (and despotic) countries would cause harm? Would energy independence be bad for our national security? Even George Bush doesn't think so.And suppose human activity doesn't affect the climate (a point that you're mysteriously absolutely certain about). Suppose the climate just warms for natural reasons. It will still affect human (and other) life. Shouldn't people in the government be thinking about that and planning?

Quote:See, God, the Heavenly Father created both the Heavens and the Earth.If you're absolutely certain of that, then you must be able to prove it.