What if they're wrong?

thats happened every 20 years for the past 150

2007 saw a .7 C decrease in tempurature. The average world temp has not increased since 98 and has gone down as I stated earlier. People bitch about 1 degree over about a century when the tempurature went up 16 degrees in 50 years around 12k years ago. I don't think there is anything wrong with cleaning up our act but radical plans are going to kill our economy. Global warming is really just a front to make us aware that we are running out of oil fairly quickly.

check out this articlehttp://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Good find dude. Seriously there has never been a substanstial(sp?) period of time in earths history when the tempurature was not going up or going down. Glaciers either grow or retreat.

even in its not real is it a bad thing to stop polluting the earth and to conserve

Even so, I'm talking about people's reactions to being tricked, and deceived, even if it wasn't on purpose

like it turning out to be a gimmick by the media and big business?

I agree...to an extent, I think that enacting too strict enviromental restrictions will hurt the economy and send jobs overseas where they can pollute there instead. There are solutions that are both enviromentally and economically sound.

thats true abuot the media i have never turned on the tv in the past 6 months and not seen something on global warming discovery alone has about 3 shows per day

global warming has created a lot of jobs

sustainability and renewable resources have created new jobs. the restrictions that a government will bring to "stop global warming" will send even more jobs over sea's where they are allowed to pollute

you got that from skinc

not to toot my own horn,  aahhh what the hell  TOOT!  TOOT! 

i have been saying this, way to wake up and smell the coffee, we need skeptics.

   the fact is WE DONT KNOW about global warming, now this doesnt mean we cant be better at keeping the earth clean, we should do that...  but if you look at some of the assanine things people are saying we need to change, all based on what? a theory, NOT FACT!




"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

Is trying to have a smaller carbon footprint really that bad?  I dont see how anything bad could possibly come out of trying to preserve our earth....

also, if anyone want an example of good, gone BAD. go look at what we have, because the government shoved ethonol down our throats.  

what has ethonol gotten us?  higher food prices, and a fuel that cannot survive with out the government paying for it.  IT SUCKS!

read this, even the UN will tell you IT SUCKS! 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml

sure ok, play this game:

the scenario:

global warming being a hoax, yet we spent all this money and resources to reduce our carbon footprint -- what is the out come, worst case scenario? -- Global depression, colaps of our ecconomy, what have you,

but weigh it against the OTHER scenario

global warming isn't a hoax, but we don't do anything about it-- every horor story about global warming comes true -- oceans rise, ice caps melt, ice age, we all freeze, no more humans.


obviously there are 2 other scenarios, one where we take action and global warming was real so it was worth it, and one where we don't take action and global warming is a hoax, so we live on fine...

You still have got to think about both sides of the coin, sure we could have a shit show from doing stuff when we didn't need to, but how much worse would it be if we don't do anything and it is real?
I think it makes more sense to take our chances and 'fix something' whether in the end it's real or not.

So because it's not a completely fact means that we should brush away the potential that our actions could be impacting the planet?  Absolutely brilliant. 

Mull over what you just said for a while and think of how it applies to the rest of the world.  You'll be surprised to see who the asinine one is then.  To dismiss a theory because..well, because it is a theor,y is just plain retarded. 

do you have reading comprehetion problems? 

i said we need to keep the earth clean.....   but going way to the extreme one way, or one extreme to the other, would have disastrous ramifications.  

that is why we need moderation. 

Global warming is happening,, no matter what you say its been proven.. The question is, is it because of us.. Maybe,, probably.. But the fact is we do make in impression on the world,, and eventually its going to be a huge problem..

wouldn't the moderation mean that we have to spend a massive effort at first to make up for the years of unrelenting exponential damage we've done, and then once we've spent the efforts cleaning up then move on to a state of moderation?

Where has this been proven?  Some website you found on google?  I could make one of those right now.  Scientist don't agree, and they never will.

^Wow really,, watch the news,, read the newspaper,, people have been talking about it for almost a decade.. there are miles of glaciers melting i the poles.. That would be a very elaborate and expensive hoax bro.. for real there are tons of scientist that back it up,, do i personally know any of them,, no .The arguement is if it is a natural thing,, i mean we are coming out of a little ice age right,, so maybe its just the earth going through a cycle..

I think that things would be better if we became less oil dependent, even if global warming was a hoax.

Think of what our use of oil does every day; smog, wars and costs for you at the pump and for the environment. To get oil each day in, say, Alberta they literally dig up acres of untouched boreal forest/ grassland to bedrock, all to extract oil from sand. You thought clear cutting was bad, they contaminate groundwater and endanger residents and native species.

When it comes to cars its just another story of consumption, why bother mining 2 tonnes of metal to make a car, then shipping it half way around the world when you can ride a bike 1/20th the size.

When it comes to these 'radical' changes things would largely be healthier and more sustainable options (completely isolated from global warming.) With for example food, why truck a pesticide laden caesar salad 5000 miles from california when you can buy locally grown organic veggies.

Overall efforts to stop global warming would be aimed at reduction and thinking in a conservative and realistic manner. There aren't 5 planets to supply everyone out there with the commercial dream of North America, so start acting like it.

/end earth week rant.