U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Dan J 277]

No one said it didn't exist before, however, it has been largely inaccessible because of all the ice, which is now melting because???

Of course, the passage has long been eyed as a nice resource, that it might open up to commercial traffic and exploitation might just explain why no one seems too concerned that this Arctic sea ice is significantly thinning and reducing in size.

Of course, no one really knows what the effects of these things are long term. How much this would/could effect the world in terms of human habitation. However, that it will have an effect there is no doubt and some things have already been irrevocably lost whether or not anyone believes they had any significant value.

http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml

Who is to say a warmer planet wouldn't be better for us to live on? The point of all this is the planets climate changes all the time. It did it before we were here and it will do it long after we are gone. It's arrogant to think we can change that.

A significant amount of people live in coastal cities. Any thinning of the ice is going to create problems with flooding for many of these cities. Some can afford to take care of it, others cant.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

No one said it didn't exist before, however, it has been largely inaccessible because of all the ice, which is now melting because???

We have no actual record of its inaccessibility before the 1970s. We didn't even start looking at it until about 500 years ago. However, 500 years ago is a very short period in many of the climatic cycles.

As far as why it's melting, that's a very simple answer...because it is warmer. HOWEVER, we do not know why it is warmer.

Here are some facts:

1) the doomsday models are grossly inaccurate

2) the temperature measuring stations that provide much of the data are in the worst possible places to record anything meaningful

3) CO2 concentrations in sea water are higher than they are in ice

4) The sun is much more active now than it was 100 years ago

5) Mars is going through a warming cycle similar to that on earth

6) There are variable inputs into the climate that we are totally unaware of

[Peikko 1,575]

So, because you believe humans are arrogant that proves that it's good idea to ignore any evidence that our activity might just not be in the best interests of the planet as a whole?

I don't pander to any political parties, I don't have an axe to grind, but I sure would like to know that our influence on the world is by and large positive at best and benign at worst.

I find this incredibly hard to believe when the biggest motivation to do anything is greed. Should we cut down all the trees in the rainforests? Sure, if we can make a big fat profit. Should we worry if we put pollutants into the atmosphere or the sea? Not at all, so long as we make a big fat profit. Should we be concerned if there is evidence that the ice caps are melting? Not at all, as long as there is a big fat profit to be made.

The one thing we do know for a fact is that reducing environmental pollutants will not have a negative impact on our world so why is it so hard to imagine that it's better to err on the side of caution than go charging ahead into the unknown?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

The one thing we do know for a fact is that reducing environmental pollutants will not have a negative impact on our world so why is it so hard to imagine that it's better to err on the side of caution than go charging ahead into the unknown?

EXACTLY. We do NOT know the cause of global warming, so we should stop preaching it as gospel. There are far more reasonable arguments to be made that will not result in an environmental backlash.

[GaryC 7]

So, because you believe humans are arrogant that proves that it's good idea to ignore any evidence that our activity might just not be in the best interests of the planet as a whole?

I don't pander to any political parties, I don't have an axe to grind, but I sure would like to know that our influence on the world is by and large positive at best and benign at worst.

I find this incredibly hard to believe when the biggest motivation to do anything is greed. Should we cut down all the trees in the rainforests? Sure, if we can make a big fat profit. Should we worry if we put pollutants into the atmosphere or the sea? Not at all, so long as we make a big fat profit. Should we be concerned if there is evidence that the ice caps are melting? Not at all, as long as there is a big fat profit to be made.

The one thing we do know for a fact is that reducing environmental pollutants will not have a negative impact on our world so why is it so hard to imagine that it's better to err on the side of caution than go charging ahead into the unknown?

Don't take it to that extreme. No one is suggesting that its good to cut down every tree or pollute without any regard for the consequences. All that does is diminish your credibility. I don't like pollution and want it stopped. My point is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of our atmosphere, it's levels rise and fall naturally and it did that long before we ever got here.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't like pollution and want it stopped. My point is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of our atmosphere, it's levels rise and fall naturally and it did that long before we ever got here.

It's levels rise and fall between certain boundaries that allow for healthy functioning of living organisms that depend on it. When CO2 goes above or below levels that are healthy, then it can be safely called a pollutant.

I'm not saying that's happened. Simply pointing out that CO2 can be a pollutant.

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

Or simply dismantle Asia and move all our factories to Central and South America.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

Or simply dismantle Asia and move all our factories to Central and South America.

He wanted pollution stopped, not simply relocated.

[GaryC 7]

I don't like pollution and want it stopped. My point is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of our atmosphere, it's levels rise and fall naturally and it did that long before we ever got here.

It's levels rise and fall between certain boundaries that allow for healthy functioning of living organisms that depend on it. When CO2 goes above or below levels that are healthy, then it can be safely called a pollutant.

I'm not saying that's happened. Simply pointing out that CO2 can be a pollutant.

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

The air and planet are cleaner now in the US than they were 40 years ago. I think that is a good thing. We need to continue to strive for a minimum pollution level that we can get. There are a lot more things out there we need to worry about. All the attention to CO2 is counterproductive.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We need to continue to strive for a minimum pollution level that we can get.

I agree.

[mawilson 2,133]

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

Or simply dismantle Asia and move all our factories to Central and South America.

He wanted pollution stopped, not simply relocated.

China and India account for nearly one-half of the world's population. Dismantle

India and China and the problem is half-solved.

Also, by relocating the factories to Mexico and other Central/South American countries,

we'd be creating jobs for all those illegal border crossers.

Edited December 20, 2007 by mawilson

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, you want pollution stopped? That's a pretty broad statement to make. Pollution is a by-product of our civilization, it can be reduced but if you "want it stopped", we'll just have to dismantle civilization as we know it.

Or simply dismantle Asia and move all our factories to Central and South America.

He wanted pollution stopped, not simply relocated.

China and India account for nearly one-half of the world's population. Dismantle

India and China and the problem is half-solved.

I don't know about China, but dismantling India is easy. The unions are key.

And if the unions fail.... well, distribute AK-47s into every Muslim and Hindu low-income ghetto and watch the fireworks.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Back in the 70's there was a consensus that we were heading to a global ice age. It's time for some to realize something. Just because a majority of scientists agree does not make it true. At one time there was a consensus that the earth was flat. They also were sure that the earth was the center of the universe. These scientists also thought the earth was 6 thousand years old. Just because there is a consensus does not mean it's right. Man made GW is the same. They took the data they had at the time and made a theory. Soon that theory became the consensus. Now new data is coming to lite that is disproving that theory. Anyone that will not even listen to the possibility that that theory is wrong has other motives for hanging onto that flawed idea.

And there is no new data that validates the theory?

That this whole world-wide movement really does hinge on out of date information and no new or current research?

Edited December 20, 2007 by Number 6

[Scott & Lai 12]

This whole debate is really misrepresented in my view. But again its not unlike the creationism/evolution debate - it seems that nothing less than absolute, 101% black and white conclusive proof is required to make anyone do anything whatsoever about it.

Round and round in circles.

Untill we know each of the following conclusively, we should be extremely cautious about making sweeping policy changes based on assumptions of man-made GW, and any such changes should be applied evenly to everyone, no exemptions, and must be strictly for the purpose of improving the environment, and in no way intended as a way of satisfying envy by "punishing" successful countries for being successful:

Whether GW is in fact occuring

Whether it is, overall, a net good or bad thing

To what extent human activity is effecting it

Whether that extent is sufficent enough to justify policy changes

Whether it is actually possible to slow, stop, or reverse GW

What changes, if any, will have actual, measurable effects

What are the costs vs. benefits of any proposed changes

Which changes will maximize environmental benefits while minimizing economic costs