Global Warming

[NoamChomsky]

For years I have just assumed it is true. This is in part due to my natural sympathies to the left, partly due to my general concern that humanity will destroy the Earth (which when you get down to it is really all that matters to us, survival) and partly due to the fact that I hear of many imminent scientists supporting this idea. I have never looked at the proof or disproof of global warming in any detail.

Where, for both sides of the issue, should I start to look?

[canis582]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atownhall.com+"global+war ming"

[NoamChomsky]

A random google search is great for getting background information on something but I am more looking for what other people have found especially convincing and meaningful on the subject.

[wacki]

Basically everything can be shrunk down to this. Over the last 300K years the CO2 and average earth temp line up. The Ocean is in danger of mass exctinction thanks to carbonic acid and there is no denying the ice caps are melting. Also the thermohaline belt that keeps europe warm is failing due to the ice caps melting. This might start a mini ice age.

The counter argument is that mars is also experiencing global warming. Solar flares are to blame for this. Many scientists say the suns cycle will change soon and many say they don't expect the ice caps to stop melting.

That is it in a nutshell. Basically do a search on my posts.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the last 300K years the CO2 and average earth temp line up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the issue but I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest arguments against the theory in general is that the data is limited to very recent years. There's only data for the last fraction of a percent of that 300k year graph.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over the last 300K years the CO2 and average earth temp line up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the issue but I'm fairly certain that one of the biggest arguments against the theory in general is that the data is limited to very recent years. There's only data for the last fraction of a percent of that 300k year graph.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have CO2 samples from the vostok ice core going 1 million years and paleothermometry has temperature data going back 400K years. The CO2 data is solid and undebatable. The paleothermometry data is much more complex.

ugh... done with politics for the day.

[cambraceres]

The period from 1900 to 1950 is the warmest portion of this current ice age cycle, and we're all suprised it's getting warmer?

It's supposed to be warmer right now, in the grand scheme, global warming is a fairy tale, used for purely political purposes. Fear is a good tool for governments, and it always will be.

"Governments are lucky that their people do not think"
Adolf Hitler

[FlFishOn]

Here's one site: Junk Science

I don't have a position on this issue except that I'm certain that no single scientist can be sure of anything that projects into the future regarding global climate. Knowing for sure what you do not know is quite valuable.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one site: Junk Science


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worst website on the planet when it comes to ones that pretend to be scientific. As far as I know there isn't a single top scientist whose given a voice on that website. It is owned and ran by Steven J. Milloy who is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...even_J._Milloy

You could not of provided a worse link.

[wacki]

try this

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


Just look at the graphs first.

wiki could be better though.