An Inconvenient Truth. The end of the world in our lifetime?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Weren't we worried about the next ice age 30 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

No they didn't

In 1975 Newsweek ran a global cooling story that inaccurately portrayed what scientists were thinking. On Sunday, April 2, 2006, George Will writes in the Washington Post that ‘Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."’ and ‘"a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975)’. The second quote from his article isn’t from Science, but from Science News. What George Will doesn’t understand is that while their names may be very similar neither of these sources is the prestigious peer review journal Science. Despite numerous attempts to debunk this myth by both realclimate.org and analysis of peer review journals that denies these predictions were ever made, these myths still perpetuate via online discussions, major American newspapers, and even the BBC. The situation is so bad that when the Senate Environmental Committee (VIDEO) meets with key witnesses on climate change such as fiction writer Michael Crichton, these myths about the scientific consensus and even grossly out of context quotes from scientific papers are used to debunk the credibility of the scientific community.

http://www.logicalscience.com/climat...ange_intro.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

check site for tons of links.

The rest of your post is similarly inaccurate but I'm not going to hold hands on every detail.

Good site for accurate (e.g. non-Exxon propoganda) info:

http://realclimate.org/

and

http://www.logicalscience.com/ <--- my site and I have about 1000 links/sources/journals and 20 hours of video. Still under construction though.

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet you that book was funded by Exxon. What book was it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a global warming movie by an environmental nutjob any more credible than a book funded by Exxon? (Yes, I know the book probably wasn't really funded by Exxon - my question still stands).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet you that book was funded by Exxon. What book was it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a global warming movie by an environmental nutjob any more credible than a book funded by Exxon? (Yes, I know the book probably wasn't really funded by Exxon - my question still stands).

[/ QUOTE ]

I was serious with the Exxon comment. What was the title? You avoided the question.

As for gores movie:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...l-gores-movie/

All you need to do is ask a non-exxon funded scientist.

Yes, Gore is a douchebag but at least he is educated on this subject.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you are probably overreacting, and the people who are going to come in and disagree are going to be called douchebags because it has become very un-PC to question the severity and causes of global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

actually no, scientists who question the severity and causes of global warming are fine. people who are douchebags are douchebags.

[hawk59]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read a book that made a convincing argument that human warming has managed to avoid an ice age. So warming isn't all that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you that book was funded by Exxon. What book was it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plows, plagues, and petroleum. It was not funded by exxon.

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
When is this projected? Anytime between next year and 50 years

[/ QUOTE ]
orly?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There are several things in the global warming debate that are often overlooked.

1) Is Global Warming Happening?
2) If so, is man a major contributor?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is beyond debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzMckv61BqY

Senator Boxer-
"You see here the organizations that support the existence of climate change. National Academy of sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, American Meteorological Society representing 48,000 members now. National Sciences Academies of France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, Brazil, India, and China.
Now on the other side you have individuals. I won’t go through their names, but they are from different institutes. George marshall institute, competitive institute, cato institute… (inaudible listing of institutes) Every one of these except two are supported by a huge oil company. So lets get it straight as to who sits on what side."

She left out a lot of groups supporting anthropogenic climate change. The skeptics could fit in a tiny room.


[ QUOTE ]

3) If so, is there anything that can be done to slow it down?

[/ QUOTE ]

Step #1: get big oil out of the whitehouse AND congress

Step #2: fund this crap
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

[ QUOTE ]
4) If so, what does that cost? Do these costs outweigh the benefits from trying to stop it?

[/ QUOTE ]

A 5 cent tax per gallon of gasoline. Considering how much oil is supposed to increase in price when China gets thirsty, this is trivial. Exxon will do everything in it's power to stop alternative energy funding.

[ QUOTE ]

This movie, and other Global Warming Activists start with 1 and immediately jump to a conclusion on every other question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are extremely uneducated on the subject.

[CatfishKing]

are there manbearpigs involved?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Plows, plagues, and petroleum. It was not funded by exxon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not be so sure. They have lots of ways of hiding money. I will ask my friends at Goddard or NOAA about this book. Still this assumes cooling and that wasn't predicted in peer review literature.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

[Godfather80]

Lookout. The sky is falling. Predict the weather accurately 100 days from now and then I'll start believing the long term climate change predictions.