4,604
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: − + Line 236:
Line 236: − − − Oh, come on. You people can't even get the facts right! The earth's temperature has risen by one degree CENTIGRADE since the turn of the 20th century. The claim that solar variations are ridiculous, since the sun's rays vary in 12 year cycles, up and down. Also, the solar radiation theory has been discarded by all major scientific communities. The fact is, even though I may be a Republican (which means I believe in small government, fighting terrorists, and preserving the security of this great nation, which means not spewing pollution into our air, even if it does not cause 'Global Warming') Climate Change is real, and denying it will not solve the problem. It is not a liberal fantasy. − − Isaac Block
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 23:22, November 19, 2007
, 23:22, November 19, 2007rvv
== Editing This Page ==
== Editing This Page ==
*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
== "Politician Al Gore" ==
== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.