Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,795
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + Line 37:
Line 59: + + + − Conflicting opinions stem largely from conservative interest groups and have no basis in science or logic.+
Reverted edits by Stof (Talk); changed back to last version by Orion Blastar
Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO<sub>2</sub>, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. <sub>citation needed</sub>
Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO<sub>2</sub>, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. <sub>citation needed</sub>
== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>
The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO<sub>2</sub>, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO<sub>2</sub> or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO<sub>2</sub> and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>
Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.
== The liberal view ==
== The liberal view ==
Global warming is based in science. As science has no loyalty, Global warming can not be attributed to people of a specific political ideology
It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>
If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>
The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>
There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO<sub>2</sub> changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO<sub>2</sub>, but more CO<sub>2</sub> has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO<sub>2</sub> has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO<sub>2</sub> influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO<sub>2</sub> behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>
In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.
== The conservative view ==
== The conservative view ==
== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>
The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>
Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>
== Global warming advocacy sites ==
== Global warming advocacy sites ==