Where does everyone stand on global warming, I've had conservative views in the past but I'm really starting to change my thinking. Today I did my normal online routine fcp (checking for new post by DN0), enter coke rewards(lol), check the weather for the states I''m going through and then my home town newspaper and finally Fox news. Today one of the stories was about snow in the Soviet Union coming down in three colors brown, purple and yellow. The experts blamed it on sand, I have been around a lot of snow in all different parts of the country and I have never seen snow other than white. It just got me to thinking about how we are treating the Earth and I'm sure they will come up with a better explanation but it seems wierd. C'mon three different colors in three different parts of the country. So tell me where you do you stand on this issue. Got to get me an avatar I'm still jealous.

yellow snow is easy to understand I don't know why we need scientist or said experts to think of new reasons, just watch out where the Huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow.

and OP there are a bunch of threads on Global warming and the community here is pretty divided. Look up threads about Al GOre and his movie an inconvenient truth and you will find out where people stand on the issue. If you havn't seen the movie you really should. Use the search function before making new threads.

And if your snow story is true give us a link or some pictures cuz them russians are heavy on their vodka so who knows what they mean when they claim the snow is changing colors.

Pretty alarming tbh.

Actually, the BBC filmed a very shocking documentary (I think it's being shown next week, if you have access to the channel), highlighting the latest effects of global warming.

Also, in this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

the IPCC just today published a report, where their panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface. They predict a temperature rise up to 6.4 C this century and a sea-level rise up to 40cm.

I'd say that if we don't control fossil fuel emissions (and raise awareness of the problem in China), then we are in big trouble. Some say it's already too late, some say it isn't.

On the upside, I won't be around to see the really bad effects of this... is it terrible to say that?!

I'm 90% sure that humans are the cause of Global Warming. Why 90%? Because that's the number that the best scientists in the world came up with (see the post above mine). There's really no arguing with it. No one knows this stuff better than they, so I'm not quite sure people insist on arguing with their conclusions. No, but I'm sure some people on a poker forum or Sean Hannity know much more about it than the scientists do. The scientists are just using their liberal bias to disprove God and the Bible, which really is their ultimate goal.

I'm always a little skeptical of environmental scientists. Much of the time, people who work for organizations that research things like global warming would be out of a job if they came out and said, "The problem is being distorted in the media. It's not great, but it's really not all that bad. More research is necessary, but at this point passive monitoring would be enough."

That being said, I have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. I just don't think scientists and researches are as pure and unbiased as we give them credit for; they're often actively hoping for a certain result or outcome.

Wang

Humans are parasites. We will destroy our host.

There is no real doubt that global warming is real the problem is what to do and that Kyoto was a bad deal.

The worlds four biggest poluters are not in it, US, China, India, Russia

European countries are not included in Kyoto, that's right. But the EU as a block is and the starting date for the allowed emissions was just before a lot of Soviet era coal plants and factories were shut down. Similar industries in North America were shut down or improved in the 70s-80s so North America gets hit because they are ahead of Europe with the big exception of the big cars.

Environmentalists give Canada a hard time for not meeting Kyoto levels but gave Australia and New Zealand a pass when they dropped out of the treaty because it is vastly un-fair and favours Europe.

umm thats not right... russia has ratified Kyoto as well as most of europe.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto...col_signatories

heres my favorite part of the IPCC summary found here.



and

"Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.
Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (Table SPM-0).{5.2, 5.5}"

____________________________Rate of sea level rise (m per century)
Source of sea level rise_________1961 – 2003 __________1993 – 2003
Thermal expansion_____________0.042 ± 0.012__________0.16 ± 0.05

thats some crazy thermal expansion

I have been to but look at how the weather patterns have changed, I also remember cold winters when I was young, we now get a few days and thats it. Also I'm from a town that has good fishing but when we let the industrial sector start using our rivers we now have warnings not to eat more than one fish per week. Are the same chemicals being released into our rivers, the same ones that are being released into the air. I don't know I'm not a scientist but I'm on the verge of parking this truck, playing poker and becoming an enviromental wacko. I'm thinking about my kids future not mine. Not a big fan of Al Gore like I said I have been a conservative for the most part, however I now see the laws favoring big business and a global economy which the US will not control. But it seems we have become a country thats to ignorant to do anything about it. The only thing we care about is freeing people from another country so we can get their oil at a discount.

its snowing in PA! woooooo!

What colour is it?

red, i poured some gatorade into it

Global warming my ***.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html
'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached'
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 23, 2007

(Editor’s note: Corrects reference to Carnegie Corporation in final paragraph.)

(CNSNews.com) - At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices.

In a recent report, the UCS charged that organizations are using oil industry money to create public uncertainty about what it calls "consensus" about climate change and the role of human activity in affecting temperatures see related story. Organizations named in the report have denied the claims.

The UCS describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists that initially came together in 1969. It integrates "independent scientific research" with "citizen action" for the purpose of developing and implementing "changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices."

But critics say it is an openly political group.

According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."

David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom - agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."

University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."

The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.

Private foundations cumulatively spend tens of millions of dollars annually on climate change projects, according to information made available through the foundations' websites.

Donations to the UCS in recent years include the following:


* 2000 - a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for "dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense."
* 2002 - a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust
grant "to support efforts to increase the nation's commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy."
* 2003 - a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years "to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort."
* 2004 - a $50,000 Energy foundation grant "to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast."
* 2004 - a $100,000 Energy foundation grant "to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling."
* 2004 - a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years "to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California."


In a study published in 2005, the George C. Marshall Institute(GMI) explored funding for global warming studies and reported that the UCS was among the top five recipients of grants dispersed for climate studies.

In a new book, Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, observes that a number of environmental activists have expressed exasperation over the amount of "strings attached to the foundation grants" that reduce their independence.

History of activism

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - another group listed in the UCS report - holds the organization in low esteem.

"The name suggests everyone involved is some kind of objective scientist, but they tend to be leftist political activists," he said. "Facts mean very little to them."

Cohen told Cybercast News Service the UCS had a "remarkably benign view of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s and undertook extraordinary efforts to discourage the U.S. from countering whatever moves the Soviet Union was making to enhance its own nuclear arsenal."

When President Reagan was in the White House, the UCS was an ardent supporter of the "nuclear freeze movement" that was designed as a counterbalance to the U.S. administration's pursuit of a stronger national defense, Cohen said.

This was acknowledged by some of the more prominent activists speaking on behalf of the organization in that era.

"The [nuclear freeze] movement owes its momentum to Reagan," John Marks, a UCS member said in 1981. "What binds these people together is the notion that the world is getting closer to nuclear war. People don't feel safer with more missiles."

In 1983, Reagan announced his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a missile defense system that would be positioned in outer space. The following year, the UCS convened a panel that determined the system was "technologically unattainable."

Moreover, Henry Kendall, the late MIT physics professor and a UCS founder member, proclaimed Reagan's plan would "de-stabilize" and upset the strategic balance.

Carl Sagan, the late astronomer and popular science writer from Cornell University, worked in cooperation with other UCS members to organize a 15-city tour for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

The union's opposition to missile defense came full circle during the current Bush administration when the president announced in 2002 he was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The withdrawal gave the U.S. more latitude to pursue a ballistic missile shield to protect America from missile attack by rogue states or terrorist groups.

The UCS is working to derail the project and to that end has received considerable financial support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, according to the Capital Research Center.
from rancidkoolaid...
As Democrats take more control of our government system, look for more science like this.

The article does a decent job of explaining exactly how the process breaks down. When a group or government funds the conclusion rather than the experimentation, you get Global Warming.

Today, grants aren’t given to the researcher who wishes to study hurricanes, but rather to the researcher who wishes to study the effects of man-induced climate change on hurricanes. Rather than scientifically prove a link, the preferred method is to assume the link then prove the result – much like Gore’s prediction that 2006 would see the most devastating hurricanes in US history. Such is the predictive value of climate change modeling – and Democrat Science. (They had similar luck on the correlation of gun control and violent crime.)

Let me ask you, what does the UCS stand for? Further more, what is it? Does it produce scientific results? Does it publish scientific papers? Do you even know what you're talking about, or did you just find some random article that in some way connected science with Democrats and then attacked the science?

And, for the record, it's abundantly clear from Scientific testimony that the current White House does more to hurt science by biasing, stifling, or manipulating viewpoints than pretty much every other White House.

dude I duno who this rancidkoolaid guy is but stop using him as a source IT MAKES YOU LOOK RETARDED.

yw

**** ****ing dammit **** ****s....i spilled beer on my lap!

I blame Global Warming.........

I know I'm going to get flamed by just about every right-winged republican but I blame USA. There is still a large number of people in America who still say that it is not happening. It is about time that these people realised that their country is the largest polluter for the population they have and stop blaming other countries such as China. It is time to accept what they have done although it is not just USA to blame of course. I cannot believe that some people still refuse to accept that the earth is heating up and this is a direct result of their arrogance and ignorance.

I agree with Doug, to me it just seems like ignorance.

Quote from Jeepster:
University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."

You are telling that a person from the University of Virginia doesn’t receive any money from coal companies? Everyone has an agenda. Because we live in a capitalist society you are never going to find a person without an agenda.

Also I don’t understand why people are so reluctant to except that global warming is happening? What does it matter to you we were all wrong.

If this was a possible terrorist threat we are “better safe than sorry” when eliminating peoples freedoms but when it comes to the environment people do nothing.

I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this, but I'll post it anyway.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jDrq0LNrh-A

^^^^^
Classic!

New Report released by the UN

http://www.ipcc.ch/

I like the way that the guy at rancid koolaid thinks, and I tend to agree with most of what he says.

The bolded point above is what I'm saying. These days, people find a solution, and work their way back to a cause.

You make a point about the Union of Concerned Scientists but that doesn't build a case. So what if THEY get funding from the government to produce results as you claim. They are not the guys who "invented" global warming, this doesn't disprove global warming nor does it discredit the scientific method. What you are saying is comming from from the rant of some nut job twisting some facts to try and build a truth. If you took the time to watch an inconvenient truth you would see how elaborate the US governbment is at propagating lies about global warming and they probably set this up to look fishy, it really wouldn't surprise me.

Call it global warming or call it global fuckery...anyone who thinks we aren't fucking up this planet has their head up their ass.

QFT

The real cause of global warming:








But in all seriousness, we effed it up badly. But at least its 3 degrees above 0 with global warming right now.

Considering it's now -18 out with the windchill, and 3 without the windchill, I'm starting to believe Global Warming is a fluke.