Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

FD, it's killing some of the "green" countries. I mean how can you have any type of economy and be eco-friendly.

Oh wait, Norway (2), Iceland (5) & Sweden (8) were all listed in the top ten in per capita GNP recently.

The US was 7th.

Let's put Me-hee-co on your southern borders and see how you moose heart eating clowns fare with "Per Capita" measures of things.

So you assume that if we are within that 1%, we have the means necessary to reverse circumstance and make it all go away?

Not sure what you're reading, but it clearly wasn't my post.

If there is a 1% chance that something we're doing could cause the end of all life as we know it, then I think that deserves a good, hard look. By people who actually know what they're talking about.

I am not one of those people. I would like people who have PhDs to pair up with people with significant business experience and make some recommendations.

Do those Scandanavian countries have a problem with Muslims like other Euro countries?

LOL @ Glenn.

I think people get pissed off at Al Gore because he smoked them all so badly. He's been beating this drum for decades and all the predictions his science made...came true.

I mean, he could be really, super lucky or he could be onto something. Al Gore has been vindicated again and again over the years (with the Internet and Global Warming, specifically).

People don't like Al Gore because he's telling them that things need to change. He's doing this because he's looking much farther into the future (he's looking 20 years ahead) than most of us are (I'm looking towards lunch). He's right repeatedly because he's a smart, knowledgeable guy who listens to other smart, knowledgeable people.

Al Gore is basically trying to present the message that our own greed is eating us from the inside out and there are long-term consequences that we, and our kids/grandkids, will need to deal with.

I think it's worth noting that "recorded history" is, in this case, a whopping 5 1/2 years. That's right - the relevant data tracking from NASA-built satellites commenced in 2002.

are you an idiot? the planet is going through climate change at a rate unprecedented going back thousands of years.

or do you think those liberal, massachusetts loving scientists have based all their understanding of climate change on research going back just 5 years?

Al Gore won't take questions from people who actually understand climatology. Interesting.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton-gores_10_errors_old_and_new.pdf

BMA, first...you do know Gore isn't a scientist...he's essentially a spokesperson and advocate for a cause. Attacking him or personally grillign him on science would be like somebody interviewing Angelina Jolie and asking her "tough questions" about adoption in Africa, questioning her statistics, and calling her a fraud.

Second, there are dissenters and deniers, which is fine. The global scientific community believes global warming exists and man is causing it. You can choose to believe the minority and the minority could be CORRECT, but that doesn't change the fact that they are outnumbered significantly.

Third, we, the public, can't really know the truth. I'm not a scientist, you aren't a scientist, and we aren't qualified to have an opinion. You're simply believing the side of the argument that is more convenient to you and I (like many other people) are saying "maybe we should keep an eye on this given the potential outcome/disater".

Let me ask you this, BMA...are you against renewable energy, independance from foreign energy courses, and less pollution (ie- poison in the air and ground)?

Carbon Dioxide is not a poison.

It IS poison in some sense, but what I'm really talking about are the other poisonous bi-products that come along with the current way we generate energy.

F-D, do you realize you are trying to use logic with someone who believes the first moon landing was a hoax?

Fuck it.

I saw Global Warming sneaking into the bedroom of a pre-teen boy wearing a "terror hat".

Do I have you now, BMA?

The global scientific community believes global warming exists and man is causing it.
---------------------------------

What?!!? The global scientific community is as divided on this subject as anything. Hell, that big UN report on man made global warming was politically driven and some of the scientists who dissented threatened lawsuits because they were censored, yet still had their name attached to the report as participants.

What?!!? The global scientific community is as divided on this subject as anything. Hell, that big UN report on man made global warming was politically driven and some of the scientists who dissented threatened lawsuits because they were censored, yet still had their name attached to the report as participants.


click here

First, let me give a brief background of myself. I have been working as an environmental engineer for almost 20 years. I have a degree in environmental engineering and have worked in the fields of air pollution control, haz waste investigation and clean-up, drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, emergency management, etc.

I have done a fair amount of research in the global warming arena, but I am in no way shape or form an expert. I will share some research from 2007. I will not get too in depth as I would like to keep my job.

A major base point for the global warming community is the Michael Mann Chart. He shows the Earth’s climate as stable for approximately 1,000 years before man and industry caused global temperatures to rise.

Steven McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick created another chart on climate change which clears up erroneous assumptions made by Mann. They included the Medieval Warming Period (from about 1000 – 1400 AD), in which the Vikings established farms in Greenland and the Little Ice Age of the 1600s.

A congressional committee of scientists was formed to study each chart’s validity. Below are excerpts/paraphrasing from their findings:

Overall, the Committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

The compelling argument against Mann’s study was that his proxies are centered around the mean period of 1902 – 1995 rather than the whole period studied. This causes the mean to be decentered low, giving larger variances. The experts on this committee were Edward J. Wegman from George Mason U, David W. Scott from Rice U, and Yasmin H. Said from Johns Hopkins U.

In summary, Mann’s point of reference was off, thus skewing his interpretation of the data on the high end.

BMA, please do not assume I am validating any of your positions. No offense, but I do not want to get lumped in with you on the Level.

FD, making broad generalizations and telling someone they are in the minority sounds a lot like a BMA post. The scientific community is pretty well split on this issue. I am sure you can find scientists supporting your beliefs and I can find just as many supporting mine.

And before the question comes up, I am not against alternative energy as a supplemental energy source. I am against those that think we should ONLY have alternative energy. Coal and oil will always be necessary.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

FD, making broad generalizations and telling someone they are in the minority sounds a lot like a BMA post. The scientific community is pretty well split on this issue. I am sure you can find scientists supporting your beliefs and I can find just as many supporting mine.

Let me be as clear as possible that I don't have ANY beliefs. Like I said, I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion.

I simply think that the potential ramifications for ignoring it are far worse than than treating a problem that may not exist, since most of the treatments are good for us (as a species and as a country) anyway.

As far as a majority opinion, I don't think there's any doubt what the majority opinion is. That opinion could be wrong, politically motivated, uninformed, etc., but you can't argue that the public stances of major scientific organizations, institutions, etc. isn't "it's legit" (on some level, right?

And that's what I was waiting for, thank you Slapshot. Take note of that as well, Flesh, cause I've been biting my cybertongue since you proclaimed that anyone that believed otherwise was an "idiot".



Now, cue someone trying to denigrate Slap's character and reliability by the fact that he took his kid to see "Meet the Spartans".

Take note of that as well, Flesh, cause I've been biting my cybertongue since you proclaimed that anyone that believed otherwise was an "idiot".

huh? i implied someone would have to be an idiot to believe the data on climate change had only been collected since 2002.

Nobody would read your post that way. You've been hanging around Seth too long.

Glenn, you should save the venom for Fred. He's the one that took a dump in the middle of the room then ran out as quick as possible.

I have no venom.

Did you chip a fang biting your cyber tongue?

Nobody would read your post that way.

i really don't want to spend time debating this with you, but my post was a direct response to the implication that scientists have only been collecting data about climate change since 2002.

there is no other way you can read that post.

Well, you could read it this way:

"are you an idiot? the planet is going through climate change at a rate unprecedented going back thousands of years."

1 2  3 4 5 6