What are we going to do...

[Bengal]

So there is absolutly no way Al Gore is right, correct?

I have never seen his movie or read any of his stuff. I know he's passionate about the issue but Mel Gibson was passionate about how Christ died. What's that mean to me? Not much...

But if there is no way Al Gore could be right in your mind, how can you expect someone who feels just as passionate but on the other side of the issue to change his/her mind? There is no way you would change yours, right? So how does all this chest thumping and name calling do any good? That is what I don't get... (Not that anyone here is chest thumping or name calling. But it's happening all over)

I'm of the "we'll see" mentality. I don't say one side is right and one is wrong. I think there is enough gray area in this debate...

[missionguitars1]

Well, I'm buying an F-150 later this week...with the 5.4 liter... :ROTF:

[skorb]

So there is absolutly no way Al Gore is right, correct?

I have never seen his movie or read any of his stuff. I know he's passionate about the issue but Mel Gibson was passionate about how Christ died. What's that mean to me? Not much...

But if there is no way Al Gore could be right in your mind, how can you expect someone who feels just as passionate but on the other side of the issue to change his/her mind? There is no way you would change yours, right? So how does all this chest thumping and name calling do any good? That is what I don't get... (Not that anyone here is chest thumping or name calling. But it's happening all over)

I'm of the "we'll see" mentality. I don't say one side is right and one is wrong. I think there is enough gray area in this debate...

I'll stand by my last post response to what you said about humans having literally no clue what the earth is doing or the climate or the atmosphere is doing at any given time, much less to be able to predict it 100 years in the future. it's absurd. and that's Al Gore.

the % chance that that blowhard is "right" on this supremely complex and unmastered field is so infinitessimally small to be statistically a joke. please.

no one knows jack shit about any of this. Gore won't admit that. he's a jackoff for exactly that reason as far as I'm concerned.

[Bengal]

I'll stand by my last post response to what you said about humans having literally no clue what the earth is doing or the climate or the atmosphere is doing at any given time, much less to be able to predict it 100 years in the future. it's absurd. and that's Al Gore.

the % chance that that blowhard is "right" on this supremely complex and unmastered field is so infinitessimally small to be statistically a joke. please.

no one knows jack shit about any of this. Gore won't admit that. he's a jackoff for exactly that reason as far as I'm concerned.

I get what you are saying. Gore has some credibility issues in this field. And like I said, I didn't see his movie so I don't know how he comes off in it. I can only imagine. He's not stocked full of personality...

[jonasaberg]

All I can say is that ten years ago, we routinely had winters with temperatures down to -22 Fahrenheit/-30 Celsius (or colder). Last winter we barely reached -4/-20. This winter there hasn't been a day of even 14/-10.
Something is definately going on but exactly what is causing it...f**k knows.

[Axewielder]

All I'm saying is, right or wrong, the science deserves some respect. Don't interpret the absence of computer models that are 100.000% accurate as being "we don't know anything". True, direct global temperature measurements only go back to 1850. While those are not accurate to +/- 0.000 degrees, they are in fact believed to be accurate to +/- .27 degrees F then and +/- .09 degrees F today. Since the warming measurements indicate 1.33 degrees F of warming, 1 degree F is the best case scenario. The worst case is closer to 1.7 degrees. Then there is the science of indirect temperature measurements, which go back hundreds of thousands of years. So, we do in fact know a thing or two.

[åron]

We should simply shift focus to reducing pollution overall and conserving resources. Warming likely leads to cooling, as the earth is a simple self regulating system. The reason the metric of the debate changed from warming to change is the system is too complex to understand, at least from our perspective. The hardliners on both sides are entrenched in their positions and can't lose the argument.

Personally, I identify with the US Coast Guard leadership who continues to state that they don't know the reasons why, but the arctic is changing. They are patrolling new waters and the shipping industries are plotting new summertime routes through what was once a hypothetical Northwest Passage.

The debate is simply the wrong focus. I suppose it makes for a good Hollywood movie or headlines. Meanwhile, 30 miles from my home, my friend is a pipe fitter at a refinery. Some of the cokers and other equipment is past it's safe operating life. Some of the equipment no longer has operational emission controls. Normally these things are shut down and serviced periodically, but because the company is shipping the equipment to China in a couple months... that isn't happening. The company is willing to endanger the lives of the workers at the plant and, potentially everyone downwind of the place to make a buck and stick it to their Chinese competitors/customers.

[Spivonious]

Ah, a fellow Dailytech reader. One of my favorite science/technology news sites.

Just to put it out there, here's my opinion: The global temperature has been increasing, but it's not affected by the pitifully small amount of greenhouse gases that humans produce. All of this paranoia has generated something good: more energy-efficient things, which saves me money.

[horns666]

[Endrik]

In my homeland the weather has drastically changed in the last 10 years and everyone knows it.... just saying

[CharvelRocker]

"....and then go home to my house with a several thousand dollar energy bill "

Even if research has been happening sinee 1880, 200 years is a grain of sand in the desert for the Earth's time span. As mentioned earlier, give it another 2,000 years and we'll know. I read a nice National Geo article a long while back before this global warming crap got out of hand that suggested its part of a natural cycle.

EDIT: Also Global Warming is a broken theory; a theory has no KNOWN exceptions to it. When you have one area or state with a year below average temp or of dropping temp, its an exception, which pokes holes in Global Warming's bloated ass balloon (not to mention the guy going on about it does nothing to inspire faith. Where was your global warming crusade in 2001 Al?

[Axewielder]

OK conspiracy theory believers, it's time for a little role playing. Let's say you are a "bad guy" and want to pull together the greatest scam the world has ever seen. Which scam do YOU go with using YOUR money?

SCAM #1 : You are heavily invested in alternative energy. You employ an army of high-dollar engineers. You must also hire an army of lawyers to navigate the maze of patents required in this sector. You must invest considerable amounts of additional money into technically difficult and risky fields like solar, wind, fuel cells, and fusion. Many of your investments will fail because of insurmountable technical barriers. The ones that succeed will only succeed in niche markets (coastline areas, windy areas, low cloud areas, etc), and it will be many many years before you ever see a return on your investment. You will encounter significant governmental resistance. All you have to do is pay off a few scientists to fabricate a global warming myth that is so convincing that you can dupe these governments.

SCAM #2 : You are an oil baron. You own vast oil fields in Saudi Arabia. While oil is more difficult to extract today than in the past, it is still relatively easy. It is naturally occurring in the order of trillions of barrels, and all you have to do is pump it out of the ground. There is already an infrastructure in place for you to sell it today at $100 per barrel to literally every nook and cranny on the planet, for an immediate profit. All you have to do is pay off a few scientists to cast doubt on global warming, keep the oil flowing, avoid government action, and delay the adoption of the Kyoto protocol.

I forgot to mention, for scam #1 you might be able to offset some of your losses by writing a conservation-themed book and movie.

[horns666]

Now THAT was awesome!

[åron]

If you're an oil baron you can play BOTH SIDES of your scenario. That's what we've seen from Exxon, Chevron, BP etc. Hedging your bets is always the best strategy.

[SouthPlatteDemon]

I fully support people believing in and having passion about whatever they want.

But, don't make me pay your entry fee and expenses for your special interest.