I was wondering when you might show up after I posted that, Shawn. 
I have never really had the time or desire to go into depth about it. It's just incredibly silly to think that we're going to have that much impact on something so large. Most people can't even grasp how large the atmosphere is and how minute of a percentage is carbon dioxide to begin with. This idea that we're causing the planet to heat up is nothing more than rhetoric that's pounded into our heads every time you turn the TV on. It's fearmongering and nothing more. It has nothing to do with politics.
For example, look at how the Chernobyl incident was portrayed and the estimated impact it would have on the environment. It was predicted that eventually millions would die from the environmental effects and years later than number is less than 100. We clearly do not understand environmental impact like we think we do.
Over 30 years ago, scientists (some of which are behind the Global Warming movement) predicted a "Global Cooling" that would lead to an ice age. Not only did that not come true, but it reversed course and we're in a warming trend again.
We can't even [predict ocean currents a week or two in advance, but we have science that can predict or explain the cause of Global Warming and the impacts years from now?
Really?
Why do I have to make the case? Why do supporters of man-made Global Warming not have to prove theirs first? Opinions in greater numbers is consensus, not science.
Technically, we're still warming from the "little Ice Age" of the Middle Ages. The warming trend is estimated to have begun in the early 1800's. (I say estimated because how can we really trust historical weather data from the 1800's?) Most of this century's global warming occurred before WWII (1942-ish), yet that is left out of these discussions. So if man is the cause (or has a significant impact) we release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere long before every family had two Suburbans in the garage. Global warming has not kept up with man's advances in industrialization this century, lending one to doubt the impact that we have.
It has been deduced that carbon dioxide emissions are "self-limiting" meaning that when it warms in one areas, the planet cools in another. The planet as a whole does not warm it's entire surface entirely. Just these past few months there has been indication that many glaciers not only are not shrinking, but growing. Further indication that we do not know what we're talking about when it comes to environmental science as it relates to our impact on it.
Speaking in absolutes is dangerous. There is evidence to support both sides, but people talk of global warming caused by man as fact and it's not. There is far more evidence to support that this is a natural cycle than caused by man. I certainly favor limitations and management of the environment, but I am going to need some solid evidence and not speculation before I start my 'Save the Planet' campaign.
My knowledge isn't extensive. It's limited to documentaries and articles. It's not based on CNN, NBC, FOX, etc. All I ask for is some scientific consistency before I start accepting something as absolute and factual.
I have never really had the time or desire to go into depth about it. It's just incredibly silly to think that we're going to have that much impact on something so large. Most people can't even grasp how large the atmosphere is and how minute of a percentage is carbon dioxide to begin with. This idea that we're causing the planet to heat up is nothing more than rhetoric that's pounded into our heads every time you turn the TV on. It's fearmongering and nothing more. It has nothing to do with politics.
For example, look at how the Chernobyl incident was portrayed and the estimated impact it would have on the environment. It was predicted that eventually millions would die from the environmental effects and years later than number is less than 100. We clearly do not understand environmental impact like we think we do.
Over 30 years ago, scientists (some of which are behind the Global Warming movement) predicted a "Global Cooling" that would lead to an ice age. Not only did that not come true, but it reversed course and we're in a warming trend again.
We can't even [predict ocean currents a week or two in advance, but we have science that can predict or explain the cause of Global Warming and the impacts years from now?
Really?
Why do I have to make the case? Why do supporters of man-made Global Warming not have to prove theirs first? Opinions in greater numbers is consensus, not science.
Technically, we're still warming from the "little Ice Age" of the Middle Ages. The warming trend is estimated to have begun in the early 1800's. (I say estimated because how can we really trust historical weather data from the 1800's?) Most of this century's global warming occurred before WWII (1942-ish), yet that is left out of these discussions. So if man is the cause (or has a significant impact) we release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere long before every family had two Suburbans in the garage. Global warming has not kept up with man's advances in industrialization this century, lending one to doubt the impact that we have.
It has been deduced that carbon dioxide emissions are "self-limiting" meaning that when it warms in one areas, the planet cools in another. The planet as a whole does not warm it's entire surface entirely. Just these past few months there has been indication that many glaciers not only are not shrinking, but growing. Further indication that we do not know what we're talking about when it comes to environmental science as it relates to our impact on it.
Speaking in absolutes is dangerous. There is evidence to support both sides, but people talk of global warming caused by man as fact and it's not. There is far more evidence to support that this is a natural cycle than caused by man. I certainly favor limitations and management of the environment, but I am going to need some solid evidence and not speculation before I start my 'Save the Planet' campaign.
My knowledge isn't extensive. It's limited to documentaries and articles. It's not based on CNN, NBC, FOX, etc. All I ask for is some scientific consistency before I start accepting something as absolute and factual.