What is your biggest worry about glob...

What is your biggest worry about global warming?

Created by Erik Leipoldt on Dec 3, 2007

789 votes

Click on an option to vote

My children will suffer

Rising food prices

Rising fuel prices

Eco terrorism

Water, energy wars

Flooding

Heatwaves

Diseases

I don't know what might happen

Other - Please comment

Austin

Sunnyside, WA

#164 Jan 29, 2008
Waz wrote:
If this is all a fraud its the its a good one, all the evidence that they have to make up. personally I will take the opinion of climatologists publishing in peer-reviewed journals over internet bloggers with an axe to grind.
my uncle is a climatologist and he says that there is no evidance that global warming is caused by humans and that global warming and COOLING has been going on for millions of years. he also says that many of his coliges believe the same way and the scientific concensus is counterfite.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#165 Jan 29, 2008
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Exposing the Climate MYTH that 'We can't trust computer models'. Article in the New Scientist:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
gee can you explain this to me
1. we do not know all the forcings in the climate. we do not even fully understand how the climate works
2. climate models only put in data we know therefore if we dont know everything then the models can only replicate what we know
3. of what we know we are finding a lot of it is inaccurate anyway

doesnt that tell you the models CANT be right

just because they model different scenarios to cover ALL possible outcomes does not mean when one of them is close to reality it proves models - it just proves they can put data in to get any answer they require - thats not science thats buying all the tickets in a lottery and then claiming you are lucky when you win

it would be nice if you thought through things for a change instead of posting rubbish
myself

Henderson, NV

#166 Jan 29, 2008
Waz wrote:
If this is all a fraud its the its a good one, all the evidence that they have to make up. personally I will take the opinion of climatologists publishing in peer-reviewed journals over internet bloggers with an axe to grind.
Have you read those peer-reviewed journals? Were YOU personally involved with the research? If you are not a climatology scientist and you have not done your own research then you are not enough of an expert to formulate a conclusion. And how can you be sure your "opinion" is right? Peer-reviewed research can and has been proven to be flawed.
myself

Henderson, NV

#167 Jan 29, 2008
Smarter than I look wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, enlighten me on how these people are getting rich on this global warming "hoax". I'm dying to know. Do they make more money when people start driving less and walking more? Or maybe when people use less electricity? Or maybe when people recycle? I knew the idea of recycling was to good to be true. Those bastards!!!!!
CFL bulbs and eventually LED lights
Companies that sell carbon credits
Companies that manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, hybrid vehicles and other green tech
Al Gore with his books and movies
Recycled products companies
Companies that make eco-friendly food, toiletries, household cleaners, etc.

I'm positive the individuals involved in such ventures aren't just doing it to save the planet.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#168 Jan 29, 2008
xXHEXSxx wrote:
im a little touchy on the topic-global warming-
people dont realize whats happening to our world each day!
still theres all this pollution...
Good news! Do you like good news?
We are living longer now than at any time in human history.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#169 Jan 30, 2008
myself wrote:
<quoted text>
CFL bulbs and eventually LED lights
Companies that sell carbon credits
Companies that manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, hybrid vehicles and other green tech
Al Gore with his books and movies
Recycled products companies
Companies that make eco-friendly food, toiletries, household cleaners, etc.
I'm positive the individuals involved in such ventures aren't just doing it to save the planet.
You missed Michael Moore.

“Homosapien ”

Since: Jan 07

Minneapolis

#170 Jan 30, 2008
Donnie wrote:
<quoted text>If radiation is classified as an emission, then the emissions from nuclear power plants are not measurable because they are so much smaller than the variation in natural background radiation. If we wish to classify radioactive atoms as emissions, then nuclear power plants emit less than coal-fired power plants. Of course, the president was referring to carbon dioxide emissions.
Then why are there lawsuits about where to bury the waste product. Your idea is like saying an engine minimally pollutes if you don't count the exhaust.

“Got Brains?”

Since: Sep 07

Military Brat

#171 Jan 30, 2008
It's happening, but mostly naturally. Man's biggist impact is land usage and population growth, not CO2 emissions.

www.climate-movie.com/Climate_Video_What_is_N...
Brick60

Mount Juliet, TN

#172 Jan 31, 2008
myself wrote:
<quoted text>
Waz wrote:If this is all a fraud its the its a good one, all the evidence that they have to make up. personally I will take the opinion of climatologists publishing in peer-reviewed journals over internet bloggers with an axe to grind.
Have you read those peer-reviewed journals? Were YOU personally involved with the research? If you are not a climatology scientist and you have not done your own research then you are not enough of an expert to formulate a conclusion. And how can you be sure your "opinion" is right? Peer-reviewed research can and has been proven to be flawed.
And yet, Waz refuses to believe the peer-reviewed [and corroborated] journals from actual climatologists, geophysicists, geologists, and paleobotonists who all state climate change is not a catastrophic event and is a natural cyclic occurrence with no influence by man.
Donnie

Akron, OH

#173 Jan 31, 2008
mixed wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are there lawsuits about where to bury the waste product.
Political pandering. The existence of a lawsuit is evidence of nothing. Anybody may file a lawsuit, regardless of the merit of their assertions. They sometimes can even win a lawsuit that is without merit. In many other cases, a person my force an out-of-court settlement because the cost of defense against the bogus lawsuit is greater than the amount of the settlement.
Your idea is like saying an engine minimally pollutes if you don't count the exhaust.
Not even close. To use your analogy, my realistic description would be thus: If the pollutants that exhaust from an engine cannot be detected because they are at amounts that are smaller than the normal variation in the amount of those exact pollutants that exist in the normal natural background, then the engine minimally pollutes. Such an engine, it it existed, would be hailed as a great technological advance in protecting the environment. A less successful example was the Honda CVCC engine that was introduced in the late 1960's.
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#174 Feb 1, 2008
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
gee can you explain this to me
1. we do not know all the forcings in the climate. we do not even fully understand how the climate works
2. climate models only put in data we know therefore if we dont know everything then the models can only replicate what we know
3. of what we know we are finding a lot of it is inaccurate anyway
doesnt that tell you the models CANT be right
just because they model different scenarios to cover ALL possible outcomes does not mean when one of them is close to reality it proves models - it just proves they can put data in to get any answer they require - thats not science thats buying all the tickets in a lottery and then claiming you are lucky when you win
it would be nice if you thought through things for a change instead of posting rubbish
SO I am supposed to believe that it is not you writing rubbish, but is the New Scientist .........um, i think i will stick with the fact that you write utter rubbish
check out http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php...
for some great links exposing the lies which are peddled by the man-made global warming deniers, and their selfish agendas
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#175 Feb 1, 2008
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
gee can you explain this to me
1. we do not know all the forcings in the climate. we do not even fully understand how the climate works
2. climate models only put in data we know therefore if we dont know everything then the models can only replicate what we know
3. of what we know we are finding a lot of it is inaccurate anyway
doesnt that tell you the models CANT be right
just because they model different scenarios to cover ALL possible outcomes does not mean when one of them is close to reality it proves models - it just proves they can put data in to get any answer they require - thats not science thats buying all the tickets in a lottery and then claiming you are lucky when you win
it would be nice if you thought through things for a change instead of posting rubbish
"Gee".......It's all explained for you in these articles.... whay not read them and educate yourself. Exposes 26 'climate myths' which are laboriously stated by man-made climate change deniers:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
page of good links : http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php...
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#176 Feb 1, 2008
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
gee can you explain this to me
1. we do not know all the forcings in the climate. we do not even fully understand how the climate works
2. climate models only put in data we know therefore if we dont know everything then the models can only replicate what we know
3. of what we know we are finding a lot of it is inaccurate anyway
doesnt that tell you the models CANT be right
just because they model different scenarios to cover ALL possible outcomes does not mean when one of them is close to reality it proves models - it just proves they can put data in to get any answer they require - thats not science thats buying all the tickets in a lottery and then claiming you are lucky when you win
it would be nice if you thought through things for a change instead of posting rubbish
There is a great site which exposes the shallowness of your viewpoint at http://www.realclimate.org/ which is an authentic site operated by genuine climate scientists exposing the nonsense peddled by the man-made climate change deniers like yourself.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#177 Feb 1, 2008
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a great site which exposes the shallowness of your viewpoint at http://www.realclimate.org/ which is an authentic site operated by genuine climate scientists exposing the nonsense peddled by the man-made climate change deniers like yourself.
in others words you are unable to respond especially as the world keeps cooling

you lemmings keep screaming wolf and after almost 30 years weve not seen a wolf yet and we are sick of it. Your lies are based on models and not reality. Your socialist agendas are not interested in the wellbeing of mankind.

meanwhile many are starting to die from the cold, crops are being devastated and appallingly you couldnt give a stuff

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#178 Feb 1, 2008
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a great site which exposes the shallowness of your viewpoint at http://www.realclimate.org/ which is an authentic site operated by genuine climate scientists exposing the nonsense peddled by the man-made climate change deniers like yourself.
Why, did you see those diplomas. I sure with a few minutes with Google I could find likewise qualified people involved with web site that debunks all that and more.

I could find accredited climate scientist thirty five years ago who claimed that a global ice age was suppose to be here.

The question is how many agree with your view point and how many agree with mine. Otherwise it like saying ninty out of a hundred dentist agree with brushing your teeth is good for your health. The process of you troting out the other ten is not that convencing.
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#179 Feb 4, 2008
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, did you see those diplomas. I sure with a few minutes with Google I could find likewise qualified people involved with web site that debunks all that and more.
I could find accredited climate scientist thirty five years ago who claimed that a global ice age was suppose to be here.
The question is how many agree with your view point and how many agree with mine. Otherwise it like saying ninty out of a hundred dentist agree with brushing your teeth is good for your health. The process of you troting out the other ten is not that convencing.
All genuine climate scientist know that the man-made climate change deniers are working to an agenda to keep the 'debate' alive so that the huge corporations- mainly oil industry industries reliant on oil (most) do not have to face the problem and initiate hugely expensive measures to help the situation. Its purely the economics of greed with many selfish people employed to continue this 'debate'. The best thing really would be just to ignore the few people who propogate this view as they are really not that prevalent. Most dodgy scientists who want to make a few bucks can get funding from exxon amongst many others www.exxposeexxon.com and there are a few ignorant people on the web who latch on to this point of view for a variety of what i can only surmise as 'psychological' reasons (angry people, sad, bitter, highly egotistical against the world,picked up on this issue as they fancy themselves as 'truth bearers' to the world despite the overwhelming evidence against their erroneous viewpoint, and also a variety of idiots.
www.realclimate.org/index.php... is one of many genuine websites giving the scientific facts about climate change. The number of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by man is incredibly small - check out http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#180 Feb 4, 2008
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
All genuine climate scientist know that the man-made climate change deniers are working to an agenda to keep the 'debate' alive so that the huge corporations- mainly oil industry industries reliant on oil (most) do not have to face the problem and initiate hugely expensive measures to help the situation. Its purely the economics of greed with many selfish people employed to continue this 'debate'. The best thing really would be just to ignore the few people who propogate this view as they are really not that prevalent. Most dodgy scientists who want to make a few bucks can get funding from exxon amongst many others www.exxposeexxon.com and there are a few ignorant people on the web who latch on to this point of view for a variety of what i can only surmise as 'psychological' reasons (angry people, sad, bitter, highly egotistical against the world,picked up on this issue as they fancy themselves as 'truth bearers' to the world despite the overwhelming evidence against their erroneous viewpoint, and also a variety of idiots.
www.realclimate.org/index.php... is one of many genuine websites giving the scientific facts about climate change. The number of scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by man is incredibly small - check out http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
no its just your lies

if you cant argue the science then dont get on here

the fact that the case against your lies is so strong is why you have to resort to the stupidity you do

you noticed china is having the worst cold in over 100 years, and that a town in usa is buried under 13 ft of snow or that trains are getting stuck in snow, parts of the southern hemisphere arnt getting summer - the list goes on and you are blind to reality
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#181 Feb 5, 2008
Climate models do not predict an evenly spread warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps such as thje
NASA Goddard institute for space studies, NY, has a site showing maps of global temeratures over periods of time. These show FAR more areas are warming than cooling.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
to expose the climate Myths that the lower atmosphere is cooling,not warming check out http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
'sceptics forced into climate climb down' article - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
Many myths of the man-made global warming sceptics exposed at: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

#182 Feb 5, 2008
Mike wrote:
Climate models do not predict an evenly spread warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps such as thje
NASA Goddard institute for space studies, NY, has a site showing maps of global temeratures over periods of time. These show FAR more areas are warming than cooling.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
to expose the climate Myths that the lower atmosphere is cooling,not warming check out http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
'sceptics forced into climate climb down' article - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
Many myths of the man-made global warming sceptics exposed at: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
so you admit there is regional warming and regional cooling? are you able to comprehend that?
Mike

Bangkok, Thailand

#183 Feb 6, 2008
theworldasweknowit wrote:
<quoted text>
so you admit there is regional warming and regional cooling? are you able to comprehend that?
Did you read the links? are you able to comprehend the science behind this?
here they are again, get an education -
This one EXPOSES THE MYTH that the lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...
Map showing global temperature increases http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
this one exposes how climate sceptics who claim the earth is not warming have been using faulty data to make their point - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/e...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 min Into The Night 36,062
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Ashley 63,269
News Letter: Solar energy generally a wiser investment 20 hr Solarman 1
News Democrats' Real Global Warming Fraud Revealed 21 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sat Rshermr 10,933
News NASA is defiantly communicating climate change ... Fri mehdi mountather 1
News Major global warming study again questioned, ag... Feb 15 Death on 2 Legs 18
More from around the web