Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   Politics & Religion (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Climate Change: Newt vs. Kerry (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=16822)

buckeyefan78 04-05-2007 07:38 PM

Climate Change: Newt vs. Kerry
 
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich will face off next week with Sen. John Kerry in a debate over climate change.

The debate is scheduled for Tuesday at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264384,00.html

**********************************************

Should be interesting. Kerry has a new book out on the environment. Newt may be practicing for the presidential debates next year.

doublee 04-05-2007 07:57 PM

I am kind of curious if anyone thinks either of these putzes stands a chance at being elected President...

CKFresh 04-06-2007 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublee (Post 242836)
I am kind of curious if anyone thinks either of these putzes stands a chance at being elected President...

Neither stands a chance to be elected, but do people really debate global warming? I guess scientists are "witches" these days. There is no debate. If you think global warming is questionable, I suggest you do some reading. It is happening, at an alarming rate, an we are directly responsible. Denying these facts for political reasons is simply counter productive and entirely foolish.

Newt and Kerry are both morons. Forget this debate and do some research. Take a look at the scientific community and what is really happening. Global Warming is not a joke.

HibachiDG 04-06-2007 02:41 AM

It's pretty cold and it's April. Not so sure the science is working out on this one...

catman 04-06-2007 08:59 AM

Fresh, have you ever read back to the 1970's when the same people saying global warming will kill us all were saying we were entering a "new ice age"? It is certainly warmer now than it was then, but that is easily explained by natural climatological cycles -- usually around 30 years. If the earth is still warming in 10 years, I may be persuaded to believe that we have had some impact on it.
This said, there is nothing wrong with attempting to clean up the environment. As an active environmentalist, I will say that we, as individuals, must leave the planet cleaner than when we arrived on it. We must all do our parts to clean up after ourselves. If everyone did this, we would have fewer problems. We can make a difference without ratifying a flawed treaty.
Also, I agree that nobody should take either of these men very seriously. Newt is one that I have limited respect for, but at least he did his job when he was in the Congress. Mr. Kerry cannot even be bothered to show up for most votes.

CKFresh 04-06-2007 10:17 AM

Quote:

It's pretty cold and it's April. Not so sure the science is working out on this one...
Read what global warming is, and you will realize how silly this statement is.

Quote:

It is certainly warmer now than it was then, but that is easily explained by natural climatological cycles
No, that's the point it CAN NOT be explained by natural cycles. The temperatures being recorded, the carbon output, and the changes in the environment are UNPRECENDENTED. These things have never occured in the history of the "natural cycle." Seriously, has anyone on this site looked at the statistical data? Have any of you looked at the information gathered by THE EXPERTS, THE CLIMATOLOGISTS, and the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY? The scientific community has come to the conclusion that global warming is happening, and that we are definately influencing it. Please just read A LITTLE bit of information from the scientists. Not the 4 or 5 republican-paid, oil-company-paid scientists that dispute global warming. Look at the information that comes from ALL THE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD!!!! Does that mean anything to you guys? Are you seriously going to just ignore the ENTIRE scientific community? When did scientists become some crazy group of liberals that we don't listen to? I mean come on. Drop your political sword for a second and think of this logically. Why would EVERY major scientific organization in the world lie about this?

catman 04-06-2007 10:31 AM

Fresh, There are nearly as many "scientists" that disagree with your stance as there are that agree with it. Nothing has been proven. As I said, if the planet is warmer in 10 years than it is today, I might be persuaded to believe in this myth. Until then, it is still just that -- a myth. I have not read a little, I have read a lot. I have not been duped by those that say the sky is falling.
As I said, if everyone would do their part to clean the earth up, there would be fewer problems.
Now for the hard question, Fresh. What do we do to solve this "problem" that I have not suggested?

CKFresh 04-06-2007 11:13 AM

Quote:

There are nearly as many "scientists" that disagree with your stance as there are that agree with it
That is a boldfaced lie and you know it. Find me one MAJOR scientific group who disputes global warming. Let me name a few that acknowledge global warming and our influence.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
...among many others

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists... That's strange, the OIL COMPANIES are the only people that dispute global warming, and you are buying it.

That doesn't make you feel like you are being duped? You should. You are buying into the big corporations attempt to tell you that global warming isn't happening, dispite the fact that every other scientific group IN THE WORLD says otherwise.

This is no different then believing the tobacco companies' "research groups" that tell you smoking may not be bad for you, despite the advice of ever doctor you see.

The most persuasive evidence for the scientific consensus on global warming comes from the Fourth Assessment Report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report says it is "nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame" for global climate change and explicitly recommends nations to "take prompt action." A statement endorsing this content of this report was unanimously signed by the national science academies of "the Big Eleven" - the G8 nations plus Brazil, India and China - who are together the 11 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

Unless we are to believe that the leading scientists of all of these nations are flat-out wrong, we should seriously question why there are so many articles appearing in the popular media questioning the threat posed by global warming. In an age marked by 24-hour news coverage and a proliferation of new news sources in all varieties of media, it's difficult for the media to act as one entity anymore, especially given the hyper-competitive dynamic. However, "the media" still makes value judgments all the time about what to publish when they routinely and purposefully ignore certain extremist positions and effectively exclude them from the political dialogue.

If 99 percent of scientists are correct, we should clearly follow their advice. On the other hand, if we craft policies based on the assumption that global warming is real and find out that 99 percent of scientists turned out to be wrong, what's the worst possible consequence? Funneling less money to nations that sponsor terrorism? Having less smog? Some people might say economic harms would result, but even that logic breaks down. At some point in the next few decades, oil will become scarce enough that a price shock would absolutely cripple the American economy - unless we start doing something now to address our overconsumption of oil.

The best argument those who oppose the adoption of an aggressive technological investment in reducing carbon dioxide emissions can make is: "Let's wait another 10 years." But as my grandfather used to say, "Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today?" The positive economic effects that would follow from such an investment - millions of newly created jobs and the possibility of discovering auxiliary technologies (like we did when we went to the moon) certainly outweigh the negative ones.


http://media.www.browndailyherald.co...-2827886.shtml

CKFresh 04-06-2007 11:49 AM

Please someone, come to restore my faith in the American public. Does anyone believe our scientists? Or does everyone believe the oil companies?

When it comes to science, do you believe the people who spend their lives studying it, or the people that stand to lose money if you believe the scientists?

HibachiDG 04-06-2007 12:23 PM

I don't think it's so much that people aren't listening to scientists and listening to oil companies. It's just that science can be manipulated and stretched in many varying degrees. From there, even if you get the recognition of whether humans are affecting climate change you have the huge obstacle of whether you want to do something about it. You're right that my original comment was stupid, but it was stupid because it was said in jest.

DETMURDS 04-06-2007 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 242852)
Fresh, have you ever read back to the 1970's when the same people saying global warming will kill us all were saying we were entering a "new ice age"?


I remember it,...oh, gotta go, I have to add some wood to my "Global Warming Wood Fireplace"!

CKFresh 04-06-2007 12:37 PM

Quote:

It's just that science can be manipulated and stretched in many varying degrees.
You are correct, but this isn't a brand new issue, that only a few scientists have looked into. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consisted of over 200 governments, and the "best and brightest" scientists from each country in the field of Climatology. They reached a consensus, saying it is more than a 90% chance that we are causing global warming. I mean, that is pretty conclusive, right?

I would agree with you if scientists were split down the middle, but it's not even close.

Quote:

From there, even if you get the recognition of whether humans are affecting climate change you have the huge obstacle of whether you want to do something about it.
Why wouldn't you want to do something about it? The positives outweigh the negatives ten fold. The economic downside would be countered by the millions of jobs that would be created and the spark of innovation that has been America's strongest attribute. We would no longer depend on foreign sources for fuel, and we would take a major tool away from the "bad guys."

Action will cost very little, and benefit our society greatly - even if the scientists are wrong. Inaction could cost everything.

Montrovant 04-06-2007 02:18 PM

Depends on the action CK....there are some very freakish ideas about what to do in response to global warming...making a 'shade' in orbit, dumping lead in the ocean to promote plankton growth (I believe a private company has already done some of this), etc.

Besides, I'm not sure there is a concensus about how much affect we have or what's best to do to rectify it.

None of this is said to attempt to discredit the idea of global warming, but rather to point out the issue is not a simple one.

catman 04-06-2007 02:20 PM

As I asked previously Fresh, what do you have to suggest that I have not already suggested to correct the "problem"?
Its not that I dispute the "scientists", but I distinctly remember some of the same "scientists" proclaiming the dangers of entering another ice age in the '70s. As I said, if the earth is still warming in 10 years, I might be persuaded to believe this is something other than the natural cycle of our climate.

CKFresh 04-06-2007 02:40 PM

Quote:

Its not that I dispute the "scientists", but I distinctly remember some of the same "scientists" proclaiming the dangers of entering another ice age in the '70s.
Wrong, there was no consensus among the scientific community in the 70s. That was simply a few scientists and a theory. This is a consensus among the best scientists in the field. The debate is over on global warming, it is happening.

Quote:

As I said, if the earth is still warming in 10 years, I might be persuaded to believe this is something other than the natural cycle of our climate.
Once again, if you truly understood global warming you wouldn't make that statement. The things that are occuring are UNPRECENDENTED. For something to be part of a "cycle" it has to be something that is REPEATING, something that has happened before. That is not the case.

I don't wish to argue this with you any more because you don't have your facts straight. If you wish to look up the statistical data - look up the ocean levels, look up carbon levels, look up artic temperatures and compare them with previous WARM periods that were part of the cycle - then I will continue this debate. Until you understand global warming I don't see any point in arguing it with you.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.