So, I guess we can have a global society that opts to do nothing; to ignore melting glaciers, receding ice caps, loss of habitat for northern life; to write all that off as the special effects perpetrated by the propagandists. That will work much better, won’t it?

Global Warming® a complete and utter lie, a fairy taled foisted upon us by a swindler who flunked out of Divinity School, which should have doomed him to a richly deserved obscurity. Instead, he stood beside the most venal criminal ever to set foot on public property– Bill Clinton– and presided over a treasonous failure to respond to the growing threat of Radical Islamists.

The fatuous gasbag Al Gore and his supplicants in the ’scientific community’ ought to give each and every one of us reason to pause and consider what they’re up to: this is about taking control of and managing the distribution of all energy products. It’s a bald grab for power that would never succeed at the ballot box. Yet there are fools who will unlock and open their own doors and let these crooks into their very homes.

Look over these comments above mine and you will see the seeds of fascism: narcissism bent on out-greening someone else… forced adherence to nameless, intractable bureaucracies that will control where you go and how you get there, not to mention the temperature of your surroundings and your ration of energy.

This crowd plays on fears and emotions and worst-case scenarios. This is the reason the Framers created the Second Amendment.

This is evil incarnate.

However, I see environmental protection more as a moral obligation. Simply coming back to the golden rule, if everyone on Earth consumed like you do what would the world look like? Not a very pretty place I can promise you. That is why those of us fortunate enough to live well enough to waste time arguing over such topics have a moral obligation to take a stand on them. And by stand I don’t mean posting BS on the net, but doing real world things to have an impact.

While this thread cannot agree if global warming exists, at least we can agree on keeping people from getting hurt.

As for global warming/cooling/change whatever, does it matter if it is real? Can we at least agree the the emissions from our factories, (coal/nat. gas) power plants, and motor vehicles are bad? If you are uncertain, may I suggest standing in a closed garage with a car running for a minute or so. I believe that should be sufficient proof, albeit it not scientifically rigorous. Whether or not we are contributing to the change we are seeing in our planet is irrelevant to the argument about whether we should be doing everything in our power to reducing the green house gases we are producing. Even if they are doing no damage to the planet as a whole, emission from cars combined with the emissions from coal power planets are creating smog in our largest cities and this is killing people; albeit it not on the scale of the London Killed Fogs, but people die from smog directly — probably more indirectly via premature aging and disease. Is it wrong to try to change things to keep people for getting sick or dying?

I mean, if they are wrong about global warming and we do all this, what have we lost? Money? We spend more every year as a race blowing each other up than we would lose trying to reduce our dependence of fossil fuels, hell, it may even cut down on some of the fighting when we no longer care about trapped carbon in the ground. Our Economies? It’s be clear, someone is going to get rich making these environmental technologies and someone is going to lose their revenue stream. It doesn’t mean that it will destroy our economies, just change them. This is always happening. Every 50 years or so, there is a major shift in an industry or two and the new kids on the block innovate and change the game, forcing the established companies either adapt or die. I see this as no major difference. Hell, think of it as a way to force everyone to spend money replacing outdated vehicles and equipment with new ones. Government mandated consumerism.

With all that said, though, the the question should not be what if global warming is false, but rather what if they are right and we do nothing? I could think of no greater tragedy.

“those who believe global climate change is not real need to take a science class. go back to your hay stack bed and stfu, scientists have already proven over and over again that global climate change is real.”
ann, i suggest that you take a science class AND take your head out of the sand. If you did your research, you will discover that AGW theory is entirely based in climate models, and climate models are as accurate at predicting the climate as tea leaves are for predicting the future.NOTHING in climate science regarding AGW has yet anywhere near been proven. If you believe it has, then you’re even more gullible and clueless than you appear.btw the current ‘global’ warming isn’t even global.

J, I hope your standards for action reflect a consistency across all potential dangers. I hope your not one of those individuals who justify military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers get thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”. Let me remind you that climate models function using the science of statistics, same as the unproven, just a theory, quantum mechanics. (You know quantum mechanics was used to build the atomic bomb, right?)

I got’yer proof. Right here!