Global warming a hoax?

The only people who think it is are either working for big oil or blindly follow the propaganda spewed by fake news outlets. Check out who does believe it's happening? Guess which group is the ONLY one who doesn't believe? The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Things that make you go hmmmmm? Check out this video of the impressive list of people who do believe that man is the cause. It's pretty hard to ignore unless you have your head buried in the sand.

Just keep drinking the kool-aid and send Al Gore a fat check so he can "save" the planet...

Several months ago a climatologist (I think that is what they are called) was interviewed and while he leaned towards man made climate change he fully admitted that climate research is still in its infancy and that atleast a decade or more of research needs to be done to get even a basic understanding of how man has or has not affected our climate and that anyone who tries to claim with certainty that man has or has not affected the environment does not know what they are talking about or has an agenda - AKA is lying.

Something interesting about the video I noticed was some of the scientific groups listed that endorsed the view of man made climate change. The first was the American Medical Association. How does an association of medical doctors have any way of providing an expert opinion? Their medical doctors. If I were to ask my doctor if climate change was man made in her professional opinion she would probably look at me and ask, "How in the world would I know, I am not qualified to make a professional opinion on that?" The funny thing is when refuting the 31,000 scientists part towards the end, this video makes the claim that many of those "scientists" were medical doctors and dentists. So why would you list the American Medical Assoc on your list of those who agree with man made global warming? Seems like a double standard.

The same with the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, how would they have any better idea than the average Joe? Some others that seemed odd: The American Collage of Preventive Medicine, the World Health Organization, the Australian Medical Association (guess have the American one alone was not enough).

It looks to me that the producer of this video was just trying to throw together as many important sounding groups together as he or she could for propaganda purposes regardless as to whether they had any business providing an "expert" opinion or not. My guess is that someone could go around and find several haughty sounding groups who view man made climate change as a hoax.

So basically, do I think man had anything to do with climate change? I haven't the slightest idea and I really don't think anyone else does with as much conflicting data as there is floating around. I agree with the climatologist mentioned above that much more research is needed before anyone (a legitmate climate expert or not) can speak with real authority on what affect man has had on climate change. In the mean time I do think we as a society need to make changes for the betterment of our environment, yes. I when I speak of the environment, I am speaking broadly of environment as a whole and not just specifically of global warming/climate change. I speak also of air and water purity. I was one of the few in Louisville who had no problem with Vehicle Exhaust Testing, I just thought it was stupid that a brand new car was subjected to testing when less than one tenth of one percent of cars less than five years old failed the VET.

There are too many extremes on the views of how to approach the environment. On one side you have those who want to do nothing and if air quality is worsening and the elderly or those with asthma are suffering, the hell with them. On the other side you have the Ozone Al Gore's who want to put the world back to the Medieval times (please note the exaggeration being used to make a point). I think there are several reasonable, common sense measures that can be made. As mentioned, exhaust testing for older cars who make up the majority of cars that failed exhaust testing, people buying more fuel efficient automobiles, people heaven forbit wearing a sweater in the winter is turning the heat down in their homes and vice versa in the summer using fans more and air conditioning less.

I would imagine that groups like the American Association of Wildlife would have to notice how the changes to our climate are hurting wildlife habitat, so I imagine that would be a concern of theirs. The WHO would need to know plenty about it because the changes in our climate effects how disease spreads. Animals and insects migrate and hatch depending on the temperature, etc. People get the flu during certain times of the year, etc.

I just find it odd that people believe that they can continue to pump our planet full of pollution and not expect a negative result. It seems like a no-brainer to me Wyatt.

Quote :

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction/

You can't believe that pumping millions of pounds of CO2 into our environment and not have something happen. It's like some people want to just wait around and see if it's true or not. By that time, it's too late. When you buy homeowners insurance, do you honestly believe your house is going to burn down? No, you buy it just in case it does happen. It's better safe than sorry and sitting around and watching the polar icecaps melt, while waiting for God to come down and say that global warming is man-made is nothing but a waste of time. Since the possibility is very strong that we are doing this, it's better to do something to prevent it instead of waiting around for a sign from God. Or maybe that's what some people want. Sometimes I think people want it all to end so Jesus will come back. It's like they want the world to end or something. God told us to take care of this planet. We are doing a very poor job of that.

You make good suggestions on what we can do to make things better but yet you still fail to believe there is even a problem or that we are causing it. Quite confusing.

Gringa,if you really want to save the planet just start by killing your pets.... One dog has a larger carbin foot print than TWO SUV's............... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

Lucas, Grasping at straws today?

gringaloca wrote:

I would imagine that groups like the American Association of Wildlife would have to notice how the changes to our climate are hurting wildlife habitat, so I imagine that would be a concern of theirs. The WHO would need to know plenty about it because the changes in our climate effects how disease spreads. Animals and insects migrate and hatch depending on the temperature, etc. People get the flu during certain times of the year, etc. .

Doctors and veterinarians may notice increases or decreases in temperatures just like any of us but I do not believe they are more qualified than you or I to say that man is a result of such changes. How could they be? Hence why I am criticizing the producer of this video of adding several groups who are not qualified to make such expert opinions. Again, I find it rather ironic that at the end of the video when he makes fun of the group which quotes 31,000 scientists (or whatever it was) and mentions most were doctors and dentists and yet when he lists his myriad of groups who support his view at the beginning, he lists the American Medical Association, a professional group for medical DOCTORS! I can't see how this cannot be viewed as taking away from this video's creditbility.

The producer was just throwing up as many names as he could come up with regardless to whether they have any business what so ever to make such an opinion. While he was at it, he should have thrown up the American Bar Association or the American Society of Certified Public Accountants - yeah they are attorneys and accountants but who cares, his criteria for whom to add to the list does not seem too terribly restrictive. While the large lists adds quite a bit of show to the video it takes away from the substance.

gringaloca wrote:

You make good suggestions on what we can do to make things better but yet you still fail to believe there is even a problem or that we are causing it. Quite confusing.

How did you get that impression? When asked if I believe man is the cause I made it pretty clear that I DON'T KNOW. In my opinion, neither does anyone else, more research needs to be done due to the large amount of conflicting data. For every bit of evidence the producer of this video could provide, I am sure if one wanted to search, they could find conflicting data on it. As I said before, I think anyone who feels they know for sure one way or the other is uninformed or has an agenda. That agenda could be excessive loyalty to a political party, financial gain, etc.. In the mean time, while the research continues, I think we should take REASONABLE, COMMON SENSE (heaven forbid in these days) action to improve our environment as a whole (there is more to the environment than climate change, I think many people tend to forget or ignore that).

What I am against is the extreme views. One the one side you have those want to do nothing or the bare, bare minimum. On the other side you have the Al Gore Worshipers.

You mentioned buying home owners insurance. You asked do I really think my house in going to burn down. No I don't, that is why I put the highest deductible possible on my policy. My mortgage limited me to $2,500 but I wanted to make the deductible $5,000 or even higher because I think taking no deductible would be too extreme to protect something that I doubt will ever happen. Similar to why I don't think we should go the environmental extremist route for something we are not even sure about.

And for how long have we been told that if we don't take drastic action NOW it will be too late? In grade school (in the 80's) we watched videos from the first Earth Days from the early 1970's stating that if we didn't act immediately it would be too late. In the those grade school classes in the 80's we were preached to that if we didn't make drastic changes by 1990 our air and water would be foul and health issues would be abundant. During the Clinton Gore Administration in the 90's ole Al kept preaching that if immediate action is not taken we would see noticable increases to our temperatures (despite the fact that we just had the coolest summer in my life time and December has been one of the coldest I can remember). Despite all these "the sky is falling" predictions and calls to take drastic action, our air is not so toxic that we need respirators to go outside, most of our waterways are cleaner than they were 30+ years ago (especially for the Ohio River) and we actually seem to be going through a cooling period despite that fact that most of the environmental reform we have done over since 1970 as been pretty mild in my opinion.

So my view is do we need to do more, yes. Do we need to go the Al Gore route - NO! Notice when I say do we need to go the Al Gore route I mean what he preaches we should all do not what he does personally. In case anyone doesn't know, Al owns a very large home which the heating and cooling of it requires results in a carbon footprint much, much larger than the average American home. Hipocricy at its best. It is quite ironic that George W. and Laura Bush live in a much smaller, more modest home which uses the latest technology to make it energy efficient, much of the outgoing water passes through a filter and is used to water the land scaping and garden at the house so it doesn't get wasted by going to the sewer system to be processed, much of the water going into the home is from rain that runs in the gutters and is filtered for human consumption and washing and it heating and cooling results is a rather small carbon footprint.

Actions that I am for: Bring vehicle exhaust testing back to Louisville for ONLY cars over 5 or 7 years old (testing newer cars like we used to do is stupid) and spread such testing throughout the state and country Continue to offer and or increase tax credits for energy efficient improvements to homes and businesses. Keep the gas guzzler tax to continue to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars. Slowly (not drastically as recommended by the nuts) raise CAFE standards so as to keep the auto industry in a habit of continually looking to improve fuel efficiency as they roll out new models and renovate former models. Take five cents of the twenty-five cents of tax on each gallon of gas and appropriate it towards funding expanded public transportation. I am sure if I continued thinking about it I could come up with more common sense (rather than extreme) things we could do but there is my list so far.

I don't have time to read your entire response right now because I have to run errands before 4pm. I looked up AAWV's website to figure out why they would support recognizing global warming as a real problem. Here is their response.

Quote :

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WILDLIFE VETERINARIANS

POSITION STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, WILDLIFE DISEASES
AND WILDLIFE HEALTH

There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin. Consequently, there is a critical need to improve capacity to identify, prevent, and respond to climate-related threats. The following statements present the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) position on climate change, wildlife diseases, and wildlife health.

The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians recognizes that climate change has:

• Serious far-reaching negative implications for wildlife health and conservation.
• The potential to place unprecedented demands on government agencies and other entities responsible for managing and conserving wildlife in North America.

The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians supports:

• The One Health approach with strong coordination and collaboration among all tiers of public health, agriculture, and wildlife management government agencies to address climate change issues of mutual concern.
• Enhancing the capacity of federal, state, and local wildlife agencies, tribal nations, and non-governmental organizations to prepare for and respond to wildlife disease threats and wildlife health impacts linked to climate change.
• Funding research to increase understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on wildlife and ecosystem health as well as to develop and enhance early warning, surveillance and response systems to mitigate the wildlife health impacts of climate change.
• The development of educational initiatives to raise the awareness of the link between climate change, wildlife diseases and wildlife health among all stakeholders.

The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians urges:

• That wildlife management agencies and professionals inform communities, policy makers, other government agencies, and industry of the wildlife and ecosystem health impacts of climate change.
• Active engagement with all stakeholders by wildlife management agencies and professionals to ensure consideration of the potential negative wildlife health and conservation impacts of all aspects of human behavior, consumption, and decision making that may contribute to climate change.
• The active promulgation of policies towards preventing and mitigating the wildlife health impacts of climate change.
• That the wildlife management and conservation communities, including wildlife health professionals, be at the forefront of all planning, policy guidance, decisions and responses related to the impacts of climate change on wildlife diseases and wildlife health.

Apparently they care enough about our planet and wildlife to take this seriously instead of sitting on their thumbs waiting for some proof that man is doing this to fall from the sky (like the list of 31000 are obviously doing). You picked out some of the groups you found questionable. How odd you avoid the major groups who do know exactly what they are talking about because it's all they have studied their entire lives. Hmmmmm

AAWV Link

gringaloca wrote:

Apparently they care enough about our planet and wildlife to take this seriously instead of sitting on their thumbs waiting for some proof that man is doing this to fall from the sky (like the list of 31000 are obviously doing). You picked out some of the groups you found questionable. How odd you avoid the major groups who do know exactly what they are talking about because it's all they have studied their entire lives. Hmmmmm

AAWV Link

I don't doubt they care about our planet, I just don't believe their opinion holds anymore weight on the subject than yours, mine or anyone else's for that matter. I didn't avoid any of the groups but I notice he only mentioned one group that dared question the status quo (a controversial group - big shock he picked that one) but I found it odd that he did not mention the numerous other groups who study the topic and question the findings of the groups he lists. I am really shocked I tell.

The major groups have studied this their entire lives?? In preschool? Sorry, it just sounded funny.

Please take a moment to read my entire response. I am genuinely curious of you opinion on it.