Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?

1. 59

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?
   
   I have no doubt our earth is warming at an alarming rate. One of the reasons I think this is because of the photo I included with the question. Otzi--the Iceman--was frozen over 5000 years ago and has remained that way through all sorts of weather trends until just a few years ago when his icy coffin melted away. This is not just a warming trend my friends.
   
   If you are a climate change denier then please explain why our worlds best scientist are lying about it and why. A conspiracy of this size without leaks is unthinkable.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 66

   awareposted 7 years ago

   Its the man made part that people disagree on.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Somewhat yes, but others do not believe it's happening, despite the evidence. Like some still believe in Noah's Ark. We can't remove the rainforests and spew hydrocarbon fumes into the atmosphere and expect things to stay the same.

      replyreport
   2. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Give me a call and you can hike with me Randy. There is a place where 10 million years is condensed into 1 inch of formation. And the canyon is 1 mile deep in spots. Metamorphic rock dates 2 billion years. Really? People "have faith" in man caused?

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Eric, then why are the world's leading scientists lying about the data? And what is their motive for doing so? Do you realize how difficult it would be to keep that a secret? Get real, dude!

      replyreport
   4. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Cows fart! and my family treats the world with respect but we know that our impact is so minor. 5 volcanoes at the same time. 1 volcano puts more out than LA for 200 years. Such egocentric people really think they have an impact. Morons.

      replyreport
   5. 82

      gregasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      All it would take to end life as we know it is for Yellowstone to blow. And that will probably happen long before man ruins the world.

      replyreport
   6. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So far, you guys haven't given a reason for the worlds brightest scientists faking the results of the data proving global warming is real. Even Trump's secret doings leak out in today's world. LOL!

      replyreport
   7. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Randy I think we are in closer to agreement than some would think. Yes man  has impact. But not enough to change the patterns of climate that has been changing for billions. We hurt the earth as it effects us.

      replyreport
   8. 56

      AL LECOUposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Amen: I agree that there is climate change, daily, but liberals seek to affix blame on human activity which is not settled science as they want you to believe. Calling those who don't agree with their position climate deniers is hysteria.

      replyreport
3. 56

   AL LECOUposted 7 years ago

   John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
   
   Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.
   
   In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.
   
   "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
   
   "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
   
   "I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."
   
   Also> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-w … r-natural/

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Austinstarposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So, the earth hasn't changed according to you? You will only listen to those that agree with you. The majority of weather scientists agree that global climate change is real, and humans are responsible. Not believing them won't help our world.

      replyreport
   2. 63

      qeylerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What I find questionable is that what is the 'Norm?"   The Earth has been hotter and colder during its existence.   Was the Norm when Grapes grew in Canada?  Was the Norm when England was connected to France by an ice bridge?

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Austinstarposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The "norm" would be the optimal conditions of the earth in its natural state, free from artificial conditions imposed by humans or animals. Barring that, the norm would be the average conditions calculated over ttime. Global warming averages are up.

      replyreport
   4. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How about the  Cenozoic  and the Mesozoic and the Paleozoic  and the Proterizoic and the Hadean and the Jurassic time periods? Is someone serious about 1 million years as evidence?

      replyreport
   5. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How long have humans existed in civilized conditions, Eric? When did we really start the industrial revolution and began to clear the land of vast acres of vegetation which keeps the oxygen levels up? Doh!

      replyreport
   6. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Randy, one magma explosion, one massive solar flare and one huge earthquake. Mankind has no influence, we are nasty lame ducks. With that said, I leave a neutral footprint while Gore flies in private jets. Silly people.

      replyreport
   7. 82

      gregasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This planet has gone through so many changes and man was never the cause for any of them. We might have somewhat of an influence on nature, but, like Eric said, a volcano or sun flare. As a matter of fact, it would only take Yellowstone to elawki.

      replyreport
   8. 56

      AL LECOUposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I commend everyone that has commented for keeping their civility on this divisive subject.

      replyreport
   9. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Eric, are you smarter than the scientists? Do you disbelieve the ice packs are melting? Or do you think mankind has no part in this "natural" phenomenon?

      replyreport
   10. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Randy, I think man can and does effect the planet.But I just cannot ignore 5 previous ice ages. For many millions of years there was no ice even in the arctics. That comes from scientists, so I guess I do not think I am smarter.

       replyreport
   11. 86

       Austinstarposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       What is the harm is cleaning up after ourselves? We are definitly creating pollution, garbage, and food shortages right now! Forget previous earth events. We had no control then. But we can control some of this weather change now.

       replyreport
   12. 56

       AL LECOUposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Global warming  is  but  another manufactured environmental crisis whose real purpose  is social engineering.

       replyreport
   13. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Austinstar, I do believe in and live with a tiny footprint. Less is better and reusing is mandatory. I think we can make our planet better for man. But over the long haul we cannot change the climate, it will do as it does.

       replyreport
   14. 86

       Austinstarposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, it's best if we just give it all up and surrender. I'm glad that not all of us feel that way.

       replyreport
   15. 59

       Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Lela, check out the PO hub. Very bad news!

       replyreport
   16. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Isn't it possible to recognize that we have an impact, and yet not go all chicken little. Maybe I do by action, but not a visceral fear. The changes in the next 2 decades might even wipe out 1 million or billion. Isn't that good for the earth? Weird?

       replyreport
   17. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yes I can imagine he shocked "the academics" as he is showing his ignorance.
       In science you have to backup your thesis. The global warming is proven over and over again by many scientist. His claim is 1 against a million. Shockingly naieve!

       replyreport
   18. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Accordingly Peter. The call is obvious. Feelings and beliefs and morals are not at play here. Science and natural law is. So by your logical standards we should let hurricanes, earthquakes wipe out a good billion people. Man must go!

       replyreport
   19. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Of course not Eric, if you can save a human life, or prevent a disaster you should do the best in you capabilities to do so. (I'm not talking about the pro-life thing, that's a different discussion).

       replyreport
   20. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Peter that fact remains. Kill of people is the only route to really limiting our impact. Man made disaster let it be man who extincts man. It is the only solution. Like thinning a herd of deer when they outrank predators you killed off. Simple Scienc

       replyreport
   21. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       And according to which rules, who should be killed and who are the executors? Who is disposable! This way of thinking is a disaster and used in dictatorships where some people find themselves more human then others...

       replyreport
   22. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Absolutely my friend. We go with Paris accords and the US pays for India. India without coal or China without is death to millions of millions but West Virginia only jobs and poor children. This concept of "we bear the burden" is wrong. My children?

       replyreport
   23. 59

       Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Eric, I suppose you agreed with exterminating most of the Native Americans by the European settlers then.

       replyreport
   24. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Going out of the Paris accord was in many ways stupid. Business wise and political. The US doesn't have the right to influence to shape the future anymore. Better to play the game, although you may not like it, then to be an outsider.

       replyreport
   25. 47

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Randy please do not be silly. It is a point being made that if man is the problem, reducing man is the solution.
       Peter I see your point. Only a player can effect the outcome of the game notion. But sometimes a player holds out for more money.

       replyreport
   26. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       There is a price tag on leading the world. Apparently Trump is not interested in leading the world and more in money. This is short sighted. Politically and business wise.
       Other countries like China will fill the gap where the US retreats.

       replyreport
   27. 56

       AL LECOUposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       https://youtu.be/ZDK1aCqqZkQ

       replyreport