<p>^^ Check that source. </p>
<p>Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb created that site and they've been discredited time and time again. They work for fossil companies, not exactly the people who would want to give credit to human made global warming by fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Those questions are definitely biased in way, so much so that certain questions leave out key pieces of information:</p>
<p>The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by:</p>
<p>a) water vapor
b) carbon dioxide
c) ozone-destroying aerosol sprays </p>
<p>The correct answer, obviously is a., however the site fails to mention the how increased CO2 causes increased water vapor levels (positive feedback effect, conveniently omitted by the site authors).</p>
<p>Another discrepancy:</p>
<p>How much Carbon dioxide (CO2) is in Earth's atmosphere today?</p>
<p>a) 10% or greater
b) 2% to 10%
c) less than 1/10th of 1%</p>
<p>The correct answer is c., however does simply stating that CO2 percentages are very low in comparison to other atmospheric gases mean that CO2 doesn't matter at all? That notion is not scientifically valid, as different gases have different properties or interactions in the environment (e.g. CO2 increases heat of water enough to create more vapor)</p>
<p>I'm not going out of my way to defend any "politically correct" beliefs, but I'm just showing how misleading or incomplete statements can be presented to the public.</p>
<p>If the majority of INDEPENDENT scientists (aka not privately funded) have something to say, its probably worth listening to.</p>
<p>I know a lot of people will chalk it up to being political propoganda but seriously take a look at An Inconvient Truth. Some of it is worst case scenario but still it is pretty powerful. That was the rational part of me. Now, I truly believe that if you think that global warming isn't real you are sticking your head in the sand and if you try to convince people that it isn't real you are an ignorant, narcississtic, set-in-your-ways person that just isn't improving the population.</p>
<p>^^ He's got a point. An Inconvenient Truth brings up a LOT of valid points. I STRONGLY dislike Gore and believe him to be a huge hypocrite and a downright liar, but the movie does bring up a lot of good evidence.</p>
<p>^ Glad someone who disliked Gore was able to see past his politicle-mindedness and appreciate the facts! And by the way I am a girl but my horses name is hank. :)</p>
<p>^^ Haha, ok... :). [You can set gender in your profile.]</p>
<p>Wow, this thread is full of some really ignorant and uninformed people. The problem is that people hear only one view one time, and that's their view for a long time to come.</p>
<p>Let's face it. None of us are really qualified to debate this topic; it's all a mere speculation. However, the questions we have raised are many that the media tends to avoid. For instance, you never hear on CNN of anything like long term cycles (thousands of years) or historic changes in carbon dioxide levels (again, thousands of years). Everything in the media is, "Carbon levels have risen this much since 1900, and they're expected to rise this much more by 2050," or "The weather has been extreme lately, hasn't it? I think it's climate change!"</p>
<p>There is a lack of fair and balanced reporting, and therefore a generally accepted theory based on mere speculation. </p>
<p>Global climate change really is irrefutable with the evidence provided by the media and current studies. A climate can be a pattern over 100 years, since that can be considered long term. Climate change is happening, but there's still little evidence that causes alarm. And what's to say the trend won't reverse itself in 100 years' time?</p>
<p>An Inconvenient Truth was so speculative. Flooding Bangladesh, Shanghai and all those cities within 50 years is complete bull.</p>
<p>The graphs weren't ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do have to wonder to what extent this issue is hyperbolized for political reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it exaggerated for political reasons? How could it benefit anyone politically to deny an environmental development like this? Even Pat Robertson believes that global warming exists and is a problem.</p>
<p>It is readily acknowledged that the Earth goes through stages of "global warming" and "global cooling," and stating that doesn't disprove the validity of global climate change concerns. When scientists (I don't actually hear very many politicians talking about global warming...) that we are going through global warming, they are focusing on the way that our CO2 (among other things) output is affecting the change; how much more severe we're making it. TritiumKnight is right, it's all about Climate Change, and al6200, it's all about how man is affecting the cycles.</p>
<p>Rite Jadpd! Everyone chalks it up to be just cycles but if you were to actually look @ the cycles you would see that this time period is FAR exceeding anything that has been recorded for hundreds of thousands of years in temperature,carbon dioxide levels,etc. AND come on, do you really think that fumes, smokestacks, and other industrial wastes are in no way affecting the earth?</p>
<p>better safe than sorry...</p>
<p>"the part that I don't totally agree with is the part that says humans caused it all. I really don't see how that's possible, given the magnitude of the whole issue. I don't think that a little development over the last few centuries will cause the earth to become uninhabitable. Perhaps some resources have been squandered, but that doesn't make the climate warmer."</p>
<p>I take it you've never seriously studied the matter? Maybe you have, i'm not sure. But having spent the entirety of last year studying the concept in Academic Decathlon and IB Biology and this year in AP Enviro Sci, I can tell you that it is extremely likely that human activity can cause such serious changes in climate.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
These cycles are much longer than generations of humans...definitely not a short term thing, which I think is where the problem lies. People are looking at the short term and freaking, when a look at the big picture is what they should be looking at.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>They should be. But the current changes are so sudden (comparatively speaking) that we can't consider climate change to be a long-term issue. A look at the last hundreds of thousands of years will show you a periodic graph, but in the last couple centuries, tempature has increased much more than it theoretically should have - an indication of something drastic.</p>
<p>heres the thing. every reputable scientist in the world who isn't being funded by oil companies or car companies or politicians believes that global warming is happening and we're causing it. so unless you're a college professor doing research in this area or you've won the nobel prize in science, do you honestly think that you know more about this topic?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Scientists discover new species every week, so how can people predict when half the species are going to die out.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>We can't predict when half of all species will die out, because we don't know how many there are. What we do know is approximately how many species die in a given period of time (preferably a relatively long period to reduce sampling variability). And right now, species are dying faster than they were during the Permian extinction, one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history.</p>
<p>To Narcissa: I hope that was a generic comment instead of a reply to me, because I agree with you. : )</p>
<p>it was : )</p>
<p>@ proletariat2: well that's great. the weaker species die out, and the stronger ones survive. Synthetic Darwinism here :P</p>
<p>^ Except that you need weaker species for stronger species to feed on. Get rid of the lower species and the higher species die as well due to lack of food.</p>