Welcome to the Axosoft Community, Sign in | Register | Help
in Search

Hamid Shojaee

Random Thoughts about Axosoft and technology

Global Warming is a bunch of Hogwash?

What proof do I have to support my statement that “Global warming is a bunch of hogwash?”  None, of course!  Because if I actually tried to provide a shred of evidence, my whole argument would fall apart.  That doesn't seem to stop many so-called “journalists” at a growing number of partisan publications.  Aren't journalists suppose to promise to uphold a code of ethics?  The Society of Professional Journalists puts out this Preamble:

“... Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

“Public enlightenment,” “fair and comprehensive account of events and issues” - those are noble ideas.  When was the last time you read a fair and comprehensive account on anything?  Instead of seeking truth, they are giving their views as fact; instead of fair and comprehensive, it's more like one-sided and brief; and instead of enlightening their audience, often times their intentions are to manipulate and spin. There are many exceptions to my statements, of course, but people like Anderson Cooper seem to be a dying breed.  Instead, we seem to be bombarded by more and more so-called journalists who are in fact prostitutes.  They tend to be on the right or on the left and whichever side they fall, there is no amount of data or facts that could change their minds.  It's a shame that we call these people journalists. 

Yesterday, I saw the movie An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary, which is mostly based on a presentation on Global Warming that former VP Al Gore has been giving around the world for years.  The movie is definitely interesting, causes you to think about all sorts of information and even more importantly, all sorts of mis-information.  One of the lines in the movie that had stuck with me was the question of whether or not global warming was being caused or, at the very least accelerated, by human actions.  If you were to ask me this question prior to seeing the movie, I would have responded “yes, global warming is probably partically caused by human actions” but I would have quickly followed it with “but who knows, the earth could be on some sort of warming cycle that we happen to be in the middle of.”  As it turns out, the scientific community, people who spend their whole lives studying this issue, would not have a “but who knows” response.  Out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific studies that were examined, the number of dissenting views as to the cause of global warming is a big whopping - are you ready for this - ZERO!

That totally blew my mind.  I had figured there would have to be at least 5 or 10% of the scientific community that would disagree with the assessment that humans are causing global warming.  Wouldn't you think?  It seems like scientists can hardly agree on anything, doesn't it?  Well, as it turns out, the reason we all think there are disagreements among scientists is because of journalists.  When was the last time you actually spoke to a scientist?  In The Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore goes on to say that out of several hundred articles regarding global warming in various non-scientific publications, a staggering 53% left the reader with the impression that we don't know the cause.  Where do journalists get their data?  Have they done a comprehensive study of the findings that scientists have published?  How could there be such a huge discrepancy between what scientists are publishing in peer-reviewed journals and what journalists are publishing?  What's going on here?

It just so happened that within an hour of leaving the theater, I headed for a salon to get my hair cut.  While waiting my turn I sat down and grabbed a magazine from the stack of magazines on the table.  Bam!  There it was, a cover story on global warming in a magazine I had never heard of until this point: NewsMax.  I got excited.  I saw Al Gore's picture on the cover.  I saw the words Global Warming and thought to myself that maybe Al Gore was wrong; maybe the news and media are going to start covering global warming in the same light that scientists see it.  Within seconds, the disappointment was already setting in.  The full title of the article read “Al Gore Spins Global Warming.”  Hmm...This should be interesting I thought.  Maybe this article will show some of the contradictory scientific data that The Inconvenient Truth hid from its viewers.  On to page 16 to read the full article.

In the first few lines of the article, the authors, Ponte and Morano (how fitting of a name), quickly refer to The Inconvenient Truth as a “science-fiction disaster movie”.  Shortly after, they ask the question “but is the message of Gore's movie accurate?” and they go on to answer their question, as any journalist turned scientific expert on global warming would, “in a word, no.”  OK, so far, they disagree.  I got that.  I'm actually excited to read an article with a different view, especially since it's just an hour after I saw the movie.  I couldn't wait to read all the scientific data that totally discredited Al Gore's movie.  Lets face it, Al Gore is not the most likeable guy.  Since his comments about how he “invented the Internet” I've had it out for that guy.  In the 2000 election, I was one of the idiots who thought he actually lost.  And then here he was trying to tell us about global warming - what a bunch of political BS.  At this point, I was rooting for the NewsMax article.  Come on Moron!  Doh!  I mean Morano.  Give me the scientific data so that I can live with the comfort of knowing that my actions are not causing global warming.  I can't handle the guilt.  I'm ready to blame mother nature or completely deny that it's happening.  Just show me anything, anything that appeals to reason.

Reason, my friends, was too much to ask from Ponte and Morano.  Not a shred of scientific evidence was provided in the article to support the view that global warming is not happening or that it's not being accelerated by human activities.  Instead, they chose to do a smear job on Gore.  First, they got hung up on one or two specific points of contention in the movie and concluded that if he's wrong about these 2 points, he must be wrong about everything including global warming.  Another mini article in the same issue by Jim Meyers explores that Gore's movie must be the prelude to another Al Gore campaign for the Whitehouse.  Yes, yes.  Al Gore has been giving his global warming speech for the past 6 years to people all over the world, in India, China, South Korea and other developing nations, so that he could run for President in 2008.  You have to admit, that's a brilliant strategy.  If he could only get 5% of the vote of China's population alone, that would be enough to seal the victory for US presidency.  But there is that pesky electoral college thing.

I'm actually quite happy to have read the NewsMax article.  A little bit of research showed that NewsMax founder, Christopher Ruddy, does not believe in the journalistic code of ethics.  Far from it.  The entire organization has a conservative, right-wing view, and apparently, global warming is only a left-wing problem.

So the NewsMax article got me thinking...the issue of global warming needs more awareness.  More awareness from the right, the left, the center and everywhere in between.  It doesn't matter where on the political spectrum you fall because you're going to breath the same air as everyone else around you.  So unless you're putting food on your table from profits of gasoline or coal, this is a movie worth seeing. 

A Call To Action

I've made the decision to pay for every single Axosoft employee, their families and their friends to go see The Inconvenient Truth.  If there are going to be organizations such as NewsMax who are going to spread false information, we all need to counter this effect by making sure that people are well informed.  I remember these sorts of debates surrounded smoking cigarettes and whether or not it's bad for you, long after the scientific community had already concluded so.  How many lives would have been saved if journalists had not participated in the misinformation? 

I encourage you to go see the movie and if you happen to be in a position to encourage someone else to see it or like me, if you happen to be the CEO of your company, then do what you can to get the message out.  It's worth it!  To learn more about The Inconvenient Truth, visit the site ClimateCrisis.org.

Published Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:14 PM by Hamid

Comments

 

Anonymous said:

Actually Gore didn't say he invented the internet, the media did. He said he was there when it was invented, which is accurate as he was involved in the funding that created the actual internet...and so say the scientists involved.

Just another proof of manipulation of facts.

Originally posted by:
prolukr
July 10, 2006 2:55 AM
 

Hamid said:

Thanks for the correction. -H
July 11, 2006 5:45 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - Thanks for the time, energy, thoughtfulness and, yes - the courage - it took to write this post. More people need to get this issue out there, in as many forums as possible. Global warming is absolutely NOT a political issue - as Al Gore states in the movie, it's truly a moral imperative to do something about the environmental crisis. There are organizations - such as www.Carbonfund.org - to which you can donate money in an effort to offset the carbon you produce. Cool idea! The NRDC and ClimateCrisis.org have lots of other great ideas for helping out... if we all make just a few small changes, the results will be enormously helpful. Thanks again for getting this idea out there.
:-) Angie

Originally posted by:
angie
July 13, 2006 4:33 AM
 

Hamid said:

Angie, thanks for the compliment. Carbonfound.org seems like a very interesting idea. I have to definitely research that further.
July 14, 2006 7:27 AM
 

Anonymous said:

I have read the science - but the parts science do not address regard the regular warming/cooling cycles that exist. Parts of northern Canada at one time had tropical folage (palm trees) and we know that there have been multiple ice ages that go back and froth. All of this happened before Ford Explorers!

So while I believe man has influence, I am still not convinced we are the root cause.

Originally posted by:
Rob
August 10, 2006 4:56 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Since, you expressed interest in finding out about opposing views, etc... Here's 3 links to further reading on the "opposing" views, including a list of scholarly scientists who disagree with the IPCC:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Enjoy Ciao

Originally posted by:
Chad
August 10, 2006 6:06 AM
 

Anonymous said:

One more link I forgot to add:
http://envirotruth.org/myths.cfm

Originally posted by:
Chad
August 10, 2006 6:08 AM
 

Hamid said:

Rob, like you, I also knew that earth has had millions of years of cooling and heating that have occured very naturally. And Like you, I knew that something was happening right now, but I thought that the scientific consensus was unsure of whether or not what we were going through had anything to do with the greenhouse gas emmissions.

However, as it turns out, the scientific community does not dispute that greenhouse gases, such as those put out by Ford Explorers (or my own Mercedes SUV) are definitely accelerating global warming far faster than we've seen it occur in millions of years prior to now.

Chad, my argument is not that there aren't "opposing views" as you call them. It's just that the opposing views are not "REAL" scientists who have done any peer-reviewed studies. Most opposing views are by journalists with absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC background.
August 10, 2006 6:45 AM
 

Anonymous said:

So you have your mind made up already. That's cool. But don't try to frame your position in some faux intelligent lining. Look on the Internet. There are TONS of links out there to rebut Gore's movie, and yes, there are even scientists in that mix. The simple fact is that if any scientist argues against the religion of human-caused global warming, they are villified, so an intellectually honest debate about this topic.

In short, it seems that your article suffers from the same thing you complain about: complete bias.

BTW, Gore's claim was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This, because, he got a bill through in 1991. The last time I checked, ARPANet, TCP/IP, HTTP, etc. were all cruising along just fine before that time, and without Gore's help. The fact that 2 partisan hacks kiss Gore's butt by siding with him is disingenuous.

Stick to writing software.

Originally posted by:
Dan
September 12, 2006 5:40 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Global warming is happening, we know it because the oceans are getting warmer. Oh wait - recent trends are a cooling pattern in the oceans. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Only a trace amount of the elements that make up green house gases are atributable to humans - the vast majority are naturally occuring. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Global warming leads to a higher amount of water vapor, which would increase the cloud covering, leading to cooling... maybe, they don't know.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/3

Oddly enough, right where I'm sitting just 15,000 years ago there was a glacier. Over time it melted, and this was long before man made effects caused the thawing - go figure.

Originally posted by:
Rich
September 12, 2006 6:03 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Couple more things to add..

William M. Gray, argueably one of the worlds most famous Hurricane experts says about Global Warming:
"[they have] been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

and
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other."
http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/

And all of those hurricanes we were going to see this year - the ones Al Gore warned us about in his "inconvient truth" movie? Ya.. way way off.
http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm

Count me in the Global Warming skeptics category.

Originally posted by:
Rich
September 12, 2006 6:18 AM
 

Hamid said:

Dan/Rich, here are some things for you guys to consider...

1) There is no disputing the fact that we are pumping billions of tons of ADDITIONAL CO2 gases into the atmosphere every year. Since this is fact, it's indisputable. I hope you're not trying to say this is untrue.

2) The argument could be made, "so what?" Well, here are some more indisputable facts: CO2 causes atmospheric changes (if you don't believe me, put a pipe from your car's exhaust into your living room for a day). Exactly what happens, what region will cool and what region will warm on a global scale is not clearly known - it's all guesses. This is where things fall apart and those with monetary gains from global warming start to create bull shit arguments (much like tobaco industry for 50+ years). However, the fact that something out of the ordinary will happen is again undisputable because the man-made CO2 gases are caused BY CHOICE and there is enough of it to make a global impact.

3) There is a chance that all the changes caused by (man-made) global warming might actually help humanity in some way, but the key thing to remember is that we don't know and we're doing all kinds of things in an accelerated way that might cause a huge negative impact on our lives (at least the way we live today). It’s good to be aware that we’re doing these things.

Awareness is good – regardless of whether you write software for a living.
September 12, 2006 7:36 AM
 

Anonymous said:

How can one be a skeptic of global warming when they look around and the very air is browner, the average temperature is higher, and Petroleum industries are spending millions on mercenary scientists. Its about time we stop arguing over if a problem that is glaring us in the face exists, and time to start fixing all we have done to harm earth.

Originally posted by:
Chris
December 5, 2006 3:59 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Al Gore never claimed to have "invented" the Internet. The urban legend is very thoroughly debunked at http://sethf.com/gore/ and http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Originally posted by:
Anirvan
December 7, 2006 11:24 PM
 

Anonymous said:

There is aot of nonsense spoken about anthropogenic CO2 and climate change. The facts are that man-made CO2 is only 0.117% of greenhouse gases. A member of the IPCC said along with Susan Solomon, Chairman of the IPCC that there we have not found a direct link between man-made greenhouse gases and global warming but we think there is.

Originally posted by:
tony
February 17, 2007 6:53 AM
 

Anonymous said:

The evidence is in the Vostok Ice Core project in which a Russian Research team drilled a 1200 meter ice core in Antarctica. That 1200 meters contains accurate samples of atmospheric composition over a perion of almost 500,000 years.

It shows edidence of 4 cycles of warming and cooling. Each cooling part of the cycle is an ice age in which the northern parts of North America, Eurpoe, and Asia were covered with glaciers up to 3000 meters thick. Each warming part of the cycle, climatoligists call Inter-glacial perionds. The rest of us call it global warming. Elsewhere in the world, fossil evidence indicates that the cycle has been in place for millions of years.

So, if global warming has occurred many times before, why is it man-made this time?

Originally posted by:
Bob Becker
February 17, 2007 10:31 AM
 

Hamid said:

Bob/Tony, For arguments sake, lets say we don't know if global warming is being accelerated by any human actions. The real question is this: Does the millions of tons of carbon that we pump into the atmosphere each and every day have any affect, positive or negative, on a global scale? I think the answer to this question is an absolute YES! With that in mind, should we just assume that our actions do no harm at the global level or should we try to study it and figure out how we can reduce our impact?
February 17, 2007 10:39 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - When the chairman of the IPCC says there is no direct link as yet the answer to your question must be NO. We shall have to see if the latest scientific evidence that cosmic radiation is the cause of global warming is proven. The successful lab experiment suggests that it is. The large scale repeat of this experiment being set up at the particle accelerator in Geneva will prove finally whether it is the sun that causes global warming. How can yu say that 0.117% of greenhouse gases is causing our planet to heat up. It justs stretches science too far. In fact man-made CO2 is equivalent to 10 house bricks laid in a line and the rest of the atmosphere represented by a line of house bricks 142 miles long ! that is how insignificant man-made CO2 is.

Originally posted by:
tony
February 18, 2007 12:22 PM
 

Hamid said:

Tony, the reason your comments are designed to mislead people is because you compare 1 number against another meaningless number. In this case, you compare "man-made co2" output to ALL gases, probably including water vapor from the oceans. That is a meaningless comparison. If you said "man-made co2" was 0.117% of all "CO2" gases pumped into the atmosphere, your argument would hold a lot more water.

You sound like a really smart guy and one that undoubtedly knows the difference between these comparisons. Too bad you've already convinced yourself to view the world in a certain way, Because at your intelligence level, it's very easy for you to shut out all other arguments and focus on arguments that support your position and I'm sure you're going to convince hundreds of people to view the world the same way because you argue better than most.

We need to stay open to the idea that we are having a HUGE impact on our environment. The evidence is just overwhelming.
February 18, 2007 12:33 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - My facts are facts. just that, they are not designed to mislead or to persuade. You must make your own judgement . If you think 0.117% of greenhouse gases is causing the world to heat up then you are entitled to do so. I am not so persuaded. All the scientists who have so far accepted that global warming is man-made are state funded and they lose status if they disagree with the government funding them. I prefer the evidence of independent scientists who have no axe to grind. Even the IPCC is having second thoughts about the matter. I am becoming persuaded by the increasing evidence that in fact we are approaching a cooling period. The hottest year in the world was 1998 and the second hottest 2005. every other year since 1998 has been cooler. Record high temperatures are moving away whereas record lows are getting nearer. The average record national hottest temperature is now 1961 the average record lowest national temperature is now 1964.

Originally posted by:
tony
February 18, 2007 12:45 PM
 

Hamid said:

Tony, you should compare the output of human created CO2 to the total amount of water on earth. It'll give you a much smaller percentage...probably with many leading 0s. Something like 0.0000000078%. And then when you say that the total amount of man-made CO2 is like 0.0000000078% of the total amount of water, some idiots will also be fooled into thinking that means something. Your re-iteration of the 0.117% number means absolutely nothing when you compare CO2 gases to the entirety of all greenhouse gases, including water vapor! Don't be an idiot.

And if by independent scientists you mean those that work for oil and coal companies rather than funded through tax-payer money, again, you are a fool. Also, putting out misinformation like "All the scientists who have so far accepted that global warming is man-made are state funded and they lose status if they disagree with the government funding them" is just plain dumb. State-funded scientists have the most freedom to say what they want, if they didn't, the Bush administration would make sure they would be more in line with the oil companies.

So get your facts straight and don't try to manipulate my audience pal. Take your stupid arguments elsewhere.
February 18, 2007 2:01 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - I don't see any point in your denying IPCC figures. Man-made CO2 is 0.117% of ALL greenhouse gases of which the most important is water vapour. Thus if man was really responsible then Kyoto - bringing down CO2 by 5% would still be insignificant. In fact the estimate for 100% Kyoto success would be a temperature fall of 0.2 degrees. The cost of 78 billion dollars would provde fresh water and food supplies for every poor nation in the World. That to me is far more important than any unproven reduction in temperature of 2 tenths of one degree. Those who support Kyoto are selfish western nations.

Originally posted by:
tony
February 19, 2007 9:43 AM
 

Hamid said:

Tony, which oil company did you say you worked for again? And what drugs are you taking that allow you to think that water vapor and CO2 emissions can be lumped together as having the same level of impact? Regarding your statement "I don't see any point in your denying IPCC figures"...I see a big point in denying stupidity.
February 19, 2007 11:17 AM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - I don't accept figures from scientists working for oil companies or chemical industries or governements. I only accept figures from independent scientists. The others are persuaded to put interpretations on their figures which whilst not necessarily false are twisted. You are correct in assuming water vapour has exactly the same impact as other greenhouse gases are conecerned. The only exception is aviation CO2 (10% of man-made CO2) which has a forcing factor at high altitude but this is substantially counteracted by vapour trails which keep out the sun.

Originally posted by:
tony
February 19, 2007 1:02 PM
 

Hamid said:

Tony, try this experiment: Fill one of your home bedrooms with water vapor, and another room with CO2 emissions. Then spend 10 minutes in each room. Start with the room filled with CO2 emissions. Then come back and tell me how water vapor and CO2 emissions have the same impact on the atmosphere.

Wait, don't reply yet. Do the experiment above first.
February 19, 2007 1:23 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Hamid - We are talking about climate change not human respiration. With respect it is not surprising that you don't fully understand the problem

Originally posted by:
tony
February 19, 2007 1:57 PM
 

Hamid said:

I guess you're one of those humans whose respiration system does not depend on earth's atmosphere allowing you to fully understand the problem better than the general consensus of the scientific community. Thanks for your input.
February 19, 2007 2:06 PM
 

Anonymous said:

Actually, what Gore said was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/goreinternet.htm

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Originally posted by:
Jeff Jones
March 3, 2007 6:22 PM
 

micheal.padden said:

I guess some-one needs to explain the basics of science to some of the posters here.

The 0.117% mantra sounds stupid because it's relevance is not explained. 0.117% of what?

Last time I checked, "Gas" was not a recognised unit of anything, even for those with gas central heating.

The source of the 0.117% mantra is not indicated either. Perhaps it was one of these?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

The following sites might prove useful starting points in self-education:

http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/

March 22, 2007 8:02 AM
 

Cari said:

Hamid, your smiley picture makes your angry responses sound silly...

Truth is, and I find it odd that it isn't obvious to you, if you fill a room with either CO2 or water vapor, you won't last long... neither is toxic at normal atmospheric concentrations, but neither provides the O2 necessary for human/animal life.

I'm no expert scientist, but I do recall from grade school that when we breathe, we consume (from the atmospheric mix) O2 and exhaust out CO2 (in NET terms of course, it's always a mix with N2, water vapor, trace stuff).  Lucky for us, the plants do the opposite...

You might be interested to learn that it isn't a lack of O2 that stimulates you to breathe... it's actually the buildup of CO2... this is why hyperventilating before swimming under water can be a deadly combination... because you black out from lack of O2 before your body reminds you to come up for air... (just an aside I thought you'd find interesting...;o)

Ok, back to my point... what is so "obvious" to you about CO2 belies your lack of understanding of the complexity of the global system and a fundamental inability of our "models" to account for that complexity.  It's not like we just dump all this evil CO2 into the air and it just builds up like mercury or lead would in your body if you breathe it or eat it... There's a vast transfer of CO2 throughout the atmosphere into and out of the oceans, lakes and land mass, through all kinds of processes, some of which are better understood than others. Modeling, by the way, is not science.  Modeling is proposing a complex hypothesis and in this case at a scale that is unverifiable by experiment (short of just waiting...)... Incidentally, did you know Einstein started out studying fluid dynamics (fundamental physics of atmospheric and ocean movements) and decided it was too difficult and moved onto something easier... relativity... good grief.

Why aren't you freaking out about important things like Mercury or other actual toxins in the water supply or the incredible pollution concentrated in some areas like along the Ohio River in Kentucky where asthma has become a chronic and rampant health problem in school aged children.  These are "real" demonstrable pollutants, but it would seem that cleaning up the real pollutants must be set aside in order that the "religion of environmentalism" is established through our guilt over occupying the planet at all.  

Personally, I don't think anyone really knows (yes, I know, they think they do...) if global warming is, much less if it's much of a problem,... and it seems to distract so many from solving real, solvable problems.

What it does do, is gives us something to care about that makes us feel good about ourselves, so we can say, see in spite of the fact that I don't always tell the truth; I have no integrity; I really don't like my mother; I could care less if my boss's business is successful beyond my paycheck; I don't care how it makes my wife feel that like to look at other, possibly naked, women, etc, etc... I'm basically a good person because I care about the earth... paper or plastic? crap.

June 7, 2007 9:25 AM
 

T-SIRM said:

Cari?  Wow.  You called Hamid Angry?  Your rant at the end of your scholarly dissertation seems to be a psycholgical case study...I'm assuming none of those things apply to you, because you don't need to feel good :-)

Anywho, because I'm really looking for the answer, what are we being asked to do to help alleviate global warming, that is so unreasonable (actually many are individually beneficial/cost effective/efficient)?  

Even if you can't do all the things that Gore is requesting what's the restistance to changing a few light bulbs or not using as many plastic or paper bags?  Wow, I can't believe they are requesting such things!

Although, I'm coming across as a smart*** (I actually am), what are you sincere responses to these questions I similar ones?  That people want to feel  good in this day and age really in a sense contridict your own rant?  If all of us are just living and doing this horrible things that we have to offset it by championing a cause that acutally contested or not, has some compelling evidence, why waste our time.  Why would I stop watching hot, naked women to do that?  Some assert sexual evolution compells men to do, so forgive your husband and either divorce him or help him!  Just kidding or at least I hope so...

Sincerely

July 18, 2007 3:12 PM
 

Wayne said:

What comes of this article by Hamid? What's the real agenda? What is the agenda of each of the respondents? What are YOU doing?

It was reported that Mr. Gore's energy consumption at his home, whether he's there or not, is $6,000 a month -- does he buy the carbon credits to compensate for this seemingly insatiable appetite for energy? Carbon credits?

Do you have compact fluorescent bulbs  installed instead of regular light bulbs? What do you do with the mercury inside of those bulbs when they do quit; where does that deadly toxin go?

What is YOUR average monthly energy cost? Ours? Our modest 2,000 sq foot Florida home uses $100 on average (including summer). Our car, a '96 Saturn, gets 36 mpg. YOURS? This car was purchased way before the gas price increase. We can do most of our business by computer. Are employer's willing to allow this "work form home?"

So, what are YOU doing? In our opinion, it comes down to this... respect for our Earth is appropriate. What are YOU willing to do to show that respect? It isn't so simple as many portray. It requires respect for our Earth, personal action, changing YOUR mind set -- not someone else's. For example, go the step further, buy something that doesn't require re-cycling (biodegradable) or you insist on a car that gets 30+ mpg,. YOU do all YOU can do; find out how our pioneer ancestors lived with out trash pickup and went to the general store once a month, then DO IT! Maybe then YOU won't feel so guilty.

July 19, 2007 8:24 AM
 

Rocky said:

I found this discussion interesting. I also am struggling with the Global warming debate.

I typically argue the opposite side of the discussion from others just to try to understand.

The one thing that sticks out in these discussion for me is the tone and direction that occurs. Just last night I was discussing with an individual Global warming. His position was one of strong agreement with Hamid and Al Gore. He too had seen the movie and was convinced global warming was human caused and eventually we were all going to perish because of it. When we started to discuss facts he quickly wanted to discuss “scientists on the take from oil companies”. When I continued to push facts he switched to “it is the right thing to do”.  When I continue to push facts it became an attack, “what have you done to prevent global warming?”

I guess I will attempt to remain open minded, continue to do the small things that are reasonable, that make sense and do not create a financial burden. What I will do is object if the State I live in (or the Federal Government) starts to do some of the stupid things I see other states talking about and doing. Pass a law to mandate away my rights to use the type of light bulbs I choose. And do it without solid evidence that indicates it is necessary and will actually achieve what they want? Give me a break.  

I do have to disclose that as of lately I am leaning towards global warming as being a natural cycle. Not a life threatening disaster.

March 7, 2008 7:27 PM
 

kscb@charter.com said:

The scientist, Mann, from the "hockey stick" has been proven to be a fraud.  Please read Orson Scott Card's espose on his actions.  He "conveniently" (pun intended) extrapolated one figure by over 130% to get the figure he wanted.  In addition, the founder of the weather channel is attempting to sue Gore because he will not debate him on the facts.  England has a ruling REQUIRING schools to point out nine LIES in the Mocumentary before it can be shown in school.  Why have these points not been addressed?  You seem fairly open minded.  I look forward to your response.

March 18, 2008 8:56 PM
 

Keith said:

Sorry, my email is kscb@charter.net

March 18, 2008 8:57 PM
 

Hamid said:

It always amazes me how many idiots there are in this world. I'm done debating the idiots on the subject.

We live in a world where 30% of the population still believes there were WMDs in Iraq and a link between Saddam and 9/11. How are we to convince that 30% that global warming is real and humans are influencing it? We can't. That 30% believes what it wants, but thinks they are being fair and balanced.

March 19, 2008 9:14 AM
 

Keith said:

Hamid,

I find it interesting how instead of a rational response to my points, you resort to calling me an idiot.  How very mature and intellectually superior you must feel.  You are apparently one of the enlightened.  I was attempting an open an honest debate.  Would you at least respond to the English ruling requiring nine lies to be enunciated prior to having the kids view the "documentary?  In addition, I am interested to know if you are knowledgable regarding the scientific method.  I am willing to bet you are.  A theory is an idea not yet proven, by means of other scientist attempting to disprove it intentionally.  We are still light years away from having a LAW.  I am supprised you are willing to stoop to name calling regarding other opinions knowing full well that the Man Made GW is not even as the same neighborhood as A SCIENTIFIC LAW.  I look forward to your response.  I hope you will engage in a civil discussion with a discussion of facts, and refrain from the name calling.

March 20, 2008 7:05 PM
 

Hamid said:

Keith, I'm not interested in arguing with a hired gun who's job it is to misinform and create doubt. The only reason someone would post comments and want to argue about a blog post that's nearly 2 years old is because they are being paid to do it. Get lost Keith. I know how you guys operate. Do a little soul searching and try to find a backbone. There are other ways to make a living.

March 21, 2008 9:41 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled


© 2002 - 2007, Axosoft, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy
Bug Tracking | Defect Tracking Videos | Help Desk Software