Jul 11
If that isn’t enough please watch this video (10 min) about the film An Inconvenient Truth.
TruthMission
Search for truth and discuss difficult issues in a safe place
Follow me
If that isn’t enough please watch this video (10 min) about the film An Inconvenient Truth.
November 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
to think that you listen to these oil rich liars is really sad. the big oil companies have a hand in everything stating the contrary. you are just looking for an excuse to continue living your unsustainable lifestyle as long as possible.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Please give me evidence for why my position is incorrect. I am not looking for an excuse to continue a certain lifestyle. I am interested in the truth.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Hey Andrew,
Good to see your checking out my blog.
In response to your comment:
Just as mentioned in the second video. There is a consensus but what they agree on may be minimal. I believe they mentioned agreeing on the earth warming .74 degrees Celsius over the past 50 or 100 years.
I have heard someone argue with pro-global warming person and they said that Venus and Mars were warming up slightly as well and asked how would SUV’s be causing that? The pro-global warming response was “well that is because those planets are closing to the sun”. An argument that is not only untrue but it fails to address the point.
My point is I have yet to hear a logical position that would lead me to believe that global warming is of any significance and is caused by humans. If you have one please share.
I have heard that they renamed it from global warming to climate change because they expect cooling or no change over the next 10 years. What makes sense to me is that sun spots cause the greatest changes in our earths climate.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The question remains: does the environment need to be in danger for mankind to try to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle? Shouldn’t we all be ‘doing our bit’ as part of good conscience?
Another question: you claim to write a blog that promotes the truth, but all you often seem to do is post a video someone else has created, often without even comment in your main blog. You only volunteer opinions in response to comments when you do this. What’s the point in that?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I think we should do our part on helping the environment but I don’t think that includes “reducing your carbon footprint”. I think we should make more harsh chemicals in our everyday products illegal. I think we are poisoning ourselves. I think the global warming puts the focus on carbon and is just another way to tax the people.
I will try to add more commentary when a post a video. I generally agree with the videos I post so comments not always necessary.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
The video I linked to at the bottom states that the IPCC’s upper limit for sea level rising is 23 inches by the year 2100. If this was the case how bad would that be?
I don’t know enough about Venus or Mars to argue against your point so I will just drop that argument.
Al Gores movie shows a correlation between carbon levels and the temperature of the earth. Correlation does not equate to causation and in the video I linked to they actually state that the opposite is true so that after the temperature increases then the carbon levels increase.
I believe that the earths temperature goes in cycles. In the 70′s they were worried about global cooling. We may simply be in a warm period and that .74 degrees is not significant in the context of heating and cooling cycles.
I am not saying it is the case but I would not rule out the whole conspiracy idea. Who stands to benefit from a carbon tax? Who funds the researchers? Researchers that find evidence to the contrary may not continue to get funding. In fact I just found an article that shows just that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
I can’t base my believe on how many people believe a certain thing. It needs to make sense to me on a logical level.
If you have a logical argument for significant global warming caused primarily by human activity I would like to hear it. My opinion is not carved in stone.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
This just shows how high sea level relative to the rest can cause problems. What about if sea level as a whole went up 23 inches (which may or may not happen)?
I didn’t say there was not correlation. I said that correlations does not equate to causation.
In the 70’s they were worried about global cooling. Around 2004 is when people started really worrying about global warming. Now we can expect a “cooling period” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm) over the next 10 years so we change the name to climate change.
I don’t think it is our job to essentially play God and try to regulate the temperature of the earth. I don’t think our efforts would have any significant impact in that regard. I do however believe that pollution (not carbon) should be reduced overall.
To me the global warming thing seems like another way to get the people to be fearful and in this case give more money and power to government.
Al Gores movie is full of errors from what I remember. Here is one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
I think we may choose to agree to disagree at this point. I admit I am not a scientist and it is possible I am missing something as this subject can get highly technical. But when I look at the big picture and considering the erroneous and fearful nature of “An Inconvenient Truth” I don’t think climate change is of any concern.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hey Andrew listen to this: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/homeschool/3_HS08_Lilley.mp3
July 30th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Everyone has their own agenda — people do not want to believe that global warming is happening— why is that so when the evidence is beyond dispute?
It’s very simple to understand the logistics—-
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
Greenhouse Gas Overview
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. This section of the EPA Climate Change Site provides information and data on emissions of greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere, and also the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. For more information on the science of climate change, please visit EPA’s climate change science home page.
Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (“High GWP gases”).
—————
In my humble opinion, despite climate cycles, it is irresponsible and head in the sand mentality, not take responsibililty for mankinds effect on our envirionment, our world, our survival.
Who can deny that in the past hundred years our industrialization and technology hasn’t created problems for the environment, not to mention new diseases that no one understands.
It is our hubris and selfishness that reconcile denial.
Global warming itself won’t be what destroys the ability to survive on earth.
August 10th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Sorry for her condescending tone. I think we might just want to agree to disagree on this subject.
August 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
You claim to seek truth. You ask others to give you logical debate to your points. Where is your truth? Where is your logic? Can it be found anywhere other than random links or youtube videos? Anyone could compile information on the internet to support just about any idea. But how is what you post anymore true or logical than the completely opposite perspective? Since you ask others for truth and logic, I think it’s time you provide some of your own.
August 10th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
You make a good point. I will try harder to articulate my positions.
However I will only go so far. I can’t spend all my time responding to everyone’s comments. I could go on debating forever an still not convince everyone. In this case I think it best to agree to disagree and move on. Remember I am just one man and I could be wrong.