Replies are closed for this discussion.
First...you should try and calm down. Second...could you give us a list of what you have actually read (regardless of if it was convincing or not). I really have to know what you've read before I can point you in the right direction.
I'm cool as a cucumber my man, and 've read too much to list.
I'm left with the feeling that you haven't read anything of substance. Could you give us one example of a citable source that you've read? Just one???
whoa.. I'm sorry but it seems like you are jumping to major conclusions when there are people who are actually taking the time to look into this. A reasonable mind also recognizes that when there isn't a clear answer, you don't treat the situation as if it doesn't matter. I'm not one to go around saying the planet is warming up and I'm not telling people to feel guilty either. I just want people to be aware that this is the only home we have so far and since the industrial revolution, we've been taking a lot more from the earth and giving less back. Also I suggest recycling and making waste to the trashcan because if you enjoy nature without the interruptions of nasty gum, plastic bags, cigarette heads, crushed cans, and other junk, then please do recycle. But we are also getting better at being more green. There are people right now trying to figure out how to make modern societies more efficient and environmentally friendly. I'm all for the idea because if nature loses then inevitably we will eventually lose to. I'm not saying that this will happen tomorrow but it could if we don't something about it.
Does it mean I need to recycle?
No. Recycling is more about waste diversion. It has some relevance to this issue, but there are more immediate concerns for recycling. If you want the environmentalist line, you should be reducing more than recycling. Recycling, while preferable to landfills, is not typically an efficient process (depends on the material though).
Does it mean that giving money to Al Gore should soothe my conscience? (Catholics call this an indulgence)
No, Al gore is not that important in the AGW debate. He's a celebrity advocate for environmentalism, and I'm sure he is involved with certain programs or funding/ lobbying campaigns, but the man himself has little significance.
Does it mean that I should feel guilty or ashamed?
I doubt anyone cares if you do. It has no impact on whether or not AGW is real and actions need to be taken to stop it. If someone is trying to make you feel guilty, they're trying to motivate you to act one way or the other.
Climate CHANGE. Is this just an extension of Obama propaganda?? Hotter, colder. Better or worse.
No, climate change is not a new term. It's older than his administration. It documented at least back into the 60s, when Obama was a child.
I ain't feeling guilty about SHIT until my rational mind verifies pertinent information. Call me old fashioned.
It's a complex issue and will always remain complex. We're talking about the entire global climate. If you're waiting for a nail in the coffin or a smoking gun piece of evidence, it's likely not going to happen in your lifetime. Fully understanding global climate is an unfolding science. It won't always be precise, neat and tidy. Bits and pieces of the puzzle will be outright wrong, as is the case with any branch of science.
If you want to evaluate pertinent information, your expectations will have to conform to the inherent complications in studying global climate, not the other way around. But like I said, I doubt many people care how guilty you feel. As general goodwill I'd rather you not feel guilty about anything, but in the context of AGW? Don't care.
As far as I can tell, the sky is not falling.
Well, you keep an eye on that while Sarah Palin keeps watch on Russia for us.
I wrote about this in depth some months ago.
Looks interesting. I don't have time to read it right now, but if it's got good data sources and verification sources, I will consider it very informative.
It may be that any belief of this kind, could be called an illusion as there is no proof or evidence that can stand up to the test of reality.
A belief is certainly a mental construct. We're getting into Kant territory, since we only experience the world through our 5 senses. We live in the phenomenal realm, and we can never actually experience the noumenal (actual) one.
I recently watched AronRa make a good point, and I try to follow the lead. I will use my reason, meaning that I can and do change my mind when I come across and verify good information.
In a larger sense, living in the information age also means living in the misinformation and disinformation age.
Right now, it still seems like a lot to swallow: 1) planet is getting warmer, 2) it's due to human activity, and 3) global warming is bad.
But it isn't even called global warming anymore. I've found that euphemisms are used largely by those who want to conceal, rather than reveal truth.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a religious belief to many.
There is little doubt that the globe is warming. The dispute is over the cause(s).
Global warming and cooling are hardly unprecedented. This is easy to understand and feeds the argument that we're just experiencing a natural climate cycle.
On the other hand, the techniques used to attempt to prove that humans are the primary cause involve extremely abstruse science, fraught with assumptions and statistical tweaks often used to smooth over (ignore?) seemingly contradictory data.
I'm not saying that humans are not the cause of global warming. I'm saying that proving it to the common person and even to many non-climate specialized scientists is probably a practical impossibility, leaving us with a "because we say so" from those climate scientists who see humanity as the cause. In other words, the science is hard to understand.
Then "climategate" came along and we discovered that there were climate scientist politics going on. That didn't help.
In fact, there is a group of scientists, the meteorologists, who are skeptical of the climate scientists' data. When I refer to meteorologists, I don't mean that cute girl or guy who talks about the weather on your local TV station. If s/he's a meteorologist at all, s/he's almost certainly not a PhD. I'm talking about professors of meteorology, meteorologists working for NASA, and other real scientists. This article makes an interesting read when it comes to meteorological skepticism.
Then, economist Bjorn Lomborg, not a true climate skeptic, argues that concern for climate change has become out of proportion and that we have many other problems to deal with. Here is his TED talk on the subject:
It's damn near impossible to find a non-controversial data source on the subject.