Customer Discussions > An Inconvenient Truth forum

Global Warming is a myth

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 922 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 25, 2007 12:09:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2007 12:12:26 PM PST
J. Chan says:
Man, people need to wake up and start looking at facts, not this liberal, socialistic propaganda being shoveled by environmental nazi's like Gore. Scientific fact does not support Global Warming. The environmental nazi's use Global Warming as a scare tactic to push there own agenda.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down."

Typical liberal tactic, when they are proven wrong, they just change their story. How can anyone trust hypocrits like that?

Liberal, socialist, environmental nazi's are the reason why we are going broke having to pay for higher gas prices (environmentalist block the drilling of our own oil reserves), constant smog related expenses, higher prices for everything because of additional environmental costs imposed on industry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 7:04:41 PM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
Piers Corbyn relies on a secret formula to predict weather. If you email him maybe he'll let you bet along with him. He posts some anecdotal successes on his website.

Until Corbyn can reveal his secret for scientific verification I'm sticking by my science. Otherwise I'll call my sister and tell her to bring over the Ouija board.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 7:23:30 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
How confident do you feel that your OPINION is correct and the majority of scientific EVIDENCE is incorrect? Care to place a wager? Somehow, I doubt it. But we are all making a dangerous wager right now by not doing anything to counter the global warming problem. Despite Gore's involvement and Republican unwillingness to do anything, this should not be a political issue any more than banning CFCs was. Scientific knowledge is what makes your car run, it's what keeps your drinking water clean, it's what allows you to see this web page. Science should be trusted on this matter as well. The scientific evidence in this film is well researched. I would challenge skeptics to watch this DVD and attempt to find fault with the points Gore raises.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007 7:51:58 PM PST
J. Chan says:
Stop being so clueless, spend a few minutes and do a google search on the Myth of Global Warming. Also stop being so gullible, believing the garbage spouted by the liberal Gore, a known lier and clearly deluded in his own importance and knowledge.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2007 8:06:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 27, 2007 2:36:58 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
J.Chan: Unlike yourself, we "liberals" (if that's how you choose to think of everyone to the right of Gengis Khan) do try to keep an open mind. Perhaps labeling others as "clueless" is some sort of Freudian projection? I DID Google "Myth of Global Warming" and the results were not the least bit surprising. Top ten hits included a 10-year old opinion piece (which is from a TV show that seems to only exist on that website), amateur sites referencing that site, and other sites I wouldn't exactly trust as authorities on science like "".

For those of you who aren't close-minded and are willing to take an honest look at this issue, please find time to view "An Inconvenient Truth" and consider its message. For others, like Mr. Chan, please take your ignorant quest to bend reality to your intransigent prejudices somewhere else.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 27, 2007 8:34:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 27, 2007 8:36:32 AM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
Sorry Mr. Chan, but Ryan is correct. Labeling everyone liberal isn't going to change science. That's why Isaac Newton developed the scientific method - so that it would stay objective.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 2:48:19 PM PST
J. Chan - I think there is something wrong with you. Didn't you know that facts & statistics can be used to prove and disprove just about everything? The point you are missing is that it is not worth the risk. It's more than just climate change - it's everything, it's the attitude. Listen carefully, because it is ever so simple: Do the right thing. You know in your gut what the right thing is, and the right thing is to look after humanity, look after the environment and look after the world, regardless of your facts and figures.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 3:54:58 PM PST
R Deschane says:
you bring up a valid point about drinking water, here we are spending loads of money in looking into a problem that is hundreds of years in the future while the number three cause of preventable death today is tainted drinking water, common sense says we should worry about the things that are killing us now spend money on TB meds and vacinactions and clean drinking water not green peace non sense that has no accoutiblity, years in the future were going to be kicking our selves in the butts over all this non sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 3:57:22 PM PST
R Deschane says:
mr. chan keep up the good fight it is nice to know some people have some common sense out there and are willing to think for themselves, you might find the eugenics movement of intrest its what happened the last time science was in the hands of celbrities and politicians and that led to millions of deaths.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 4:02:47 PM PST
R Deschane says:
i would like to point something out to you about the scientific method, peer review is an important part but in this science people are not using the scientific method, take a drug trial for instance, they use double blind studies, and the people who collect the data pass it along to others who figure out what it means, this is because people are flawed their pre existing belifs will of course lead them to the outcome that they want. on top of that is the fact that no one is going to donate money to a cause unless its of global importance hence every enviromental group out there is protecting thier revinue just as much as the oil companies every one thinks are evil, oh and thanks for your reply to my other post, it was a well articulated argument but i still fail to see how such a small amout changes the temprature, not due to your explantion just because of the numbers it would seem like you would need a larger amount.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 8:15:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 28, 2007 8:41:49 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
Wow. Posts like this and your post claiming that "celbrities" have taken over science really speak for themselves. As for needing a double blind study (with other identical Earths, I suppose?), it's cute that you remember something you saw on TV... Perhaps, as with global warming, you couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds Googling a definition of science. Allow me...

Science: "The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation." --American Heritage Science Dictionary

Scientists providing information for "An Inconvenient Truth" (and a larger forum we call reality) use all these methods to accumulate knowledge. Ignore them at your peril.

Now, let me address your (or are they Limbaugh's?) other absurd talking points:
Q: What about scientists being biased?
A: That is why they use techniques like the double blind method and test their theories. I would be more worried about your own biases preventing you from taking an objective look at this issue.

Q: Are scientists are just saying this for the money?
A: Gee... They really should have got an MBA or become lawyers if it's all about money. That would have saved them a lot of time. Please provide me with a list of rich and famous climate scientists when you find one.

Q: Isn't the temperature increase too small to matter?
A: The quick answer is no. Just a few degrees can change long-term weather patterns, delicate ecosystems, sea-levels, and lots of other important things that impact your life. If you think it doesn't matter, try living with a drought that lasts for decades like those in Ethiopia.

You REALLY need to see this DVD --it answers all these simple questions!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 28, 2007 9:39:10 PM PST
R Deschane says:
sorry about my spelling, next time i'll type this with my dictionary in hand, i know the truth and by the way why dont you look into what Al Gore charges for his lectures or speechs and then tell me this is not related to money and power. Truth is truth you cant change it with arguments its just the way it is, and years from know when all this news driven fear has been played out we will laugh at how people manipulated us, look at the short term, I am a republican but i try and be fair, Bush manipulated us into a war by playing on fears of terroirism it was wrong and he has done long term damage to the party, i admit it but Gore is trying to use fear of global warming the same way, i know you have science to back your self up, its your security blanket you rely on what your told you listen to talking points and you follow the herd. I look at the facts, and i try and live by them in cases were my oppion and fact dont meet i am honest, the death penality for instance is wrong for many reasions evidence holds this true, yet i think some people deserve what they get even if the death penalty is wrong.

double blind studies are ways of controlling the data so that personal ideals do not ruin the data sets, people study this data already beleveing in global warming, the scientific method not science is what i am refering to you can go out and take the temprature of your backyard every day and i am sure you will find a way to validate you ideas, but thats not what science is about.

ok scienctists are not biased but no one is stupid they want funding they warn of the earth ending not every thing is honky dory, also the idea that we are changing the climate and have controll would be great i wish it were true because it means we might have a shot at holding onto this bull a little bit longer but the real inconvrnirnt truth is were all everything on the planet just along for the ride and as such this planet may not always be favorable for us to live on, thats the cold hard truth its ugly but if you want to keep blaming cars so you can delude your self into thinking we can fix the planet when it decides to promote another species go ahead.

lastly put this in your peace pipe how often are weather predictions acurate most of the global warming information is based on complex computer simulations, and untill you can tell me what the weather will be next week, i doubt we can figure out climate one hundred years from now.

ok i lied this really is the last thing, religon is not science to many people with out religon are putting thier faith into science and in a bad way, because you cant change religon, taking care of the planet is not about Gore or any other politicans rehtoric its about taking care of the people and right now i think we should worry about the people dying today its not like we have todays problems figured out maybe we wont be here in a hundred years because we were to worried about wether it would be half a degree hotter.

also heres a nice riddle mr know it all, if tempratures rise as co2 levels raise how do you explain the thrity year cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 i think thats right, you know the thirty year period where everyone said we were going into and ice age? care to comment on the actuall global cooling trend, if your in Cali its a cold winter, and it seems so sad to blame global warming for wait whats the new buzz word oh yah "extreme weather" dude rightous.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 5:59:04 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2007 6:03:21 AM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
R, I am also concerned for people dying today. The unusually intense weather systems spawned by global warming are already here. Two years ago there were three monster systems, including Katrina. Last year with the el Nino effect reversing brought Hurricane John, I believe that was the first Category 5 to hit off the North Pacific...

I believe you are right to ask questions, such as the one about 1940 to 1970 cooling trend. Although sunspots aren't dominating the weather trends today, they may have caused that small downward trend offsetting global warming for awhile.

R, it's time to break from Limbaugh, Stossel and Coulter. They haven't served you well in the smallest amount. Sure, scientists need money to continue what they do, and environmentalist do want money to protect the planet. You can rest assured that either will serve you better than those who actively deceive you. Even if politics is a problem for you, you can still find environmentalists of every political persuasion if you try.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 11:44:25 AM PST
R Deschane says:
i know who limbaugh and coulter are but i have never listenend to either one and i have no idea who stossel is, I dont recite other peoples thoughts i try and read books, i know its a shocker for instance el nino's are global weather patterns that have nothing yes nothing to do with global warming go ahead and look into it. the best thing i heard about this whole argument is Gore blames everything on mans impact on nature mother nature is deadly enough with out our help. The fact is like i said you guys can spin the facts whatever way you want but the predictions made about where we would be today were 300 percent wrong and most predictions are heavily effected by volcanic activity, which last time i checked humans cant controll, all i am saying is we dont know enough about our planet to make predictions about the future we cant even say what the weather will be next week, so maybe we need to stop looking at this from such a firm unmovable ideal and move towards a perespective where you and myself can change our minds based on evidence not what Gore, or limbaugh oor coulter tell us to think. (i really dont listen to them, who is stossel, he write any climate studies?) and to re stress my point i change my mind, and enviromentalists should be able to as well, but when you get contrdicting eveidence you spin the truth to explain it a way or bash it the same way some consevitives bash you. Change is good but religons cant change.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 12:58:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2007 1:09:45 PM PST
peppergirl says:
Gore does not blame man for everything when it comes to global warming. He admitted that in his movie. The bottom line is there are things that we can do on our part to prevent some of the unnecessary pollution that goes into our atmosphere and into our oceans. And keep in mind, when there are natural disasters, our planet seems to bounce back quicker than when we have man-made disasters. Does the Chernobyl or the Exxon Valdez disasters ring a bell with anyone? And one more thing. Yes, I do believe that there are weather patterns and cycles. However, these weather patterns and cycles are getting more intense and I would have to believe that is due to climate change.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 4:29:32 PM PST
B. C. Latta says:
Finally someone with some unliberal sense. Didn't think there was any out there but was I shocked!! you are right on!!

Sick of the socialistic propaganda!!
Kudos to you!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 5:09:30 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
O.K... One last time... If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and you're too stupid to use a spell checker, please take your ignorance elsewhere. Have you tried posting on TownHall, FreeRepublic, or the FoxNews bulletin boards? As evidenced by our president and their support of him, gentlemen with your "special" intellect would be welcomed by those forums. Please don't bother commenting again unless you have something to say about this film. Could you at least post your unwanted comments on the Amazon page for a CD you haven't heard instead of here?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2007 10:01:53 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2007 10:07:10 PM PST
R Deschane says:
i'll spell it out for you slowly this time, your rude and all you can do is call me names you don't know the science because all you have is a movie by a self serving politician, all they (and i mean all of them republican as well) care about is what best serves their own legacy, and i may not have seen the movie but i did read his book its a paper thing you open it and read words inside, also if he was such a great american leader he was the vice president right how come those bad co2 levels went way way up while he was in office, he could not effect change when he was in office and his little movie is a waste of the worlds time. I have made an argument i called you rude but my whole reply was not just calling you stupid, or ignorant and i'll post here because i have read the book, so I have a question just for you Ryan how can something that takes up less then a half of a half, .04 percent effect the planet co2 makes up less then .04 percent of the atmosphere thats a fact, cant argue with the numbers if it was represented as a football field co2 would take up less then half an inch, so you have low low levels, oh and by the way his hockey stick graph has been disproved or have i lost you. when the truth is eventual out you will swing in line and lie like every one who has ever been wrong, the real inconvenient truth is were still stupid monkeys who don't know a dam thing about how the planet works and we wont until we get this habit of grabbing things and becoming unwilling to change such as your self. The truth is out there and you will get a good dose of it, so do what you must complain to amazon about me, try and blast my right to freedom of speech, telling me not to comment while you throw you ideas where ever the hell you want to.
i'll bet if you lived in the past you would have stoned Galleo for saying the earth revolved around the sun, because in the end you just go with the herd, your a flat earther no imagination and no ability to look beyond what the magic box in your living room tells you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 6:19:51 AM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
R, I'm going to break with Ryan here. I am here to answer whatever questions you have. I am a public servant and a teacher here and in the professional world.

I suspect that you are not willing to grasp the concepts. You mention that you believe .04 concentrations are not that much.

There are more deadly molecules like Methane that would kill all of us in smaller doses, as well as more benign elements such as Argon that are more plentiful and don't seem to matter. The number .04 is just a figure. In the case of CO2 it happens to be deadly for us in that quantity because it is 30% too high.

Consider the planets Mercury and Venus. It stands to reason that Mercury would be hotter being almost twice as close to the sun as Venus. We also know that Venus has high CO2 levels whereas Mercury has relatively none. It turns out that anywhere on Venus is much hotter than anywhere on Mercury.

If you're going to understand global warming you need to get the firm connection between CO2 and heat.

Limbaugh, Stossel and Coulter, by the way, are about the only advocates of skepticism. You are either hearing them, or you are hearing someone who has listened to them. If you heard predictions in the past that were wrong it is because people like postulating ideas with too little data. Today the data is overwhelming. Indeed we do have a firm grasp of what we are in store for. We are headed for many more bad accidents like Katrina (only worse) if we don't steer ourselves in another direction. If it sounds alarming then excuse me - I care and something can be done. I ask you, would it be responsible or irresponsible for a fireman on noticing a burning building to say to someone excuse me the house is on fire when indeed it is? My position is little different.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 6:36:36 AM PST

Before you start railing against the politicians, you should understand that as our elected officials, you do vote don't you, they are responsible for instituting laws and policy. I should add most people do things to serve their legacy, politcal or not. As for Mr. Gore, Al has been involved with this subject for many years, since 1972, not just recently as some would suggest. He was also an active participant in the Clinton-Gore administration in meeting with Congress and holding public events on the issues of global environmental action. Neither the Congress nor the public at that time was interested in this debate.

As far as the hocky stick theory, can you show me in a peer review report where this has been totally disprooved? This just happens to be one of the other denialist myths. When Michael Mann and his colleagues produced what is now known as the "the hockey stick" graph that showed a 1,000-year correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures, skeptics immediately attacked it as "junk science". These findings however have been collaborated with on a study conducted by Dr. Lonnie Thompson of glacial ice core samples taken from around the world. Furthermore in peer reviewed findings issued by The National Academy of Sciences, one of the worlds most prestigious bodies of science, found in fact: "'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600." and the research done by Michael Mann to be plausible. Their final conclusion is that "current warming is occurring in response to human activities".

Moving forward this will actually be reinforced with Friday's release of the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Which many scientists are now arguing as conservative.

Key findings of the IPCC's fourth assessment report:

* Global temperatures continue to rise with 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 occurring since 1995. Computer models suggest a further rise of about 3C by 2100, with a 6C rise a distant possibility

* It is virtually certain (there is more than a 99 per cent probability) that carbon dioxide levels and global warming is far above the range of natural variability over the past 650,000 years

* It is virtually certain that human activity has played the dominant role in causing the increase of greenhouse gases over the past 250 years

* Man-made emissions of atmospheric aerosol pollutants have tended to counteract global warming, which otherwise would have been significantly worse

* The net effect of human activities over the past 250 years has very likely exerted a warming influence on the climate

* It is likely that human activity is also responsible for other observed changes to the Earth's climate system, such as ocean warming and the melting of the Arctic sea ice

* Sea levels will continue to rise in the 21st Century because of the thermal expansion of the oceans and loss of land ice

* The projected warming of the climate due to increases in carbon dioxide during the 21st Century is likely to cause the total melting of the Greenland ice sheet during the next 1,000 years, according to some computer forecasting models

* The warm Gulf Stream of the North Atlantic is likely to slow down during the 21st Century because of global warming and the melting of the freshwater locked up in the Greenland ice sheet. But no models predict the collapse of that warm current by 2100.


In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 7:15:27 AM PST
peppergirl says:
Jim and Gary-I wish you both could go toe to toe with E. Keech, who has been obsessed with cutting and pasting the same comments with nearly every review for "An Inconvenient Truth". I suspect though that he would ignore any factual scientific evidence that you may have. I'm not a scientist or a teacher, however, everything I have read along with logical reasoning, global warming is real. I wish those who believe global warming is a myth for once would put politics aside. Gore has been involved with environmental issues for several decades now. He honestly cares about what happens to the environment. It is always an uphill battle with government to get laws passed and big business to cooperate. So I don't think Gore is in it for himself or he has something up his sleeve.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 8:35:17 AM PST

I have responded to a few of Mr. Keech's posts in the Comments area. However I quickly realized that Mr. Keech is not interested in uncovering proven science but rather uses each response as leverage to foster more of his debunked denialist theories, many of which are several years old and have been repeatedly disproved. He is inappropriately using the Comments area as a way to debate the topic and spread his misinformation, rather then taking it here to the Customer Discussion forum where I believe he feels it will get less visibility and be more harshly criticized.

I have asked him several times for "peer reviewed" support of his findings, only to be ignored on the question. He rather continues to accuse any real peer reviewed science as propaganda and then pastes another copy of some other diatribe from far Right wing sources.

Rather then play into his little game I would recommend that you post GW "facts" to the Comment based on the Review and ignore responding to Mr. Keech.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 8:51:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2007 9:04:27 AM PST
R Deschane says:
Jim first i would like to thank you for making well reasoned and articulate comments, I want to get one thing out and in the clear i appreciate evidence and science, i try and research issues that concern me and make educated decisions, (that .04 percent thing is on wikipedia, I am not sure if that number takes water vapor into account). Reason and logic seem to be lost in this debate, I am sure you don't like the names conservatives throw at you any more then i like the names i get called, hell some one refused to associate with me because of my views on global warming and the environment, i think this will be my last post here, its clear that i am in the minority about this argument, the truth is i wish it were true, because if we broke it we can fix it, lastly not sure where you live but in LA we have had millions of dollars in frost damage this winter, so how can we be going through global warming if its freezing in la, I know what the argument is, as the polar caps melt it throws off the ocean which causes the temperature to drop, but if that is true, which i doubt because besides one region the caps are growing not shrinking, would that not balance any heating, if it gets to hot the ice caps melt a little then it gets colder and the ice caps grow? right? any way in closing thank you and every one except for R Russon who just seemed to throw names at me for you insights, and time in responding. Also another really important consistant point in this ongoing argument is that people will always discount early miestakes and then go on to say how now we have it right, what i am trying to point out is that we dont know enough about the planet and need to reavalute how we go about learning and trying to fix these problems, years from now people will look back and say well we were wrong then but look now we know everything and repeat the sam basic miestake which is thinking they know more then those who came before them and have everything figured out.

last thing i wanted to add, that .04 percent is a global atmosphere so, in terms of a global problem seems low, i have been trying to figure this out but am not sure what the levels of toxins are in water, IE mercury levels in the ocean or other toxins in drinking water, as a comparison.

FEAR stands for False Evidence Appearing Real so lets not let Fear run how we view the world, you fearful about what's happening to the planet, as are most people.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2007 3:14:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2007 3:29:26 PM PST
Ryan Russon says:
First, an apology to R. Deschane. My animosity is directed mainly at J. Chan, B.C. Latta, and others abusing this forum to insult everyone to the left of their political agenda. Sorry for my loss of civility, but the obviousness of this dire problem and a handful of individuals' inability to put politics aside and embrace reality leaves me exasperated. We're not making this stuff up. How many studies will it take to convince deniers?

Denying this is happening when a mountain of data suggests otherwise is like denying the existence of Hong Kong. Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates right now even if you haven't seen them melting in person. How do you figure that's a matter of biased interpretation of data? If you're still convinced it's a matter of debate, it's only because of deliberate misinformation:

Fortunately individuals, corporations, and even politicians are beginning to discuss the problem and formulate solutions. You may continue your belief that there's something noble in thinking contrary to hundreds of scientists who study climate professionally, but many of us are ready to begin addressing this problem.

One aspect of wisdom is knowing what you don't know and knowing that you don't know it. I defer to professional pilots when I fly commercial jets, and to climate scientists in matters of climatology.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2007 5:28:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2007 5:32:39 AM PST
Jim Harrigan says:
R, please do not mistake my concern for fear. I do this because I recognize that it needs to be done. In the past when I was a soldier it was no different.

By the way, did you hear the story coming out yesterday that scientists were asked to keep quiet? Someone forgot to tell this scientist...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  97
Total posts:  922
Initial post:  Jan 25, 2007
Latest post:  Aug 14, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 15 customers

Search Customer Discussions