An Inconvenient Truth

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

i wish there was another board... an FOFC alternative... where i could discuss things. someone should make such a message board and put it in their signature. i'd go there. i would.

You are in LUCK, my friend!

www.digitalstadium.org/fofz

The purgatory of FOFC!! I can even set up a "We hate Al Gore" section right alongside the "We hate Skydog" section!

Good times!

EDIT: On a serious note, I have to hand it to Gore -- yes, he's spending money on electricity (like everyone else -- GASP), but at least he's doing something in his own life about trying to help out. The extra money he spends on green power is telling.

I wouldn't vote for him because I disagree with some of his policy opinions, but his focus on the environment isn't one of them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The volcano created localized warming in some areas and localized cooling in others. The combination created a drought in northern Africa.

However, your point that any temperature fluctuation will have a large effect is true, which is why people are striving to keep our temperatures stable.

Ah, good, Biggles is back twisting everything he reads into something that lets him continue an argument.

The primary POINT, of course, is that mother nature can (and has and does) affect our temperatures and climate on her own far more in one incident than man can or has in decades of trying. Which should make one question just how much of an effect man is presently having or can have. Especially given earth's record of flipping between ice ages and warm periods every few thousand years (with a mini-ice-age just a couple hundred years ago).

I will agree that cutting down on pollution of all kinds is a good thing because there are plenty of negative consequences. You just have to be careful how you do it. For example, take the mercury I mentioned earlier in the oft-touted-as-a-solution-to-reducing-greenhose-emissions compact fluourescent lightbulbs...

[gstelmack]

Anyway, I need to get back out of these political threads again. Kid is home sick so I'm bored out of my skull...

[Subby]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

On a serious note, I have to hand it to Gore -- yes, he's spending money on electricity (like everyone else -- GASP), but at least he's doing something in his own life about trying to help out. The extra money he spends on green power is telling.

I wouldn't vote for him because I disagree with some of his policy opinions, but his focus on the environment isn't one of them.

Well you just moved up a few notches. Very reasonable post.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Subby

Well you just moved up a few notches. Very reasonable post.

I'm not feeling well today, and my ultra-conservative powers fail when I'm sick.

Like Superman and kryponite.

[Subby]

I won't tell anyone

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Subby

I won't tell anyone

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The anti-progress crowd (aka, Progressives) have been given a free ride for too long. When will we stand up and fight the hippies that have been subjugating our large corporations for decades now? When can big business get a piece of the action? I only wish that Democrats didn't have such a vested interest in stopping all commercial activity in this country, then they wouldn't come up with such nonsense from 'scientists' intended solely to destroy business.

I can just picture CavemanGore during the last ice age when the ice sheets covered north america and he was pleading with his fellow Cavemen to stop burning wood becuase it was going to heat up the atmosphere and flood the coasts.

I think I'm going to take up a cause to stop Plate Tectonics because eventually the continents will collide and cause all sorts of problems. This is a moral issue and not one of science. We need to stop Plate Tectonics today!

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I can just picture CavemanGore during the last ice age when the ice sheets covered north america and he was pleading with his fellow Cavemen to stop burning wood becuase it was going to heat up the atmosphere and flood the coasts.

I think I'm going to take up a cause to stop Plate Tectonics because eventually the continents will collide and cause all sorts of problems. This is a moral issue and not one of science. We need to stop Plate Tectonics today!

The thing is, nature doesn't need our help. So perhaps if we stop, we can get a few thousand years out of our coastline rather than a hundred or so.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

The thing is, nature doesn't need our help. So perhaps if we stop, we can get a few thousand years out of our coastline rather than a hundred or so.

But we are part of nature.

Was oxygen always around? Oxygen is actually very harmful (it may allow us to live but it is a double edged sword and damages our cells at the same time) and wasn't around until algae started spewing it out millions of years ago. It can actually be seen as pollution.

Look, I don't want to live in a polluted world any more than the next guy. Right now, our technology is spewing pollution into the air (not as much as nature) but I have faith in our science.

Some day, and it may be tomorrow or 100 years from now or a 1,000 years from now, we will figure it all out and we will create clean forms of everything. We will also figure out how to clean up all our messes that we are making today.

Just like the folks that think Jesus is coming back any day now, the environmentalist nuts think we are going to destroy the world any day now. It isn't going to happen. 1,000 years from now we are still going to have nutballs claiming the sky is falling even though every single time it has been declared, it hasn't happened.

To think the Earth can remain in some sort of super balance where the temps always remain the same is ridiculous. The sun might produce more/less light one year. Volcanoes add debris to the atmosphere and block some sunlight for years (smal percentage, but still). A meteor could strike the earth and block out the sun for many years.

The amount of pollution we have produced as a species is dwarfed by volcanic eruptions and they've been around for a helluva lot longer than we humans.

[Hammer755]

I'm no fan of Gore, but this story is a big fat non-issue to me. The thing I find more perplexing is that his family owns upwards of $1 million dollars of stock in an oil company, one where Al Gore Sr was a VP and on its Board of Directors.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Ah, good, Biggles is back twisting everything he reads into something that lets him continue an argument.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The primary POINT, of course, is that mother nature can (and has and does) affect our temperatures and climate on her own far more in one incident than man can or has in decades of trying. Which should make one question just how much of an effect man is presently having or can have. Especially given earth's record of flipping between ice ages and warm periods every few thousand years (with a mini-ice-age just a couple hundred years ago).

I was trying to be nice, but the point I was making was that you don't know what global warming or global cooling is. Global warming is "the sustained increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere." A volcano that erupts and causes one area to get cooler and another to get hotter and whose effects last for a short period of time is NOT an example of global warming or global cooling because it is neither global nor sustained.

To your primary POINT here, it's a non sequitur. The ability of mother nature to create a drought in Egypt has no bearing on whether or not man can effect the climate, except in the fact that the drought occurred because there were millions of tons of greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the volcano, which seems to prove that pumping gases into the atmosphere has a definite effect.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

AThe primary POINT, of course, is that mother nature can (and has and does) affect our temperatures and climate on her own far more in one incident than man can or has in decades of trying. Which should make one question just how much of an effect man is presently having or can have. Especially given earth's record of flipping between ice ages and warm periods every few thousand years (with a mini-ice-age just a couple hundred years ago).

See, here's the primary issue in my mind that I want to clear up - we all know that the Earth undergoes temperature swings that range from severe ice ages to very tropical conditions. We also know that volcanic eruptions can discharge immense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

What seems to be in dispute, from my readings and learnings on the subject, is just how unusual is the current warming trend; i.e., is the rapidity of the current (and by this I mean over the last century) temperature rise unprecedented compared to historical temperature records (ice core samples, etc.)?

How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere yearly by human-related activities in comparison to natural processes (volcanoes being a major factor)?

Reports show a very strong correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures, and there appears to be scientific consensus about the this being not just a correlation relationship, but a causation. What counter evidence is there to suggest other factors play a significant role, i.e. solar radiation, etc.?

Those that have watched "An Inconvenient Truth" will recall the chart showing the tremendous similarity between greenhouse gas emission rates and global temperatures, and that chart showing the dramatic rise within the last century of both rates. Now, I understand that you can monkey with charts based off of the range scales you use, and the possibility there may be some dispute within the scientific community about the data used in those charts.

But, if the data is valid and the scales used are reasonable, that's powerfully compelling evidence for the contention that increases in greenhouse gas emissions lead directly to increases in global temperatures. The next step would be pointing out how much of the increases in greenhouse gas emissions are due to human-related activity.

I will agree that cutting down on pollution of all kinds is a good thing because there are plenty of negative consequences.

I agree. Even if people dispute the extent to which human-related activity is contributing to global warming, why wouldn't we still want to examine what we, as humanity, could do to slow down this phenomenon? Unfortunately I think that part of this reticence by some is due to fear of change (we've always relied on petroleum products - what will it do to the economy to shift to other power sources?), some is due to religious beliefs (God provided the Earth and all the resources therein to mankind to use - He wouldn't steer us wrong) and some is due simply to ignorance or disbelief in the magnitude of the issues human civilization could face if rapid climate changes occur as a result of global warming.

You just have to be careful how you do it. For example, take the mercury I mentioned earlier in the oft-touted-as-a-solution-to-reducing-greenhose-emissions compact fluourescent lightbulbs...

Hmmm - according to the sources cited at Wikipedia, the mercury emissions into the environment from compact fluorescent lamps is actually less than those from comparable incandescent lamps over the typical lifespan of the fluorescents (5 years), provided the primary power source of the electricity comes from coal plants: http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I can just picture CavemanGore during the last ice age when the ice sheets covered north america and he was pleading with his fellow Cavemen to stop burning wood becuase it was going to heat up the atmosphere and flood the coasts.

You are basically saying that since X effects Y, Z can not effect Y. Which is ridiculous on it's face.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

The thing is, nature doesn't need our help. So perhaps if we stop, we can get a few thousand years out of our coastline rather than a hundred or so.

Ding!

I've noticed a disturbing argument that seems to lurk behind most of the anti-science crowd: they don't really seem to have much of a problem with the idea that if the earth is heating up, it will take care of itself in the end as it has always done. That argument forgets that people populate the earth, and if the carbon emissions are driving the earth's temperature up, it could make things difficult for those of us who enjoy things like not having massive influxes of evacuees from our country's coastlines as flooding and hurricanes intensify (which for us isn't nearly as critical a concern as it is for India, among many other countries). Or stable domestic and global food supplies. Whether man or nature is responsible for the situation, man would seem to be in the only position to do much about it concerning his own interests. Everyone who is patting themselves on the back for taking a crack at Gore is missing the point. But then, they usually do.

Seriously, I wish everyone would watch An Inconvenient Truth, as it would at least give them a stable foundation from which to begin their own inquiries, opposing or no. It's a solid analysis of one of the most critical issues of our time. Remember that even Galileo had his critics, and the folks like Gore who are being criticized certainly wouldn't have been the type to force him to recant. I find that stepping outside of one's individual perspective and taking stock of where one's argument fits into the historic dialogue does wonders.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Some day, and it may be tomorrow or 100 years from now or a 1,000 years from now, we will figure it all out and we will create clean forms of everything. We will also figure out how to clean up all our messes that we are making today.

We already have "clean" forms of energy - as pointed out in "An Inconvenient Truth", it is already possible for people to become "carbon neutral". Part of the hesitation on these clean technologies gaining greater foothold in society is the efforts of those industries already in place doing what they can to protect their turf and keep these alternative technologies from harming their bottom line economically.

We don't have a magic bullet yet in the form of a single clean energy source (cold fusion anyone?), but there are multiple ways to spread out our energy needs among cleaner options.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

But we are part of nature.

Was oxygen always around? Oxygen is actually very harmful (it may allow us to live but it is a double edged sword and damages our cells at the same time) and wasn't around until algae started spewing it out millions of years ago. It can actually be seen as pollution.

Look, I don't want to live in a polluted world any more than the next guy. Right now, our technology is spewing pollution into the air (not as much as nature) but I have faith in our science.

Some day, and it may be tomorrow or 100 years from now or a 1,000 years from now, we will figure it all out and we will create clean forms of everything. We will also figure out how to clean up all our messes that we are making today.

Just like the folks that think Jesus is coming back any day now, the environmentalist nuts think we are going to destroy the world any day now. It isn't going to happen. 1,000 years from now we are still going to have nutballs claiming the sky is falling even though every single time it has been declared, it hasn't happened.

To think the Earth can remain in some sort of super balance where the temps always remain the same is ridiculous. The sun might produce more/less light one year. Volcanoes add debris to the atmosphere and block some sunlight for years (smal percentage, but still). A meteor could strike the earth and block out the sun for many years.

The amount of pollution we have produced as a species is dwarfed by volcanic eruptions and they've been around for a helluva lot longer than we humans.

I have seen enough science and have chosen to believe that we are polluting out atmosphere enough to cause a global warming trend that is outside the natural order of things. This does not mean that I discount billions of years of history, nor do I believe that the earth is and always will be in stasis. I do believe it is something we can do to save off global climate change, and at a relatively small cost, with more benefits than people realize. Maybe the instances of asthma will go down. Maybe tomatoes will taste better. Who knows?

BTW...I have not seen this movie, nor am I in a great hurry to see it. I've seen enough to have made up my mind. I also reserve the right to change it should the scientific community come up with new evidence to support either claim. I'm a whore for science.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

BTW...I have not seen this movie, nor am I in a great hurry to see it. I've seen enough to have made up my mind. I also reserve the right to change it should the scientific community come up with new evidence to support either claim. I'm a whore for science.

The film is worth watching. As I noted earlier, there's too much focus at times on Gore himself, but the bulk of the movie, when it sticks to his Powerpoint presentation, is very well done.

[flere-imsaho]

This thread is now worth it just for the WVUFAN-Subby exchange (I was thinking the same thing as Subby, actually).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This thread is now worth it just for the WVUFAN-Subby exchange (I was thinking the same thing as Subby, actually).

As was I.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Quoted for truth.

I gave you the internet and I can take it away from. I think the quote went something like that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I've got to admit that this made me laugh hard.

Thread delivers.

Agree, that was solid gold.

[GMO]

This has some information about 'An Inconvenient Truth'

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

[Raiders Army]

Al Gore is an idiot. I wish him nothing but terminal illness in his near future...brought on by Hillary Cliton.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I must admit to wondering, as everyone at the Oscars was applauding the movement to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, how many of them had limousines idling in the parking lot, waiting to take them away when the show ended.

Actually, there was a green movement by many of the actors with respect to transportation to the Oscars. Many of them rented limos and cars that ran on alternative fuels. I think Charlize Theron came in one last year (just wish I was with her ). Also, many of the actors have purchases green friendly cars. So, you have to give them some credit for taking some action. Certainly not all of them, and I am sure many of them will revert to gas, but there you have it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/...scars_green_dc
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...entallimo.html

[JPhillips]

I know I've said this before, but I really don't understand why an absolutist stance against global warming is such a tenet of the Right.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by GMO

This has some information about 'An Inconvenient Truth'

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

You'll excuse me if I find this retort from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Wikipedia entry) to not be an impartial source of information. Check the list of corporations funding them.

I also love how in this retort, they imply that CO2 emission are a good thing:

Never confronts a key implication of its assumption that climate is highly
sensitive to CO2 emissions—that absent said emissions, global climate would be
rapidly deteriorating into another ice age.

Right - keep up those CO2 emissions, otherwise we'll tumble into an ice age.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know I've said this before, but I really don't understand why an absolutist stance against global warming is such a tenet of the Right.

environmentalists = hippies
hippies = communists
communists can't be trusted

On a more serious note, I think there are a multitude of reasons for this, much of it built up after decades of diverging opinions and hardening stances based off of the environmental movement, with primary causes stemming from a perception by the right of anti-business stances among environmentalists and a fundamentalist Christian stance among some in the right that promotes the Earth as a resource intended for man to exploit (as personified by people like James Watt).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If I remember right Rev. 3:16 is the so-called "Coffee verse". Here Jesus is telling us that contrary to then common thinking, iced coffee is just as delicious as hot coffee. The only truly dreadful coffee is room-temperature coffee, which can happen to both hot or cold coffee.

funniest comment in the whole thread....im sending you a plaque.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I get sick of this myself, even though I graduated with a political science degree. The state of politics now just turned me completely off from it. When I started here, I fought about it some, now I usually let these threads go without comment. Why do I need something like this in my life to get uptight and upset about?

Welcome to the club. I too graduated with polisci degree, worked for campaigns, ran in elections myself.

I can't stomach it anymore. Because on both sides its not about the issues, its about the party. I have always been liberal/progressive minded, but I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, and still do listen to him and other conservatives on rare occasion, just to see what an opposing viewpoint might have to say. Perhaps to get me thinking on issues in a way that might enlighten my viewpoint.

People don't want enlightenment on issues anymore though. They just want their preexisting viewpoint to win. Thats American politics for ya. And no, it isn't like that in ever country.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know I've said this before, but I really don't understand why an absolutist stance against global warming is such a tenet of the Right.

It's not a tenet of the whole Right. The free market, libertarian, secular Right--say, the sort of Right whose views you come across in The Economist--largely accepts the existence of global warming and sees it as an issue to be dealt with. (There are exceptions--George Will comes to mind--but, in general, the rule holds good.)

It's the fundamentalist Christian Right that is fighting against the concept of global warming, and they are fighting against it because they regard science (rightly) as an adversary in a way that the free market, libertarian, secular Right does not. Science was correct and fundamentalist Christianity incorrect about the heliocentric theory of the universe; science is most likely correct and fundamentalist Christianity incorrect about evolution vs. creationism. The fundamentalist Christian Right has lost so many battles to science that it has dug in its heels and will fight over issues (such as global warming) that have no theological implications at all, just to prevent science from chalking up any more successes.

[panerd]

I find it amusing that some of the Jesus crew are arguing science. You realize that something like 40% of scientists don't believe in God. What if you are believing a heathen?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, basically, Jesus is a spitter.

What? You thought he swallowed?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by panerd

I find it amusing that some of the Jesus crew are arguing science. You realize that something like 40% of scientists don't believe in God. What if you are believing a heathen?

It exemplifies the ability of people to pick and choose what they want to believe.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BrianD

What? You thought he swallowed?

Hey, don't want to spill the seed on the ground, right?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know I've said this before, but I really don't understand why an absolutist stance against global warming is such a tenet of the Right.

What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money. The GOP's most influential bloc is Big Business. Environmental regulations cost Big Business money. Therefore, environmental regulations are bad for the GOP. Global warming has the potential to bring about vast new environmental regulations, so Big Business will fight it to the end by donating large sums to the GOP, so the GOP will fight it for as long as it is politically feasible to do so.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Correct for the most part.

[Dutch]

If Hollywood wanted us to take Global Warming seriously as a collective whole, they wouldn't have invited one of the most polarizing political activists to make make this documentary.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes, it would have had much more impact with Keanu Reeves doing a powerpoint presentation.

His involvement (rather than most other individuals) is what raised awareness of the film and will definitely have more of a positive impact with those viewers that are open to the message (which was the point of the film). Simply stated, Dutch, this film was never meant to sway you one bit.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If Hollywood wanted us to take Global Warming seriously as a collective whole, they wouldn't have invited one of the most polarizing political activists to make make this documentary.

When was Al Gore known as "one of the most polarizing political activists" before this? If anything, his fight against global warming is the cause of his polarizing qualities, and the Right would have vilified whoever it was that would have made the documentary. And who is this 'us' that you reference? It's the third highest grossing documentary of all time and won an Oscar, plus Bush mentioned the need to combat global warming in his SOTU address, plus 81% of the country think humans are at least somewhat at fault for global warming, so most of the country already takes global warming seriously.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

When was Al Gore known as "one of the most polarizing political activists" before this? If anything, his fight against global warming is the cause of his polarizing qualities, and the Right would have vilified whoever it was that would have made the documentary. And who is this 'us' that you reference? It's the third highest grossing documentary of all time and won an Oscar, plus Bush mentioned the need to combat global warming in his SOTU address, plus 81% of the country think humans are at least somewhat at fault for global warming, so most of the country already takes global warming seriously.

Yep, especially the bolded portion.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If Hollywood wanted us to take Global Warming seriously as a collective whole, they wouldn't have invited one of the most polarizing political activists to make make this documentary.

By polarizing you mean any liberal?

I guess if a conservative, who has some economic expertise, starts trying to warn us about future economic catastrophes because of the trade deficit the other half of the country should just call him a polarizing kook and not listen.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Yep, especially the bolded portion.

Unfortunately, that's true. It's a shame, because most conservatives have preconceived opioions about that documentary. I know I did, until I saw it. It made me think quite a bit more than I expected it to.

[Dutch]

Suddenly nobody has ever heard of partisanship.

[Dutch]

I guess if a conservative, who has some economic expertise, starts trying to warn us about future economic catastrophes because of the trade deficit the other half of the country should just call him a polarizing kook and not listen.

Many things that are important are doomed by politics.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Many things that are important are doomed by politics.

Only if you let them.

[KeyserSoze]

I see the matter not as something as "right vs wrong" but something as "risk and reward"

There are three basic scenarios.
We reduce the pollution
We don't and our technollogy allow us to overcome this crisis.
We don't and we suffer big ecological problems.

So the question is, "Do we have to make some sacrifices today to avoid possibles problems tomorrow?"

Of course anybody will have different answers as we see all the elements in different ways.

Just one last note. There has been some societies that couldn't adapt themselves to serious environmental changes (some where natural changes, some were changes promoted by the mankind). So there's a real risk that if we do no make sustenable our society, the society could collapse.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

People don't want enlightenment on issues anymore though. They just want their preexisting viewpoint to win. Thats American politics for ya.

Yeah. I agree. It's sickening to see the state of "debate" now.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Many things that are important are doomed by politics.

It's like listening to a cow complain about methane levels.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

We already have "clean" forms of energy - as pointed out in "An Inconvenient Truth", it is already possible for people to become "carbon neutral". Part of the hesitation on these clean technologies gaining greater foothold in society is the efforts of those industries already in place doing what they can to protect their turf and keep these alternative technologies from harming their bottom line economically.

We don't have a magic bullet yet in the form of a single clean energy source (cold fusion anyone?), but there are multiple ways to spread out our energy needs among cleaner options.

What are these clean forms of energy? Solar is super expensive and can't be used where the sun don't shine. Environmentalists oppose wind power because it kills birds. Fuel cells still have a ways to go but look to be very promising.

I have no doubt that when somebody comes up with a cheap/clean solution that is as good as gasoline, we will beat a path to their door and in no time we will switch everything over to this new form of energy.

Gasoline is an amazing substance. The amount of energy it packs in relation to its mass is quite awesome. It is easy, convenient (not to mention the entire world uses machines that use gas), and relatively safe.

Green has it's problems too. Did you see the devastation caused by a car battery factory up in Canada? I believe there was a post here about it. The landscape was decimated because of the nickel (IIRC). Also, I believe that the amount of energy used in creating a solar panel far exceeds the amount of energy that will ever be created by the panel itself. That is silly. Where did the power come to create that solar panel? A dirty smelly power plant burning fossil fuels. Wind energy is very clean but kills birds.

Fuel cells for cars is the most promising alternative where the result of the process is water and CO2 but how long will it be until people complain that the water and CO2 from fuel cells is killing something or destroying the world? Hydrogen fuel cells only produce water vapor but could that cause a change in the atmosphere where it would rain all the time?

How many times have the scientists been wrong about this sort of thing in the past? I know that doesn't mean they can't be right this time, but shouldn't this set off alarms in your head that they might just be wrong? What is a great way to get grant money? Proclaiming there is nothing wrong and to move along? Or, claiming that the world is going to end if we don't do more research?

I don't believe in God so I'm not sitting here waiting for jesus to come back and save us all. I don't believe that aliens are going to swoop down and share their technology with us to save us from destroying ourselves. However, I believe that all these changes are cyclical and it has little-to-nothing to do with us.

If things get warmer and the coasts are flooded, guess what? Don't build on the beach! Move inland. They find marine fossils on the tops of mountains and just about everywhere else which means that they at one time were at the bottom of the sea and that was a long time before I drove to work in my ultra low emission Honda Pilot. A few million years ago if I had lived in central Florida, my house would have been under water. Most of Florida was under water.

Ice Ages have come and gone many times in the past before I started driving.

Isn't it possible that a warmer Earth could be beneficial? The Earth warmed up since the last ice age and that has been nothing but good for us, right? Why is that a few more degrees from our current temp is bad? Was the global temp perfect before and now it is bad that it is getting warmer? Why wasn't it bad that it kept getting as warm as it did in the past?