First off, science, politics, and religion don’t mix into this issue of “global warming,” however, the idea of it, as it relates to science, categorizes itself into the viewpoints of those who have contrasting ideas in politics and the religious attributes as it relates to both.

To answer several of everyone’s questions, I suggest that those who are not 100% particularly involved with this topic as it relates to their field of study have every right to question the consistencies and inconsistencies of scientific evidence as it relates to global warming.

In my opinion, devoid of political or religious agendas, it is important to question what is the truth. Who can attest to the accuracy of global warming’s existence, when scientific evidence is suggested and represented as fact in the testament of the cause and existence of “true” “global warming,” caused by man.

In all seriousness, our reliance on carbon-based fossil fuel and coal-burning sources of energy do in fact have a negative impact on our world’s balanced ecosystems. This is an obvious fact we cannot step away from. To state that such a thing is the basis of global warming is suggestively probable, but is it the sole cause?

I would speculate that meteorology in essence is still a rather young and developing science, and although it does provide us with valuable and accurate information (most of the time), I don’t deem such a specific field of study to be as accurate as movies like “An Inconvenient Truth” suggest it to be.

In retrospect, the world itself has suffered from intense climactic changes, in which several studies have determined to date. The ice age for one, is a proven fact, so who is to say that extreme weather “temperature wise” will not meet itself to another extreme, such as an period of “intense heat” lasting thousands of years. I’m simply speculating, as would be necessary for so many people who are unsure of the exact reality of this topic, but it does seem realistic.

Places like the Sahara Desert can end up like Antarctica, and vice-versa. Personally, it seems more logical to blame this “primarily” on earth-based cyclical weather patterns that change over the course of thousands of years, but at the same time, reason that it is also safe to speculate the human impact on the earth as a mere possibility for speeding up these changes.

For those of you arguing this topic on this article, I encourage you to focus on the topic at hand, and leave your political biases out of such matters, as well as any religious or ideological beliefs to a different debate. Global warming clearly exists, but it is more accurate to approach this topic as climactic volatility and change versus “global warming,” as it applies to the release of carbon emissions. It would be more evident that a number of factors interrelate to the cause of this.

Also, to finish up my statement, it would be wiser to understand that the weather patterns in several regions on earth are either starting to have more extreme cases of weather as it relates to meteorological events and temperature occurring more often in places where it less occurred before. An example of this would include regions of the world that experience below normal temperatures comparable to areas experience higher than normal temperatures. These events are clearly becoming more evident on a yearly basis, however, keep an open-mind to the fact that more than just one thing can be the genuine cause of such instances.

Cheers,

And happy debating!
-Chris

That, along with the half dozen or so times our understanding of chemistry, physics, biology, geology et al should make all “open minded” & scientific people leery of using absolute terms when referring to “scientific” things. There has already been a debacle similar to Einstein’s inclusion of the “cosmological constant” into the “hockey stick” graph used by the environmentalists. We also have the problem of the majority of global warming models NOT including THE cause for global warming: the sun. How can you have any type of model that doesn’t take into account sun spots and solar flares? We have seen the ice caps on Mars shrink too, & there are no coal power plants or industrial farming there.

Climate change science is full of unknowns, unknowable’s & personal interpretation of results that it should not be knee jerk reacted upon.

Here’s hoping common sense & logic win the day over global warming hysteria the self hate many humans have.

The other reason I think liberals want to get people to think like them is that the people who don’t think like them want to restrict. What I mean by this is that while most liberals, I think, would like a diverse world where everyone is free to do what they want, believe what they want, and not infringe on others right to do the same, most conservatives do not think that way. Conservatives want to ban same sex marriage, teach creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom, and put Christian thoughts into classrooms and courtrooms. It’s easy to forget that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, and by imposing one religion on everyone, you’re stopping others from being free to practice what they believe. Therefore, the road block is that liberals really do want openmindedness and freedom and tolerance, but they see it as that conservatives don’t, making them free and open to everything but things that aren’t free and open. Does that make sense?

I understand that it may appear hypocritical for a liberal to scoff at certain conservative behaviors… it’s really just a Catch-22, a vicious cycle, and this argument should simply be thrown out. I, as a liberal, believe in tolerance and diversity, but not at the expense of others. I think that’s what it boils down to. You’re absolutely free to not believe in global warming or to be a devout creationist, but don’t restrict others’ right to believe otherwise.

If that made any sense at all.

I don’t have a religion/politics issue with your statements. My issue is your lack of tolerance for dissenting views.

Isn’t questioning the status quo part of open-mindedness and general inquiry? Way to show your intolerance by berating someone with a contrary opinion to yours!

As usual, hypocrites will only extend tolerance to those who agree with them (quite the opposite of what Christ did frankly).

I hope that during your remaining time on earth you learn common sense, science, what a fact is and how to think for yourself. You obviously are repeating “facts” that have been spewed forth from fox news and chain e-mails to bored housewives. Now I understand its hard to realize that you clearly have not the faintest idea what your talking about, but you must try, its just common courtesy. It angers me the most to see older people who lived through great changes in this country be fooled by those claiming to be “god fearing.” Christianity is sold whole sell in this country now a days and any ignorant racist quack can say complete lies but so long as they claim its in the name of god its alright. No sir you are the worst kind of fool, not content to keep your ignorance to yourself you feel you must spread your empty mindedness and hate to the masses (Quite the opposite of what christ did frankly.) In closing sir do not be afraid of change or the new generation for surely you realize your beliefs in all ways are on the way out to obscurity. Please allow yourself to be mature enough to realize your whole life has been a lie.