Global Warming Debate Tracker

Have you changed your opinion on global warming because of what you have read in Stormtrack?

  • Yes - I have definitely changed my mind.

    Votes: 6 8.1%

  • No - I will never change.

    Votes: 14 18.9%

  • I don't care about global warming and don't read these threads.

    Votes: 12 16.2%

  • I'm open to changing my views but have not been convinced yet.

    Votes: 42 56.8%
  • Total voters
    74
The problem Michael in allowing political discussions is you rarely change anybodys mind and it always ends up in personal attacks. Most people are either hardcore republican or Democrat and anything the other side says is BS. WE have all been guilty of that.

On global warming I am still open for debate. I just dont feel we know enough yet to say this isnt a natural cycle. When they can show what caused the bigger warmups back during previous times compared to now then I will be more open to their theories.
 
Benjamin Smith said:
I voted for I would change my mind, but haven't been convinced yet. It's such a shame the Dr. Grey slams Al Gore thread has turned into political jabs. In all actuality I can't believe it hasn't been locked yet. The last three pages are nothing but a flame war.
Click to expand...

I was disgusted when I saw someone start bashing Bush and talking about politics. The thread has realy gone downhill. Now people are just spamming because of my posts. I just tried to bring in discusion and they disagreed and decided to hijack the thread and spam. sad.

Ps. I voted for open minded but undecided. Seems very few people are actually changing thier views on GW.
 
Benjamin Smith said:
I voted for I would change my mind, but haven't been convinced yet. It's such a shame the Dr. Grey slams Al Gore thread has turned into political jabs. In all actuality I can't believe it hasn't been locked yet. The last three pages are nothing but a flame war.
Click to expand...

I am suprised aswell and it should be locked right now. David why let this flame war continue?
 
Yeah it has degraded into ridiculous posts intended to mock other people. It's a shame that people can't control themselves and act mature when there are disagreements. IMO it shouldn't be any big deal to disagree with somebody. You ought to be able to argue your point and leave it at that.
 
This thread is odd because (on my computer, anyway), it keeps getting marked as unread and floating back to the top of the list, even though nothing has been added to it? Anyone else notice this?

The numbers here are interesting - - by far the majority have not developed a set opinion on GW and are open to change. Just shows that we can't discern much judging from the threads alone. For some reason I had been under the impression that the opinions were almost split down the middle judging from the thread activity. I would really like to hear from the people who said they've changed their mind and find out what in particular caused them to start thinking differently on the subject.

Michael - if the internet realm played by the same 'rules' as the real world when it came to debate, there would be fewer disruptions in the form of derogatory posts. There are few or no limits in typing a response to a thread, however, and most people do not tolerate the same self-imposed restrictions they do when speaking face-to-face (and written statements are perceived far differently than spoken). I agree that there are a lot of subjects I'd like to talk about on this board, but remember that when they were allowed, the weather-related posts faded into obscurity by comparison (and the mods had to spend a lot more time policing and locking threads.)
 
Did anybody catch that CNN special last night called "keeping them honest" about Global warming??. Very good show with many good points. It took 9 of Gores main points to task and answered whether they were factual or not.

Funny even one of the the scientists who won the prize with Gore and was part of the study disagrees with the study's findings (as apparently does quite a few on the panel). The next 2 parts comes on Tuesday called "Planet in Peril" or something like that. This part delt mostly with the 9 points a judge argued that was incorrect in a ruling last week.

It is a must watch for all those debating GW. Good points on both sides. A few I didnt know.

edit*** I just saw on CNN where they are going to repeat tghe show tonight at 10pm eastern. I hope most on here who have been posting about GW watches it so we can have some more discussions afterward. At least since it is CNN (which is somewhat left leaning) people cant argue that is just Fox news' conservative agenda rebuffing Gore if they find any faults in any of his arguments...lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I caught most of the CNN special last night, and it seemed pretty fair and even-handed, overall. I will point out that while John Christy is critical of parts of the IPCC assessment, he did help author and sign the AGU statement on climate change which states in part: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

Christy's primary skepticism over the last few years rose over his analysis that satellite temperature data of the troposphere showed a much slower warming rate than the surface temperature record would suggest, however his analysis has not held up well to scientific scrutiny. Outside analyses (a significant algebra error found in the analysis of the original data) have shown the satellite data actually matches up nicely with the surface temperature record showing significant warming. So Christy's stock isn't particularly high right now, IMO.

It should bust a couple of myths though - Christy was invited to be an IPCC author and CNN gave him a chance to air his views, so I'd suggest this runs counter to the idea that these two organizations are not interested in giving skeptics a chance.
 
Mike Peregrine said:
I would really like to hear from the people who said they've changed their mind and find out what in particular caused them to start thinking differently on the subject.
Click to expand...
I guess it was about a year or so ago when there was a thread on here that had a lot of interesting points both ways. At the time I knew we were putting a lot of CO2 into the air but was firmly unconvinced on its certainty in warming our atmosphere. Most of my skepticism was rooted in my own thoughts that increased clouds, the oceans and other negative feedback mechanisms might be able to counter the effects of the increased CO2. Since then I have read a lot about gw and found out that there were more positive feedback mechanisms than negative and indeed an acceleration of gw was more likely than it being kept in check by whatever means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top