25 Reasons Why You Should be Skeptical About Global Warming

so, if most of these glaciers have never been visited or measured, how can you say most of them are growing, not melting? also, i haven't seen ONE study or source cited to back anything this quack is saying.

Global Cooling was never considered a problem, it was merely the clouds that had a lot of pollutants in them countering some of the effects of global warming because sunlight was being bounced back into space. It demonstrated that we were only seeing a small part of global warming.

The sun is negligibly warmer, as it ages it warms up OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS. If he's referring to the 11 year solar flare cycle, then that isn't going to cause such large changes in temperature on earth. Mars' atmosphere is almost completely CO2, so its a lot more volatile

The majority of his rant is attacking the arguers, not the arguments

Boortz just throws out statements No links to back-up any of it.
Example : The 160,000 glaciers that's easy enough to support .... Where's the link to support Boortz's claim ?
Zip Nada Zero.

Broad sweeping claims using the BBFF ..... that's the right wing using their the good old BBFF.
[Butt Based Fact File] You just reach around and pull that crap out of your ass.

Got to : realclimate.org Those are Real scientists talking about a Real Science. Boortz is paid propagandist .... In short a talk show host.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

I'm sure that someone has touched on this already, but they haven't been measured, how can it be said that they are growing.

Maybe this article just gets to me since today I sat through two of my professors give a discussion on why global warming is happening. One is a meteorologist the other is a climatologist.

Also, whenever Boortz closes his eyes, the world ceases to exist until they open again.

Where did this Mars Ice Caps are melting myth come from ?
Mars has very little atmosphere .... This whole line of rubbish is for people who know zero about the place.

There is hype on both sides.

This sums it up the best. what is the truth really? which scientists to believe, which scientists are bribed by who, or receive money from what interests groups? i am not sure, and in the end I would say none of us really are.

But what i can speak to is local environmental change, and local health problems near petrochemical plants and other factories emitting chemical toxins into air and water.Even thermal pollution, which is not as benign as it sounds ( kills marine life, and domino effect to the rest of the ecosystem, including fisherman and their consumers). Dilllution is not the resolution to pollution. Building smokestacks taller only send the toxins farther away, to form acid rain somewhere else.

So what do i know? what i know is that i have lived next to factories during different parts of my life and I have seen attributable cancer rates soar, I have seen the cheasapeake bay marine wildlife populations plummet, and mercury & DHT toxins found in salmon and other NA wildlife~the list goes on.

I live 30 minutes from a chemical plant right now in southern Israel. I pass it 3-4 times a week and see yellow plumes come out of the smokestacks. The local bedouin arab population has a myriad of "unexplained" upper respiratory illnesses ~ mostly in children who are most susceptible. The water is now pumped in from desalination plants. If the factory is running on full i get a headache from smelling the toxins emitted in the air. Literally, after 10 minutes driving by it. Lawsuite pending.yes? but it will not curb these problems enough. it never does.

This is what we need to focus on. this is the heartwrenching part of the story. the drama of climate change is seemingly intangible. but what is happening locally is not.

So for me this issue is not about global climate change. it is about local environmental change & social responsibility. Regardless of the nuances of the debate and its urgency, the bottom line is that transitioning from a carbon economy to a non-toxic corporate socially responsible agenda is what we need for a safe and healthy future for our kids. and this is technologically, economically, and socially possible and sustainable.

we have to ask ourselves, what is wrong with making our earth a healthy place to live, that can also be economically sustainable? enough with focusing on melting ice caps and el nino. look in your backyard.

very informative. thanks for seeding

Micheal the great. With your moniker "Conservative Christian Libertarian" do you purposely seek to seed items that are against scientific consensus? Such as global warming? I would also assume things like stem cell research would fall under this umbrella, etc.

Does "Conservative Christian" always imply a fatalist attitude to the world in general, and in the end I will be taken care of because I have accepted Christ? This unfortunately reminds me of the hijackers going to meet their virgins after doing their holy deed.

When are people just going to accept responsibility for their actions as well as the actions of society in general, and move away from beating the religious drum?

Correct me if I wrong, the year is 2007?

It seems Exxon has been caught offering money through a front organisation to climate change sceptics who write articles like this one.

6.65 Billion reasons why you should be concerned with global warming. Not to mention the 10s of billions of reasons that can't make difference.

Unfortunately, global warming is really a mild disaster compared to acidification of the oceans. If the pH of the oceans falls too low, then every animal that uses a calcium shell will dissolve. The coral reefs will dissolve, plankton will die, shellfish will die. A huge portion of the food chain will be gone, and the upper levels will die off as a result.

It is, IMO, a poorly argued article. But your seed link goes only to the home page. Here's the direct link.