Does debating global warming, keep the hoax alive? or is it too late to stop it ?

%26quot;A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not...%26quot;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon...

Leave those few remaining paranoid %26quot;it%26#039;s a government conspiracy%26quot; types alone with their crazy superstitions.

Yes indeed. Aren%26#039;t we lucky. If we didn%26#039;t ban CFCs, we%26#039;d all be dead. This is what passes for scientifically literate in the alarmists view I suppose. I think the GW alarmists (i.e socialism) should be fought vigorously wherever it metastasizes.

What hoax? Do you think these guys are perpetrating a hoax? If so, you have absolutely no credibility.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

They all say global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

Please, enlighten us Professor!

I used to believe in global warming but after i really looked into it i came to the realization that it is a big hoax perpetuated by people like al gore.

Good questions.
I think people are accepting the idea without question, because they don%26#039;t realise the costs, and the AGW proponents are so vitriolic about dissenters.
The costs include reducing our ability to produce and manufacture at competitive prices. (like we need more of that) - in our service economy, folks don%26#039;t realise that production of goods requires energy, and putting %26quot;low watt%26quot; light bulbs in (for example) an aluminum plant, will not reduce power consumption much. Worse yet - high cost energy will make it harder to adapt to the end of oil.
I think the key is to get more people interested, by presenting a few facts. Media isn%26#039;t doing this. If people get interested, they can find info on the internet, and have a chance of seeing thru the hype.
- CO2 is 380 parts per million of the air. this works out to 2 feet per mile.
- water vapor content varies- at a median value of 2%, there would be about 100 feet per mile of this very effective greenhouse gas.
- we%26#039;re not questioning that CO2 retains heat- the dubious part is the %26quot;catastrophic, runaway, positive feedback%26quot; concept, requiring drastic, disastrous remedies.
I think our remedies should be limited to things that we should do anyway - reduce our oil usage by: reducing speed limits, and taxing petroleum would reduce CO2 more than a %26quot; cap %26amp; trade %26quot; bureaurocracy and tax system - that%26#039;d be more of a sneaky power grab.
oil is a major part of our trade imbalance- we import a half trillion dollars worth. our profligate consumption keeps the price high. foreigners must resent this, and with justice. liquid fuels are far more practical for mobile uses. We should conserve it, so that future generations will have some for their fire trucks %26amp; ambulances.

It seeks to deprive the people who accept Global Warming as fact of their Constitutional rights of assembly and free speech, at least as far as the internet is concerned. A low grade kind of heckling. Other than that I don%26#039;t see any effects. Kind of a nuisance, but since Bush, Newt and the Evangelicals repudiated Denierism, it%26#039;s been a ship without a compass.

well, now that al gore has bribed the well-known scientist and climate expert, al sharpton, the debate is probably over soon.
The three Al%26#039;s - Al Gore, Al Sharpton, and Al Qada will kill everyone.

Yes. The pompous supercilious pseudo-intellectual condescending self important left loves this.

Why do we keep denying there is or isn%26#039;t climate change?

Does there have to be an average November temp of 80 degrees in the northern states before people actually acknowledge it?

They thought the same thing of CFC%26#039;s, they were banned and the world lived to fight another day.