# Simple Queston......Yes or No.....



## FSHNERIE (Mar 5, 2005)

Do you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change...???

NO OPINIONS PLEASE

Misfit feel free to delete if you want.Just want to see what our members/outdoors people think.As adults I think we can type Yes or No.


Me...No


----------



## Keith R (Feb 19, 2006)

For me the answer is - NO


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

What...! There's no room in the middle...! 

I really don't know...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## leeabu (Apr 10, 2004)

I'm sorry but a yes or a no answer is not at least 10 characters, which is the requirement to post a reply.


----------



## fishingguy (Jan 5, 2006)

afirmitive


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Misfit feel free to delete if you want


can you give me one reason i would want to?


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

Since the answer has to be 10 words I must say No!


----------



## scallop (Apr 1, 2007)

my vote is no


----------



## RiverRunner88 (Jun 15, 2006)

gonna havta say no


----------



## NorthSouthOhioFisherman (May 7, 2007)

Its a bunch of bull honky NO


----------



## Darwin (Apr 12, 2004)

Global warming? NO! Climate change yes, this planet in a constant state of change.


----------



## FSHNERIE (Mar 5, 2005)

Misfit...We are ADULTS. I have faith in our fellow outdoors people.

as for needing a word to take up space just add.........................................


----------



## leupy (Feb 12, 2007)

no, okay I need to lengthen the reply.


----------



## boss302 (Jun 24, 2005)

Yes it is getting warmer and yes and we humans have SOME impact on this trend.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Darwin said:


> Global warming? NO! Climate change yes, this planet in a constant state of change.


you hit the nail on the head!


----------



## FSHNERIE (Mar 5, 2005)

NO OPINIONS PLEASE.....

Yes..... 
no....... 

Misfit give a while.......
Thank You.................................................


----------



## PromiseKeeper (Apr 14, 2004)

no nope negative negatory nada zip


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Global Warming - Maybe, Climate Change - of course ( sometimes warmer, sometime colder), Humans to blame - nope


----------



## starcraft67 (Jul 4, 2004)

no.....................


----------



## kohouty (Aug 3, 2009)

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

negative .........


----------



## RedJada (Jun 21, 2009)

Yes if I can get a cut of the cash!, Other wise NO!!!!!


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

definately!


----------



## silver shad (Jun 18, 2006)

No ! There after our tax dollars:


----------



## BigDaddy300 (Nov 1, 2004)

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## orangewarner (Feb 15, 2009)

No I don't buy their lies.


----------



## ProAngler (Feb 23, 2009)

Darwin said:


> Global warming? NO! Climate change yes, this planet in a constant state of change.


We have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Nikster (Mar 14, 2007)

*no......................................................* man made

YES.................................................................... Natural thing


----------



## MadMac (May 2, 2005)

I'll have to side with the top scientific minds that do this for a living and say yes.


----------



## triton175 (Feb 21, 2006)

Global warming - maybe
Manmade global warming - NO


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

NOOOOOOOOO, man made hot air, to support thier cause.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Yes.

Same percentage of people used to deny scientific claims that smoking causes cancer. This time it affects everyone.


----------



## elkhtr (Oct 23, 2006)

DITTO!

Our planets climate has been in constant change for tens of thousands of years. Solar heat, the earths core, etc... 



triton175 said:


> Global warming - maybe
> Manmade global warming - NO


----------



## Toxic (May 13, 2006)

NO! Just a way for companies to make money.


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

Isn't this the same as evolution or creation? Way too touchy for me.


----------



## gonefishin' (Apr 14, 2004)

"Things should always be kept as simple as possible, never simpler." Albert Einstein


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

FSHNERIE said:


> Do you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change...???
> 
> NO OPINIONS PLEASE
> 
> ...



There really is no one word answer to that question , someone would be atleast partially wrong whether they said yes or no.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Manmade?????? No

Do a search back to 1974 and our scientific community predicted doom from the return of the ice age due to global COOLING!!

Elkookos Maximus scientificos


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Think how much better our ice fishing season would be here in Ohio ifwe hadn't melted all of the glaciers we used to have in Ohio with our SUV's


----------



## mrfishohio (Apr 5, 2004)

Yes. 
Next you'll try saying the earth is not flat or man can fly... or better yet, visit the moon. Science is hogwash..:T
Merry Christmas everyone...


----------



## ezmarc (Apr 6, 2004)

Hmm... It took billions of years to make all that oil and we are going to burn it all in about 200 years or so. It won't matter much in another hundred years, we won't have any easy oil to burn by then.


Then we can start on the coal again, and then the trees. About the same time as we have a billion Americans half of which are illegal. 

Anybody ever consider that 7 billion people breathing oxygen causes more CO2 than the couple hundred million that were around 5 or 6 hundred years ago. Of course we affect it!


It boils down to me that we are foolish not to invest in new technology for energy.


----------



## ProAngler (Feb 23, 2009)

Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And we are going to save it LOL!!!! Stop the comedy!!!!


----------



## Big Daddy (Apr 6, 2004)

Absolutely. The temperature of the Earth is going up because WAY TOO MUCH HOT AIR is generated on websites like OGF. 

BTW, there is no yes or no answer. There are so many factors, both natural and man made, that contribute to warming AND cooling trends. 

I do think people make way too much out of it to further their own agendas...

Can we go fishing now?


----------



## jshbuckeye (Feb 27, 2005)

I really have no idea, its colder out now then it was yesterday


----------



## Benboat (Jan 20, 2008)

Definitely Not


----------



## fakebait (Jun 18, 2006)

No,no,no,no & no


----------



## RedJada (Jun 21, 2009)

Big Daddy said:


> Absolutely. The temperature of the Earth is going up because WAY TOO MUCH HOT AIR is generated on websites like OGF.
> 
> I think the HOT AIR is more from Al Gore. I heard the other day, we need now to put cows "inside" so when they fart, it wont go into the yea, what ever......
> 
> SAVE THE BEEF


----------



## leeabu (Apr 10, 2004)

Yes. We have covered so much of the planet with heatsinks (cement, steel, etc) that absorbs the energy from the sun and stores it as heat. How could that not heat up the planet.


----------



## bassstalker (Oct 6, 2006)

no. if you say yes, than you can pay the bullsht tax crap and trade will cause.


----------



## WishinIWuzFishin (Jun 17, 2009)

no. No. NO!


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

bassstalker said:


> no. if you say yes, than you can pay the bullsht tax crap and trade will cause.


You'll pay that tax no matter what you think. God bless the USA.


----------



## idontknow316 (Mar 21, 2008)

Undecided, but leaning toward no? I have not looked into all of the facts, or opinions.


----------



## MuskieManOhio (Jun 29, 2008)

idk I kind do but then again i dont think so.


----------



## BuzzBob (Apr 10, 2004)

My gut says no, but I've been wrong about a lot of things. Just ask my wife.


----------



## dip (Apr 5, 2004)

as stated by others- global warming? bound to someday. EARTH HAS BEEN THRU MANY "ICE AGES" followed by warming trends. man made? not at all. climate change? NATURALLY.


----------



## WB185Ranger (May 18, 2006)

No....... noway, no how, not even a chance!


----------



## JIG (Nov 2, 2004)

You bet Dip! And ALOT more too come. Every cycle cleans the slate and we start all over! ? is when!


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

Yes. it is getting warmer. Man made ?? don't think so. But less crap in the air couldn't hurt.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

without a doubt we are effecting the climate change......


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

Darwin said:


> Global warming? NO! Climate change yes, this planet in a constant state of change.


this is an intelligent response.


----------



## auglaizewader (Aug 30, 2007)

Long answer : In the 70's scientists warned of a coming ice age. It is in Time magazine. Now global warming. in 2020, ice age. it is all cyclical.

Short: no


----------



## Bass_Hawg (Apr 12, 2004)

the Answer is no!


----------



## Captain Kevin (Jun 24, 2006)

The gas effect is caused by all the Bull Sh!t of "global warming" What a farce!!


----------



## Ruminator (Apr 6, 2004)

There's no doubt that humankind is hurting the planet with our various forms of pollution we pump out, and reductions should be sought technologically.
But given time the earth will self-correct those.

Global warming significantly effected by man- NO.

Solar activity levels effect the earth's climate to such a degree that our effects, and future improvements are insignificant.

The cycles will continue, just as they probably need to.


----------



## Coot (Jan 27, 2006)

YES - it's hard to argue with the scientific evidence.


----------



## guido469 (Mar 31, 2008)

Im gonna give it a big NO.


----------



## Cordon (Apr 12, 2005)

Yes...................


----------



## symba (May 23, 2008)

It will be too late when we find out what we have done...


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

I have to wonder what the creator ( adjust depending on your particular beliefs ) is thinking as he learns of our little global warming "theories" on how our tiny and short lives have wreaked such havoc on creation even though we have only been on the scene just a small flash of time compared to the existence of the world ,......as we are actually coming out of this mini ice age and in the last rounds of the normal warmup cycle that has taken place countless times over the eons of unwritten history. He must have to laugh a little because it really is quite funny.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Ever see satellite images of rain forests going up in smoke? Looks like a bunch of volcanos from space. Forget about smokestacks and car exhaust for a minute...this planet is quickly losing its ability to regulate the weather. 

Oh, and the climate change debate is NOT about saving the planet. It's about saving people. After humans are gone the earth and its ozone will most certainly repair itself and flourish in a relatively short period of time.


----------



## alighthouse (Jul 24, 2006)

I think the HOT AIR is more from O#@#@. It was reported there's No such thing as Global Warming... *It's the Govt. way of getting more of our Hard Earned $*


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

heck we;ve been killing ourselves since day one . the earth will change ,it does everyday!!. man is not going to change it ,just rush it along a little faster.


----------



## walleyevision (Aug 4, 2005)

I do not believe in global warming the way that those behind the movement would have it. I do however believe we have an impact on the earth and need to make some changes to keep her healthy.


----------



## Guest (Dec 20, 2009)

yes, absolutely. the evidence is in front of us. somehow, the media and politicians have made this a political event. from an environmental standpoint, it is happening.

YES


----------



## vkutsch (Oct 28, 2005)

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck say no, so the answer is pretty obvious to me.


----------



## iceberg (Dec 27, 2004)

no ,nope, nada............................


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

vkutsch said:


> Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck say no, so the answer is pretty obvious to me.


well now there's a couple of real authorities on the subject!


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

we need to change the way we are doing certain things so as to limit the impact to the environment. I don't think that is something anyone here can argue with


----------



## soua0363 (Jun 10, 2005)

Yes. 

I know it is not scientific but I remember as a kid growing up in Akron we would have large amount of snow, but as I grew older, the amount of snow has diminished with each passing year. I remember building snow forts all the time as a kid. I have a picture of my dad and I standing next to a large pile of snow that we just got done shoveling. Akron will be "lucky" to get snow like that now a days.


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

seethe303 said:


> we need to change the way we are doing certain things so as to limit the impact to the environment. I don't think that is something anyone here can argue with


====================================================

Is that a yes or a no???????????????????/
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


My answer is NoWayJose


----------



## fffffish (Apr 6, 2004)

I think its all hogwash and a big NO


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Ruminator said:


> There's no doubt that humankind is hurting the planet with our various forms of pollution we pump out, and reductions should be sought technologically.
> But given time the earth will self-correct those.
> 
> Global warming significantly effected by man- NO.
> ...


Ditto.

My biggest thing with the issue is that certain well known people/factions portray their 'evidence' and assume it is an exact 'if, then' situation. Science doesnt work like that. The scientific method doesn't simply say 'good enufffff'. For real scientists to simply go along with what these others have come up with is just wrong. The basis of science is to strengthen a hypothesis by poking at its weaknesses. This whole movement goes at it from the opposite angle. The weaknesses of this 'theory' (incorrect nomenclature, btw) is that people keep charging off into the direction they get favorable and incomplete answers from.

Contrarily, it is stupid for non-beliviers to succumb to the same pitfall in logic. You cannot simply say 'nah i don't believe in no warming'. There is not enough evidence on either end.

I support further research on the subject because that is what science requires. When a good question is raised, it should be answered thoroughly, and NOT by politicians/carbon credit tycoons.

Oh, short answer, I forgot.

My gut tells me *NO*, but I would like to see more research on the subject over a much longer time period than the last few years.


----------



## Capt.Muskey (Apr 14, 2004)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!!


----------



## TightLine (Apr 15, 2004)

Nope, man is a not good steward overall... by any means. but it's like saying "a fly farted, that's what caused the hurricane." To use the words of Rush (not Limbaugh, the band) which pop into my head on many occasions "Change is not permanent, but change is"
Today's Tom Sawyer


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

ezmarc said:


> Hmm... It took billions of years to make all that oil and we are going to burn it all in about 200 years or so. It won't matter much in another hundred years, we won't have any easy oil to burn by then.
> 
> 
> Then we can start on the coal again, and then the trees. About the same time as we have a billion Americans half of which are illegal.
> ...



where do you get that we will ever burn up all the oil ? and how do you know that it took that long to make or how much we have? They have gone back to wells that they have run dry ten years ago and all of a sudden they are full of oil again , now i don't know if the earth made new oil or oil seaped in from somewhere else but it was there. Also how much oil do you think we have on hand that we are not "allowed" to touch, because of an endangered bird or mussel?

also just in the last ten to twenty years the earth average temp has went down almost 4 degrees. This is all a power play and money grab. More of the bigg wiggs trying to line their pockets.


----------



## cincinnati (May 24, 2004)

Anyone who seriously believes in man-made global warming should be riding a bicycle to the lake, rowing around to fish & living in a tent without heat or A/C.

The list of true believers is REALLY short............


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

It's all about the carbon credits....


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

There is already plenty of good studies already conducted concluding YES, so that's my answer. I am a scientist, and I always try to base my opinions, statements, and knowledge on research and it's results conducted using the scientific method. I don't follow any politicians and their political agenda, or base my perception of a problem formulated by what I "feel" the answer is or should be. No, sticking with scientific facts and research usually is the best way. Some of the present research and results curently being conducted are: 1.)NASA http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215194218.htm
(Also see the "Related Stories" in the right column, after you open that website.)

2.)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091216131747.htm
(Again, see the "Related Stories" in the right column, after you open that website.)

Apparently, it's not only green house gases that can cause the "Greenhouse Effect", but also water vapor. Evaporation thus increases with a rise in temperature contributing even more to the warming. There are countless other websites devoted to this issue. You can check them out if your want to. Just stay with the pure science ones based on actual data not associated with any hidden agendas, and you will get the true picture.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Not a snowball's chance in Mexico. Take a look at how slanted the "science" behind this farce is (see email leaks from a month ago from the "experts" stating that the data is rigged and see NASA not releasing their information via a Freedom of Information Act about slanted climate data.

Liberty thieves are hard at work trying to take your private property via taxes and continuing the degradation of our standard of living, and eradication of our national sovereignty.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html


----------



## leftfordead88 (Oct 22, 2007)

noooooooooooo


----------



## Big Daddy (Apr 6, 2004)

Just a reminder... Political discussions, including links to political websites are not allowed on OGF. This thread is precariously close to going political and I would suggest minding the TOS.... 

Thanks.


----------



## One Legged Josh (Jan 27, 2008)

Noooooooooooooooo


----------



## jsifam (Apr 18, 2004)

one word : sunspots


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-2,00.html


----------



## ProAngler (Feb 23, 2009)

One more word: Cloverleaf


----------



## ErieAngler (Apr 15, 2006)

No political discussions? lol

I'll just go ahead and say maybe - how unpolitical is that!


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

Apparently you didn't read the two websites I posted , plus their associated articles as listed to the right of each. These articles are from well-known research groups from all around the world, and provide current research data and info. Your first post was from The Washington Post. We all know newspapers make $ by portraying they have expert knowledge because of their "investigative reporters". I've personally dealt with these type of reporters in my lab, and they can't even get the facts right or correctly spell the words we told them in the interview, when the article comes out. The ones that come through my lab at times are morons and don't know one thing about science. They're totally clueless. They only want their story. Correct or not. I'm going to believe newspapers, YEAH Right. Maybe for sports scores though. Your second website is purely political at the onset, and ripe with political overtones. The guy that wrote the aricle, Robert Tracinski writes for "The Intellectual Activist" paper. Sure is a nice non-partisan/political paper. Just go to it's website and read some of the topics it covers. Real unbiased scientific stuff there isn't it! I discarded that article out as an outlier. And finally, what does your statement: "Liberty thieves are hard at work trying to take your private property via taxes and continuing the degradation of our standard of living, and eradication of our national sovereignty" have to do at all with global warming? That also sounds political to me too. Shouldn't we be dealing with scientic facts as I earlier mentioned and not newspapers and politics. Science is a separate field of study apart from Journalism and Politics? I want to practice that for my information.


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

Big Daddy: Just saw you post on poltical discussions. I probably overstepped that with my last post # 97. I will cease and desist. No more. SORRY. Merry X-mas.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Scientific Facts sounds like some sort of oxymoron...


----------



## truck (Apr 12, 2004)

I think the HOT AIR is more from Al Gore,a big NO from me there have been at least 10 ice ages already ????


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

Yes, they could appear that way to a non-scientist.


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

Ok, ten ice ages in the past. That also means there were ten warm-ups to melt the ten past ice ages. Otherwise, there would have been only one long continuous ice age, not ten. I think we're debating the current global heat-up or maybe cool down, and if it's accelerating faster than normally was seen in the past ice ages due to man's current environmental input.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

You're missing my point, and looking more and more like a sheep-like follower of the rest of your 'scientist' colleages. Fact never occurs in science. Simply provisions and the refining of hypothesis. Any 101 class tells you that! Don't forget your roots! And who's to say I'm not a scientist?! .


----------



## timmyv (Apr 26, 2006)

My answer is NO! This is a big subject for me and that is all I will say for if I say more this theard could be possibly closed.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Tropical fossils found in extreme north climates , ....the earth has warmed and cooled before. Primitive man probably thought it was because because they discovered fire......putting all that smoke and carbon into the sky dont ya know 

Its nothing to argue about tho , neither side of the issue could possibly have all the facts needed to declare ANYTHING as fact , except that the earth has cooled and warmed many times. Everything else , is just theory.


----------



## Tommybouy (Jun 5, 2005)

How do I say this.....NO


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

I guess I failed to understand what really was your point. Actually, fact can be just another word for data, so I probably should have used that to avoid confusion. My fault. Data/facts are directly measured quantities, so yes they do occur in science. That's how science is conducted, observing and measuring parameters, and gaining data. Your class 101 must have left out several steps, because there are more than just "provisions and the refining of hypothesis". And what is a provision anyway? Not sure what this term means in this context. No, I have never forgotten my roots, and here is the scientific method, my roots taught me in my "class 101": 1.) define your area of investigation (topic-like global warming) 2.) collection observations or data/facts 3.) perform an experiment varying a parameter (s), and noting the result 4.) when enough experiments have been performed, the scientist looks for a pattern to explain the observed facts, this is called a Scientific Law 5.) the scientist next tries to find a reason for the observed facts, and makes an educated guess, this is called an hypothesis. New experiments can now be performed to further test the hypothesis. And finally, a hypothesis that stands up to many checks is called a Theory. Now here is where you are correct, a theory can never be completely "proved" because new tests or data in the future could make it invalid or further strenghten it. I apologize by implying you were not a scientist. If you are great, we need more out there. It just seemed by your oxymoron statement you probably weren't. Sorry. Remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, so there really isn't a right or wrong here. Only time will tell the true outcome on this subject.


----------



## Fisherman 3234 (Sep 8, 2008)

I agree with mushijobah, and my official answer is NO.


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

this is why I love axiomatic systems like mathematics. I can *prove* that things are true.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Unfortunately a set (or multiple sets) of data do not answer such a broad question. Are you telling me that we can accurately model the world's climate? I think not.

You seem to think there have been enough experiments, when the results are so garbled no one can definitely agree. Climatologists say one thing, geologists disagree, and astronomers have their own ideas. The rest (a peanut gallery of scientists who don't actually study the matter at all) sort of go along with what other pseudo intellectuals are saying and follow the 'science' preached by their political heroes and fellow head nodders.

We both know this hypothesis had super-prematurely jumped the gun into theory or 'fact' status. People are starting to realize this. I'll just sit back as both sides continue to fight. All of this could have been avoided had there been a provision to separate politics from science, similarly to the separation of church and state.

What a world that would be

I'm not saying I am a scientist...I'm just sayin' . You could call me a black sheep among my peers. I'm just happy some are starting to come out of the fretting stage that all humans go through when news outlets explode with news of impending doom and hurricanes and tornados and nuclear war over water and..you get the point. Some real questions are being asked now. Not just bowing down to the all knowing inventor of the Internets  Let us embrace the Scientific Method and look at this subject from a non-biased standpoint...PLEASE PEOPLE!!


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Darby Rat said:


> Apparently you didn't read the two websites I posted , plus their associated articles as listed to the right of each. These articles are from well-known research groups from all around the world, and provide current research data and info. Your first post was from The Washington Post. We all know newspapers make $ by portraying they have expert knowledge because of their "investigative reporters". I've personally dealt with these type of reporters in my lab, and they can't even get the facts right or correctly spell the words we told them in the interview, when the article comes out. The ones that come through my lab at times are morons and don't know one thing about science. They're totally clueless. They only want their story. Correct or not. I'm going to believe newspapers, YEAH Right. Maybe for sports scores though. Your second website is purely political at the onset, and ripe with political overtones. The guy that wrote the aricle, Robert Tracinski writes for "The Intellectual Activist" paper. Sure is a nice non-partisan/political paper. Just go to it's website and read some of the topics it covers. Real unbiased scientific stuff there isn't it! I discarded that article out as an outlier. And finally, what does your statement: "Liberty thieves are hard at work trying to take your private property via taxes and continuing the degradation of our standard of living, and eradication of our national sovereignty" have to do at all with global warming? That also sounds political to me too. Shouldn't we be dealing with scientic facts as I earlier mentioned and not newspapers and politics. Science is a separate field of study apart from Journalism and Politics? I want to practice that for my information.


Very valid points here. Perhaps I can clarify a bit.

As far as my links go, I did a scroogle search for the afformentioned topics that I brought up. I copied one of the first few links about each and pasted them in here. I suppose, if you like, you could provide me a list of non-biased organizations, and I would surely go look for their links and pop them in here as well (as a side note, sorry BigDaddy for the "political link" I put in there. I should've grabbed from a different source).

The point I want to make is that "respected" scientists, both home and abroad, have fabricated findings by cherry-picking information to fit their climate models. One group has been found to do this via thousands of emails amongst themselves saying that they knowingly selected data to only fit their desired outcome, while the other group (NASA) has had data that they have corrected and re-corrected, which indicates a manipulation of the numbers, and they are currently under the threat of a lawsuit from a scientist because they will not cooperate with his FOIA request, which is at this point many months old.

If you could find some information that refutes directly what I have mentioned on these stories, I urge you to do so. I may not have picked the best links, but I could find 100 more on each topic because the story is well known and the facts are out there.

Also, in regards to the "Liberty thieves......" comment; I may have gone a bit outside the parameters of the original "Yes/No" question, but my point is on topic in regards to this, although it does veer from the direct scientific question about global warming being real or not. Perhaps my comment was based too much on 'what the government will do to the citizens in the name of global warming'. That is a totally different topic in and of itself. Hopefully that clears some things up.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Also, Darby Rat, as a further in depth posting for my statement of intentional scientific data manipulation, here is a story about the Russians saying that Hadley (the group whose thousands of emails admit to manipulation) manipulated what data was used from Russia (which if anyone wants to know covers approx. 10% or 12% of the earth's actual land --quite a big chunk).

Forgive me if this link has any undertones, but my search can be replicated and this story pulled from any number of sources.

Here is a quote from the article, with the link posted below the quote.

"Yesterday&#8217;s report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country&#8217;s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world&#8217;s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources"

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/...-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/


----------



## FSHNERIE (Mar 5, 2005)

YES OR NO..................Simple


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

I choose ......................Simple


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

FSHNERIE said:


> YES OR NO..................Simple


as many people have pointed out, breaking down this highly complex issue into simply a yes or no is impossible, especially since the original question was quite ill defined. 



> Do you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change...???


you didn't specify whether or not you meant man made global warming for one! it is a fact (right, Mushi?  ) that the earth has gone through ice ages which certainly is climate change. for example...


----------



## Nikster (Mar 14, 2007)

Ya want scientific proof?

Well here it is;


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

survey says..............................................
















thread closed at author's request.


----------

