Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Global Warming Questions?



June 04, 2011 – Comments (11)

Has anyone changed their minds on whether or not global warming is real, and/or whether or not it is caused by increased atmospheric CO2?

My answer is no, I have not changed my mind. I am still convinced that global warming is man made.

Best wishes,


11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 04, 2011 at 11:02 AM, soycapital (< 20) wrote:

That makes my day to know what you think about the subject!

Report this comment
#2) On June 04, 2011 at 1:59 PM, tomlongrpv (60.87) wrote:

I have kind of changed my mind.  Global warming is clearly happening.  It is likely caused by man but I am convinced it no longer makes a difference if it is caused by man because I now think it is too late for us to stop it.  Not to say we shouldn't try.  I have solar panels myself and will be considering a plug in hybrid for my next auto purchase.  That being said, we need a Plan B.  Plan B includes, among other things, starting to set aside funding for needs that will arise over the next couple of centuries.  The reason to plan so far ahead is that the needs will be huge.  The include evacuating and relocating most of the populations ot Bangladesh and Florida.  Also there will be significant adjustments required in other coastal areas.  Some coastal cities are already drawing up land use ordinances to foster "orderly retreat" as sea levels rise.  Other needs include the development of drought and heat resistant crops.  Indeed the needs are so large I can't even begin to imagine what they all are and I think I am terribly ignorant of them.  What scares me is that I think the vast majority of people are even more ignorant of them than I am.

I started my own little effort by donating $800 to buy an acre of land on a higher elevation island for a Solomon Islands family losing its low elevation island because of salt water degredation of water supplies and cropland.

Report this comment
#3) On June 04, 2011 at 8:59 PM, buffalonate (50.23) wrote:

Global Warming is real but it is too late to do anything about it. 

Report this comment
#4) On June 05, 2011 at 1:13 AM, ChrisGraley (28.54) wrote:

Right now, global warming is real. Climate change is perpetually real.

Global Warming is partially caused by man but has nothing to do with CO2.

Burning fossil fuels does cause other problems though.

My opinions and the facts haven't changed. 


Report this comment
#5) On June 06, 2011 at 11:03 AM, russiangambit (28.71) wrote:

It seems to be all the cycles got amplified, harsher, which is not good for us. I guess I always believed that humans affect nature negatively , I just didn't know how that would manifest iteself. So, now I know. We  are having once in a century floods, droughts and other events left and right over the globe for the last 2 years.

And Fukushima nuclear plant melted down on top of it, they finally announced today.

Report this comment
#6) On June 10, 2011 at 2:27 PM, CluckChicken (< 20) wrote:

"Global Warming is real but it is too late to do anything about it."

- I agree that it is real and it is too late to stop it but I believe that we can at least start to take efforts to not make it worse.

Report this comment
#7) On June 10, 2011 at 2:43 PM, TheDumbMoney (78.23) wrote:

devoish, what do you make of the Vostok Ice Core data?

While I do not discount the idea that humas are contributing to global warming (which is clearly "real" - whatever that means), what do you make of the fact that: 1) our last Ice Age ended lo about 15,000 years ago, which is why there are no glaciers in Berlin anymore; 2) we are about near the last four cyclical highs in temperature and CO2 for the last 400,000 years?  Given this historical data, which has been confirmed at other ice cores, and in sedimentary data, don't you find a focus on what has happened in the last 50, 100, or even 1,000 years to be a little, frankly, silly?  (As well as unscientific.)

Report this comment
#8) On June 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I highly recommend the following articles:


"I will begin with my contentious conclusion, which is that the international diplomacy of climate change is the most implausible and unpromising initiative since the disarmament talks of the 1930s, and for many of the same reasons; that the Kyoto Protocol and its progeny are the climate diplomacy equivalent of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that promised to end war (a treaty that is still on the books, by the way), and finally, that future historians are going to look back on this whole period as the climate policy equivalent of wage and price controls to fight inflation in the 1970s."



The Really Inconvenient Truth or "It Ain't Necessarily So"

by Andrew Turnbull



Making the lukewarmer case

by Judith Curry


Report this comment
#9) On June 10, 2011 at 3:01 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I've started to club baby seals and render their fat so I can heat my home this winter. Since seals breed I consider them to be a renewable resource, thus more friendly to the environment than coal or petroleum.

I can sense the anger welling up within you. Unleash it upon me for I feed on your spite!

Cato, The Provocative.

Report this comment
#10) On June 10, 2011 at 3:11 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

My Personal View:

The debate needs to be reframed around appropriate solutions that save the taxpayer money and improve the human condition. CO2 is a by-product of the process, its not the true cause of the problem.

Thus far, there aren’t any proposed solutions that meet these common sense goals. If there were, the solution would be a win win and everyone would support implementation.

Green technology isn’t mature enough to implement on an industrial scale. It simply isn’t profitable.

Everyone knows this yet instead of logically supporting the R&D to bring Green Tech to market as a viable technology, politicians are forcing it into the market early and are wasting tax dollars on folly. Politicians are great at folly but sadly short on appropriate solutions.

At some point, viable solutions will emerge but Tax for Nonsense isn’t going to win.


Report this comment
#11) On June 15, 2011 at 5:53 PM, devoish (64.74) wrote:


There is no debate that should be framed by economics theory. If you want to save the taxpayer/consumer/citizen money and can do so with market forces great! in the future the mistake that cost the most will be understood as having waited for markets forces instead of forcing markets.

The judithcurry link is a character assasination of a type more easily directed at the self interest of fossil fuel industrys, but not  an assessment of science.

The turnbull link is also about the "politics" of global warming in 1998 (?) and despite the articles claim that Turnbull was head of the uk dept of the environment I can find no other corroboration of that.

And the first link is by the American Enterprise Institute which would probably lose their funding from the fossil fuel industry if they ever suggested that burning fossil fuels was causing environmental harm.


I agree with the text in the link you gave us. In the past warming led CO2, but now CO2 is leading and causing warming.


I would consider your time better spent clubbing seals than provacateering.


i agree with you.


I agree with you but feel we need to take steps to prevent the warming we still can prevent.


Whatever motivates you, it is good to see someone taking steps in the right direction.


I asked, so I thoght I should also answer.


Thank you for answering,


I am not sure to what to make of your answer. It seems that you think global warming is manmade and we are seeing real world results.

Thank you all for replying, this seems a far cry from four years ago when half the replys were vehemently of the opinion that the planet was not even warming, much less manmade.

Best wishes,


Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners