Newsmakers have beat a dead horse on global warming. The media has made us believe that in a short number of years the world will heat up, melt the icecaps and the water will swallow the U.S. What the media chooses not to recognize ( due to the fact that this might decrease their dramatic news) is the fact that the same people that were saying global warming is happening now, were saying that "global cooling" was happening a mere 30 years ago. The fact that scientists can't make up their mind is just one aspect of this debate.
The worlds temperature is simply not an even line. If we were to graph the world's temperature, the line would zig zag every which way. The warming of the earth has obviously only been happening within the last couple of years. Who is to say that we are not on a natural progression that will correct itself in the following decade?
As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, it will not hurt to clean up the earth. Whether or not global warming will happen if we do not clean it up is quite debatable.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I couldn't agree more. I think the whole global warming thing is a getting a tad ridiculous. I'm not too worried that the whole world is going to heat up and say it does in the the next so many thousand years. Well then good for the world. I wont be here to see it.
If you're quoting Bill O'Reilly, you're really showing how biased you are. The man is completly opinionated about things he has no idea about.
Global warming is a serious issue that no real scientist disputes. The media has made it seem that global warming is this huge debate, but it really isn't.
It is only after the American public started being concerned about global warming, did the media pipe down and actually look for the damages caused by climate change.
While I agree that the earth's temperature isn't a straight line, a correlation CAN be seen between the massive amounts of industry (fossil fuel emissions) and climate change.
The only part that was taken from Bill O'Reilly was that he said "We should take the guck out of the air, period".. which is not a biased opinion it is a fact. I did not say that he was a climatologist, but many climatologists HAVE disputed global warming.
I don't get how scientists who say that the earth is billions of years old can think that they can say the earth is getting unusually warm when they are only using, at most, 75 years of data.
An excellent point and one that I would have to agree upon.
Global warming isn't something that people think is or isn't happening. It is an indisputable fact. There are extreme amounts of different pollutants caused by us that eat away at the ozone layer, allowing more UV rays to penetrate our atmosphere.
And the thought that Global Warming has begun to occur only recently is incorrect; it's only been until now that we have accelerated the process through a few things:
1) General overpopulation of the earth (the mere process of breathing releases CO2 which is harmful to the ozone layer)
2)CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons, which are found in numerous products such as freons and styrafoams. The compound is so heavy that it takes 50 years for it to reach the atmosphere. When did we start using freon in our cars? Not too long ago) If people think we have a problem on our hands now can you imagine what it would be like in 50 years.
3)Excessive burning of fossil fuels.
4)Deforestation(huge human population - trees and plants = massive amounts of CO2 goes into the atmosphere)
That is only to name a few of the contributors to this phenomenom.
Much of the effects are already being seen. The huge hurricanes seen in the past year that destroyed New Orleans, and threatened Texas didn't happen by coincedence.
But since the news has publizied global warming so much, many of us now hurry to do are part in decreasing its speed.
As Bill O'Reilly has pointed out, it will not hurt to clean up the earth.
Wow. That may be the first time Bill has said something productive in his life.
Global warming is nothing but a big scam, and that's not just my opinion but that of two men: the head of NASA and the founder of the Weather Channel. The idea that people can predict the weather 100 yrs. from now is absurd since they cannot even predict it 3 days from now. Many scientists have found numerous fallocies in Al Gore's film and book; one such instance is so obvious that there is a picture a type of lizard on a page and it is named a type of lizard that is vastly different from the one pictured. If Al Gore and his editors are unable to catch something so basic, why should we trust their other "facts"?