Global Warming

Both sides have members who are quite passionate about their views... even to the point that they will ignore the scientific evidence countering their belief. Which is exactly what the 'global warming' is: a belief almost like religion with Al Gore as a Bishop.
Don't worry, it will soon be over and this hysteria will be as ill-founded as the Y2K fears.

I agree with nick, this is a serious issue and needs to be taken care of. This issue is way more important than us worrying about another countries ability to take care of themselves once we leave, its all a waste. Lets save the world first, then take care of other wastefull countries.

Aaron, Global warming is not a belief. Beliefs have no facts, so you base your faith on your belief because deep down inside you know it is true. Global warming has facts, strong hard facts that show what is going on. Therefore it's not a belief.

And now, the supreme court has weighed in:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976948211

Sure Nick... here's some facts for you:
The REAL inconvenient truth... science behind global warming
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



And this global warming scare is headed up by the same guy that claimed to have invented the internet.

I'm not saying that there isn't global warming, however, there are facts that have been presented by climatologists who claim that global warming is not as severe as some believe it to be. Just think, in the 1970's we were going through a global cooling phase and were all going to freeze to death. The earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, and this could very well be part of this phase. I, however, support doing things to improve the environment, such as driving less, recycling, and reducing the use of electricity by people. But facts need to be looked at from both sides, because both sides make valid points.

Nick-
With a few quibbles around the edges, I agree with you. That is why you got a 10 from me.
I do not think that GWB "paid off" scientists on global warming, but it has been proved that one of the political appointees in the White House was re-writing the reports from the scientists on global warming, which produced end results similar to paying off scientists. GWB originally ran for President in 2000 with a promise to limit greenhouse gas emissions. That promise disappeared as soon as Cheney invited only fossil fuel executives to the table at his "energy summit", sneering to environmentalists that energy conservation is purely a "lifestyle choice" that has nothing to do with meeting our energy needs.

In practice, getting Americans to accept collective action against global warming is like pulling teeth, even though as you say some of the obvious steps are actually money-savers. It's the people who see this whole thing as a United nations plot to destroy our economy that are applying the brakes- them and the religious minded folks who feel that nothing involving the environment can threaten human survival or even convenience, because "The Lord will provide".
Uh-huh, like he provided Hurricane Katrina and the Thailand Tsunami.

As for me, yeah, I accept science as science and I do not pretend to know it better than the scientists do. End of talk, time for action.

Global warming is a tough issue for me because I see a lot of wrong and some right in the positions of both sides.

First, the 'global warming is a scientific fact' crowd: What's wrong with the
position? Sorry, but (a) Current climate models simply aren't that good. You can make the best possible predictions based on the facts that you have and have a much greater likelihood of being right than being wrong, but that doesn't add up to certainty, or even near certainty. (b) What the models indicate is not necessarily that the earth will get warmer, but that it will be warmer than it would be in the absence of human activity. That's an important distinction. The earth's temperature is highly variable even without human activity. If the earth's temperature would normal be in the down part of the cycle, global warming could simply offset some or all of the temperature drop. If the temperature would normally be in an up part of its cycle, then estimates of global warming could be far too low because the human-caused warming would add to a natural warming trend. Finally, (c) I'm appalled at the politicalization of the issue, with people advocating pulling the funding of any scientist speaking out against the idea of climate warming. By the way, the politicalization bit does cut both ways, so I shouldn't really state that as being only a problem with this side of the issue.

The good side of the global warming advocates position: (a)There is a better than even chance (not a certainty) that they are right. If they are, we need to take steps now. (b)Fortunately, most of the steps we would need to take if they are right are steps that we should be taking anyway for other reasons. For example: We should be investing heavily in alternatives to oil whether or not global warming is likely. There is still a lot of oil out there, but not a lot of cheap, easy to get at oil. The sooner we move away from oil the better off we'll be in the long run. Oil dependence is also bad for our national security because we are funding societies that are generating terrorists and allowing oil producing countries to follow self-destructive policies. (b) Global warming is only the lead issue in a series of issues. The root problem is that the rest of the world wants the same standard of living that Europe, Japan, and the US have.

That points to the main flaw in the no global warmingposition. They may be right to question just how well the current computer models can predict what will happen. They are certainly wrong if they dismiss the need to change the way we currently consume the world's resources.

The world's resources simply won't support our standard of living for those currently enjoying it, plus a billion Chinese, a billion Indians, and hundreds of thousands of people in other countries--if they all try to use the same technology we use in the same way we use it. The reality is that we need to be working on ways to use resources, and especially energy, more efficiently whether or not global warming is likely.

It would be a terrible mistake if China and India poured their modernization resources into producing energy inefficient, resource inefficient economies like the ones in Europe and especially the US, but that seems to be what they are doing.

What we need to do at this point is to get serious individually and as a country about energy efficiency and conserving resources. The individual efforts are important. If you talk about action on global warming but still drive 3 blocks to the store and you still haven't swapped out most of your light bulbs to compact fluorescents, why would anyone take you seriously? If you buy a new PC and a new monitor every couple of years and put the old ones in the trash while they are still perfectly functional, why should anyone take you seriously?

Sorry about the diatribe, but this is an important issue, and we need to understand what is actually at stake instead of just repeating sound bites at one another.

Please watch this movie. You don't have to change your opinion, I just want you to see some opposing facts before you condemn anyone who says global warming is made up. Here is the URL. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

You ovbiously are a very gullable person. How much research have you done on the opposing side of the arguement? Have you seen any videos that oppose global warming? Too many people believe that all scientists are in complete agreement that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans, when in fact, many of the top scientists completley disagree and say that global warming is made up. I personally believe in global warming, I just don't believe that humans are causing it. What is the one thing that affects the earth that is constantly changing? THE SUN! The sun is constantly changing, constantly affecting the earth in different ways.

You see, the sun is not a constant heat as your stove top burner. It is a raging flame of gas in the middle of nowhere, sometimes it puts off more heat than at other times. And the earth is affected through this by short term effects and long term effects. Short term, if the sun is buring hotter than normal, and is more active, we may have a few hot summers and winters, and vice versa. Long term, the sun burns hotter and heats the ocean. The ocean takes a long time to heat up, like a large pot of water. So, seeing our oceans warm up may actually be the effect of the sun burning hotter than normal 100 years ago.

So you say that people still deny global warming, and they do. But it's not always because of politics as you ignorantly assume. There is no proof that global warming is a factor nor that it is caused by humans. You are just another ignorant liberal who has been fooled once again after watching one movie.

I'm still clinging on to the information from Time and Newsweek cica mid 70s spreading doom and gloom about the coming Ice Age and the cooling down of the earth.

Oh here go, its TJ Thompson...the mormonite.

TJ Thompson:

I really loved when Gore refused to cut back on his own energy usage when he was challenged at the hearing on Capitol Hill. Typical of the 'do as I say, not as I do' crowd.


Not to mention that alot of his 'evidence' such as the hockey stick model were proven ineffective as soon as they were conceived.
It's a farce, and Gore's making money hand over foot with his carbon credit scam (after all, he helped fund and is a major shareowner in the companies!)

true American...

when all you can do in a post is toss insults; it usually means you have no real information to counter arguements with... kinda like the kid who takes his ball and goes home cause he can't be the team captain.

I will not defend Al Gore, but I will note that he is not in the White House. Please name me one thing that the current occupant is doing to combat global warming. And do not say ethanol because that is just a scam.

Very good job Dale

If we(man) are causing global warming explain how we caused the ice pack and glaciers to recede 7-8 times in the past. Isn't it also possible that the planet warms and cools naturally. How do you explain that people used to grow crops in Greenland and grapes for wine used to grow in England? I'm not disputing that the planet may be warming but, how can it be proved that man is doing it all. Not a consensus but proof.
In Minnesota they held a hearing on Global Warming but only had the people that support man made Global Warming. Why is it that only one side of this issue gets the attention?

I have another side that seems to get lost in the shouting. Cost. I live below what the government calls the poverty line. I call myself financially challenged. If I go to the store or where ever I have to look at the available light bulbs. Hmmm Here's 4 bulds for .98 cents or here's one for $4.50. Which do I by?? Being the uncaring person I am I buy the 4 bulbs. All of these great and wonderful way's to conserve (i.e. Solar panels, Wind generator, Hybrid cars, ect.) are great but guess what? Here's a shocker. I can't afford these things, and neither can most Americans. If Al would like to set me up with these things guess what? Call me green. But I can't do it. And thats where I have the bigest problem with what Al and the govt. want to do. They want me to pay more for things I can't afford now. So tell me why I should support my income becoming smaller? And don't tell me it's the right thing to do. Keeping people solvent is also the right thing to do. But is that happening?

Chris if ethanol is a scam the why is it pushed so hard? For the farmers maybe? Another hand out?

Chris W: I am by no means a Bush apologist, actually very much to the contrary, but I can name at least one thing he (or at least his administration) is doing to combat global warming. DARPA is funding a crash program to develop 50% efficient solar cells within 50 months of the start of the program last year. They will be spending well over $50 million in that time frame if the program participants meet their goals.

If you say that $50 million plus is chump change compared to some of the other things the government spends money on you'll be right, but this appears to be a well designed and targeted effort that may accelerate the movement of highly efficient solar cells from theory to production by a lot of years.

DARPA is also funding several other solar cell initiatives to the tune of a few million to few tens of millions apiece.

I was interested to read your article....then there were the spelling/typos....that is okay, I do that too....but when you said that Bush paid people off, I stopped.

Global Warming has been an issue for many many years. I studied it in high school and that was longer ago than I will admit here. What amazes me is why people are just getting on the band wagon now. You are obviously a newbie to this subject if you think that Bush is responsible. Get your facts straight and let's talk.

***Big Sigh****

First of all, the warning of global warming was not started in any way by Al Gore. He just found a way to get people, and governments (especially ours) to start talking about it more.

Ethanol is a joke, a very dangerous joke. We are already watching the price of food go up as a result. It takes a lot of enery (fossil fuels) to creat it also. I will need to find you the link but the return on ethanol is only like 20%. In other words it takes 0.8 gal. of gasonline to make a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is attractive because it's production can be controlled. The people making money on ethanol are the people who produce it not the farmers growing the crops.
Maybe we should find out who that is....

Around the world we are losing forest and viable crop lands to produce "biofuels" at an alarming rate. In Brazil they are cutting down rain forest to do it. Does this sound wise to anyone?

Bush did not creat global warming, but his administration has done things to help it along.

The scientists who have claimed that it has been caused by increased solar activity have been completely discredited.
There have been scientists paid to report what Exxon/Mobile wanted them to and them diseminated by a PR firm of theirs. This is not even disputed.

The Bush admin. has actively tried to control science - wait here is a link- or alteast what scientists are able to say, or if they are able to speak out to the press at all.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html

I am quite familiar with the characters on here who like to claim that it is all a hoax, ruse, or fear mongering by environmentalists. Exactly what is it that they think the environmentalists and most (almost all) of the world's scientists have to gain over this?

I am aware that there are a few, but it is a paltry few who think that it is not being caused by humans. Let's look at who is funding them.

On biofuels I found this:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/

Recently I read one with a lot more scientific data. Ill see if I can find out where.

Charles M-
Yes, ethanol is being pushed by the Bush administration not because it will actually address CO2 emissions, but rather because he is hoping that it may garner future Republican candidates a few votes in the Midwest, which is a critical electoral battleground. If he really felt it important to replace our gasoline with ethanol, he is free to advocate dropping the tariff that keeps Brazilian ethanol out of our country. But he has publicly refused to do so. As a result, corn prices are rising quickly which will result in our paying more for chicken and beef. As Christine points out, ethanol uses too much petroleum in cultivation, it will not solve the problem.

Brazil is setting the world up for an environmental nightmare.
google it!

Biofuels are not a solution to the energy crisis.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3276.cfm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-05.htm

just a couple

Aaron he doesn't have to cut back he's "Carbon Neutral". Can anyone say Snake Oil. Hey Al you're still putting out the gases. You should be Carbon Negative not just breaking even.

Whitney,

This is about the third time I've heard of the mini ice age in the seventies. Is someone saying that there was a period of time when the earth was getting cooler each year? My understanding from the forties when I was a kid in school was that the world was getting warmer each year and would continue to. In the seventies, there was certainly no "ice age" going on in Boise, Idaho. We experienced some miserable hot summers then.

Actually, the all time record cold in Boise did not occur until the nineties when we had 25 degrees below. The all time high in Idaho was in 1933 in Cambridge, Idaho at 117 degrees. This of course proves noting when in itself but I'm very skeptical of any ice age in the seventies and did not hear about it at that time!

James C: I wouldn't call it a mini-ice age, but we had some truly nasty winters in the Midwest in the mid-to-late 70's and early 80's. There were extremely cold winters in 1976 or 1977, again in 1979 (the legendary winter of 1979), and again in 1982-83. There was also a nasty one, though not quite as bad in 1984-85.

I seem to recall people talking about a link between the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption and the spate of very cold winters. I'm not sure that link proved out, so I won't claim it as fact. I will argue very strongly that yes, we had some truly horrendous winters in the later 70s and early 80s, from whatever cause.

Talk about being out there? All I see is your opinion. Not data for others to view and judge for themselves. Accusations based on wet dreams and wild opinions based on wild equations do not make fact or truth. All people like yourself are doing is harming the human race by hindering it's growth and development.
As a Investment Advisor, I recently read a very disturbing article about the Supreme Court giving the EPA the authority to regulate CO2. WTF are they smoking? How does man regulate the planet and control the ecosystem? Upon reading this story, I changed my 2 year forecast for the stock market to reflect this ruling, because it is just that big and bad for the human race.
DOW 7,000
NASDAQ 850
S&P 500 600
USD to YEN 10

It might sound like I'm hyping this up, but try to think it all the way through. Trucks in the US would only be allowed to run about 3 hours every 6 days.

ALL RIGHT...!!!

I give up.... Global warming is here to cause a catastrophic damage for the whole world.

With my super powers I will change the way the USA affects the environment. I'm sorry to say that my superpowers can not stop CHINA, INDIA, PAKISTAN, SOUTH AFRICA, BRAZIL, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA, COLOMBIA, PANAMA, RUSSIA, TURKEY, CENTRAL AMERICA, ALL THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, ASIA, THE MIDDLE EAST, ETC... who produces 80% of the global pollution. By decreasing the way the pollution USA produces (15% globally to 10%) I will save not only the planet, but the universe as well.

"Have not fear... Underdog is here"

Dear environmentalist... blaming and changing our way of life in the USA will not stop our sadly self-destruction destiny. Even if we give the example, other nations would never give a cr*p about it (China's economy). If the USA were responsible for at least 50% of the environmental damage I will burn myself (causing more pollution) as a demonstration. Instead of airing your worries and concerns to us, please talk to the Chinese gov, the Indian gov, the Russian gov, etc... And stop blaming the USA and present government for the present problems.

If you prefer, we may declare war to all industrialized countries, reduce them to medieval ages and stop global warming globally at once. By using all of nuclear arsenals at once we could stop industrialized pollution in less than 24 hours. Big Deal... Don't you think so?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Here's the article from Time dated June 24 1974. Yes they may have been wrong, but so might the current science. Food for thought ????

The science has been settled for some time. Business and religious leaders are increasingly calling for action at the federal level to address the threat of global warmng. Now, the supreme court has taken a gigantic step in giving this issue legal definition, basically stating that the Bush administration has jurisdiction over regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas under the clean air act, something the administration has denied.

The point is that people here can continue to argue the issue, but the rest of the world is moving on to consider the best ways to address it.

Top court rebukes administration on warming

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976948211

Science is not exact or perfect and the pro global warming folks leave no room for error. They 100% certain that they are right. The rest have their heads in the sand.

True American, the following was offensive: "Oh here go, its TJ Thompson...the mormonite." Except when he is talking about religion, TJ is pretty much wrong on just about everything he says, but suggesting that his non-religious comments and articles are related to Mormonism is unfair to the rest of Mormondom.

I don't know about the rest of you but I froze my global warmed ass off this year same as last year. It sucks! :)

Actually Winter here in Virginia did not arrive until January this year and we are already back to highs in the 80s. But you guys do not possess the sensitive instruments that climatologists have, and in any event you are only noticing the weather where you are, not the weather in the polar regions where it is most noticeably warmer now.
Stick to your day jobs and let the scientists do science. Really. Global warming is reality based, unlike your opinions thereof.

Charles M,

Thanks for the link and the laugh! I think the article was about three decades in a parallel universe, not on planet earth as we know it! I also noticed two things about this. One, is that "Man done it!" And the other is that the article was all conjecture and estimate. Although it cited the western part of the country, here in Idaho we did not have or hear of any "global cooling." The schools during this period of time still taught that the earth was getting warmer. And our winters generally supported little evidence of any change!

Some of the most convincing evidence I've seen on global warming is the rate of melting occurring in Antarctica at the present time! It is real and measurable as well as being very impressive!

I agree with Chris W. that global warming, at this particular time, is reality based. Whether man is more than a simple contributor and whether man could significantly slow the process are much more subjective in nature!

Aaron,
If you are tryingto relate the global concern over the current global climate change issue to a 'religion' then I suggest that what you are infact picking up on is a global movement or self awarness given the current issues of our times and the desire to deal with them, as humans are have been want to do throughout their history. Your desire to place a religious aspect on it comes from the glass though which you look. Consider the Colonists of the United States in the 1770's: A desire arose to rid themselves of the rule of England across the ocean and, by necessity, establish a government of thier own. Surely those in England at the time, and especially those of Royalist leanings including the Monarchy and much of Parliment, could have viewed the "American Development" as some sort of "'Religion' of Democracy" with vile anti-monarchist senitments and beliefs... And I'm sure King George His Royal Self would have wished that the 'religious' movement of 'self governement' within the lands of his own domain were indeed a "Fad" rather than a true reflection of the needs and desires of an 18th century society...

That of course is only an example of a movement within human societies reflecting the realities and influences of their times. There are indeed many more...

Al Gore is his own person and does not need others to speak for him and it is not my desire or intention to do so other than to speak of him and in regards to the public record. He is one among many that are indeed concerned and active regarding the current Global Warming issue. ...

Al Gore himself has never claimed to have 'invented the internet'. That is a matter of context and intent of meaning in relation to the idea he was discussing at the time. Look up the original and read it over. Could he have chosen better words to express his meaning?...Certainly... But the inability to choose words and use them properly in public speeches and interviews doesn't seem to stop some politicians, does it?

The point is (regarding the Gore-Internet issue) your choice to use that allusion in what should be a civil and adult discussion about the important issue of climate change, that obviously involves and concerns everyone, points more to your own lack of sincerity in this discussion rather than any true relevance to the here and now.

Climate models are tools restricted to the make up of their materials. Climate models do not provide yes or no answers to questions. They form a Picture, which is analyzed by humans as to understand their meanings. Computer models are limited by their programing and the processing power of the computers themselves. They are useful in peering into the issue as a whole and at individual areas within the whole. Think of a Digital Camera that has a given resolution capacity ("Howmany megapixles is your camera...?) ... Its resolution is limited by its optics and internal processing and memory capabilities. It takes a picture of the "REAL" world, which might be considered to have an 'infinite' level of 'resolution' (unless you get down to looking at atoms and electrons and strings and quarks etc. ... but there still is resolution at that level) ... when you look at your picture you have taken with your camera, the picture itself is not a full/real capture of the real world.. your mind is making up the difference where the edge of the pixles are square and meet the next pixle of another color or shade. Seen as a whole the picture on your computer of that snow capped mountain resolves into something your brain understands... Set that resolution on your camera down to its lowest level and take a closeup picture of a snow flake and see how much detail you capture...

Computer models of the global climate system ... a real world situation... present pictures of 'X' resolution. It is that image that continues to resolve from those pictures that points us in the direction, matching other work (laboratory and on-site research) that raises the real level of concern...

Dispute the studies and research themselves... Dispute the process .... or Dispute the concept as a whole ... But please label what it is you might be disputing... Otherwise you are just adding confusion to the discussion... intentional or not...

The study of geological ages of climate change is not the study of this current event commonly called "Global Warming." It is related in that they discuss similar processes. The current Climate Change issue is a specific event with specific details. Discussing previous specific climate change events can involve their own specific details and Causative Agents .... Mixing the concepts of geolgical climate cycles with the current event shows a Lack of Understanding of the current event or a willful attempt to 'mix-up' the discussion (or both in all-liklihood). The continual rise in climate experienced earlier in human history (100 to 200 years ago and 1000 to 8000 years ago) must be viewed in terms of Trajectory... Were that trajectory a simple line graph ... global averaged temperatures of concern (heat) might not be reached for thousands to ten's of thousands of years in the future where that trend to continue in that way. Looking at a parabolic graph you see a similar beging, but then approach a continually increasing rate change, seen as a rising curve which approaches in a preciptous manner in a far shorter amount of time (within decades and 100's of years).

Given that the best ability of science and research thus fur has determined that in all likely hood, the continued emission of human populations is assuring a disruption in climate regimes and related human habitat disruption with a less 'human friendly' climate (including here in the United States) ... What Is the Best Route for us Now?

Despite best attempts to produce countering evidence to remove the burden of responsibility from ourselves (human societies) ... none has remained credible or accurate. That is not a matter of opinion as it might be considered to be in 'Political' Debates, but rather it is a matter of fact within the public record.... Look it up...

(also, discussing individual weather events as proof within themselves of the counter of Climate Change reality ... is just plain silly and shows a lack of understanding in "Climate Change" ... or a willful desire to just "Play" in a serious public debate... It is the context within the global system that weather events need to be considered ... For instance, if Hurricane Katrina happened without the current occurence and awarness of Climate Change ... It would not be considered an indicator or reflection of "Climate Change" ... But it happened during a time of measure global warming and climate change and during the most active seasons ever recorded. The lack of powerful storms in the following season here in the States is itself curious in relation to "Climate Change" and in looking around the globe, the tropical storm intensity and numbers continued following the end of our "big" season... The severity and patchiness of our recent Winter Storms is a continuation of of global weather systems of increased energy. Taken in the context of Global Warming/Climate Change ... What happens to climate in the temperate and tropic regions as the acrtic regions warm...? What happens when, within a closed system, cold regions thaw...? The whole system works toward a new equilibrium.... The margins between the cold zone and the warm zones become more active.... Watch the tendrils of 'wavey' water as you put an ice cube in a glass of warm water... They swirl and reach down into the 'clear' water below as differential heating and cooling occurs and reacts to each other.... What happens when masses of warmed, but still relatively cold air gain energy and move beyond the bounds of the polar regions? Would we expect the jet stream to curl and loop further downwards? Until our northern Hemisphere turns us back around to the sun for our boreal summer... warming us up once again with our comfy blanket still wrapped around us? )

What is the best Route for us now? Given the reality of our situation?

James,
The issue of significant human involvement in climate change is indeed not at all subjective. That is your perspective on the issue and an inacurrate one.

"How's that Heart Condition of yours James? You sure were lucky to get opinions from over 2000 experts worldwide.... What's that? You went with the opinion of that fellow from the online institute of Anas Platyrhynchos ... Oh...Dr. Platyrhynchos himself... hmmm .... So he says actively changing your lifestyle (besides just cutting out McDonald's) will NOT Significanely extend your life? ... Well... ok James ... but I'm sure you looked up some of his points at the library yourself to make sure... right? .... Well, okee dokee then James ... Good luck with that... Oh... What's that James ... I misunderstood... You're not necessarily going with Dr. Platyrhynchos assesment but your just not sure who to listen to yet...??? ... So until you decide you won't make significant active changes.... Hmmmm .... Well, James ... Isn't that sort of like Going with what Dr. Platyrhynchos said without actually SAYING that you are going with wat he said...??? NO? .... Well.... That just seems very Mixed up.... Are you sure you don't need a different Type of Specialist...???"

I truly do not mean to be 'personal' James ... Just trying to make apoint....
You must understand how it looks...

What a great conversation! I personally subscribe to the theory that the earth is going through a "phase" much as it did during the seventies when everyone worried about global cooling. I still believe that we should do what we can as people to reduce the contrubutions we make towards global warming, but honestly, it is probably out of our hands.

David,

I've read your analogy before and wasn't very impressed with it that time either but that's OK.

And you've made your point - you are a true believer! I can accept that!

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating doing nothing. Even though I think personally that the chance of making a significant change in global warming without totally devastating the world's economy and sacrificing the lives of many people is about somewhere between slim and none, I firmly believe we have an obligation to try based on potential risk of not trying!

There are many scientists (I know, they've been paid off by the administration/oil companies/political foes, you take your pick) who don't agree that we can significantly change any of this. This isn't a case of who can cite the most sources wins. It isn't a political issue. It is a human issue with very high stakes!

We can't feed the world with organic farms. We cannot distribute food without using energy. We cannot earn a living to buy that food without energy. These are facts with which I'm sure you'll agree.

If this is being caused by man primarily, we are not going to correct it by cutting down on the number of appliances we each have in our homes and driving a car which gets a little better mileage, etc. It would take a massive upheaval of our society and that of every nation on earth! It would be devastating without doubt.

Still I believe we need to make what effort we can simply because of the stakes involved.

Thanks!

Out of curiosity Cami... what do you base your subsciption on?
There is no "theory" currently indicating that the earth is going through a "phase"
Do mean "theory" in a loose sense of the word?
There is no current Hypothesis that pans out when studied that indicates that current global warming trends are significantly caused by 'natural' means...
Not everyone worried about global cooling in the 70's ... very few infact remeber or even heard of that...Are you comparing the scale of awarness in the 70's to the current state of study and awarness in order to base you subscription?
Honestly ... what do you base your idea that "it is probably out of our hands" on?
Is it really out of our hands? Are we powerless? Are we... the United States of America ... a Helpless People? Are we or anybody really to be held accountable for our own actions...? Why should we be if we can get away with it ... really ... We do have the power to do what we want ... don't we? ...
Is it out of our hands? Really....
But, what if it isn't out of our hands... ??? Should we, then ought try do something?
Should we base something like "well, it's out of our hands now ... " on something solid?

Looking back, might people say... "well, gosh...why didn't they do something... They Knew it was the rate of their carbon emissions...." .... "Well, They didn't think they could do anything... they felt it was... out of their hands...despite all the studies and research they did... I guess it seemed like too much effort at the time... I guess they just didn't have it in them to care or to put in the effort..."

I am very curious ... what someone ... anyone ... might base a statement like that on...
quite curious...

James,
I appreciate your honesty in bringing to the table your beliefs regarding the capability and impliations/ramifications of taking action against global warming... that is indeed where the discussion needs to be and your concerns are important ones to be talked about along with many others...
But please to not pose as one who is unsure of your current conviction in human responsibility...
You are quite sure of your position and that is fine as long as you come to the table without pretence...
It is indeed a matter of sources ... being that the science invovled is beyond any indiviual person to to perform or replicate on their own...
The matter for public discussion is what might be the best route given the state of our understanding of our situation...

Perhaps now you can help me with some non-rhetorical questions...
You indicate that: "There are many scientists who don't agree that we can significantly change any of this."
You seem to be familiar with these scientists... Could you indicate for me who they are, and summarise their positions?

Frankly, they do not exist in the way that you portray them... are they Published in Peer reviewed Journals?

I am not surprised that you are not impressed with the "Carbon Comfy Blanket" writting, but I do appreciate that you read it...

Might not the position that we not take responsibility for our selves because we "can't make a difference" be based on something solid given the stakes?

Again, I appreciate your honesty in presenting your true concern and position... But please dispense with the pretense of "not being sure" ... It is unbecoming an intelligent individual such as yourself...

David, unfortunately there is a religious issue involved. In the recent book, "Collapse," it was pointed out that a major mining company had eschewed curbing its activities in order to protect the environment on the basis that the Earth was going to be destroyed with the Second Coming. At some point we have to disabuse the fundies of the idea that God doesn't care about His Creation and what we do to it.

This article was published yesterday in the Guardian on Palm Oil.
This answers a bit the Bio Fuels question

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/04/296/

TJ Thompson, Al Gore has openly denied any idea of himself being an "expert" on the matter. He is nothing more than a student doing research. This research has, however, been proven effective, which has boosted him as the unofficial spokesperson for global warming.

As for you Aaron P., Gore's hockey stick model was not proven ineffective; please, if you're going to take a side, present valid evidence.

Why is it that only in America is the science being debated? Let's get on with it and do something about the matter.

Joe because it seem's to have become more political than science. And the superstars are being fawned over by the leaders. I was embarrassed by the way Al Gore was received. They acted like the Beatles had just landed. I haven't seen all of his Oscar but one thing I did hear was him say that the icecaps "may" melt and cause the oceans to rise. But to listen to people talk about it as if a wall of water is headed our way.

No Charles. It is because we have been being lied to for years about the reality of it. Honestly, admitting that it is happening would require us to do some things that just weren't so good for business and would cut into the profit margins of the fat cats. Screw the rest of the world as long as they have their extra yachts and weekend homes.

POLAR BEARS ARE NOT GOING EXTINCT..

BECAUSE 70% OF THEM OR MORE LIVE ON LAND

oh yeah read this article http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976912137
thanks

Global warming, global cooling, they are naturally occurring events, that have happened and will continue to happen. The hysteria is that the leftist whackos of this world want to bring down the USA, they have a real problem with our nation as it it the most free, most prosperous, most industrious, most generous, most militarily powerful nation ever to exist and one way to bring us down is to cut us off from our energy resources.
There is opposition to using coal, to drilling for our own oil, to building new nuclear power plants, tapping our natural gas reserves....instead we are supposed to put up a bunch of pinwheels and solar panels and hope for enough windy sunny days to keep our economy afloat, our houses energized, our vehicles powered up.....
Global warming alarmists are so full of BS, ignore so many facts, make up so many "facts" that they are a joke.
Case in point, Polar Bears are not on the endangered species list, in fact a little internet surfing will show you that they are considered as having a stable population. In fact last year I went on a site that has web cams that monitor these great beasts and it was shut down for the season, WHY? Because the Polar Bears were out on the ice pack devouring their annual feast of seals in a place we are told is nothing but open water at that time of year.
Solar radiation oscillates in a regular pattern which results in the radiance of the Sun varying and as a result causes the planet to warm or cool. If anything I would think that CO2 levels are a by product,. a symptom of the warming and cooling brought on by Solar activity, NOT the cause.
Did you ever think there is a reason that all ancient cultures have a great Flood in their folklore, in our own Bible? Could it be that they lived through yet another naturally occurring global warming and they saw some really big fluctuations in water levels.Maybe these are stories of the end of the last major ice age ten thousand years ago?. Our present day in worst case scenario is looking at a few inches, not the 20 feet scary hysteria that Al Gore spouts in his nonsensical rants.
This "argument"is a bunch blather about something that is really an excuse to destroy our freedom and our way of life.

"Global Warming" as defined by al Gore is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
It is so obvious, yet no one will admit the Emperor has NO CLOTHES.
Odd I was reading an article the other day that pointed out the fact the CO2 is heavier than O2 and given that fact and its very small concentration in the overall atmosphere , it is impossible for it to create this gaseous shell in the upper atmosphere and create this greenhouse effect. There apparently is a reason that 99.95 of all CO2 is trapped at ground level and in the seas and and impossible for it to rise up into the upper atmosphere , its too heavy to get there other than to be thrust up there in vast quantities by traumatic events like volcanic activities.
I find it odd that the ultimate answer in every Al Gore dissertation is to impose yet another economic liability on us for the crime of existing. Yet this "messiah" and his elitist disciples rampage around the globe in private jets, live in humongous homes that gulp up all kinds of energy, travel in cavalcades of monstrous motorcades, sop up all kinds of energy at all these events they create to impress themselves and yet we are supposed to bow at this altar of hypocrisy.
You know, Jesus Christ humbled himself, let himself be humiliated, took it on the chin all in the name of bringing us salvation by his example and 2000 years later over 2 billion of us follow him. What example are we to follow with the likes of the AL GOres of the world?

Some excerprts from KBTV.com in Idaho


"McCALL -- Near-record snowfall and low spring temperatures are creating ideal conditions at Brundage Mountain Resort. Resort officials announced today that they will be open for a third bonus weekend in May."


"Brundage Mountain has received 422 inches of snowfall this season. That makes this the second snowiest winter on record."

He science has been settled for some time? A statement like that exudes ignorance of the entire scientific process. By the way anyone else see the weather from the upper mid west this week as they are getting hammered with snow galore?
This Global Warming Hoax, was never about "warming", it is about environmental responsibility to keep our planet clean, fine let's stay clean, but enough with the lies and the stupidity and the opening of the door for government to stranglehold our freedoms in the name of controlling global climate, which we will never do, we can cope with change, we can't invoke change.

I can't believe that there are still people in America who believe there are two sides to the issue of global warming. The science is in folks. It is for real and man is contributing to the trend.

I can hardly keep from lauging if it wasn't so sad to keep hearing or reading "the science is in..."
I have learned from history and being educated in engineering that the science is never "in" it is always being readdresses, reassessed and sometimes completely wrong.
Anybody see how Idaho had a record winter, over 400 inches of snow in the mountains? That Quebec had a record winter , over 200 inches of snow, that the arctic sea ice recovered and exceed by a good 10 -20 cm previous thicknesses in many places? Anybody see that it was snowing still this week across Minnesota, Michigan....
The only thing "in" is ignorance. You who fall for this man made climate change want to believe it because you think it serves your purpose of getting rid of fossil fuels and what ever other agenda that the myriad of pseudo-environmentalists have on their list, but you don't have the guts to lay your real cards on the table.

THis can be read on adn.com , anchorage's newspaper
and I quote

"Anchorage digs out after record snowfall

The Associated Press"

The science is in, the science is in....how can so many non science educated liberal arts majors have the balls to perport they have any scientific clue, these types can hardly change a light bulb, never mind digest scieintific data.

here are a few good reasons people are getting fed up hearing about s0-called global warming

Al Gore is not a climatologist, geologist, or even a scientist, he's just a spin doctor on global warming. Reducing emissions is an important environmental issue, but global warming has yet to be scientifically proved with cold hard facts.

Al Gore is a liar, nothing more than the wizard of oz. The curtain has already been pulled back and many seem him for what he is, a modern day snakeoil saleman. He is interested in getting rich while his friends in government take control of our lives through taxes and regulations. Please educate yourselves!! Start here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

Just saw this article recently...can't remember if it was at Heritage.org, or another reputable site or magazine....just thought it was very interesting.

100-Plus Scientists: Obama ‘Simply Incorrect’ on Global Warming

Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.”

The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”

Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state:

“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…

“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”

The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.

The signers include scientists at Princeton University, U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas, University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, and University of Missouri.

Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.

A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.