The Bridge presents "Exercise in Restraint & the Art of Listening"


As part of its Audio February series of events, The Bridge presents "Exercise in Restraint & the Art of Listening," featuring Clifford Schwing, Wendy Hsu, Carey Sargent, and Kenneth Yates, with special guests Cleek & Graham. 209 Monticello Road (across from Spudnuts). 984-5669.

69 comments

The worlds been around for billions of years. If you think that a sudden change in the atmosphere in a period of 100 years is caused naturally, your going to need some hard core facts to assuade my belief that we caused this.

We need to change our lifestyles no matter what the cost. We cannot survive without an environment.

Perhaps I see things a tad more unfiltered from down here on the Mississippi gulf coast where almost 3 years after the landfall of hurricane Katrina most areas are still barren and littered with debris. The planet is warming, we all see the signs in nature from the melting of polar ice to the increase in hurricane activity and erratic weather patterns. No matter the cause, the balance of nature is teetering and we are all along for the ride

Complete load of nonsense.

Mere association is not proof, but we have known for over 100 years that carbon dioxide behaves as a greenhouse gas. As we have pumped more and more into the atmosphere, we have observed a continual rise in the earth's temperatures. There is a physical basis for this rise in temperatures.

Michael Mann's global temperature reconstructions were largely affirmed by an independent review conducted in 2006 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Eight of the top ten warmest years on record have come within the last decade.

Truth does matter, and unfortunately it is difficult for average citizens to ascertain the truth when such distortions and blatant inaccuracies such as contained in this letter are left unchecked.

Todd-

Yes, Truth does matter, Mann's temperature reconstructions were not largely affirmed in 2006, there were lots of fudges and weasel words, but Mann was totally demolished by the Wegman report.

Whilst CO2 levels have increased, temperature has increased and decreased. There is no direct link with CO2, the original contributor is correct.

Fudges and weasel words? Here's a link to the National Academy's press release, for anyone to judge: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

Totally demolished by the Joe Barton-commissioned Wegman report? Their complaints about Mann's statistical methods, while perhaps valid, do not have significant bearing on the overall reconstruction: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-...

Temperatures, of course, would not be expected to monotonically increase. Large scale climate factors, such as El Nino events, cause fluctuations from year to year but the overall trend is unambiguously upward.

By the way, with your reasoning you could say:

"Whilst day length has increased, daily temperatures over the past several weeks have increased and decreased. There is no direct link between warming during the Spring and lengthening daylight".

Thanks to Charles for the letter. Correlation does not equal causation. Like saying the humidity is warming up the planet...but the air temperature must rise first for the air to hold more moisture. We're in an ice age...ice at sea level somewhere on the planet...which is not normal in geologic time. 3 million years of ice ages preceded by a billion years of a mild planet 20 deg F warmer. I'll be glad when the planet warms back up to normal. And it won't be the end of the world.

alls i know is that once the polar bears and the black bears meet in canada we gonna have some hot interacial love and the brown bears will once again rule the planet.

On the serious side, I read that the moon is getting hotter to... did NASA leave some greenhouse gasses or is maybe the sun burning a little hotter than it used to?

Hi,
I work with Dr R.K. Pachauri, IPCC Chair and was there when he was asked about this so-called "plateau". Dr Pachauri was talking about the alleged plateau in temperature ...of the last 2 years. There is no question about the evidence of the climate change that has been occuring since pre-industrial times.
Please do not mis-interpret people's statesments to support your own opinion.
Thank you.

the global worming NUTS are the same NUTS that said we would run out of every thing by 2000. they were wrong of course. there is more food per person to day then any time in the history or man kind. that can be said for every thing from oil to iron to gold. These NUTS need shortages so they can be in charge. Thy have a need to run the world because the are so much smarter then the rest or us.

Clearly global warming has become a HUGE industry, with grant money as the inducement for every scientist who wants to get on board, and the tax money and power every politician dreams of (including the UN). So many people and entities have their credibility tied up in it now, if the temperature's plummeted over the next year, it would still be hard to stop this freight train. Even though the data says that 1998 was the peak of the cycle, that from 1998 to 2007 temperatures actually trended down, and between 2002 and 2007 temperatures have plateaued, we are just now beginning to hear about it? One need not wonder why.

Do people have no shame? Why do people like Steve feel empowered to make bogus claims such as "the data says that 1998 was the peak of the cycle" and "from 1998 to 2007 temperatures actually trended down"? I find it sad and mind-boggling that people continue to believe that global warming is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by people hungry for money, prestige, and influence. Evidence (beyond Mann's "hockey stick") is abundant that the earth is getting warmer because--at least in part--of anthropogenic additions to the atmosphere. Discounting this evidence as meaningless must take a strong faith. But, then, maybe that's the point. With more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at anytime in the last half million years (at least), faith that anthropogenic GHGs are insignificant may be our only hope.

Anyone who knows with ontological certitude how much CO2 has been in the atmosphere at all times during the last 500,000 years must be on top of this topic. However, I'm sad to report to people like Doug, here's another shameful person, a scientist no less, feeling inexplicably empowered to claim facts in evidence that are, no doubt, not to Doug's liking. I'm sure it will chalked up to more bogus claims from the uninformed:

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

Glaciers in California are getting larger. How does the current model explain that?

You guys must have spent alot of time in a Climatology school or raised by an exxon mobil francise. The proof is everywhere. Bring your SPF-300

Hi,

I'm writing a school paper on Global Warming in which I need to side, one way or the other, either prooving or disprooving the theory of Global Warming. After reading this page my thoughts are shaky at the best. Can any body help we out with proof for either side? And what's more, can anyone set the mind of student who wil soon inherit what's left of this planet?

Thank you if you answer.
Sincerely,
-'Victom of the Past'

Doug posted an interview; who's to say that's true or not? Who can say for sure they are correct? Here are some of my ideas:

Oh, and I don't know about you guys, but since last year I've felt the sun starting to burn more intensely. I guess that doesn't mean Global Warming is actually real, because if Global Warming was real, temperatures would -- stay the same or something! *sarcastic joke*

However, an a more serious level, I can't say that I know everything about Global warming (or its situation), I'm just a student. However, I suppose everyone would love to think that there's nothing wrong. Why? Because if nothing's wrong, that means we, humans, aren't wrong either. Who wants to prove they're wrong about something?

I'd suggest, "FUture Gen.", that you go with what you believe. I believe Global Warming exists, others don't. Maybe they're right, maybe the media is all wrong and there's just a few who know what's going on, or maybe the media is just telling what we know and the earth will seriously have some issues.

I can guarentee you this, though: the ozone layer is disappearing (ozone layer holes). This means that more sun is getting in, and burning things up more quickly (like my skin). This is meaning more extreme temperatures -- not just everything going up, but everything going up AND down. Maybe this would explain why temperatures are "going down"? Maybe this is why some people are convinced that global warming doesn't exist? If temperatures were just going up, yes that'd be a problem -- but global warming isn't just "warming", it's also "cooling"! That means, generally, warmer summers (which we've been experiencing where I live) and cooler winters (elsewhere in my country -- they're really experiencing this problem). And of course this is making more hurricanes because the weather system is "out of whack".

Maybe that's our problem right there -- the definition of global warming.

Also, I believe that even if nature is working against it, can it keep up? Certainly not, we're destroying nature! We're cutting down trees. Maybe it'd be OK if we planted many more forests, but we're destroying them! Nature can't save the world from global warming if we take out it's "only defenses" (trees being a major part of that).

In conclusion, if we don't do something about it, some of us will live to regret it. Then again, maybe we won't live for as long as we'd thought...

Just a thought, FUture Gen, you might tackle the tough issue of accurate spelling before tackling such a complicated political issue as Global Warming.

Seriously though, this Global Warming issue reminds me of god belief. The side in favor tries desperately to maintain Faith and favorable interpretation of data, and seems to overlook unfavorable data, with an eye to their evangelism.

Just show me a strong logical argument or some peer-reviewed evidence... and you will win me over. Thus far I remain a skeptic, vis-a-vis, Global Warming and gods. The evidence almost always leads to the proper conclusion.

Thank you so much chess123mate.

Since last night I've found many sites, far more than I expected, and the majority are speeking up saying this is happening and that global warming is real. I read about the theory on how the world will end on 2012, articles on government censoring, and even pacifist organizations who are raleying small summons of peole, liberals, who are seeking a green planet. I read about bush proposing the Kyto treaty and then not signing it. That's hardcore proof to me.

Lots of people beleive that the planets to far gone to be saved and in some small way, I have to hear what they're saying. It's horrible.

"We follow blindly, trusting our leaders, who chose to blind themselves."

Ofcourse, the way the worlds going, who would want to save it?

Again thank you, you sound interested in theories. . .if you are, i'd like to hear your stance on The Patriot Act. You should really look it up.

And when youre finished with that, try veiwing the information on Homegrown Terrorists and a bill that just passed congress that will supress the expression of your beleifs and the use of "force" to impose those beleifs. Pretty much bringingus into a monarcy and limiting free speech and locking up those accused of treason.

The article realtes the last few steps of our nation to those taken by the S.U.

They predict the next step to be taking away our guns. . .

If that happens, I would say, "hello Canada" but with the passing of the patriot act, they can legally come and remove you from there.

creepy. . .

what's worse? The Government controls satellites that can read the date off a dime on the street. Good luck running.

Again thank you and if you post a comment on this site, I will read it tomorrow.

-Thank you, thank you, thank you.

-'Victom of the Past'

And Keggar. . .
The lack of my conventional care is a perfect representation of the past generations failure at adaptation to the current, future generation's learning process, and thus through this failure, teachers are the driving force in our social, linguistical, and yes, 'spelling' degradation.

-Thanx
(with an 'x')

All I know is there are lots of people in canada who would love to be able to grow stuff if it were only warm enough. they have plenty of water and always will. Also, if the sea level rises then there will be more room for the fish. i like fish. And one more thing. If miami beach goes underwater my aunts maybe all of those rich people will lose out and the trailer park people 2 miles inland will own waterfront and make a killing.

Todd,
I'm not sure if anyone has already mentioned this about your comment concerning day length and temperature in the spring because I quit reading them after that. I just wanted to point out that the statement "There is no direct link between warming during the Spring and lengthening daylight" isn't valid considering the position of the Earth in the spring. We recieve more direct rays from the sun for longer during the spring because of the angle of the Earth. The two are connected but they are both effects of something larger.
I also would like to urge you to think about where you heard everything you have learned about global warming and just ask yourself if the sources were truly credible. The truth is people will say what they want and believe what they want no matter how rediculous. In a world where MANY people say contradicting things I find it most beneficial to keep some eggs in both baskets.

The global warming issue has become a political football with one side preaching gloom & doom, and the other side believing that that nature is taking its normal cyclical course. So, who do you believe? I personally believe that global warming is an issue that has become overblown because everyone who wants to become an activist needs to find an issue to hang their hat on. This issue is an easy one to hang your hat on because its seems like your saving the world from evil governments & corporations.

Unfortunately, true critical thinking is not taught in our universities anymore and has not been for many years. It seems to me thats whats politicaly popular is the truth and not actual facts no matter what side your on.

You can debate global warming until the cows come home - I personally feel the theory makes sense but that CO2 is such a small percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that it will take huge increases in it to have any practical impact on global temperatures. The correlation between Solar activity and global temperatures over the past 400 years (of which sun spot activity has been recorded)is much closer than that of CO2.

The bottom line is that we all need to be better stewards of the environment but we also must use common sense with our energy policy. We must continue to have diverse energy sources and become more self-sufficient as a nation. Coal has been demonized in the US yet it is the most abundant energy source on the planet (the US sits on top of huge supplies of it by the way) and tremendous strides have been made to burn it more efficiently and cleaner over the past two decades. The threat of caps on CO2 emmissions however has almost completely shut down development of future coal fired generation projects and technologies in the US while China and India are installing huge amounts of new coal-fired generation without the benefit of much of the cleaner technology that has been developed in the US. So much so that the US could shut down its entire fleet of coal fired generation and the world would hardly even notice. Coal gassification projects once showed great promise but have been virtually abandoned because of proposed economic penalties based on a largely un-proven theory on global warming.

Wind and solar energy sources should be developed and utilized to supplement fossil fuels, but we are kidding ourselves to think we can economically replace fossil fired generation as a major source electricity. We cannot replace a fossil-fired plant with a wind farm, unless we are willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing. It takes as much if not more energy to make the materials used in a solar panel than a solar panel will produce in its useful life.

We can rely more on natural gas but the infrastructure is limited and if we move to a global market with Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) we will quickly be held hostage by the same middle-eastern countries that hold the purse strings to the world's oil supplies.

To expect developing nations around the world to abandoned fossil fuels when people are and dying because of the lack of the basic neccessities we take for granted is not only foolish it is cruel.

We can do many things to help conserve energy but allowing alarmist attitudes to lead us to irrational decisions that can have devastating economic impacts - all based on a yet unproven theory - is down right STUPID!

thank you jim practical i see signs of critical thinking. good job!

thank you jim practical i see signs of critical thinking. good job!

That's it. I'm bringing myself to write something. I just hope that some day, someone will read it and believe. If anybody wants to contact me, it's my username with an "@yahoo.ca" at the end. Feel free to contact me.
First of all, Future Gen, I've never heard of the things you've mentioned, except the end-of-the-world in 2012. They also said the world would end at 2000, and even at 1000, and likely before that too. I doubt the world will end at 2012, but that doesn't mean it won't be a horrific site to see. And we're going to see it. Even if Global Warming doesn't destroy the environment by 2012, it will soon unless the people of the world do something.

But I bet you they won't until they're 90% dead, and even then some would rather die rich than help the world. I know this is true because I know some people are extremely greedy. It seems to happen in this crazy world we live in.

"Lots of people beleive that the planets to far gone to be saved and in some small way, I have to hear what they're saying. It's horrible."

It's horrible, but don't believe it. I'm sure that if all humans suddenly dropped dead, I'm sure the world would be a much better place after a few years. ;) Anyways, it's not too far gone, but perhaps the inhabitents of the world are.

Now here's a rhetorical question. If you were on a sinking boat that had no communications to anywhere else, what would you do?
A. Commit suicide.
B. Do all you can to get the water out of the boat, try and patch up the holes, and get everyone else to do the same, and hope for the best.
C. Make the hole bigger, because it's fun to do.

The correct answer is obvious, the answer the world chose is 'C'. Unfortunately, your quote "'We follow blindly, trusting our leaders, who chose to blind themselves'" is true; our leaders have allowed everyone to choose C because if they choose anything else they'll get voted out or murdered or something of the like.

"Ofcourse, the way the worlds going, who would want to save it?"

I do, because I live on it. Still, I see your point, but we should try anyways.

"You can debate global warming until the cows come home "
If you want to do some critical thinking upon that statement, it has 2 parts.
The first part, you are correct, we could literally debate global warming forever and not that many people would change their minds.
The second part; the cows are already home (they didn't originate from Mars, did they?). So saying that is signifying two different ideas.

On a more practical level than the validity of expressions ;)

JimPractical, you also said
"I personally feel the theory makes sense but that CO2 is such a small percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that it will take huge increases in it to have any practical impact on global temperatures. The correlation between Solar activity and global temperatures over the past 400 years (of which sun spot activity has been recorded)is much closer than that of CO2. "

Now, as I've said, I'm not an expert. I haven't studied for more than about 10 minutes the statistics of "solar activity", but what defines "solar activity"? Are you saying that the sun is getting hotter? To my way of thinking, doesn't it make sense that the EARTH is ALLOWING more of the sun's rays to get in and STAY in?

I disagree also with the concept that CO2 doesn't do anything.
Here's a quote from a random site. Of course, it might not be reliable, but I'll get to that in a second.
"The gases in the atmosphere that help retain heat are called greenhouse gases. These gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), absorb heat instead of allowing it to escape into space. This "greenhouse effect" makes the planet a hospitable place"
From http://www.learner.org/interactives/weather/atmosphere.html
Is it reliable? I don't know. Is this site reliable? We don't know that either.
Here's something from wikipedia; the opening sentence on Carbon Dioxide:
"Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas due to its radiative forcing strength."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

Here's another one from wikipedia, that supports CO2 is a disastrous gas if we allow too much into the atmosphere.
"However, an excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of a planet to lethal levels, as on Venus where the 96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) atmosphere results in surface temperatures of about 467 °C (872 °F). Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere. Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

A more scientific site with words I don't understand also says that CO2 and other gases have at least some impact on global warming. After all, we aren't allowed to be certain in case we're wrong or sued by some company ;)
"Nevertheless, the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at least partly responsible for global warming. The concentration of these gases is currently the highest it has been for 420000 years - 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are produced as a result of human activities per year. As discussed in the basic explanation of the effects of carbon dioxide, global warming could have disastrous consequences for the whole planet. Anything we can do to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or at least keep it at a constant value, must be done to help prevent these consequences."
http://www.carboncalculator.co.uk/scientific_effects.php
Even this site, http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html
says that there are problems. They're signifying the ocean effects, which I am unaware of, but oh well ;). Their conclusion's first paragraph is this:
"If we carry on with our “management of marine resources,” doing what we’ve become accustomed to doing, humans will eventually transform the Earth’s ocean into an even closer approximation of Kenneth Hsu’s “Strangelove ocean” than the one that we have today. Accelerating instability in natural systems is to be expected; rapid changes will be everywhere. Scientists warn us today that “mass extinctions” are already occurring in marine and terrestrial life. However most humans remain oblivious to this reality, and to the principles that apply to maintaining a sustainable living system. We have long ago forgotten that we were meant to be a part of “nature,” just another cog in the wheel. We act as if “nature” is a thing that was given to us to destroy at will. Which is what we have done and continue to do. "

Those are just the first five sites I got by searching "Effects on CO2 in the atmosphere" in Yahoo search. You said that CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere -- true! But the heart is a minor part of the body. So is the brain. Try taking one out of your body, see what happens ;)
Can you still live? Or does the blood stop flowing? Your cells start dying? Etc... you'll end up dead very quickly. The point is that we're destroying the ozone layer (allowing the sun's rays IN) and then trapping the excess solar rays in the world (using the greenhouse gases). Wow.

You mentioned
"So much so that the US could shut down its entire fleet of coal fired generation and the world would hardly even notice. Coal gassification projects once showed great promise but have been virtually abandoned because of proposed economic penalties based on a largely un-proven theory on global warming."
Ahem. US is a very large power in the world. I have a penpal in South Korea, who informed me that they study the US elections. Of course they do! US is very powerful! If the US did something like that, something would change. If not the environment (because I don't know how many non-coal things are contributing to global warming), at least other countries would, and eventaully something would get done. But because of arguments like this, saying "our whole country could change yet nothing would happen", they don't.

"The bottom line is that we all need to be better stewards of the environment"
I'll just accept this quote as an understatement.

"Wind and solar energy sources should be developed and utilized to supplement fossil fuels, but we are kidding ourselves to think we can economically replace fossil fired generation as a major source electricity. We cannot replace a fossil-fired plant with a wind farm, unless we are willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing. It takes as much if not more energy to make the materials used in a solar panel than a solar panel will produce in its useful life."
Future Gen, you're right. We are blind. No offense meant JimPractical, but let's be practical.
These claims are ridiculous. I don't know where you read them, or if you invented them based on information. This simply isn't true. Unless you're talking about this...
"small windmills and solar panels that are fitted to our rooftops often create more greenhouse emissions during manufacture than their use curtails"
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/green-living/welcome-to-the-solar-c...
(The above site is the only one I found that mentions the plus and minus' of this)
In which fine. However, note the important word "small". If this is the case, then perhaps we need LARGE windmills and solar panels!
Of course there will be issues to be overcome, but at least we'll be alive to overcome them!
And if you take a look at that site, it also says how Germany is implementing it at a wild scale. They are producing 60% of the world's solar power. What do you think would happen if the US did that?

Besides, don't you think that if we started inventing technology that DIDN'T produce greenhouse gases, that that statement would no longer become true?

Now about the issues of "what if it's a rainy day" or "what if the wind doesn't blow".

The concept is that you don't just put in 1 solar panel or 1 windmill. That's ridiculous. You have to put them in a wide-spread area; after all, if it rains, it doesn't rain over the entire world. The wind doesn't stop over the entire continent. It would work.

"To expect developing nations around the world to abandoned fossil fuels when people are and dying because of the lack of the basic neccessities we take for granted is not only foolish it is cruel."

This is a cruel statement. You are suggesting we kill everbody because you don't have enough proof tthat global warming is a good theory. Of course, I suppose we don't have proof of that either, so I'll suggest this:
What if those developing nations used SOLAR, AND WIND ELECTRICITY. Wouldn't that be better?
What if we gave those developing nations our money or food or whatever you want so they aren't lacking the basic necessities?
What if we made lots of power so that we won't ever run out until the world really does end (which could be thousands of years from now)?

Wouldn't that be a better situation? I'm sure there are flaws (like not enough people would be kind enough to do those things), and maybe even a logic flaw. But I hope you get my point. There are alternatives, we just need to persue them.

"We can do many things to help conserve energy but allowing alarmist attitudes to lead us to irrational decisions that can have devastating economic impacts - all based on a yet unproven theory - is down right STUPID!"

It is stupid to think that we should do nothing and continue to say "IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!"

After all, who wants to say "GLOBAL WARMING IS MY FAULT!"?
Let me be the first on this page.
It is (partially) my fault that global warming exists. I use products that contribute to the greenhouse gases.

[I said partially simply because I'm not the only one on this world.]

Now, about global warming.
I recently read this article:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
They basically said "it's all a lie!", like this article does, indicating global warming doesn't exist (the view points of the people who know they don't want to change so find proof that "IT'S NOT MY FAULT")
They have some flawed logic.
Here's a quoted quote "'There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.'"
Interesting. Doesn't that suggest that global warming could lead us into an ice age? I'll explain this possible outlook on the theory of global warming in a minute.

Anyways, they often made references to the concept, just like this article, that 'global warming just can't exist because temperatures are steady or falling'. Wait, they said "average" temperatures. Now I have a question. Say we have 2 places, representing 2 extremes. What has the higher average?
TIME A [numbers are degrees Celsius]
Place A = 10
Place B = -10
Avg= 0
TIME B [global warming]
Place A = 50
Place B = -70
Avg = -10

Look just at the averages. It goes from 0 (past) to -10 (current). I guess global warming just doesn't exist ;). Well, to my knowledge of what everyone is saying, the above is somewhat accurate. The average temperature of even one place during the day may be very extreme, but because the sun goes down at night, the rays eventually escape the greenhouse gases and eventually the night is extremely cold because all the heat simply rises through the atmosphere.

Wow I'm getting tired. I want to address your questions about my opinions on things, Future Gen -- but briefly because it's technically "off-topic".
"...passed congress that will supress the expression of your beleifs and the use of "force" to impose those beleifs"
Yes... I think I've heard of this type of thing. It's not all surprising; it's happened in the past and will happen in the future.
The nice thing about is Christianity tends to grow when oppressed. The Bible shows the perfect examples on this; the disciples, apostles, and even Paul were all oppressed and most murdered (sorry, "executed") for Christianity; yet the faith grew. Once today's Christians realize that they need to act, more will. Too bad they don't realize that Christianity is currently being oppressed; just not as clearly today as in historic times.
"Pretty much bringingus into a monarcy and limiting free speech and locking up those accused of treason."
They've already started stopping freedom of speech. Sorry, but they have. Not completely, but it's almost there.

"The global warming issue has become a political football with one side preaching gloom & doom, and the other side believing that that nature is taking its normal cyclical course. So, who do you believe? I personally believe that global warming is an issue that has become overblown because everyone who wants to become an activist needs to find an issue to hang their hat on. This issue is an easy one to hang your hat on because its seems like your saving the world from evil governments & corporations."

This becomes a difficult problem, after all, who's telling the truth? Who's on the "right" side?
Ignore politics; remember they're only doing what they do to get voted in. They try and represent the majority of the people.

Here's my parting rhetorical question.
Pretend you are a millionaire with 10 million dollars. You have been informed by a friend that a natural disaster is going to hit the area. You have the following choices:
1. Do nothing, after all, ending your life with 10$ million is pretty good, right?
2. Spend $20 million on new technology that may or may not work to protect your family against the disaster.

The details are unimportant (I tried putting them in, it didn't work).
Which option are you going to choose?
And just incase you don't get my point, I'll rephrase the question. Will you keep a ton of money and die, or will you spend all your money and live?
In other words, I'm asking the world, "what's more important? Money or life?"

The answer to that question is, "What good is money to you if you and all your relatives are dead with no one to inherit it or use it?"

Thanks for reading over 5 pages that has taken me over an hour to type. Maybe someone will listen.

Yo chess123mate! The reason I chose jimPractical was to emphasize the word "practical". I am an electrical engineer with over 20 years experience in the power industry. Practically speaking there are no significant technologies available on the planet today that are going to have any noticeable impact on reducing global warming. Man is not causing it!! Put 1000 pennies in a mason jar and color 4 of them lime green and see if you can notice them. Now triple the number of lime green pennies and see if it makes a freakin difference. Get real. CO2 is causing global warming about as much as my ass farts last week. I'm not arguing that we should not work to develop greener technologies only that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are a lot more pressing issues on the planet to worry about besides global warming and the political spin on this issue is about to wreck the already weakenend US economy and send what few remaining industrial sectors over seas where they don't give a rat's ass about CO2 emissions.

You are suggesting that there is no difference between 0.4% CO2 in the atmosphere and, I don't know, maybe 0.5%.
This is affirmed by your penny idea. Maybe even 1.2%, based on that.

What in the world is more pressing on this planet than global warming, that isn't going to cost money?

20 years of experience, sounds excellent. I assume you say that to back up your next statement, which can only be true if
"Man is not causing it!!" is true.

That statement depends solely on my first thought in this comment.

So, truly, isn't the question here is 'what are the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere?'
You are connecting the idea that "because there's practically no CO2 before and now, that means CO2 isn't the problem".

I thought about this before, too, and that conclusion, though plausible, doesn't make sense. I have not yet heard anyone say that CO2 isn't a major greenhouse gas. I believe I quoted a few that support the idea that CO2 IS a major greenhouse gas!

I wanted to take an example from nature, but after a fairly long time researching (and help from my mom ;) ) the best few I could find were...
--Iron. Iron overdose can kill you, yet your body nneeds it.
--Venom. Most venom kills you, but some, when taken in extremely small amounts, can save lives.

Iron is best, venom not so much. The point, though, is that there are things in nature, even our bodies, that you need to survive; yet if you take too much, it could kill you.
Maybe you know of a better example.

The immediate response is "our body has nothing to do with global warming", but my point is that, just like iron overdose can kill, too much CO2 increase can harm the environment via global warming.

Your point about ruined economy, I already addressed that.

Of course, I encourage you to give me sources saying the science behind how CO2 DOESN'T act as a green house gas.

And maybe the only problem is the ozone layer. That's different than global warming, right? If this is your argument, I'll believe it. I don't know the difference between the 2 issues, and I wonder if there is one. Regardless, humans caused it. That's my point for this paragraph.

Get real. Hmm. I think I just did.

There are some people who have dedicated their entire life to researching this stuff, and they are convinced (perhaps not all, but some) that global warming exists.

So far I have heard of these view points:
->Global warming does NOT exist [it's all lies]
->Global warming exists, but it's natural [the government is exaggerating it]
->Global warming exists, and it's our fault [the government is only just catching on] [I'm on this viewpoint]

My first thought is that the government can't possibly be exaggerating the situation because if they were, they'd have done something by now. As we can see, I haven't heard of coal factories being demolished, or other energy resources being used widespread.

"Practically speaking there are no significant technologies available on the planet today that are going to have any noticeable impact on reducing global warming."
This is only true based on the idea that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming (do you believe in that, or deny it, by the way?)

I just want to make clear another one of your arguments
"Wind and solar energy sources should be developed and utilized to supplement fossil fuels, but we are kidding ourselves to think we can economically replace fossil fired generation as a major source electricity. We cannot replace a fossil-fired plant with a wind farm, unless we are willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing. It takes as much if not more energy to make the materials used in a solar panel than a solar panel will produce in its useful life."

I did mention Germany proves you wrong, but I forgot to make that connection in my last comment.

Can you prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Or simply prove that greenhouse gases are basically a myth?
Or prove whatever it is you're trying to prove?

Thanks :)

Wow! all of you global warming believers out there are way too gulible! Do you realize that the person who likely convinced you was a hypocrite?!? Ya, AL GORE! The great eye-opener to global warming. Did you know that just ONE of his homes emits more CO2 than a small town. He flies his personal jet (which, by the way, emits more co2 per passenger than a regular plane, and yet you still decide to play follow the leader. He's telling you to cut your emissions while HE lives life to the fullest.

And to comment on how we could simply replace co2 emitting industries with solar and wind power.ITS NOT GONNA HELP ANYBODY! Developed nations,(such as the US) would experience a drop in economy and productivity and developing nations are deprived of their opportunity to grow and prosper. You know why? The solar panels that have been installed in Africa (in hospitals for example)only allow either lights OR refrigeration (of medicines). So doctors now have a choice:
good medicine or the ability t see what they are doing to the patient. GREAT SOLUTION THERE GUYS! (sorry, and girls, too)

That thing about Germany with its great contribution of solar power. Why haven't I (or anyone I know, for that matter)ever heard about it??? It can't really be that sucessful, now can it.

For those of you who don't know, oceans take HUNDREDS of years to actually react to temperature fluctuations on the surface. That means that the changes we are now witnessing are due to hundreds of years ago (as in about 5-7 hundred). As far as I know, we, human beings, haven't been pumping out co2 at that point in time.

Co2 records also show that in the 1940s, when industries bagan to really pick up, temperature seemed to DROP. It increased before that, by the way. Wierd, huh?

Anyway, hope all of you gulible believers out there take a moment to think about all the lies out there and the people you decide to follow.

Yes, we'd better be careful about the lies that people such as yourself are following.'

What you are saying about Africa -- doesn't make sense. It sounds like you're talking gibberish. No offense. Since when can solar panels ONLY provide electricity for one thing?
That's like saying that there are hundreds of types of electricity: one for the fridge, one for the lamp, one for the computer... yah, right.

"That thing about Germany with its great contribution of solar power. Why haven't I (or anyone I know, for that matter)ever heard about it??? It can't really be that sucessful, now can it."
A few reasons why that's possible:
1. Nobody hears because the news doesn't care to talk about it
2. Nobody hears because the news isn't ALLOWED to talk about it
3. Nobody hears about it because the people who are reporting aren't being listened to.
4. Lots of people know and you just didn't happen to know.

Just because a program raised 3 billion dollars in Australia or Russia for medical research doesn't mean we're going to hear about it in Canada or the US [just an example, not real].

"For those of you who don't know, oceans take HUNDREDS of years to actually react to temperature fluctuations on the surface. That means that the changes we are now witnessing are due to hundreds of years ago (as in about 5-7 hundred). As far as I know, we, human beings, haven't been pumping out co2 at that point in time. "

Where'd you get that information? Oceans take HUNDREDS of years to warm/cool? That's baloney! They react slower, yes, but not that slow! Besides, it's not the WATERS that are the cause; it's other factors -- human activity!

"Co2 records also show that in the 1940s, when industries bagan to really pick up, temperature seemed to DROP. It increased before that, by the way. Wierd, huh?"
I won't say that's false, but I'd like to see the source from that information, if you could provide it please. It could very well be as easily explainable as how I've explained today's temperature movement in my theories in previous comments!

I'm trying to write a research paper about global warming for my science class. As of right now though, i'm completely confused. I've written about half of the paper twice now. I can't figure out if it's real, or if its a natural thing happening that people need to stop freaking out about.

Yes, I realize it's really happening. But I need to know some REAL facts about it. Is it just something that has been happening for hundreds of years and we are just realizing it, or is it just now happening because of us?

If anyone could help me it would be greatly appreciated!

I just looked at a website that said global warming actually started 18,000 years ago.

It has my attention so far, and seems very believable.

adress: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Here is another website throwing a wrench in the spokes of global warming.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

You'll have to conduct your own verication as to the validity of the information - shouldn't be too hard though.

Real proof of global warming:

The tooth fairy told me it was REAL!

Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he did invent global warming. Follow the leader everyone.

This is the last time I will waste my time trying to talk some sense into irrational nitwits like chess123.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas. Yes. Is it a significant greenhouse gas? - not compared to water vapor - not even close.

I did not say that you cannot supplement energy sources with wind and solar. I said you cannot REPLACE fossil fuels with it. You have to understand how power systems work to understand this very significant fact!

The alarmists want us to do away with fossil fueled power plants and that is not possible with todays technologies. (Nuclear can certainly help but you are nuts if you think it can be practically installed to the degree that is needed to meet the worlds energy needs).

You have to understand how a power grid works to understand what I am saying. Power plants have to be synchronized to the grid and capable of responding to instantaneous fluctuations in load. Solar and wind alone cannot do this. You must have reliable generation CAPACITY ready and on-line to keep the lights on and it cannot practially be done without fossil generation.

Let's look at it another way. In the following analogy associate wind and solar energy sources with bikes and walking and associate cars and airplanes with fossil fueled power plants. Now think about the statements "Everyone should ride bikes and walk. Cars and airplanes are evil so we must do away with them." Riding bikes and walking are a good thing and they can help reduce emmissions, but do you really believe we can function as a society without the other modes of transportation? I know, I'll just skip work everytime it rains.

The scary thing is that this wonderful government of ours is about to pass legislation that severely limits our capability of even owning the "cars and airplanes".

What is worse is that there still is no real proof (from the true scientific experts and despite what Al "the Hypocrite" Gore would like for us to believe) that man is significantly influencing the climate. You mention that there are those who have dedicated their lives to research who believe we are causing it. There are many others who have also dedicated their lives to the research who strongly disagree and believe solar activity is the culprit. Let's see, fluctuations in a great big nuclear ball of fire or an increase in CO2 emmissions which comprise a very small percentage of the greenhouse gases of our atmosphere. Hmmmm...

To implement the alarmists agenda will further wreck the economy and put the energy infrastructure of our country in jeopardy. We must continue to develop clean sources of energy but we cannot abandon our most abundant natural resource - COAL. When your power bill triples over the next few years don't come crying to me. Maybe you can walk or ride your bike to the Arctic to see your precious polar bears for a group hug.

Do you really think it is smart to blindly jump off this cliff without knowing it will make a real, valued, and practical difference? If you do, then may God have mercy on your ignorant soul.

First of all, I want to thank you for your kind insult. Now, I want to tell you what I think.

I think that there's no way to tell, because everyone's saying something different. Honestly. I've heard the following:
-Global Warming DOESN'T exist, it's all lies.
-Global Warming DOES exist, everyone else is lying! Don't believe them! People ARE responsible!
-Global Warming exists, but people AREN'T responsible! Don't believe everyone else, they're lying to you!
-Global Warming is all natural, it'll cool off soon. Everyone else is wrong and lying. Honest!

Oh, and everyone has proof. Everyone has "facts". Everyone says the other sides' facts are flawed.

How are you supposed to determine which one?

"To implement the alarmists agenda will further wreck the economy and put the energy infrastructure of our country in jeopardy. We must continue to develop clean sources of energy but we cannot abandon our most abundant natural resource - COAL. When your power bill triples over the next few years don't come crying to me. Maybe you can walk or ride your bike to the Arctic to see your precious polar bears for a group hug."

First of all, insulting me like I'm a little ignorant kid isn't going to help you convince me. Sorry. The correct method is to politely tell me I'm wrong (not to say that I believe I am) and to tell me exactly why, with as much proof as you can find.

Second of all, it sounds to me like you're suggesting that we have all the coal we want.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to give up on the concept that we have limited coal. Maybe it's all the schools telling me that "non-reusable energy sources are in finite supply". That's my best guess. ;)

Thirdly, the idea is that you do this world-wide. You obviously can continue use of coal, etc., but get OFF the usage of such sources as soon as the reusable sources are reliable.

"When your power bill triples over the next few years don't come crying to me."

A. Like I would.
B. I've heard it's going to anyways, because there's been the concept (whether true or false I won't comment) that 'coal is depleting' (or oil or gas or whatever) and thus are increasing power costs.

"I did not say that you cannot supplement energy sources with wind and solar. I said you cannot REPLACE fossil fuels with it. You have to understand how power systems work to understand this very significant fact! "

Actually, you said that it "takes more energy to make them than they will ever produce" (not exact), which is honestly silly. Why? Here's a side point:

The world is greedy. Proof: "will further wreck the economy", after all, money is worth more than the survival of the world. After all, it's better to die rich tomorrow than to live a long life.
Well, that's what the world wants, right?

Anyways, my point is that your former concept "they will never produce as much as they make" (not exact) would indicate that the people who are doing it are NOT greedy. Definitely possible, not everyone is greedy, but wouldn't there be someone who would've pointed out "that's a waste"?

I like what I saw on one of those sites. Someone basically indicated that the government/scientists/whomever are basically doing this:
1. Saying it exists, so take action.
2. Saying it doesn't, so combat anyone who's taking action, they're wasting money and resources.
3. Go back to step 1.

Is it possible that Global Warming doesn't exist? Of course it is. We're all just one person each. And since very few people understand that if we were all honest with each other and shared information; worked together, we'd actually get somewhere, we may never know what's going to happen until it does. I'm just talking in general here, not specific to anyone on this discussion.

Back to your quote, that you can't replace fossil fuels, that's like saying "You can't fly". It can be done. It's just stubborn people who don't want to dream who refuse to accept that humans can do whatever they join together to do. We prove that whenever we go to war. Unfortunately, there, we are proving that we can kill each other really effectively.

"What is worse is that there still is no real proof (from the true scientific experts and despite what Al "the Hypocrite" Gore would like for us to believe) that man is significantly influencing the climate"

There is proof. A close relative literally just showed me this professional document that explains climate change. The problem is that there are stubborn people who want to be able to say "it's not our fault" are influencing people's minds otherwise. There are scientists (professional) who agree. The problem is, they're all hidden by the side that say "it doesn't exist" and/or by those that say "it isn't our fault".

The document?
www.pnud.cl/recientes/IPCC-Report.pdf
Nice little file.

See, the main argument of anti-global warming people is that CO2 isn't a major greenhouse gas, or because of its size it's not a major influence, etc.

My question is, why are all the stories of why it's wrong different? If global warming really didn't exist [or of course that it isn't going to be a problem; it's not our fault and nothing bad is going to happen], wouldn't there be ONE true story, not a whole bunch of conflicting ones?

This just reminded me of something very ironic. Unfortunately, if you aren't Christian/don't know the Bible, I suppose you could ignore this paragraph. It just reminds me of all the Israelites; God sent them prophets, but they listened only to the ones that said "God will deliver you, you are going to be fine, everything's awesome" etc. etc. In other words, all the good things are happening. Only a few, true ones, said the reality. I hope my parallel is fairly obvious. Humans want to hear what they want to hear, no questions asked. Why one show/video/group is called "An Inconvenient Truth". The truth isn't all "nothing to worry about", it's "there's going to be serious problems, and you'd better do something about it."

Anyways, that file I mentioned is worth looking into. I'm sure anyone against global warming will find a phrase in there, or even a full paragraph they can twist for use of their own intentions.
Oh, and I'm sure someone else will say "it's fake" or "it's not professional" or something like that. As I believe I've said before, you hear what you want to hear and hide everything else.
Quote from that file:
"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global
increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change,
while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}"

That's from the middle of page 2, unless they've updated it (the copy I have indicates they were planning on some minor reformatting changes, but I expect it won't change its general location).

What do I get from that quote? That although some temperature change is inevitable, fine, it
A. Exists
B. comes from human activity
Meaning we need to do something.

But I encourage you to keep going into your bubble of safety. Don't let me pop you out into reality. After all, if the world doesn't want to look at the fact that its in a burning building with locked doors (from the outside), that's their choice. If everyone wants to throw away the key, people like me have 0% power to stop them. Unless you count the power to try and influence the people who bother to read this. That isn't much, I expect. :)

Another funny I thing I found with one of those links other people have been giving. One of them said "Fun Facts..." and then something like "carbon dioxide doesn't contribute to temperature increases", and some interesting math like "if there's 1 bit of CO2 added every year naturally and we start adding an extra bit per year, that won't make a difference in the world". That's going back to the size concept.

Think about chemistry. Try adding a little bit of an explosive chemical into the proper solution. It doesn't take much, and it might explode (if you've got the right elements mixed in). My point? It doesn't take much in chemistry to make a huge difference.

Oh, another "fun fact" was also ridiculous. It was extremely funny. It reads
"CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide."
In other words, the more CO2 we have, the better, right?
Try breathing CO2. No Oxygen. Have fun with that, too.

Moderation is good, extreme is not.

Another point is that there are natural defences. Guess what? We are destroying them. I mentioned this before, I believe.

Another one:
"The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming."
The file I linked to earlier contradicts that statement, saying that satellite readings confirm that there has been warming that relates to what has been measured on the ground.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to believe that site as reliable. Yet the funny thing is, all the other sites say the same type of thing.

If they don't, tell me how and where. Give me QUOTES. Give me LOGIC. Give me things that don't tell me I'm an idiot. In other words, tell me exactly how all the things in that file I linked to are wrong, tell me how we can breathe CO2, tell me how global warming is natural. TELL ME!

If you were to knock down all or practically all the major points I've made, and all the proof I've given, yes, I'm willing to change. But no one's managed to do that yet.

"You have to understand how a power grid works to understand what I am saying. Power plants have to be synchronized to the grid and capable of responding to instantaneous fluctuations in load. Solar and wind alone cannot do this. You must have reliable generation CAPACITY ready and on-line to keep the lights on and it cannot practially be done without fossil generation. "

Sorry, but is that to say if you put more potential energy all over the world you couldn't support countries? I already mentioned this earlier, so that's all I'm going to say on that part.

I love this statement, Jim...
"We must continue to develop clean sources of energy but we cannot abandon our most abundant natural resource - COAL"

Our most abudnat natural resource is SOLAR POWER and/or WIND POWER, which comes from the sun anyway. I don't know which one would get you more power, but I know it'd give you a lot more energy(lasting as long as the sun does, which is how many billion years?) than the finite coal resources, which are running out. Doesn't mean we can't keep using them for years, but how long until we run out? After that? We will have none left for many, many years. More than just a few thousand.

People, a lot of you are blinded. Sorry, not quite. Very few of you are blinded, but you're telling everyone else so many lies that the average person can't understand which side to believe.

Once again, go back to what a person said near the beginning of this discussion.

"Perhaps I see things a tad more unfiltered from down here on the Mississippi gulf coast where almost 3 years after the landfall of hurricane Katrina most areas are still barren and littered with debris. The planet is warming, we all see the signs in nature from the melting of polar ice to the increase in hurricane activity and erratic weather patterns. No matter the cause, the balance of nature is teetering and we are all along for the ride
posted by J Blanch at 2/14/2008 2:39:43 PM "

The world is changing. It's our fault. So own up to it and get working on ways to change the WORLD.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/smc-msc/m_110/toc_eng.html

Nice report on Canadian weather. "The thinning and shrinking of the ice, largely a result of too many consecutive warm years, has had a profound impact on northern residents - people, plants and wildlife alike".

The facts are there. There are many organizations, I'm sure, that want to gain popularity for their own benefit by saying "it's all lies". Well, who do you believe? Not clear, is it?
Interesting arguments.
The ice is melting. VS The ice isn't melting, it's just moving.
The temperature is warming. VS The temperature is staying the same. VS The temperature is cooling.
Interesting how that works out, eh?
Oh, and another argument I heard of said "flooding doesn't come from global warming, because the whole argument is that the ice is melting and if you melt ice, it doesn't add any more volume". The problem is, the water itself expands with higher average temperatures, as the file I mentioned in my last comment points out.

That's just to add a little more; I was doing some research for a project and I encountered that first site.

The world is changing. That is more proof of it. There will be more proof in the future. The weather isn't "behaving" normally due to climate changing. Take from this message that there'll be poeple who believe that it's all lies, after all
"It's not my fault."
It IS our fault. I know we, as human-kind, don't like to own up to our faults and mistakes, but if we don't, we aren't likely to get a second chance. We can't live on Mars yet.

Jim, you said
"Do you really think it is smart to blindly jump off this cliff without knowing it will make a real, valued, and practical difference? If you do, then may God have mercy on your ignorant soul. "

That's not the question, is it? That's a setup question. If I answer "yes", then it looks like "I'm wrong, global warming must not exist, lets do nothing". If I answer "no", then you say "You're ignorant and dumb". So I answer "Irrelevant", because that's like me asking you this:
"Is there a point in suicide if you're watching a house burn down?"
Obviously that's got no point in that question.

The thing is, I'm not blinded. I actually see the truth. Not all of it, being only one person, but I see the evidence in the news, outside my window, on the Internet, and in the anti-logic of your arguments and the sites' facts that say contradictory things.

Please consider the consequences of your actions. What do you value more: the world's well-being (including any children or grand-children you might have in the future or currently have), or you living in ultimate luxury?

Thank you for pondering this possibility. Read over the facts. Look for contradictions. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Chess-

Why should I be inclined to listen to you when you cited

"Here's another one from wikipedia, that supports CO2 is a disastrous gas if we allow too much into the atmosphere.

"However, an excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of a planet to lethal levels, as on Venus where the 96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) atmosphere results in surface temperatures of about 467 °C (872 °F). Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and industrial processes, which currently result in CO2 levels of 380 ppmv in the atmosphere. Based on ice-core samples and records (see graphs) current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas"

So, Venus is really freakin' hot because of the CO2? Or could it be that we're 93 million miles from the sun and Venus is only 65 million miles?

The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, so can I use that as evidence of global cooling? They have lows of -120 C and highs of 20 C...

First of all, stop trying to sound factual off of wikipedia. ANYONE can change that cite to say whatever they freaking want it to say.

Second, global warming is crap. There isn't a huge difference in the amount of "evidence" that supports one theory from another.

Thirdly, if global warming IS actually happening, why are there so many freaking theories out there? If it was a definite thing there wouldn't be so many contradicting theories. I'm not saying it is or isn't real. I just want everyone to take a second to think about all this.

Even if there isn't global warming we need to clean up our act. We are trashing this planet regardless of what scientists think is going on with the earth, and we need to stop. All i'm saying is that if scientists needed to get our attention and try to get us to stop polluting maybe they should have tried something else instead of causing all this controversy.

And if global warming IS real, maybe scientists need to make a bigger deal about it, because as far as I can tell, not a significant amount of people are actually changing their life styles to "help save the planet"

My biggest fear is that any actual global cooling, which is what is actually happening, will be touted as proof that we can change global warming (or cooling). Al Gore: Look at all our progress since my award winning documentary. Take another bong hit Al, you earned it.
The universal acceptance of the inventor of the inter nets global warming theory is yet another case of misplaced Bush hatred. Think for yourselves people. It is always easy to pick out the idiot in a group of scientist. They are the ones who claim that the science is settled.

Look, we had and ended an ice age long before we started emittting any noticeable greenhouse gases so riddle me this:

HOW DID THE ICE MELT WITHOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?!

Whenever politics (global warming is a myth) conflicts with science (global warming is obvious), politics often wins in the short run (the heavens revolve around the earth) but science always triumphs eventually (the earth revolves around the sun).

I'll post this again in the hopes that some of you will actually read it this time:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10973

"Thirdly, if global warming IS actually happening, why are there so many freaking theories out there? If it was a definite thing there wouldn't be so many contradicting theories. I'm not saying it is or isn't real. I just want everyone to take a second to think about all this."

That was actually my point... XD it works both ways. Though I haven't heard multiple theories on Global Warming, this page alone has many many theories against it.

"Look, we had and ended an ice age long before we started emittting any noticeable greenhouse gases so riddle me this:

HOW DID THE ICE MELT WITHOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?! "

Maybe the Earth's normal temperature wasn't supposed to be down that low? Just a crazy thought ;)
However, if your point is that the world naturally changes over time, that's fine. I'll address that later.

"Whenever politics (global warming is a myth) conflicts with science (global warming is obvious), politics often wins in the short run (the heavens revolve around the earth) but science always triumphs eventually (the earth revolves around the sun)."

The ironic thing about this is that politics is agreeing with and contradicting science, depending on where you look. However, I agree -- if the world lives long enough (or the people on it), then we'll find out how serious Global warming is or isn't.

Cletus -- I did read that the last time you posted it. I still don't believe it; it has flaws right in the argument. It's also telling me (since I'm thinking for myself) that it's not reliable, since it's like saying "1+1 isn't 2, it's actually 2.1, because the equations of addition are actually .1 off all the time".
Not to say I know the formulas, but after all this time, you're telling me that they're wrong?

I just saw something on the TV. Another disaster that never happened in that area before.

"Even if there isn't global warming we need to clean up our act. We are trashing this planet regardless of what scientists think is going on with the earth, and we need to stop. All i'm saying is that if scientists needed to get our attention and try to get us to stop polluting maybe they should have tried something else instead of causing all this controversy.

And if global warming IS real, maybe scientists need to make a bigger deal about it, because as far as I can tell, not a significant amount of people are actually changing their life styles to "help save the planet""

Excellently stated.
And about me quoting wikipedia, I'm not JUST quoting from there. Much of it is factual, it's just that if you rely on it 100% you're in trouble. They do check it over and check the sources, you know. Anyways, ignore that source if you want.

Hey! I just found something! I realized your (flawed) point!
"So, Venus is really freakin' hot because of the CO2? Or could it be that we're 93 million miles from the sun and Venus is only 65 million miles?"

Yes. Want to know why they know that? Because MERCURY, which is A LOT CLOSER THAN VENUS, is COOLER THAN VENUS IS!!!!! Check a map of our solar system. You'll note that it is a lot closer, yet not as hot as Venus is.

"My biggest fear is that any actual global cooling, which is what is actually happening, will be touted as proof that we can change global warming (or cooling). Al Gore: Look at all our progress since my award winning documentary. Take another bong hit Al, you earned it.

The universal acceptance of the inventor of the inter nets global warming theory is yet another case of misplaced Bush hatred. Think for yourselves people. It is always easy to pick out the idiot in a group of scientist. They are the ones who claim that the science is settled. "

I saw that logic elsewhere, as well. It was like "Well, this one scientist is losing because he's blaming us." Hmm. Who to believe? The scientist who says "you are ruining the environment, and here is why", or the one who says "you're wrong because you're blaming me!"

Go back to what I said about "it isn't my fault" in my previous comments.

And no one has given me that proof I asked for...
That dailytech is, in my opinion, unreliable. It basically says a random scientist rewrote some formulas and another guy said it was good, thus concluding that global warming is flawed. Then it even said that not everyone believed he did it correctly!

NOW, to the world changing temperature overtime. I believe this is true, because of the concept of ice-ages. The earth NATURALLY changing due to various factors.
Then when the Earth gets up high in temperature, it gets low -- that means there are natural "defenses" (such as trees, etc.) that counteract the various things that make the world hot.

So why might it be a problem today? Because of what I've already said:
1. We're destroying the world
2. We're polluting the world with EXTRAs.

What about "Global Cooling"? Well, to my understanding, they're the same thing. This is going to make you all think I'm contradicting myself, but look at what I mentioned -- AVERAGE temperatures might be going down [thus "global cooling"] but the temperatures (during the day) are going to more extremes.

Which goes back to the ozone layer/atmosphere disappearing. Which goes back to CO2 emmisions, etc.
Thanks for considering the possibilities

Chess123mate, you really do need to get out more. Although reading your rantings on here has amused me for a few minutes, you should do something better with your time.

Lolz... that's why I quit posting in some Canadian forums. It really did waste my time. However, I do a lot of other things. This is the only page I bother wasting hours of time typing arguments.

Of course, you're also implying that I'm wrong.

The ice was supposed to melt fast, according to the "global warming scientists". Well, they were wrong. It's melting FASTER.
http://mariaenergia.blogspot.com/2008/06/north-pole-ice-melting-faster-t...
Just posted yesterday. Says that there may be a period of time this summer (50% chance) that there will be no ice. They are also predicting that by 2030 there may be NO ice AT ALL at the north pole.

They're also saying that this is now irreversible because people as you see above are 100% against it. When shown proof, they look the other way. Yet when asked for proof, they come up with flawed arguments, or none at all.

This one's from last year (July), but still interesting:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=stronger-link-found-between-hurrican...
This one, from last year, says that global warming was 90% man-made, and is certain that there will be disasters.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=final-report-humans-cause
I don't know about where you live, but where I am, we're getting times with daily thunderstorms. That never happened before. Just a small observation.

Here's quote from page 2 from that site:
"It is now clear that the world will undergo even more rapid changes this century if the levels of greenhouse gas emissions are not slowed. "If we were to have continued emissions at or above the current levels, the changes in the 21st century would very likely be larger than they were in the 20th century," Solomon says, just as the rate of sea level change in the 19th century is dwarfed by the rate of sea level change in the 20th century. "We now know we have warming and it is due to humans, there should be no real debate," Overpeck adds. "We know there have been a variety of associated changes: stronger hurricanes, reduction of snowpack. These are the kind of changes we have had that are detectable with just a fraction of a degree of warming."

"We're going to see these same patterns continue in the future and get more and more severe," he continues. "We have a really clear picture of what is going to happen if we don't do anything or if we make some reduction in emissions."
"
You guys keep telling me to think for myself. I have been. A lot. Now you should do the same.

A few hundredths of one percent carbon dioxide concentration rise can be explained in several ways, and has both natural and man made sources, including a goodly portion of it coming from living creatures (including 6 billion humans) breathing out. To ratchet this into a hue and cry to radically change and regulate the world sounds more like Chicken Little and Dr. Seuss than like the analytic methods of science I learned in school. The only reason many people believe this politicized and skewed pseudo-scince is that they are too ignorant to analyze the arguments and see that, in the words of a fine full professor (MIT) atmospheric scientist, "the emperor has no clothes". Greenland was warm in the middle ages, and now it is getting warm again. The Sahara started being a desert long before men were combusting petroleum. Get a grip, people. You have been bamboozled, and you are too dumb, proud and politically correct to admit it.

I totally agree with you Fearless Bear, it is yet more science popularized to push an agenda. Whether that is political, environmentalist, religious, financial, or simple self interest, doesn't matter. It is just plain wrong and little better than any other propaganda. Tell people the same thing often enough and they will believe it whether it is true or not.

The media stands in the wings ready to be the puppets of their puppet-masters (thinking they themselves are the masters) to report events with a propagandized slant.

Many contributors to this thread have made the statement to think for ourselves and check things out, and yet what do we do? In many cases we simply cite other websites or references where someone else has done the thinking, (or more likely they are publishing what yet someone else says about something that was reasearched by some other party). Do you get my point, the actual data, the 'facts' are so far removed from the commentators that most of it is opinions of opinions.

Let me do the same for a moment and refer the following article;
"University of Copenhagen (2007, March 18). Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm "

because it covers one of my own personal questions. How do you measure 'Global Temperature'? The answer is ... you really can't, because it is a meaningless number. Also because of all the manipulations of the dataset to arrive at the number, how much can we trust that the number is accurate? What assumptions have gone into the methods to justify their use? Simply we are not told.

So I decided to do some thinking for myself, with as close to raw data as I could find. I used the actual temperature series available for London UK from 1878 to 2007 to see what this global mega-city's impact has been upon it's local climate. Guess what the answer is .... not much.

Yes it's warmer than 120 years ago, but most of that occurred before the 1950's or 1970's. The average summer temperature (July) has been between 20.0 and 20.5 for the past 85 years. The average winter temperature (Jan) has been between 4.2 and 5.5 degrees Celsius. In 2007 it was at 5.1. Both of the above sets of numbers are from 11 year moving averages (used to measure trends).

So the extremes of summer and winter (averaged) have not changed much and if anything the range from low (5.0) to high (20.5) is less than at some earlier periods. I am going to do some more analysis with this dataset and publish some webpages with the results showing charts and links to the actual dataset that anyone can download.

Yes, think for yourselves. This crisis is nothing more than a media beat-up.

Don't even get me started on CO2. Water Vapour is THE major greenhouse gas. Let's tax that, or minimize the emission of that. Oops, the Ocean produces 99.99% of that. Hmmm, but CO2 is the culprit, but wait geothermal activity, volcanoes, animals and human bodily functions produces orders of magnitude more CO2 than industrial processes. OK we better all stop breathing, we are producing too much CO2. Maybe we have a Kyoto protocol on breathing out.

Let's not forget that ice core samples have shown that CO2 spikes have lagged behind temperature spikes by 800 years. Ooops maybe the increased atmospheric temperatue causes it to have greater capacity to retain CO2. Hmmm maybe CO2 is not driver but the result.

No we are being pushed into stupid decisions by corrupt (self interested) individuals and groups, that are peddling scientific comment rather than proper scientific falsifiable conclusions based upon verifiable data.

Lives are going to be lost, but not because of global climatic disasters, but by global economic disasters caused by the erroneous decisions that going to made based upon this erroneous science.

I'm old enough to remember a Newsweek cover story about 1975 that predicted we were entering another ice age, so I 'm skeptical about the doomsday predictions about global warming, its causes and our ability to affect it through our lifestyles.
What I do know, with some observable certainty, is that our economy is being damaged by skyrocketing oil prices and that demand for petroleum is only going to increase in the next 30 to 50 years because of economic growth in Asia.
So that tells me we need to find other forms of cost-effective energy while also making use of all our own petroleum resources.
Solar and wind energy are good alternatives, although they are far from 100 percent efficient (sun only shines about half the day, the wind blows only hard enough to generate power from wind turbines about 20 to 30 percent of the time). So we still need natural gas or coal turbines to back up solar and wind turbines. Nuclear plants are the lowest cost energy of all right now, they should be part of the discussion, too. And I can't recall a major oil spill on a U.S. coastline since 1968 that was caused by offshore drilling, even when the hurricanes of '06 wreaked havoc in the Gulf of Mexico. So we obviously have the technology to drill safely.
Let's use it all, folks, and reduce the hundreds of billions of our dollars a year we send to OPEC countries.

sup dudes

Kerrysl, you seemed to contradicted yourself.

"Tell people the same thing often enough and they will believe it whether it is true or not."
Obviously only partially true, or else everyone would agree with each other (that would be cool, but it's not happening in this world, sorry).

"The media stands in the wings ready to be the puppets of their puppet-masters (thinking they themselves are the masters) to report events with a propagandized slant."

That was one thing you said that I really agree with.

"So the extremes of summer and winter (averaged) have not changed much and if anything the range from low (5.0) to high (20.5) is less than at some earlier periods. I am going to do some more analysis with this dataset and publish some webpages with the results showing charts and links to the actual dataset that anyone can download."

I would like to see that, including all the sources you used. Perhaps upon seeing this, you can convince me. After all, I did request proof that what I have said is wrong.

Contradiction that is a basis for your entire point:
"Many contributors to this thread have made the statement to think for ourselves and check things out, and yet what do we do? In many cases we simply cite other websites or references where someone else has done the thinking, (or more likely they are publishing what yet someone else says about something that was reasearched by some other party). Do you get my point, the actual data, the 'facts' are so far removed from the commentators that most of it is opinions of opinions."

Yet you yourself are about to site a database, which could be equally wrong.

Isn't the media currently supporting the idea that Global Warming doesn't exist? Hmm....

I wanted to find out more about CO2, because you guys continue to contradict what I thought was true. I found this interesting view point (all opinions, but still) [note this is a year old]:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061109185104AA974yY
Check out the one by Chance20; that's the point I've been trying to make above. Also, the person who posted after Chance20 says the same thing with similar arguments that you guys make, but on the view point that global warming exists and IS our fault.

Ironically, it seems that it's still roughly 1/2 and 1/2; some people believe it's our fault, some don't. Of course, there are others who claim that nothing is happening at all [just look outside and at recent news stories; regardless of if they're biased or exagerated, some pieces of information are basic facts].

Now please stop this idea:
"Solar and wind energy are good alternatives, although they are far from 100 percent efficient (sun only shines about half the day, the wind blows only hard enough to generate power from wind turbines about 20 to 30 percent of the time). So we still need natural gas or coal turbines to back up solar and wind turbines. Nuclear plants are the lowest cost energy of all right now, they should be part of the discussion, too. And I can't recall a major oil spill on a U.S. coastline since 1968 that was caused by offshore drilling, even when the hurricanes of '06 wreaked havoc in the Gulf of Mexico. So we obviously have the technology to drill safely."

1. The sun shines on some part of the earth constantly. Actually, it shines on more than half of the earth constantly.
2. Have enough of wind turbines over a geographical area and the wind will be blowing somewhere.
3. Ever consider we're running out of resources? Space to dump garbage, space to dump nuclear waste; and of course oil. I'm not saying there's a drastic shortage, I'm just saying once you burn it you can't get it back. After it DOES run out (even if that's in 100 years), that means there is absolutely none left. Now what is the world going to do?

"No we are being pushed into stupid decisions by corrupt (self interested) individuals and groups, that are peddling scientific comment rather than proper scientific falsifiable conclusions based upon verifiable data."

I disagree. There has been data showing both sides of the story, who can say for sure either one is right?

"Lives are going to be lost, but not because of global climatic disasters, but by global economic disasters caused by the erroneous decisions that going to made based upon this erroneous science."

Silly argument. Many people today are dying already, NEEDLESSLY! Why? Because the general population of rich countries doesn't care to help out the poorer countries.

Anyway, you are right on the 2nd part, if Global Warming does exist the world will have an economic disaster trying to exist.

i am 13 years old and am the future of this planet and all i have to say is global warming or not we need to sort are planet out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you Edward S.

I was wondering when someone would bring up the start of this madness. 1975... Margret Thatcher I believe... Started funding research to find out the cause of global cooling. 1988, howerever, it became global warming... make up your mind! so now the common term is "climate change". If anyone wants to hear both sides of the issue, look up both global warming and global cooling, then look at the facts.

I think everyone has dismissed the story that we are supposedly debating. I call that significant information.

chess123mate: I did go through that acticle. Much of the "data" is speculative (they even admit it). Although, I would suggest looking at the Hoover Institute's view on the subject. I have yet to hear anything on how much CO2 increases the Earth's temperature a degree. My personal opinion is that we are more likely to die of polution-caused diseases than global warming because of all of this. Scientists can only prove that CO2 emissions are increasing, they cannot prove that these emissions are having a SIGNIFICANT effect on the global temperature. Look over that report one more time with that in mind.

If anyone wants to read a report from a credible institution

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3460191.html

All that site is saying is that the temperatures are on a cycle and that CO2 emissions have very little or no impact on climate change. These cyles would then explain why the temperatures are increasing. Or are they decreasing? I've forgotten what's "going on" these days... I do however note that the current high today where I am is higher than it has been for a long time. Also, by comparing temperatures in the shade and in the sun, I see that the sun is 'getting through' the atmosphere a lot more than it used to (ie. last year).

"I think everyone has dismissed the story that we are supposedly debating. I call that significant information."
I don't think that "everyone" has; perhaps everyone discussing it here... ;)

"...There is good direct evidence suggesting global temperatures have indeed been rising lately. Weather watchers throughout the literate world have been recording local temperatures for about two centuries. These data show that temperatures today are higher than in the early 1800s and that there has been an upward trend during the past half century. However, the exact cause of this warming is still uncertain."

That's directly from that link. They support the idea of global warming, they just say that the cause is uncertain.

Also, they have bias and opinions in their articles, not 100% facts [I did a quick search on their site on the subject of global warming; they had a few opinions they claimed were facts.]
ex.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532036.html
They basically say 'The Kyoto agreement was designed to destroy the US. China and the US are both smart enough to not sign.' Anyone notice that US and China are some of the major polluters?

One final thing. The article said that CO2 can't be the cause of global warming. What if:
1. CO2 didn't directly cause global warming
2. CO2 or other pollutants (I don't know which, but I know they do this) destroyed part of the Earth's atmosphere that usually keeps the sun's UV rays, etc. from burning up the Earth.
3. The article indicated that no direct correlation was found. What if, because of #2, the Earth's warming was still cyclicle due to the facts presented, but overall it was still warming since the atmosphere (the ozone layer) is getting holes in it? It isn't getting holes, then restoring itself -- it's just getting bigger and bigger holes.

Has anybody considered that theory?

Thanks for the link, but I still want to know what the cause is if not humans. I can easily accept that CO2 might not be directly causing global warming (although remember my average arguments; 2 extremes will not create a higher average).

Ah, I like looking at the first few comments at the top of the page. Lets me remember that though we don't have a universal science statement that is agreed upon, we have experiences.

One last thing. Who remembers (or has relatives that know) that, years ago, the sun didn't burn you if you were outside all day? Now, who has had a sun burn lately for being outside on a hot, high UV day in about 30 minutes?

Ozone layer's burning. The Earth is too. Just hasn't reached boiling point yet.

HEY Abfdx,
get it through your head that global warming does not exist.!!!!!!! =)

so, i do belive that the climate is changing, because that is what it is supposed to do. the most powerful and abundant "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere is actually the water vapor, chessmate. my possition is that there are too many laws and governmet funding for an issue that has yet to be proven. i really find it rediculous.

one more thing... my dad remembers getting sunburnt over 40 years ago. they just didnt think there was anything wrong with it.

And how long did it take to get sunburnt? 15 minutes? Or a few hours?
I admit I may have been wrong about the whole day part, but my point is different than that.
I also admit the UV hasn't been high lately, but

The climate can change. Sure, but does that mean that the way it is changing today is for sure good or normal?

You guys are still stuck on the concept (which may be true, but I haven't found it yet) that quantity replaces quality in the world. Humans are made up of a lot of water, did you know? (I'm sure you did) -- however, add a tiny bit of poison and you can die very quickly. Add a little bit too much iron, and you can get sick or die from iron poisoining, even though we need a daily iron intake (very small, though). Your body can take out illnesses, kill germs, etc. It can also deal with excess food, and adapt to many situations. The world can too.

But what would happen if you stopped eating? You would lose energy, and couldn't continue to function.
What about the world -- the forests that are being cut down? The increased pollution?

Increased pollution alone probably wouldn't do too terribly much, but the increase is larger than what one might otherwise expect, and we are destroying the Earth. In the same way a human dies with a low immunity system (for lack of energy or whatever it may be).

You said that water vapour was the most powerful.
Got proof?
You might be right. I don't know. I'd like proof.

Although I'd be willing to forget the entire thing if we acted upon what a few other's are saying above -- regardless of if there is climate change (although I heard top scientists have agreed that climate change exists), regardless of if we are at fault, we need to fix the planet. If we could only work together, global warming wouldn't matter because we could deal with it 100% better (at least) than if we keep fighting each other. Oh well...

how can anyone tell you, with a straight face, what the temprature of this planet is supposed to be. from what i gather, its been changing since the planet was formed.

Chess123 you put up decent arguments, but you keep referring to the earth as a living being. I will admit I'm quite spiritual and do the same in some aspects, but the idea you're presenting doesn't seem all too valid. If you were to use something other than mammals, it might work better. If you were to use similarities between the earth and a house, it would make more sense. Then, however it doesn't really work... a crack in the window (The closest I could come to a mock "atmosphere" ) or a whole in the window of a house can cause problems, but will not destroy a house. Now you see as a counter claim to your "Poison in a small amount" speech, you see what I mean. The earth doesn't reproduce and such, its closer represented to a building.

I believe we should take care of the world, I love nature, I try to do my part... but mass hysteria has never proven beneficial. The Earth has been through quite a bit throughout time. A cycle makes more sense to me. Even the ancient cultures believed in cycles, not just months and years... but eons and so on.

A simple way to get people to take better care of the Earth? Stop calling it "Save the Earth"... we won't harm this planet, it'll shake us off like a bad flea...its been through hell already. Instead, call it what most people are trying to do "Save our Asses"

I'm sorry, but with as much clutter and commotion as been tossed around with "Global Warming" I can't believe it. When it was brought up gorillas were almost extinct, there wasn't this much of a fight. No one was arguing "Its not my fault" "It is your fault". I do not intend for that to be taken as concrete against the arguments of Global Warming,but its simply a thought. Generally when there is a dire situation, people do not bicker, they join together. World War 2 is a prime example. They knew there was a problem, and decided unanimously "We have to do something"

I am going to apologize about my ramblings, I know that some of my sentences may be incomplete... it is a side effect of my brain outworking my fingers. Do I believe we should take care of the Earth? Yes, it is our home. You function much better in a clean, orderly home. Do I believe we should work on pollution? Yes. Do I believe we should cut of coal and other sources of energy? No. Do I believe in most of the zealous (almost misanthropic )reports of problems and need of change? No.

We should take care of the world, but because we love it... Einstein said it best

"If we only do good for fear of punishment or hope of reward, we are a sorry lot indeed"

Good points, ThatGuy... I've been seeing some suspicious looking weather lately, but what does that mean? Personally, I think it's atmospheric issues.

Want to relate it to a house? Hmm... it's like you live in a house in an extremely hot environment (of say 80 degrees celsius) and happen to have an air cooler... then you chop the cord and break the gears :)

Your 3rd paragraph is very true. The earth would continue to exist even if humanity ceased to exist...

Note on WWII, remember how the countries didn't do anything until it was too late to prevent the whole thing? Oh well...

here is a math test..

There are 100 million cows who are responsible for 18% of the green house gases.

In 1850 there were 500 million buffalo who weigh more and eat more and (therefore produce more methane).

So if there were 5 times as many buffalo in 1850 and they produced the same amount of (18%) greenhouse gases per animal then how come the earth did not overheat into oblivion in 1851?

The increase in CO2 is from lack of foliage.

Trees/crops have been cut down across the world to make way for more humans. Waste is dumped in sometimes stupid areas, etc. So yes, I agree that humans are a tad careless when deciding massive changes in the current environment without knowing EXACTLY what the results will be. The "Cure" for acid rain (unleaded gas, clean coal, large fire prevention) has actually had a very negative impact on Ocean life. The ocean is a robust ecosystem that adapts to gradual changes. When certain "bad stuff" was globally banned, plankton that had adapted to utilize those chemicals underwent a massive dieoff. The same will happen for ANY large scale change in behavior. Nature adapts to slow changes, not 10 or 30 year changes.

Temperature changes ALSO change tree activity, when at lower temperatures, photosynthesis occurs slower. This is part of the reason CO2 and Temperature correlate through ice ages. The mistake is assuming CO2 = Temperature, when in fact, temperature rises before CO2 in nearly all cases. This is shown in the graphs even in Al Gore's work, though it isn't mentioned, only the correlation is.

The big problem with global warming theory is theory. The claims the scientists paid by the governments to verify cannot be verified. Geological time is very slow. The last 100 years will not show impacts on the earth for another hundred years.

The facts are measuring backwards millions of years and we are fully aware of ice ages. What happens "Between" the ice ages is... Us. If anything, we are going to see global cooling over the next 20 years. More and more scientists are publishing this, though it is ignored. I don't get rabid about it, but, 20 years from now, if you are wearing a Parka in the summertime, remember this post.

The governments cannot tax "Global Cooling".

there is not a dam thing we can do about globel warming---I know this for real

It's a globalist scam. It's already been exposed. Millions have died as a result of it. Face reality and get over it already.

So Battig's Anesthesiology MD makes him qualified to talk about climate science how exactly?

climatologists are not telling him how to treat electrocution hazards associated with electrical monitoring devices, in fact Tulane, where he allegedly received his MD, did not teach climate science back in 1961, so why is he telling climate scientist how to do what he so clearly was not trained to do?

"So Battig's Anesthesiology MD makes him qualified to talk about climate science how exactly?"

Because he is able to think for himself and not follow blindly?