I find it amusing that global warming has been fortold ages before, yet when it comes to a critical point people start to really get off their arse and do something about it.

But i really shouldn't be one to judge, I don't know much of the true causes of global warming.


IGNORE ME

Now if we look at history, there was a sudden warming of the earth preceeding what was known as the "Little Ice Age". Back in the 1970's scientists were warning us about the next ice age.

Warning about next ice age...
Earth warming up...
Last time earth warmed up we had little ice age...
Hmm...

Taka, that was totally uncalled for. I wrote that as just an observation, nothing more. So no need to be an ass about it, OK? Besides, if you check back one page you can read what I really think about the whole situation.

Well first of all, back in 70s the climatology was in child's shoes, scientists had not recognized yet importance of most green house gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, for example they had no idea about effects of methane, chlorofluorocarbons nor nitrious oxide which are very big part of global warming.

Most people who disagree with the global warming usually claims that nature itself causes these very same green house gases and the amount that humans causes is not significant compared to that but they certainly ignores the nature's own cycle, if you study biology you'll find out that the natural system of earth is very regular and cultivated, all is recycled and used over and over again, nothing is wasted. Now you say that if nature is doing it why we couldn't.. because in this, we're not part of that specific cycle, we're causing an overdose, the natural system isn't able to handle these extra dosage of green house gases and this particular load is harming the natural cycle.. we're practically fucking it this fine system up by overloading it.

The stupid thing is that there are several more environmental friendly substitutes for everything that now causes the big part of green house gases and pollution so it's not like we couldn't do anything about it, it's not even a huge money issue.. it's just about will and attitude. I recommend everyone who think global warming and pollution is not a problem at all a visit to Delhi or Beijing and look straight to the eyes of future. And finally, even if you'd not be worried about global warming for gods sake be worried about yourself, respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China.

Written by Baz Anderson on 03.09.2006 at 23:24

yes it annoys me greatly how the Kyoto agreement was not signed by Bush
that is one of the main reasons why i dislike him. it shows his typical attitude doesnt it

Was shot down under the Clinton Administration, too... the US Senate voted 95-0 to not sign a treaty structured like Kyoto. (I realize it's a sin to assault Bubba and Shrillary, and Bush Bashing is what all the popular kids around the world are doing)

Why?

Because it is a ridiculously stupid document. Sure, the intention of "Saving the Planet" is great, but the practices laid down are asinine.

So all of Europe and America is supposed to have our economies get hammered by adhering to Kyoto, but the two fastest industrializing nations in the world can get away polluting at will without penalty? It'd be a small step forward, a couple billion huge steps back.

America is greening itself - but as a grass roots movement, not as part of some politically mandated process.



I, for one, am a Heretic in regards to the Church of Global Warming.

I don't believe it.

The planet may be warming up - but, hey, we are also coming out of the little Ice Age, where the environment was far colder than usual. Before that, a great medieval warming period... golly, our climate is cyclical?

What has caused recurring Ice Ages?

What has caused massive glaciers to both advance and retreat?

It's all happened before, without Human Industrialization.

Additionally, taking a step back, and looking not at a global level, but a solar level, our sun itself just might be a bit more active after a long nap. Our sun, like the Earth, is NOT a static object. It is dynamic, and goes through changes. Some day it will grow so large it will consume the Earth entirely. Do you think a more active sun might have something to do the Earth heating up?

The sun is more likely a cause to our climate change than my little 4 cylinder Toyota Truck driving 50 miles to and from work every day is responsible for the shrinking of the Martian ice caps.

Yes, that's right, there have been signs exhibited by other bodies within our solar system showing they are warming as well.

Is that still the fault of Bush and us ugly Americans?

Going back to The Church of Global Warming - notice what is done to all the reputable scientists who speak out against it. They get branded as heretics and marginalized. It's not quite as bad as what the Catholic Church did to Scientists hundreds of years ago, but the tactics are the same.

Speaking of more comparisons to the Catholic Church, a branch of Christianity - a religion which many folks on this board love to bash and the Church of Global Warming - notice any similarity between some of those corrupt Popes of the dark ages and the Messiah of Gaea, Algore?

Pope lives like a king while the people live in squalor. He hands out indulgences (basically the holy equivalent of a "Get out of Jail Free" card) to followers who contribute money to the church - catering to the rich to support his lifestyle.

High Priest Algore lives like a king - spending $30,000 US annually just to heat and cool his freaking mansion. He is allowed to live this way, as are the other rich and privileged how follow suit because they can buy "Carbon Credits."

You guessed it! The beautiful and lovely rich people don't have to cinch their belts like the rest of us and live better. Not in the Church of Global Warming. They can live their own lives without any consequence and can pollute as much as they want... it's ok'd by Algore!

I refuse to buy this "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW IS REAL!" hype.

So long as there are still scientists who cite vast evidence to the contrary and their is no consensus, I won't.

So long as the Messiah of Gaea continues to spend $30k a year heating his house, flying to and from PAID speaking engagements ($50k a pop, I believe) in a private jet which dumps more pollutants and greenhouse gases in the air and consumes more fossil fuels PER FLIGHT into our atmosphere than anything I will do in the next year, and so long as he refuses to take HIS OWN "INCONVENIENT PLEDGE" , I will not subscribe.

I recycle, I have reduced consumption. I re-use.

But I refuse to blindly follow the new scourge religion of the earth.

So hmmm, you don't believe in global warming because Al Gore made a documentary about it or because he's not practicing what he's preaching?

Al Gores "documentary" is well known for exageration.
plus: i refrained from mentioning "Church of Global Warming", because i wanted to see your reaction, without concentrating on the church part. but the whole attitude of extremists preaching about apocalyptic global warming makes me feel the same way as bittercold (and no i dont agree with statement completely, but generally yes i do)

I can't say anything about Al Gore's documentary because I haven't seen it and I don't even feel a need to see it, there is a lot more trustworthy and efficient sources for the information.

In a way I do understand your frustration about the ridiculous hype, that's just the hollywood culture.. But for example I was taught about global warming in the high school over 10 years ago. What I don't understand is the way that you guys sound almost like Al Gore was the one who came up with the whole idea or that his opinion about it makes it somewhat less important.

Where ever there is a hype there's always an anti-hype too which is as ridiculous and childish as the hype itself.

There is no doubt in my mind that global warming poses the greatest threat to the planet in the history of mankind. Global warming is not just about the gradual warming of the climate. In fact, the term "global warming" is a misnomer. Instead, it should be "the radical changes of planetary climate and weather". All over the planet there are weather patterns in places that do not normally get a certain type of weather phenomenon. Just this year in my home state of Kansas, it was snowing in April. It should never snow in April. Another example is the hurricane season of 2005. There were more hurricanes on record for that year than any other year in history. Also during that year, a small hurricane managed to make it all the way to Spain. Luckily it died out before it hit shore, but this is a great surprise because hurricanes should not have the ability to reach Europe.

The country upon which I place the most blame for global warming is America. (I'm an American, so I am able to say these things about my own country.) Who buys the most fuel from the Middle East? America. Who has more sports utility vehicles per capita than any other country? America. Who produces one quarter of the world's total pollution output? America. Ironically, most Americans are aware that their country produces the greatest amount of pollution, but they are hardly doing a thing to stop this. Why? I place the blame upon the oil companies. America is the #1 oil consumer in the world. If America was to move over to alternative energy, the oil companies would go out of business. Realizing this, they produce misinformation stating that fossil fuels amount for 100% of the country's energy production, and will continue to produce 100% of the country's energy production for many years to come. That is the old way of thinking. Now is the time to reform our energy use and seek new ways to produce our nation's energy, because if we don't, then our planet will soon have so much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere that it will be irreversible.

If you want to imagine the future of our planet if we keep producing greenhouse gases, just look at Venus. It is completely concealed by a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere, and on its surface, lava flows like a river, the sky is blood red, and the daily temperature is hotter than an oven. Do you want our planet to meet the same fate as Venus? I don't, and neither should you. If you truly care about our planet, you will do your part to reduce the amount of pollution we produce. Sell your SUV for a more efficient hybrid vehicle. Buy appliances that run on solar energy. Plant a tree in your yard. Do anything that will save our species from destroying itself.

Well, Mankind really poses the greatest threat to mankind. Global warming is simply the result of everything wrong that humans have done to ruin the Earth, so it's an effect, not a cause. Also, I am from Florida and the amount of Hurricanes has absolutely NOTHING to do with global warming. The Strength of Hurricanes has everything to do with global warming. Hurricane frequency is effected moreso by the effects of South America weather patterns and wind current, but hurricanes are significantly getting stronger so essentially, a tropical storm has more potential today to turn into a hurricane and thus increasing the frequency, but I just wanted to clear up that there are usually patterns of 20 years that we get tons of hurricanes, and 20 years of little action.

It's good that you don't hesitate to blame America, but as we've said Countries like China and India are far worse...America could actually do something about it though...thus making all of the eyes look toward us, because individual owners of corporations are to blame instead of the entire government. (Even though they work hand in hand).

Everything else you brought to the table was absolutely correct. There are plenty of alternative plans, the Govt. simply is getting paid off by oil companies. It's how our government works...shitty huh?

I have read a lot on not the issue of global warming itself but the issue of weighing the pros and cons of scenarios plus actions, kind of like the gamblers argument for the issue of god. Well, what was explained was the idea of looking at this issue like a chart. There is a column A and a column B, a row 1 and a row 2. In row 1 we have the scenario where global warming exists, in row 2 we have the scenario that the global warming issue was false and nothing happened. Column A is represented by action towards fixing/slowing/preventing global warming, and column B is the nothing action, where we let happen whatever happens. So, in box A1, where global warming existed and we took action, the end result would be very good; we saved ourselves, or at least slowed, the imminent extreme weather, war over lost resources, the lives which would be lost, but our world economy took a little bit of a hit, and we might now be in a slight recession which we will eventually pull ourselves out of. Then theres box A2, we took action when we had no reason to take action; we are environmentally safe but our economy took a huge blow due to all the wasted money and time we spent on something that did not exist, overblown regulations, increased taxes, etc.. B1, this is the worst case scenario, we have done essentially nothing to stop or slow global warming and we are hit with (to go with the extreme) higher frequencies of hurricanes, droughts which could lead to widespread starvation which could lead to famine and disease stricken countries which could start wars over lack of resources, everything we don't want to happen has happened. B2, we did nothing and nothing happened, we are good. So now what is established is a row vs. column, scenario vs. action debate. Which choice is the smarter of the two? If we take action in both scenarios we lose money, but we could possibly be saving the planet. If we take no action, one scenario we are good, but the other is the worst outcome we could ever want and will change our planet dramatically. The point of all this could of been summed up as, taking action will no matter what be better then taking no action.

I have a simple but relevant question for this topic.

What is the "optimum" global temperature or climate ?

Is it the one we are experiencing right now, was it one before the industrial revolution or is it some other.
The globe has been a ball of ice and a big puddle of water and everything in between.
No one, even those evil right wingers deny that the globe is warming. It is a question of what is the source. Is it natural?, is their human interferance?
If so how much? It is my understanding that human activity acounts for about 5 % of all carbon emitted in the atmosphere. The rest is from
volcanic activity, pond scum, cow farts etc.
According to wikapedia "Land and sea measurements independently show much the same warming since 1860 [7]. The data from these stations show an average surface temperature increase of about 0.74 °C during the last 100 years."

So in short humans may be responsible for about 5% of .74 degrees C or about half of one percent of one degree.

I am a lover of nature and try to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible but we must consider the cost of certain measures that may
kill western civilization.

Also all this hollywood hype and al Gore hypocracy is sickening. They just want to feel better about themselves as they hop in and out of limos and
private jets!

come on !!! that 5ù can make the difference between hot and warm, or between warm and cold, all i can say is that i see what the climate turned to be in the recent years and it's no way smthin normal, here,in my country, we pretty much didn't have a winter season this year, the last week, there was a TV warning about not going to the beach from 8 a.m till 7 p.m because of the high temperatures, in europe some countries are having an unusually hot summer, in the gulf there was a Tornado last month,a tornado in the gulf !! in a place that rains comes once in years... I don't know but i think these are evidence.
i am against taking very expensive measures that may affect industry, but i am with taking some measures, don't believe a big company boss when he says thattaking measures will distroy economy bla bla; coz all he is afraid of is that his profits will fall alittle bit.

Written by Dane Train on 18.06.2007 at 22:22

Now if we look at history, there was a sudden warming of the earth preceeding what was known as the "Little Ice Age". Back in the 1970's scientists were warning us about the next ice age.

Warning about next ice age...
Earth warming up...
Last time earth warmed up we had little ice age...
Hmm...

Thank you, some one with some sane logic.
I've had numerous discussions in various other groups about this so called "crisis", when in fact there is little or nothing to worry about, I mean it's only the mainstream scientists who say this apocalyptic prediction, everyone else in the science community say exactly what me and hemlock say, that "global warming" is nothing more than a precursor for an ice age, but it's within the human complex (something I call the "masochistic complex") which humans need to blame themselves for everything in the known universe, even if it is not their fault and have no control over it.
People actually want to believe that the planet is coming to an end, but I'm afraid that that isn't going to happen for thousands, maybe millions of years.
Scientists have shown reports that Iceland was in fact warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, and the polar ice caps are receding but the southern ice caps are expanding (it's going to get warmer in the northern hemisphere and colder in the southern) which shows another indication of an ice age.
Before anyone decides to reply or quote to this think logically before you type.

Sth that threatens all the world.When i was a child,it used to be a far story to experience.And after 10 years,it has been sth that threatens our lives.After i had watched convenient thruth,i have been more into this situation.And it wasn't too long to realize the fact that we don't know the value of nature and planet

One issue is that leftisit have accepted the current global warming position without ANY challenge. There are scientist who have stated that
GW may not be man made but they are dismissed as flukes. 6 billion years of flux and all of the sudden an earthly creature claims "He knows the correct earthy temperature" I ask again ..... what is the optimal earth temperature? Todays, yesterays, or last months?

fact -- man only accounts for 5 to 10 % of the earths greenhouse gases.

fact -- the ave temp changed 1 degreee the last century

that leaves man accountable for approx one tenth of one degree temp change.

What is there to say about these facts??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Lets take this graph into consideration. It depicts variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Previously, every time the CO2 concentration reached +/- 280 ppmv an ice age unfolded(125 thousand, 225 thousand and 335 thousand years ago), right? We are currently at about 375 ppmv.

This raises Questions:

Anti Global-Warming

1. Why didn't an ice age take place when the CO2 concentration reach 280 ppmv? What allowed the CO2 concentration to rise above that number without creating an ice age?
2. If our current CO2 concentration is at about 375 ppmv, and and ice age isn't taking place, then why should we worry about CO2 emissions, maybe one is not going to happen this time?

Pro Global-Warming

If you think the data in this graph is solid, then you are certain an ice age will definately take place, sooner rather than later. But then, trying to stop global-warming by reducing green-house gasses is in vain, the CO2 levels are allready too high. So basically we're screwed!

Does this make sense?

I havn't done any research on global warming but I do know one fact: in the the last hundred years or so we have spewed out more chemicals and gasses than in the entire history of mankind. No one can deny that this must be having some effect on the environment.

I believe that the main problem it's the powerful countries, that depends of industry to "keep" they richness.
And many peoples ask something like:"why don't they use clear energy ways?". So the answer it's the politics that have friendship w/ the fathers of oil. like the texaco and other oil companies, so the "governament" helps the father's oil, and so the companies of oil are destroing our enviroment.

Ps1: is not just the oil coorp that destroy our enviroment. it's the greatest industies like automotive industry and others who provides "progress and development" and selling like essential services.

Ps2: I've mentioned texaco. but I have nothing against texaco.

Ps3: Long Life to the bicicles \m/

We all live in the age of material things. I'd love for our whole world to stop everything it did to destroy nature, but very few of us, no matter how much we would protest, would actually give up those things which create our comfort zone. I don't have enough knowledge in this field to give a valid opinion, but I know what I've read on energy sources.

As it stands, there are a about eight or nine well known energy sources in use today. For the United States at least, coal has been and is a very important part of our energy source. It was what helped to power our Industrial Revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries. Around 1900 coal was pumping out over 90% of our energy needs. However over time our energy source use would be determined by how readily available they were, and it just so happened about half a century later in the 1950s coal went out, now producing about 20% or more of our energy, and oil, natural gas, and electricity came in.

Oddly enough, we, humans, are using the remains of plant and animal life to fuel our own life. People often forget that everything we have and use today has come from the Earth, and in it we are only animals adapting to our environment. As some may note, most petroleum comes from Oil Traps, or reservoirs below ground. In the future Oil Sands and Shales may be used more for the recovery of the fuel.

Now, I am all for alternate energy sources, which do contribute a lot to the energy of the world, but some people seem to turn to it like it can take over in the blink of an eye. As far as I know, that's not very possible. Whether we like it or not, the human race will either keep destroying nature or revert to the days when we all lived in caves, and I don't see any here, or anywhere else, doing that too soon. No matter how much they care for Mother Nature.

Nuclear Energy - In the United States at least, nuclear energy constitutes for about 8% of the energy produced. This occurs through the Nuclear Fission of various sorts of radioactive material, usually Uranium 235. Remember how hard it is too recover readily fissionable isotopes: of the large uranium ore discovered only about .05% is pure uranium. And of that, only .07% of that is the unfissionable isotope U-235. The other 99% or more is the fissionable U-238. Pros and cons? They do not emit CO2, but the cost and space for creating enough power plants to fuel a country is extreme.

Solar Energy - Even though you might not think about it, a lot of homes use "passive" solar energy that deals with the windows of their home. Which allow heat in which is absorbed, heating the room. The other thing mostly thought about is "active" solar energy that deals with the huge black boxes made of glass either on your roof or about a field. This is absorbed and transferred to where it's needed. Pros and cons? It doesn't emit CO2, it can help to heat water to turn turbines for more electricity, and the sunlight is free. However, the cost to set up the equipment, and the massive area it takes to recover energy isn't small.

Wind Energy - Wind energy is the energy of motion, or better known as kinetic energy. It has been in use for some time, if you can remember the little wind wheels on farms. About a fourth of the solar energy that does reach Earth is wind, yet this is enough, if correctly used to power large areas. Over the past twenty years, costs of wind energy have also been cut while the efficiency increased. The US alone, according to sources, is third in leading wind energy production, behind Germany and Spain. The energy emitted is enough to power about 2.5 million homes, this is almost nine fold, in the US, from statistics around 1997. This is probably my "favorite" alternate energy sources, and one of the most effective.

Hydroelectric Power - About 3% of the US's energy comes from falling water. These are what large dams are for. Not much to say except falling water helps to spin turbines which in turn produce electricity. It is a relatively simple procedure with few to no harmful effects. However, dams only have the capability to last for a few centuries seeing as sediment fill them up and block them. That is both a time consuming and costly effect.

Geothermal Energy - Used by tapping into underground steam and water, this source helps to both heat and produce electricity. Iceland is especially efficient in this area considering it's volcanic landscape. It is printed that across the world there is some 250 plants in 22 countries, enough power for 60 million people.

Tidal Energy - The last and final energy source I'll present is tidal energy, or energy generated form the Ocean. It's been in use for centuries; note the waterwheels. Dams constructed across bays use tidal waves to turn turbines much in a similar way to Hydro Power. However, the power of tides can not usually be harnessed if the range is under eight meters, but little to no waste is emitted.

Whether or not any one will read this, I don't really know. I just wanted to post a small section and opinion on these "alternate" energy sources people claim can run our world with it's ever increasing energy consumption. On the actual topic of global warming, it's still an iffy subject for me. Some say it's bullshit, some say our doom is imminent. I'm really not sure what to think. "Facts" fly around like monkey shit and any ignorant person can go for one side or the other without much thought. Perhaps I'll comment more on the subject, but I do feel more steps can be taken to use alternate energy sources. I don't see these powering Earth any time soon though. Perhaps I'm wrong. If I have any info wrong, just tell me. I'm not an expert, but I just wanted to say a little something about all these "miracle" energy sources people worship. I suggest everyone just take a step back and look at what they do, and make sure they're not the hypocritical idiots they speak of.

Maybe someone on here could give the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. More than the obvious ones. Meaning, you should actually know something on the matter. I personally think it would be sweet if we all used nuclear energy, and also beneficial...obviously the world would need to become more stabile in order for that to happen...somebody inform me.

Written by Konrad on 10.09.2007 at 13:34

Maybe someone on here could give the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. More than the obvious ones. Meaning, you should actually know something on the matter. I personally think it would be sweet if we all used nuclear energy, and also beneficial...obviously the world would need to become more stabile in order for that to happen...somebody inform me.

I don't know much about the subject but I can say a few things I have read.

Nuclear energy has some minuses. First, building, running, and deconstructing nuclear plants uses quite some amount of fossil fuels, which emit CO2. This is because in mines the machines are operated by petroleum etc. Although the power plants themselves do not emit CO2, the smoke that comes from their chimneys is pure water vapor.

There is also a problem with cooling water. Reactors require cooling water and this is usually taken from rivers. During summers and high temperatures the water in river might be too warm to be used. Also nuclear plants require storage places for used water, to let it cool down before sending it back to river(radioactive water is not sent).

And as said, of 1000 uranium atoms only 7 are Uranium 235, which can be used. The rest must be seperated from it through quite a complex process which of course costs quite some money. But as far as I know, when a stable network is established the costs are not that bad actually.

And the last minus I will speak about is nuclear waste. From the reactions in nuclear plant a lot of dangerous waste is generated. A nuclear reactor generates about 30 tonns a year. These are hard to store, because they remain dangerous for up to 10000 years, if I'm not mistaken, and must be carefully stored. This is expensive. I've heard that with advanced technology it will be possible to use the wastes in the future to generate energy which would be very useful.

From pluses I can name that with a stable network of nuclear energy it will be relatively cheap, unharmful to environment, and accesible for quite a lot of places. Although building nuclear reactors is quite a long process. Compared to many other renewable energy sources, the nuclear energy seems to be possible to implement in practice in not too distant future.

If someone is interested, I suggest to read more and then maybe correct me, if I'm wrong, because I haven't reaserched this subject thoroughly at all.

What we have to remember in our struggle to protect the Earth, there aren't any alternatives that are completely "unharmful" to the environment. Everything either makes wastes and/or takes up land. However, that is a whole other subject by itself.

i agree with our president Mr. Vaclav Klaus who claims that Global Warming phenomenon should be easily misused for own political advantages...and it is also happening...and i think his slogan "Not the climate, but the liberty is in danger" isn't only shame for Czech Republic like many of our politicians who don't like him want to make us sure...

@Pinusar: correct, but the actually waste is quite secured in lead containers (if i can remember well), almost no danger from them. plus they still emit some heat, actually the chief of our nuclear safety (or hows that called ), claimed that she (yes she) would even like to take it home as a heating unit .

What some people fail to grasp is that in the long run, we are just another one of Earth's "dominant" species for the time being, so like all else, I believe that humans will pass. Indeed we are the most malignant of any, but also the most creative, artist, and all other "human" trait that one could come up with. The whole God complex doesn't come into this opinion of mine, because frankly, it doesn't affect me, whether I believe in it or not. What I am saying is like every other age of this world, we will pass just like everything else. Once we do, and CO2 is destroyed, O3 naturally replenishes itself and I'm sure that in time Earth will heal it's "wounds" and most likely be more beautiful that anything we currently know.

Now, with this all said, I'm not saying that we must not even try to protect our beautiful planet, I'm saying anything but. All we can do is "practice what we preach" so to say, because unfortunately, no matter how much someone bitches, there are very few who take action. It's one thing to sit and complain on a forum about global warming, wars, or poverty, it's quite another to take action.

I'm not really sure what I'm getting at, just a train of thought. Just don't believe everything you hear and just try to do what you think is right in life. Oh, I'm Dr. Phil-ing it up, but oh well. Good day.

Written by BitterCOld on 19.06.2007 at 22:41

I, for one, am a Heretic in regards to the Church of Global Warming.

I don't believe it.

The planet may be warming up - but, hey, we are also coming out of the little Ice Age, where the environment was far colder than usual. Before that, a great medieval warming period... golly, our climate is cyclical?

What has caused recurring Ice Ages?

What has caused massive glaciers to both advance and retreat?

It's all happened before, without Human Industrialization.

Additionally, taking a step back, and looking not at a global level, but a solar level, our sun itself just might be a bit more active after a long nap. Our sun, like the Earth, is NOT a static object. It is dynamic, and goes through changes. Some day it will grow so large it will consume the Earth entirely. Do you think a more active sun might have something to do the Earth heating up?

The sun is more likely a cause to our climate change than my little 4 cylinder Toyota Truck driving 50 miles to and from work every day is responsible for the shrinking of the Martian ice caps.

Yes, that's right, there have been signs exhibited by other bodies within our solar system showing they are warming as well.

Is that still the fault of Bush and us ugly Americans?

Going back to The Church of Global Warming - notice what is done to all the reputable scientists who speak out against it. They get branded as heretics and marginalized. It's not quite as bad as what the Catholic Church did to Scientists hundreds of years ago, but the tactics are the same.

Speaking of more comparisons to the Catholic Church, a branch of Christianity - a religion which many folks on this board love to bash and the Church of Global Warming - notice any similarity between some of those corrupt Popes of the dark ages and the Messiah of Gaea, Algore?

Pope lives like a king while the people live in squalor. He hands out indulgences (basically the holy equivalent of a "Get out of Jail Free" card) to followers who contribute money to the church - catering to the rich to support his lifestyle.

High Priest Algore lives like a king - spending $30,000 US annually just to heat and cool his freaking mansion. He is allowed to live this way, as are the other rich and privileged how follow suit because they can buy "Carbon Credits."

You guessed it! The beautiful and lovely rich people don't have to cinch their belts like the rest of us and live better. Not in the Church of Global Warming. They can live their own lives without any consequence and can pollute as much as they want... it's ok'd by Algore!

I refuse to buy this "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW IS REAL!" hype.

So long as there are still scientists who cite vast evidence to the contrary and their is no consensus, I won't.

So long as the Messiah of Gaea continues to spend $30k a year heating his house, flying to and from PAID speaking engagements ($50k a pop, I believe) in a private jet which dumps more pollutants and greenhouse gases in the air and consumes more fossil fuels PER FLIGHT into our atmosphere than anything I will do in the next year, and so long as he refuses to take HIS OWN "INCONVENIENT PLEDGE" , I will not subscribe.

I recycle, I have reduced consumption. I re-use.

But I refuse to blindly follow the new scourge religion of the earth.

The earth naturally outputs these greenhouse gases. Human Industrialization is just increasing the speed at which this happens. So because an ice age happened long before any of this industrialization, you refuse to believe that it has any effect on the process of global warming. Reducing our impact on the earth can greatly reduce how fast this happens. Having said that, the FIRST ice age is a theory, and only that. You're refusing to believe one of the most proven theories of global warming, so why do you support the theory of the ice age? Because it helps your argument? Now I do believe the ice age happened so let me continue on with my point... From a scientific standpoint, the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Ever wonder why it took so long for the first ice age to happen (from the creation to about 8,000 BC)? No human/technology interference! We are rapidly speeding up global warming. If you want to be stubborn and not believe in this theory, then it's your children and their children who will have to pay (a bit cliche, I know). Now if you don't like something that Al Gore's doing, go ahead and continue living on in your ignorance. (I personally don't know how Al Gore lives his life, nor do I care.) I know there are plenty of intelligent people out there who know what's going on with the environment, and are trying to make changes.

Written by riffdex on 18.01.2008 at 16:43

Written by BitterCOld on 19.06.2007 at 22:41

...

The earth naturally outputs these greenhouse gases. Human Industrialization is just increasing the speed at which this happens. So because an ice age happened long before any of this industrialization, you refuse to believe that it has any effect on the process of global warming. Reducing our impact on the earth can greatly reduce how fast this happens. Having said that, the FIRST ice age is a theory, and only that. You're refusing to believe one of the most proven theories of global warming, so why do you support the theory of the ice age? Because it helps your argument? Now I do believe the ice age happened so let me continue on with my point... From a scientific standpoint, the earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Ever wonder why it took so long for the first ice age to happen (from the creation to about 8,000 BC)? No human/technology interference! We are rapidly speeding up global warming. If you want to be stubborn and not believe in this theory, then it's your children and their children who will have to pay (a bit cliche, I know). Now if you don't like something that Al Gore's doing, go ahead and continue living on in your ignorance. (I personally don't know how Al Gore lives his life, nor do I care.) I know there are plenty of intelligent people out there who know what's going on with the environment, and are trying to make changes.

I'm pretty sure the "first ice age" you refer to, occurring some 10,000 years ago, was just the end of the latest "big" one. To my knowledge, ice ages have been occurring regularly for the few billion years. I would suggest reading about the Milankovitch cycles to get a better idea on what I mean by regularly.

Written by riffdex on 18.01.2008 at 16:43

Now if you don't like something that Al Gore's doing, go ahead and continue living on in your ignorance. (I personally don't know how Al Gore lives his life, nor do I care.) I know there are plenty of intelligent people out there who know what's going on with the environment, and are trying to make changes.

I figure global warming is bad news for us (disruption of ecosystems = massive food shortages), although the planet will pull through in the end - mother nature being what it is. I also figure that we won't do a damn thing about it until after it's far too late - human nature being what it is. So I'm waiting with anticipation for the inevitable cinematic release from Hollywood sometime in the next century:

"Dr. Strangelove II" or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CO2"

Yeah, we're fucked. We may as well laugh while we still have a sense of humour.