# What are your thoughts about global warming?



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Vote for your favorite option....

Bill


----------



## cubby23 (Jun 12, 2006)

Man made events here. We need a new planet of just rain forests for us froggers to move too.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

Is there a 'check box' type poll? It seems that some of these answers don't necessarily mutually exclude eachother...
I voted for a human cause...there seems to be overwhelming scientific data supporting this.
Yes, some mistakes were made in the past when trying to measure our impact.
Yes, it is very difficult to measure and a LOT of variables are involved.

However, I believe that we are changing the planet at a rate higher than previous organisms in a way that is sub-good for the long term survival of all species on the planet.

Just my .16 Yuan,
B


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I think there needs to be a mixture option... I don't think it is related to just one thing but most likely a combination of things.

I hope my other comments do not come across as me thinking this either, as I do not at all, but want to put everything on the table.


> It's an invention of hysterical scientists and the liberal media


As many scientists would tell you they could spend the rest of their lives looking at one small aspect of something and never fully understand it....


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

i stand with kyle on that. I agree with both the cosmic and the manmade idea.

Plus, we're not taking into account earth's recent history as we're technically in an interglacial period.

It wouldn't surprise me that despite we're ranting on global warming, in a few thousand years we could start experiencing another ice age.

Humans have dealt with many freeze/thaw cycles over the course of 100,000 years.


----------



## Max Power (Jul 22, 2006)

It's killing our polar bears, they are drowning becuase too much ice has melted


----------



## 311_dart (May 20, 2006)

this thread brings to mind michael crichton's State of Fear. this novel is an excellent fiction novel that integrates many scientific studies on global warming. He constantly references articles from highly regarded scientific journals as proof to the "liberal media hype"(which i feel the media likes to CONFUSE the public). I tend to agree with the 'mixture of things' answer, but one must realize, our time on this earth is just a small fraction of the planets existence and our influence can be seen as minimal in the large scope of things.

I recommend this book to everyone posting this thread, not only for the exciting fictional story, but for the almost 50 pages of non-fiction put in the end of the book: Appendix, Abstracts/Bibliography and author's notes. He includes numerous references both supporting and denying 'global warming'. a must read!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Clearly the earth has gone through warming cycles before so we can't rule out the role of natural events contributing to what is happening. But it does look like the bulk of this current trend is the result of burning fossil fuels.


----------



## black_envy (Aug 12, 2006)

I voted for the liberal hype, because the earth is less than 7,000 years old :roll: 

Well that, and the sun does expand and recede, so right now it is expanded, and as soon as it recedes the earth gets colder, yes?


----------



## Max Power (Jul 22, 2006)

black_envy said:


> I voted for the liberal hype, because the earth is less than 7,000 years old :roll:
> 
> Well that, and the sun does expand and recede, so right now it is expanded, and as soon as it recedes the earth gets colder, yes?


I hope that was sarcasm :lol:


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> I recommend this book to everyone posting this thread, not only for the exciting fictional story, but for the almost 50 pages of non-fiction put in the end of the book: Appendix, Abstracts/Bibliography and author's notes. He includes numerous references both supporting and denying 'global warming'. a must read


It is a fun book, but it's NOT a work of science. Crichton paints an unbalanced picture, to be honest. The fact of the matter is that the available science supports anthropogenic warming overwhelmingly. Crichton's sources represent the tiniest fraction of the available literature.

The simple truth is that the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed, evidence-based science available supports humans as the principle cause.

Those who admonish our understanding of current climactic conditions as based on too small a timescale shoot themselves in the foot - it is precisely the incongruence of the rapidity of current atmospheric trends with the slow complexity of climate history (well recorded in the geological record) that is so alarming. Our understanding is far from perfect (and in science, is never perfect) but the speed of these changes is unprecedented. Nor is it accurate to say that our impact is "minimal in the large scope of things." Gas bubbles from Antarctic ice cores demonstrate that current increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are far from insignificant.

To attribute global warming entirely to "liberal media hype" is to demonstrate a profound ignorance of the body of available evidence readily accessible in a plethora of journals with contributions from diverse sciencists and political interests. It also totally ignores the huge contributions from international scientists (and/or the attention paid them by their news medias) for whom one would have a difficult time establishing a liberal political agenda.

The problem is without question complicated, likely multivariate, and may have contributions from factors well beyond any conceivable human influence. To say that we should therefore do nothing (or wait for an impossible "complete understanding") is a cheap stalling tactic, which blatantly ignores the fact that literally everything for which we have laws and regulations has complicated causes, but society recognizes that important factors can be controlled. Murder has more than one cause, but we still have laws against it and laws relating to weapons, stalking, privacy, etc which help prevent it. Poverty, disease, international conflict, trade, inflation, overpopulation and food shortages are dazzlingly complicated issues facing our world - but we're working on fixing them because we understand enough about certain aspects that we feel we can make a difference.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

npaull said:


> Nor is it accurate to say that our impact is "minimal in the large scope of things."


You have FINALLY written something I can disagree with. In a few billion years the sun will die and our solar system will cease to exist. This will happen regardless of whether we stupid humans choose to screw ourselves out of a pleasant place to live now. In the "large scope of things", I don't think the universe will care one bit that we are gone.


----------



## Max Power (Jul 22, 2006)

bbrock said:


> You have FINALLY written something I can disagree with. In a few billion years the sun will die and our solar system will cease to exist. This will happen regardless of whether we stupid humans choose to screw ourselves out of a pleasant place to live now. In the "large scope of things", I don't think the universe will care one bit that we are gone.


Wow I think you've gone a little too far :lol:. The universe is huge, you could use your argument for anything. Although half the fuel in the sun is used, Earth has worse thing to worry about. Our galaxy is on a collision coarse with the Andromeda galaxy. The gravity will tear our galaxy apart throwing Earth who knows where. But even still, that wont happen for 1 billion years. I would bet humans won't even be around by then.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

Hahaha, well, it's all relative. Just depends on your scale... but I hear you.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

npaull said:


> Hahaha, well, it's all relative. Just depends on your scale... but I hear you.


That was intended to be a smartass compliment for your excellent posts btw. Seldom have I seen such thought and clarity posted on an Internet forum. 

But regarding the "large scheme of things", my philosophy is that the solar system is doomed and this is all futile. But we have to do something while we are here. Otherwise, it will get very boring. Providing a quality environment for future generations seems like a worthy cause.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2006)

I really think its a mixture of option A(1) and obtion C(3).
Plus, no one would really care if humans weren't around to make life even harder for living things.
Plants and animals suffer with climate change, but when humans speed up the change, and also destroy species populations, things can really go downhill.
Plus there are just tooo many people on the Earth. This just increases human suffering.


----------



## cstmgp (Sep 11, 2006)

Just something interesting on my verizon homepage today:

Scientists say human-produced gases such as bromine and chlorine damage the layer, causing the hole. That's why many compounds such as spray-can propellants have been banned in recent years.

"From Sept. 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. That's larger than the area of North America.

In addition, satellite measurements observed a low reading of 85 Dobson units of ozone on Oct. 8. That's down from a thickness of 300 Dobson units in July.

The ozone hole is considered to be the area with total column ozone below 220 Dobson Units. A reading of 100 Dobson Units means that if all the ozone in the air above a point were brought down to sea-level pressure and cooled to freezing it would form a layer 1 centimeter thick. A reading of 250 Dobson Units translates to a layer about an inch thick.

In a critical layer of air between eight and 13 miles above the surface, the measurement was only 1.2 Dobson unit, down from 125 in July.

"These numbers mean the ozone is virtually gone in this layer of the atmosphere," said David Hofmann, director of the Global Monitoring Division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory. "The depleted layer has an unusual vertical extent this year, so it appears that the 2006 ozone hole will go down as a record-setter."

The size and thickness of the ozone hole varies from year to year, becoming larger when temperatures are lower.

Because of international agreements banning ozone-depleting substances, researchers calculated that these chemicals peaked in Antarctica in 2001 and have been declining. However, many of them have extremely long lifetimes once released into the air.

While there are year-to-year variations, scientists expect a slow recovery of the ozone layer by the year 2065, anticipating declines in the use of damaging chemicals.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

I'm getting a little sick of this subject. Mainly/only because of the fact people don't fathom the 'scale' potential and what part of that 'scale' we are involved in (our reference point). You can put 3 hamburgers on a grill while the rest of the cow remains buried in the freezer. Ok really bad analogy (I'm tired) but the effect(s) (pending on how you veiw it) are not conducted unto/.by themselves, they follow everything thing else (Universally but to what extent?). Filtering out that which is worthy of existance, a constant start and restart in stages of a conveyer, sadly we do not seem so well off in our attitude/acceptability/response and the way all seems to be dealt.

The question, the only question (dealing with this issue) that needs immidiate attention/major focus is what can we do about it.

If there's chance, *this is the last* and if most intentions are set (for us all by the major) by stupidly sequestering and panning the possible, while waiting (thinking our intervention can't/doesn't play a part) the inevitable. The only patience the human race as a whole has is the procrastonation put into solving the seemingly largest/yet simplest problems.

This issue is still low on the list as top priority and so used as a measure of derailment of the public/ parties.

Regardless of what you think 'they'/'top officials' know/ told you, they have been well aware of these happenings for over 30 years, and probobly acted accordingly upon it/ for themselves. They play stupid unbelievablyl well.


Ben_C said:


> Is there a 'check box' type poll? It seems that some of these answers don't necessarily mutually exclude eachother...
> I voted for a human cause...there seems to be overwhelming scientific data supporting this.
> Yes, some mistakes were made in the past when trying to measure our impact.
> Yes, it is very difficult to measure and a LOT of variables are involved.
> ...


If primitive single celled microbes could/did/can regulate the entire environment in which they reside proportinately to their requirements, Then sure as hell a "highly evolved" :roll: macrobe (which 'dominates) its relm and converts it's enviromnment as 'a whole'.

The early 'germ' wars: Where/when diverging (evolutionarily) organisms reassociate later and verge either along with / against. Blooms/dominations-die off/equalization of relative organisms balancing/tipping the effects of the unrelated/'enemy' forms (all having the required/atmospheric conditions to thrive properly) by directly altering the ecosys through catalitic conversions (which never end as 'elements' have an evolutionary path (new associations/responses to/with new/old 'elements' that extends beyong our short/ chemical bonds/ reactions/ deterioration here.
Then the multi cellular later that converge/symbiotically/parasitically to give what you have now, which effects in many ways if a balance is continually thwarted.

Predfitor/prey- assosiation/evolutionary involvement/establishment/'relation'.




> Just my .16 Yuan,
> B


This is why I, unfortunately did/could not vote, nothing seemed relative to the big picture, and well, I more or less left it as a joke.

The only thread that should persist from here is: What resolutions can be offered/considered to give solution (long term, dumbass)? 

A thought that needs to get lost is that of "I/We don't have to worry about this in my/ childrens lifetime. First of all, what makes you so damn sure, it seems to definately be picking up some inertia/mass (a snowballs growth as it descends the hill, now that at least that I can call a decent analogy). 

Something to substantiate the idea that there truely is no selflessness. I don't know about you but I feel for people in the "possible" future (my heritage), and what they will certainly 'have to' fix/go through that we didn't feel we needed to deal with at the time (not our problem). The only instinct(s) humans have, seem to be fatal/ not to mention the now seen attitude again. .If we don't 'fix' it, Earth will, in it's own way by elleminating/riding itself of the intrusion/parasite, that being us. Everything stays even, get off your high horse because as said before the universe doesn't care/give pitty only chance and the potential to make something/anything from the 'apparent' nothingness. People seem just a little/lota overconfidant in their 'wishing abilities', the wish master feed on pitty, so keep it up if you can't see where it'llall end.

Enough peices have been given by everyone now that people could/might should think for themselves. The voices are still weakened and burdened by 'popularity' instead of us focusing on responsibilty not only to the planet but to ourselves. Compassion doesn't seem to reincarnate itself, thanks to the populuses preconceptions/altered/influenced perception/ oppinionated judgments which need to dwindle/DIE before we do.


----------



## cstmgp (Sep 11, 2006)

I agree that it is probably a combination of 1 and 3. Humans have undoubtedly changed things, yet the little info we actually know about trends points toward a normal climate shift. I also agree that the matter deserves some attention it hasn't been getting. If there is something we can do to stop our part of the destruction, let's do so. Lets also not forget that we aren't the only ones who can adapt, What will good ol' mother earths answer be to an ever increasing climate?
Hmm, will any of this be relevant when the revelation comes??? I wonder if God will sort the polluters from the tree huggers??? hmmm

Let the flaming begin.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

cstmgp said:


> I agree that it is probably a combination of 1 and 3. Humans have undoubtedly changed things, yet the little info we actually know about trends points toward a normal climate shift.
> Hmm, will any of this be relevant when the revelation comes??? I wonder if God will sort the polluters from the tree huggers??? hmmm
> 
> Just because someone 'says' who/what they are and who/what they stand for, doesn't neccessarily make it so or right. Again lets perpetuate the continuation of oppinion. :x
> ...


Those who endorse 'satan', stay. Most don't know they do, don't even give it a single though of, "will/has someone/thing take advantage of all this?" 

Why does it seem so certain we are being lead to 'fail', it's purpose? Everything comes and goes with reason.

What causes it, is the decieving point and why it is 'popular' to dwell on.

Who cares? Who should care? Lets get some fricken motivation appointed in the correct area. Tick tock. Nothing will happen twice.


----------



## cstmgp (Sep 11, 2006)

Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. At the risk of taking this towards a spiritual/religious debate. Too many "blindly follow" and/or simply assume a "convenient/appealing" label, with no real actions/lifestyles to back it up. Combine this with a society that relishes in violence/dismay/disaster, and and an absurd lack of accomplishment is apparent. Which news story would get the most attention: "Huge breakthrough in the fight against Global Warming," OR " Ozone near depletion, Earths end imminent!!." 
As for the "Unknowingly lead by Satan," I also agree. We are to respect ALL of Gods creations, would the planet fall into this category?? I would certainly hope so. The Human race isn't exactly known for thought before action. There is an abundance of people who would rather promote self intrests, regardless of effect. Perhps yet, we are not being "Lead" to fail, but rather giving in to the above mentioned decieving point, and dwelling on it as you said. 
The cause is a nessecity in finding the right solution, but whos to say that trying a couple "possible" solutions won't lead to finding the cause in itself? Cart before the Horse? maybe. But Most of the proposed actions would do more good than harm on many levels.
Finding the correct Motivator is the true nemasis (sp?), I have no doubt that we could solve the problem if the proper effort were applied.
My prior post was meant with some sarcasm, and for that I apologize. The points made nonetheless were valid. 
Respectfuly,
Shaun


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

cstmgp said:


> Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. At the risk of taking this towards a spiritual/religious debate. Too many "blindly follow" and/or simply assume a "convenient/appealing" label, with no real actions/lifestyles to back it up. Combine this with a society that relishes in violence/dismay/disaster, and and an absurd lack of accomplishment is apparent. Which news story would get the most attention: "Huge breakthrough in the fight against Global Warming," OR " Ozone near depletion, Earths end imminent!!."
> As for the "Unknowingly lead by Satan," I also agree. We are to respect ALL of Gods creations, would the planet fall into this category?? I would certainly hope so. The Human race isn't exactly known for thought before action. There is an abundance of people who would rather promote self intrests, regardless of effect. Perhps yet, we are not being "Lead" to fail, but rather giving in to the above mentioned decieving point, and dwelling on it as you said.
> The cause is a nessecity in finding the right solution, but whos to say that trying a couple "possible" solutions won't lead to finding the cause in itself? Cart before the Horse? maybe. But Most of the proposed actions would do more good than harm on many levels.
> Finding the correct Motivator is the true nemasis (sp?), I have no doubt that we could solve the problem if the proper effort were applied.
> ...


As I have said many a time (doesn't seem to sink in with the 'most') all must be considered (this IS an/my oppinion) because there really are to many unanswered (not meant to be answered/cartelment of essential info) voids, purposely not filled.

When ever I give (an inversally understood) name/label to something such as 'satan', the definition is the same but the name(s) I use are in parady.
Meaning there is a negitive to 'balance' and in some cases must prevail to be maintained. But the negetive itself is not one thing/entity. Everything is one thing and it remains neutral as a whole. Without positive there is no need for negative to contradict and so becomes basic (This appears to be our side).

Religion plays no part in this as it itself is the order 'they'/we 'created'/have now and are trying to climb out of. When I say religion I mean the 'American' interpreation of it. Again is a word I use in paradigm as the majority has no clue of such meaning and follow it only with hope and reassurance from those who keep them. Sole/soul property. Spirituality is just another word in American with multiple useless meanings shared with multiple meaningless phrases/words, again typical American confusion/derailment. Words to difine words=square one. None worthy.

Mind full (of ***&*) ness/awareness, now that's about the only thing that makes sense. Either you have or you don't, we ourselves obviously don't create neutral alone.

When I say mind, I do not mean brain, another major American misconception. Of course, Americans/us (for the most part)=not to blame, but those needing them/us. We've been played with and now they are having a hard time/no fun with awakining. I guess if 'THEY' think they're/their 'satan' they can't go to hell. Hope they're finally relizing the flaw in self confidence, unfortunately their torture will only reside here in reality, because I'm sure they can't "*feel*" burning..

Hold your head high (if you know where you are) as redemtion is nearer.

Parable not metaphor, although the whole picture 'not small' still contains a very simplistic and moral lesson that we must first abide, to be accepted to and allowed to thrive universally. Seems deceiving doesn't it, but those who can 'filter' and choose (for themselves) are the ones considered 'worthy'.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

cstmgp said:


> I agree that it is probably a combination of 1 and 3. Humans have undoubtedly changed things, yet the little info we actually know about trends points toward a normal climate shift.


I don't think I quite agree with this. I would agree that the evidence shows strongly that the climate has shifted in the past and so far what we have observed is not outside the range of past climate shifts. But I'm not aware of evidence that points to THIS change being caused, even in part, of a natural event. I'm also not aware of evidence that would rule natural process out as contributors of the current shift. Perhaps there are lines of evidence I don't know about. But what does seem clear is that the increase in greenhouse gases is far above anything that can be measured through geologic time. And it is pretty evident where those gases are coming from.

So the way I would phrase it is that there is strong evidence that human activities are responsible for the current climate change. But we can't rule out the possibility that these human activities are interacting with natural processes. Either way, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless we want to look like real chumps when our kids and grandkids figure out why they are living on such a messed up planet.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

the problem is money and power and suppresion of education. the want for material goods and energy is such that we are destroying our planet and each other for it. homes in the north are uninsulated and cheap rent so that your gas bills are 300+ for 1000 sq. ft. in a month. all the carbon put away millions of years ago by plants(they reigned first) is now being spewed into the atmosphere in 100years. you cant expect to release what took millions of years to put away to change the environment in a short time and expect no change. our "need" for petroleum based products(better living thru chemistry my ass) is astounding, and now its happening w/ one of the largest populations on earth. 
I have reverted to living off the land. the energy relesaed by my wood stove is replenishable. this storm gave me enough heating fuel for 10 years w/ the # of trees and tops down and the acreage i leave wild restores the carbon released for heating. i dont have an x box, i recycle old, good gas mileage cars and have no "vanity" in what i drive and i dont drive to work on a daily basis. i`m looking into solar and wind energy.
we have given up too much power to the mass companies(power,walmart and others) and also given them all our decision making capabilities because we want and the economy is dwindling. you vote w/ your dollar not at the polls. who owns the politicians? big business and who gives all their money to big business? they have us right where they want us. 
insurance companies? what a scam! if the shit hits the fan, and it will, you are the only one you have to rely on. 
w/ all that i`m doing i cant do anything about the big picture but lead by example and hope people will follow. i`m too old to hit rallies and preach anymore. i`m now caught up in the money thing trying to breed animals and run a farm. sterilites(petro products) cost money, water softeners and r.o. costs money, wood stove, trator, greenhouse(for viv plants and edibles off season) costs money. but i am working toward getting off the grid and supplying my own by properly managing my land. i could get into the way foods are packaged and sold and the whole "responsibility" for the packaging(waste) made by everything we buy and whos responsible for creating all that garbage(us for buying it or the company for making so much waste packing)but...
i deal, every morning when i wake up, w/ these issues, my deppression has waned because i`m keeping so busy and doing something that i will be able to live w/(working toward sustainability) but it is a grim future that i see, because of my education in environmental science. 
why were we(the u.s.) the last to accept global warming? it`s because the powers that be have led this country, thru standardized education to the place it`s at. we have let big hair create a huge ozone hole, c`mon. the corporations have the ability to market and create whatever they want till there is unrefutable evidence that it could kill us all. 
thru farming and reclaiming this land, running out of water, dealing w/ storms and only having myself to rely on, fighting the govt for city water, and listnening the the generation above me, i`ve started to really realize the cycle of a society, corruption, weakining of the backbone of the society and the sell of of their country , whether from mismanaging or greed, and that there is nothing i can do but sit back and watch. it`s up to the people to stop buying these products, stop vacationing, stop the destruction of our world thru our energy addiction and the petty squabling of religion, race and do it ourselves. THINK before you purchase. it`s hard to learn it yourself when you are being inundated w/ messages to the contrary all the time but it has to be done. the mass deppression of the people and the thought that buying something "new" will cure it is something only experienced by people in "bored" societies. people who work hard and feel that they are doing something inherently good sleep well at night, don`t buy something new every week. it`s not the # of people it`s how they live.
damn, i wasted too much time again, too much to do. i`ll tell ya, i`d rather have things to do than bills to pay(cutting/splitting wood, hunting/fishing, farming/wood stove to install, greenhouse to build). the next time you think about buying a new "insert item here" think about splitting some wood or weeding your yard by hand or using a push mower or biking to work, or planting a garden, etc. just the wrapping waste from tomatoes, if everyone grew their own, would help deplete greenhouse gases and save our landfills a couple pounds. everyone has to think like that for it to work.
i have a friend who works at a mall and was disgusted by some of the sories over our 8hr ride back from hamburg.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

> I voted for the liberal hype, because the earth is less than 7,000 years old


is this person for real?? this sounds like conservative hype to me :lol: [/list]


----------



## PAULSCHUMANN (Apr 20, 2005)

Well here's my 2 cents.
-Do I think the planet is warming up...Yes
-Do I think global warming is caused by us...No
-Do I think the hole in the ozone is caused by us...No
-Do I think things should be done to clean up our environment...Yes
-Do I think we should be distracted from more important issues like ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass murder to deal with polution...No 
-Etc. etc...



If Mt. St. helens can blow billions times more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in 1 afternoon than we have in 100 years, why didn't the planet cook in the early 80's

The earth has been alot hotter and colder than it is now several times in the last 6 billion years. We have been here for only a few thousand, and only building cars and producing pollutants for 100. Humans take up the length of an inch on a 10,000 mile long timeline of the earth.

The hole in the ozone is cause by convection currents (downdrafts) in the atmosphere. i.e. warm air from South america traveling southward to antarctica rises on top of the cold air over the south pole. As that air cools, it is forced downward by the following warm air to the north, thus dispersing and dragging ozone down with it. This is why the hole gets larger in colder years and changes size and shape with the seasons and weather patterns. There are a few other holes in the ozone, and it's funny how they're all directly above a cold (i.e. mountain range) remote area where there's little or no polution.

Yes! Freon gas does harm ozone. BUT, freon is a very heavy gas, meaning it sinks, and it is an extreme trace gas (one of the rarest), meaning there is little to almost none of it on earth. All of the freon in the world could not damage the ozone layer enough to cause any permanent effects.

Ever notice how these topics come up and get more popular right around election time?

I remember in grade school when all this "global warming" nonsense came about, we were taught in school that if we did not stop using our cars and throw away those aerosol cans, the earth would be too hot to support life by the year 2005.

Just to put us into perspective and make some of us realize how small we really are. We can fit all 6 billion people on this planet in the state of North Dakota with 30 feet of space between each one. Just for reference, North Dakota is about 300 miles wide and 200 miles high.

You don't hear what the sensible researchers and scientists have to say because no one cares, and the media can't sell it. you only hear about how last years hurricane season being the worst on record and how we are all doomed because it will only get worse. "NEWSFLASH"!!! We have been keeping records on hurricanes for 50 out of 6 billion years. I think there has been much worse than katrina. The media will never air a scientist's findings from deep ice core samples that have determined that the earths weather patterns and atmosphere has stabilized in the last 50 thousand years and used to be much much worse before we were ever here.

anyway, I can go on and on, but if some one is willing to take my advice...I say "pick up your trash" "do unto others..." and "have some fun in the 75-100 years you're here"


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

PAULSCHUMANN said:


> Well here's my 2 cents.
> -Do I think the planet is warming up...Yes
> -Do I think global warming is caused by us...No
> -Do I think the hole in the ozone is caused by us...No
> ...


Just a wild guess. But do you by chance get your news from a guy named Rush?


----------



## PAULSCHUMANN (Apr 20, 2005)

I have actually never listened to one of his programs. I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat, I'm not left wing, and I'm not right wing....only because I don't know what any of those terms mean. But either way I'm not stating any of that as "fact", I'm just posting it as what I chose to see from the information presented to me so far.

If you think what I posted was a crock, quit labeling me along side some one you think is wrong 100% of the time and post some facts or ideas to prove the information I have presented as wrong.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Sorry for pigeonholing you but much of your post looks like it came straight out of the right-wing, anti-environment playbook. Like confusing ozone depletion with global warming. They are not the same thing. Thinning of the ozone is responsible for increased UV striking the surface of the planet. It is not the cause of global climate change. Here might be a good place to start looking at causes of ozone depletion:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html

This is on the EPA web site which I might add is an agency that refused to believe that CFCs were responsible for ozone depletion until overwhelming scientific evidence finally convinced them to get onboard. Typical of the anti-environmental arguments that refuse to recognize humans as agents of change, what you say about wind sheer over cold regions is true but only part of the story. The other part is that CFC's are responsible for thinning the overall blanket of ozone so when sheer happens, the holes are larger and happen in more places than would have happened without the human footprint on the ozone. Most alarming to me about people who continue to refuse to believe that CFC's are damaging the ozone is that after their use was banned, the ozone began to mend and appears to be ahead of predicted schedules for a full recovery. In other words, humans actually did something right and ended their damaging practices. The economy did not collapse and life as we know it did not cease to exist. The evidence is pretty clear. We did it and we should pat ourselves on the back and move on to the next large challenge which is climate change.

Just this week Kofi Annan gave a speech warning of the dire consequences to world economies, human health, and political stability if we don't act to counter global climate change. He said,


> "A few diehard skeptics continue trying to sow doubt. They should be seen for what they are, out of step, out of arguments and out of time. In fact, the scientific consensus is becoming not only more complete, but also more alarming. Many scientists long known for their caution are now saying that global warming trends are perilously close to a point of no return." - Annan, Nov. 15, 2006


 His statements reflect the consensus of the scientific community. Not the consensus of the news media - but the consensus of the actual scientists taking those ice cores and conducting analysis.

And I have heard this gripe about the media only running stories about how Katrina was caused by global warming but not showing the other side of the argument. I don't know where you people get your news but it isn't the same place I get mine. After Katrina I saw this question of whether climate change was responsible for Katrina time and time again to hurricane experts and meteoroligists. And every damn time they said there was no evidence to support that. They all acknowledged that Katrina was well within measured norms of what has already been recorded. However, they also pointed out that we are entering into a natural cycle of increased hurricane activity which has been documented through past evidence so the frequency of hurricanes is likely to increase over the next decade regardless of any influence of global warming. But they also added that warm water temperatures add energy to create larger hurricanes and ocean temps have been on the rise - probably as a result of climate change. It isn't hard to connect those dots. I saw this same story repeated again and again on most of the mainstream media outlets that anyone with a TV or radio can access. Not once can I recall the story not including an interview with an expert who refuted the notion that Katrina was the result of global warming.

Being a scientist myself in a field tangential to climate change I probably see a lot more of the scientific literature on the subject than the average person. My conclusion is that the news reports (at least the ones I hear) have not been slanted and are a pretty accurate reflection of the scientific consensus. I further conclude that anyone who continues to deny the causes and possible consequences is cherry picking their evidence to paint themselves only the part of the picture they want to see. In this case it is like finding a cherry in a pile of 1000 grapes and declaring that it is a basket of cherries.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

i have no "proof" of anything. i just think of it as, if we take the view that none of it is our "fault" 100% of the time unless there is "proof" otherwise, eventually we will be wrong and then we`re screwed.
destruction creates, there is no doubt we are "changing" things, youd have to have your head under a rock to think otherwise. we may all be able to fit into s. dakota or whatever but how many times your weight in garbage goes to the curb every week? how many gallons of carbon have you sent back into the atmosphere, which took millions of years to put away in the form of plants and animals? it was a lot hotter back then. anyway i`ll go on for ever out of common sensical ways we affect the environment which i have no proof for. all i have to say is what are we changing it to? what are we leaving behind, garbage or "natural" resources?


----------



## joeyo90 (Nov 5, 2006)

combo of 1 and 3 
on a side note did anyone see that one special on metiors and comits several months back on discovery about the metiorite thats going to pass between us and the moon in october 2029 depending on how much earths gravity affects its course it could possibly strike earth its next time through... dont think globle warming would be on our minds then lol


----------

