The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. The scientific proof lies with the scientists studying these problems. "HAARP" has been experimenting with the ozone layer, and atmosphere for years. (I have heard) that they are experimenting with changing and manipulating the weather. (I think that is dangerous)Have they succeeded?? Who knows.. They are the ones who found the evergrowing hole in the ozone. Polution, the devistation of the Rain Forest, and depletion of the earths resources, are the main causes for the global warming.
The government knows whats going on, they just choose to "Blow it off" as a myth. I say, that will be our downfall. Failing to recognize the problems, take them seriously, and take action to save the earth. I want my children to have "her" to enjoy for years to come.
Again, just my opinion...
Karen,
In your response on my blog you say "with all due respect, Im not going to base my opinion, on the opinion of others in a video" and yet you post a video that sources no one except "scientists say" or "scientists predict". You also say "The scientific proof lies with the scientists studying these problems". Yes, like the University of Illinois and the NOAA which Lord Monckton clearly sources in the video and that I will repost here. Who is H.A.R.P.?
Also, National Geographic is not known for its objectivity when it comes to issues of a political nature.
I don't believe the government knows what's going on at all. That would be giving them far too much credit. Conspiracy theories just rile up the feeble minded.
Climate change is very real. All of Canada and right where we are located was under a sheet of ice that melted due to climate change. That warming trend was not caused by man.
Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet. Alaska remained mostly ice free due to arid climate conditions.
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 9,600 - 9,700 BC. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.
There's absolutely no proof that man is having any impact on climate. Our pollution can be found in every part of the world, however. There's overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels rise after/during warming periods, not before. This makes it an effect, not the cause of.
first of all there is no global warming that man is causing outher then we cuting down all the rain forests.
the earth changes all the time, north pole has been tropical at one time, oh man was not here, how that happen.
so it will go tropical again with or without us . man will some day go my the way of the dinosaurs. there will be another ice age , the earth is changing as we speek.we can do nothing about it.natural methane is going to kills us if any thing or a super volcano will tuen us into a ice age. so go live your lives, let god worry about it.WE CAN DO NOTHING EATHER WAY, ITS ALL A aL GORE scam
Historical rises in CO2 levels that you cite were naturally occuring oxidation-sourced rises. The current rises are man-made from combustion. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The human population has made dramatic environmental changes to this planet. Our combustion gasses fill the air. Our petro-chemicals permeate every square acre of soil. We have caused the extinction of hundreds of species. We have defoliated most of the planet's forests. We are well on our way to depleting the fish in the sea. We have dammed rivers and levelled mountains. We spread poisons everywhere to kill species that threaten our crops.
There is no argument against the correlation of greenhouse gasses and weather factors such as increased temperature. The arguments center on who is to blame: man or nature. Given the scenario, at best- the outcome is moot.
To imagine that our recklessness has no global implications is denial to the Nth degree. ...Or perhaps just blind arrogance.
...And as for constantly tagging Al Gore. He didn't invent global climate change. He packaged it for a world more conversant in sports statistics and television schedules- less eager to understand anything that takes more than three minutes to explain.
Thank You CM for seeing Global Warming for what it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Politics!! UGG
Have you heard of HAARP? They have been running some pretty extensive, and (in my opinion) very dangerous experiments for years. Maybe, if your interested you could give me your overview on the project.
William you got it right it is an AL GORE scam...Why was there an ice age...Why were there Dinosaurs..Was this all Man kinds fault..Was there not enought Carbon in the air so all the earth was cold..This is about money and taxing more of it..Carbon credits give me a break..Remember chicken little...The Sky is Falling..
Why have they changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change......Obama's on TV today talking about insulating you house to help Climate Change..Just turn down your thermostat..you'll save more money ..Didn't we go thru this with Carter..
Global warming, I am by no means an authority, but I was trained as a weatherman by the Navy at sea for 4 years and then in the late 80's I traveled both the Arctic and Antarctic regions as an ice observer. I have been away from it for 20 years now and haven't kept up on it much, but there is surely less sea ice at the end of the melt season than there used to be, not sure about the freeze period. Probably there is about the same coverage now as in the 80's, but I'd guess it's not as thick. Primarily it's because the prevailing winds have shifted a bit and keep warmer air masses flowing from the s sw a bit longer in the year. Why? I don't think anyone knows. It does seem that the seasons change a little later than they used to, which would mean it allows the water, in the Arctic especially, to continue to soak up heat a little longer which melts more ice. To say that humankind has had no effect on this makes no sense, we have pumped gas and soot into the air that is not naturally present. Just the growth of population has to have some effect, much like a room will become warmer when there is more people in it. As an example, during the east coast power blackout of 2003, it was noticed that the air became cleaner within a short period of time without the coal fired power plants running. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=930
On the other hand to say humans have caused the whole problem and if we don't mend our ways, we will all perish doesn't sound reasonable either. The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. Also, don't forget the emerging industrial powers like China and India, what precautions are they taking to reduce pollution, I think I know the answer.
Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution, and leave a cleaner, more enjoyable planet than we were given.
Hey George im with you..haha.Government should be worrying about all this debt they are creating for the next generation..Not something they have no control over..Mother Nature..
Dave wrote, "To say that humankind has had no effect on this makes no sense."
Well, another way to look at it is the earth is very big and very old. It's the height of species hubris to think we cold even make the smallest dent in the globe's weather.
Dave, you still haven't said anything that negates the fact that the earth is very old and very big and has gone through numerous much more dramatic climate changes without man interfering.
That's because I can't negate that, it's true. However, there is evidence pointing to an accelerated situation going on that coincides with man's causing pollution in the air. Like I wrote, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I'd have to hunt for this, but I think McCain said during the 2008 debate that he'd rather pollute less and be wrong than vice versa. I agree
I've no argument with "pollute less and be wrong." I call myself a conversationalist rather an environmentalist. There are all kinds of benefits to being good stewards of the planet that have nothing to do with global warming. And I also see a strong tie between my localist/decentralist philosophy and conservation.
That said, what drives me batty is all the knee-jerk belief in man made global warming. The evidence is shaky and the logic faulty behind what many people believe on the subject.
That's no way to make governmental policy. If you're going to make policy, but sure of the facts and understand the wide spectrum of consequences, not just the narrow consequence you're trying to address.
To me that is such a high degree of common sense that I don't understand why more people don't see it, instead of running off with "the sky is falling" reactions.
I said above, the truth lies somewhere in between the 2 extremes, having said that, I don't agree that " the evidence is shaky and the logic faulty" regarding our affects on the climate, there's way too much evidence for global warming. I get quite flustered when people ignore something that is right in front of them and just follow along with what some radio show pundit says is the truth. The first ones to jump on this so-called "Climate-gate" scandal about the e-mails hacked from a British University that supposedly shows scientists from the IPCC "cooked the books" were the Saudis, what's that tell you? http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Anyway, I'm no tree-hugger either, more laws and policies aren't gonna help, more common sense is what's needed
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do truly enjoy this forum and it made me do a lot of reading on the subject I hadn't done in few years. Working from home is great, but it is easy to get sidetracked. Sadly, I have to get to work and try to earn a living, so I can buy fossil fuel and heat my house. I need some Dave warming, instead of global. How's that for hypocritical?
Al Gore should go the way of the Laurentide ice sheet 12,500 years ago. He's done a disservice to the legitimate scientific community by claiming to be an expert in the field of climatology, not to mention other fields he knows nothing about.
Since when does a politician need facts, Doug? Gore is a sensationalist of the first order, no doubt. Did you also read the line from the NOAA guy who said "“This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.” Anyway, I'm glad you are trying to keep informed, more people should
I'm not sure what "sky is falling" predictions you refer to, Howard. Let me remind you of a fairly recent situation. In the 1980s it was reported that certain chemicals, primarily CFCs, were responsible for ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. The depletion was causing holes in the ozone layer, a natural barrier to dangerous ultraviolet rays that cause cancer and other living tissue damage. This was indeed a manmade predicament. These compounds were invented in the 1930s. Their rise in use as refrigerants, industrial cleaners and aerosol propellants accounted for a dangerous concentration in the stratosphere- all in just fifty years.
Internal combustion engines have been revving fumes into the air since 1876. The biproducts of internal combustion are CO, CO2, NO, NO2, hydro-carbons, benzene and SO2. Though any of these compounds can occur naturally, the levels generated by gas and diesel engines unbalances natural cycles such as the carbon/oxygen cycle.
469,000 vehicles were manufactured in the U. S. in 1914. By the 1930s, twice that number were produced. Currently, on any given day, 250 million vehicles are on the road in this country, alone. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased 20% in the last 50 years.
Arguing that the planet is too old and too large to become vulnerible to the activities of man is a short-sighted and unrealistic. Our species has not only the capability, but the greed and lack of conscience to destroy Eden.
When I get home, I'm going to burn an extra load of carbon through the wood stove. I want my house to be more like a sauna than a box I could be comfortable in if I'm wearing alpaca fleece socks and a hooded flannel. My house will be so warm that even the tiled floors won't feel cool.
I'm going to re-release smokey carbon to the atmosphere that was scrubbed from it by the trees over the last 30 or 40 years of its life and feel no sense of remorse doing so. Hey, at least I won't be burning those so called "fossil fuels" or heating with electricity from those horrid nuclear power plants all the greenies don't want us to have even though they take up little space, have a tiny volume of waste compared to a coal fired power plant and leave no carbon footprint!
It's great to be an American. I can still have my say, my wood stove, 2 trucks, 2 diesel tractors, a motorcycle, a 4 wheeler, a snow thrower, a kerosene salamander heater and a 1 ton safe full of rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Soon enough I may even have "FREE" health care! I might end up waiting 6 months in line for clinic style medical care but dangit, it'll be FREE! Wait, if it's free, why don't we have it already?...hmmmm....
I may even go to my hunting camp Friday night just so that I can burn some firewood through the wood stove there, too. I'll burn some white gas in the Coleman lantern for light and run the 1500 watt generator just so I can watch tv in front of the wood stove.
Next thing ya know, Obama will try to tax us on the amount of carbon we use. Wait, isn't he actually trying to do that?! I wonder if he's going to calculate how many times per year each person exhales and place a tax on the carbon dioxide expelled each time. You'll pay more if you jog or exercise.
When I crack open that beer tonight, I'm gonna take a deep breath of the carbon dioxide that shoots out when the cap it lifted off of the bottle. I kind of like doing that. It tickles my nose!
C.M. wrote: "Arguing that the planet is too old and too large to become vulnerable to the activities of man is a short-sighted and unrealistic."
That's not at all what I said.
What I said was it is species hubris to believe that we really have that much impact on a very old, very big planet.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I'm saying that there is this unchecked assumption that it's true, as your post does above does. Saying we produced x amount of y in c number of years doesn't PROVE it had an impact. It merely proves that's what we did.
All I'm arguing for is logic and common sense instead of running off with whatever scare tactic some fund raising bureaucratic group such as Greenpeace tells you you should believe. Most of the "proof" for climate change comes from people with vested interests in proving it true. I don't trust that.
There are much better arguments in favor of better environmental behavior than what gets foisted on us by these self-interest groups, and that's a shame.
Chris, and I'm not taking sides with the debunkers. Their logic is often just as faulty.
People have destroyed ecosystems on a human scale. That doesn't prove they can destroy an entire planet. See, logic. One proof doesn't prove something else.
If something has a bias, liberal or otherwise, it isn't the truth.
We're not destroying the planet Howard, Earth will be around a trillion years after us. We are, however, contributing substantially to a faster than normal change in its base temperature. I'm not sure people really understand the sort of affect that a degree or two can have on the overall workings of Earth's weather patterns. So what we get are morons making stupid jokes like: "Man, it's cold out there today; so much for 'global warming.'" (Insert guffaw here.)
This whole damned 'debate' has been reduced to cowfarts and idots making jokes about buying beachfront property in Iowa. It's impossible to get serious about this topic anymore.
Come on Chris we are not contributing to the "faster than normal temperature change". The earth has been been warming and cooling in various cycles for billions of years. Read a freakin science book. If it wasn't Batavia would still be in one of the four major ice ages (oops maybe it still is). Its natural and no wacko political zealot can change that for the sake of creating a reason to increase taxes.
The tax comment that Richard made brings up a valid point by the way. Why should we pay more for clean production when we can be slobs for way less money?
Here's the answer: Life will cost you much more money over time if you're not an asshole.
Here's an example: I could go to TOPS and steal myself a rotisserie chicken for dinner, yummy. The chicken will taste the same whether I pay for it or not, it will fill my stomach and if I don't get caught there will never be any consequence (for me.) TOPS will certainly lose money and if a hundred other people like me did the same thing with any consistency, TOPS would start having a real problem with their bottom line. Instead, because I'm not an asshole, I'm going to buy that chicken. See, it cost me more money, but everyone is probably better off for it.
Companies that refuse to clean up their production processes just to keep it cheap are assholes. The same products come out of the factories and those products cost substantially less money to produce (at the outset) than clean ones. However, those factories destroy the environment around them and when hundreds of factories operate by those same principles at any level of consistency, the total effect is enourmous.
Hey Chris here was the science books I have read learnt me Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
You see I am a scientist working for a major industrial corporation and global warming is a farse. Politicians that attempt manipulate the sciences to create there own pseudo science are the holes big gapping black holes.
Yup, that explains the natural cycle of glacials, interglacials and interstadials, this does not address the reality of man-made global warming which is an effect above and beyond that of the normal cycle.
As an aside, what sort of scientist are you? Actually curious here, not looking for ammo.
How you a man, a meaningless mortal man in the grand scheme of planetary sciences or any man for that matter be so brash as to think that anything they did could have the most minute effect on something so complex and uniquely dependent on the natural laws of science as climate. Talk to me in a couple thousand years from now but remember..........................................
That's what Rush says as well Richard, seems to be the main talking point these days. No, a single, mortal man could never have a major effect on a planet, but ten billion of us consuming resources at our current rate, producing chemical byproducts never before seen on this planet, all the while destroying the earth's natural defenses certainly can.
Grab a sewing needle and prick your finger. Not much happens. Now prick it ten times...a thousand...
If you're going to steal entire paragraphs from the internet at least include attribution. You see, if you don't you're just a plagiarist with an opinion. A scientist should know better.
Doesn't really matter where it came from its still scientific fact. The second one came from my head. And scienctific facts should be kept separate and held in a higher regard than politics, religion, ideologies and beliefs. Science is not a tool to use or something that should be distorted in a manner to support a political agenda its simply the will to know, the desire to acquire scientific knowledge.
Yet you quote hack websites that are funding their own 'science' that tells them what they want to hear. Both sides are guilty of this, I'm sure and that's why I get so angry, we've cast aside reality in the interest of having a fight. No progress is made in fixing real problems because we've created a political and ideological deadlock.
Chris, from your last comment, I think you and I essentially agree, but from different spectrums. My only thing is focusing on what the "climate change supporters" push is what they push is pushing legal and regulatory changes that may have unintended consequences for something that I'm not convinced ENOUGH is true.
No the real problem is that politicians are trying to use pseudo science to push a political agenda. They are so vain they actually think they could develop a policy or regulation that would actually have an effect on or a program that could effectively control the climate, its ridiculous, their just a bunch of bozos. But climate control is not really what they want, they really want to just control and tax everything, every single major industry.
I don't know when our society decided that it was popular to doubt the scientific community in so many areas. There is this strange animosity toward science that to me is frightening and seems to be part of an anti intellectual movement. Maybe the reason for someone like Sarah Palin's elevation.
It is true that the majority of scientists actually DO believe that climate change is occurring and at a faster rate than the natural cycles. Can so many of them be part of Al Gore's vast 'global warming conspiracy'? Do they even have the time to collaborate in a hoax when all they really want to do is analyze data? I won't even attempt to spew any data because it's way over my head and I don't have the time to 'school' myself in this area. I also won't swipe some sexy explanations from a 'pro-scientific' site with the handy copy and paste application.
I guess you can call me one of the science 'kool-aid' drinkers. If enough of them have come to this conclusion wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution and put in place some reductions of carbon emissions?
I did find the Pew Center on Global Climate Change a handy resource for a novice looking for an organization that claims to look at the issue from science and business. From their 'about us' tab
<i>"The Pew Center on Global Climate Change brings together business leaders, policy makers, scientists, and other experts to bring a new approach to a complex and often controversial issue. Our approach is based on sound science, straight talk, and a belief that we can work together to protect the climate while sustaining economic growth</i>". http://www.pewclimate.org/
OK Lori stop exhaling now, and you can save the planet. The government is actually telling you that the CO2 you exhale is a pollutant and they want to control it.
Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, by comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.
Life in one form or another has been on earth for about 3.7 billion years. So much for the creationist theory and the earth only being 6000 years old. The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase. Life on earth will end long before this as the oceans will have long since boiled away. Sometime after turning into a red giant, the sun will swallow all of the planets. Sites I searched said between 5 billion and 7.5 billion years for this to happen.
A trillion years is 1000 billion so the earth won't even manage to exist 1/10th of a trillion years.
This subject has been debated with a casual, amateurishness as if we were arguing whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. The ice caps at the poles are melting, sea levels are rising, weather is changing- these are quantifiable, measurable, tangible changes. The changes will continue whether Republicans, Democrats or Socialists win elections.
Individuals can dance around the issue of global climate change and argue semantic points, blame or conspiracy theories until the cows come home (or don't). My point has always been- who gives a damn if these changes are natural, manmade or a collaboration. Assigning a responsible party does nothing to alleviate the resulting problems.
Just as we tackled the ozone depletion issue; if we get around the politics and start fixing problems, they might actually mend. And humans will always find a way to profit in the process.
Lorie do you really think you or any political body or policy can do something, anything that would ultimately have any effect on the climate of the earth?
Maybe you know like superman changing the earth's orbit or something on the scale of a massive meteor strike or maybe even blocking out the sun with the debris from a massive volcanic eruption.
Doug, I would like to up my ante to a million gagillion years because, like Richard, I refuse to believe anything that geologists and geophysicists tell me.
Chris, thank you for posting the link to the Asimov article. The man was brilliant. Black-and-white debaters could learn a great deal from his reasonable idea: “…people think that `right’ and `wrong’ are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.” His rational presentation represents healthy debate techniques that might help to lower blood pressures, as well.
OK hows this for science Chris, even if everyone stopped driving cars, and every single industry stopped producing everything right now, it would absolutely have no effect on the earth's climate. So next time you go out to shovel the driveway and the snow is squeaking beneath your feet, the snot freezing in your nose. Repeat after me global warming is BS.
No one here has the credentials to continue this debate at a reasonable level so I'll be spending the rest of my evening more productively over at GodHatesShrimp.com.
Here are my credentials: I prepare Title V Air Emissions Permits for major chemical plants and design air pollution control equipment to comply with state and federal regulatory requirements. Some of these permit applications are over 5,000 pages long and include detailed calculations of every single .00000001 lbs. of every contaminant that is discharged to the atmosphere. The governments attempt to control air emissions is a regulatory nightmare. But they don't really care about regulating emissions, they're mainly concerned about collecting permit fees.
Preparing emissions permits makes you an expert in measuring emissions, it doesn't make you an expert on climate change. It's a skill job and deserves respect, but sorry, no banana. If you WERE an expert you'd do a better job at explaining yourself than copypasting text from slanted websites. If you've published any research papers on teh subject I'd be happy to read them with an objective mind.
I'm not an expert either so I side with the overwhelming majority of people who ARE experts. Back to godhatesshrimp.com. Add a little levity to your day, something tells me you need it as much as I do.
Howard- as with your own philosophical predisposition toward local economy: the solution is in our own backyards. We need to think in terms of our actions and outcomes. If everyone behaved with an interest in conservation and minimizing pollution, public opinion would drive national policy. The corporate conspiracy depends on derailing intelligent dialogue. It's the ploy of the magician: watch this hand while the trick is executed by the other.
Shop local. Don't buy what you do not need. Don't drive if you don't have to; consolidate trips and walk. Don't waste energy. Be a role model for responsibility.
I was just reading an article about Sarah Palin- someone I hate to offer credence to by example. But... Her state benefits HUGELY by from natural gas and oil production. She comes out as a doubter in terms of global climate change. She has to. Her viability as a Republican candidate depends on it. Despite this convenient truth, she established a commission while still governor of Alaska. The commission was dedicated to overcoming the negative impact of climate change on her state's economy. So she, like so many of her double-talking, both-sides-of-the-mouth cohorts, recognize that global climate change is a threat to be dealt with. Instead of advocating solution, these politicans opt for nay-saying to keep the coffers of their re-election funds full of petro-corporation contributions. And the pundits who cynically rally around this arrogant denial to generate a cloud of ignorant, hysterical noise are fueled by people like Palin and her self-serving and vicious circle of deception. It's all about fast bucks, and no vision of the future.
We are victims of a conspiracy- like the ploy of the magician: watch this hand while the trick is executed by the other. We need to reconize the deception and stop perpetuating it.
Well, my whole thing is decentralize, shop local, avoid big business and big government, take care of the community, which includes conservation.
The environmentalist used to say, "Think Globally; Act Locally."
I say: "Think Locally; Act Locally." The Global part will take care of itself. Be better stewards at home on a small scale, and the big stuff takes care of itself.
The earth has gone through
The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. The scientific proof lies with the scientists studying these problems. "HAARP" has been experimenting with the ozone layer, and atmosphere for years. (I have heard) that they are experimenting with changing and manipulating the weather. (I think that is dangerous)Have they succeeded?? Who knows.. They are the ones who found the evergrowing hole in the ozone. Polution, the devistation of the Rain Forest, and depletion of the earths resources, are the main causes for the global warming.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJAbATJCugs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJAbATJCugs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The government knows whats going on, they just choose to "Blow it off" as a myth. I say, that will be our downfall. Failing to recognize the problems, take them seriously, and take action to save the earth. I want my children to have "her" to enjoy for years to come.
Again, just my opinion...
Karen, In your response on my
Karen,
In your response on my blog you say "with all due respect, Im not going to base my opinion, on the opinion of others in a video" and yet you post a video that sources no one except "scientists say" or "scientists predict". You also say "The scientific proof lies with the scientists studying these problems". Yes, like the University of Illinois and the NOAA which Lord Monckton clearly sources in the video and that I will repost here. Who is H.A.R.P.?
Also, National Geographic is not known for its objectivity when it comes to issues of a political nature.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cN6_RYAP8WA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cN6_RYAP8WA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I don't believe the
I don't believe the government knows what's going on at all. That would be giving them far too much credit. Conspiracy theories just rile up the feeble minded.
Climate change is very real. All of Canada and right where we are located was under a sheet of ice that melted due to climate change. That warming trend was not caused by man.
-----------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet
Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet. Alaska remained mostly ice free due to arid climate conditions.
-----------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 9,600 - 9,700 BC. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.
There's absolutely no proof that man is having any impact on climate. Our pollution can be found in every part of the world, however. There's overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels rise after/during warming periods, not before. This makes it an effect, not the cause of.
-----------------------------
http://globalwarmfacts.com/
From this site: "Most likely humans have had little affect on nature’s plans"
-----------------------------
I'd like to recommend 2 books written by Robert W. Felix
http://www.iceagenow.com/
1. Not by fire but by ice
2. Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps
Howard, I think you are
Howard, I think you are missing an option. Global warming is a natural occurrence, being sped up by man.
first of all there is no
first of all there is no global warming that man is causing outher then we cuting down all the rain forests.
the earth changes all the time, north pole has been tropical at one time, oh man was not here, how that happen.
so it will go tropical again with or without us . man will some day go my the way of the dinosaurs. there will be another ice age , the earth is changing as we speek.we can do nothing about it.natural methane is going to kills us if any thing or a super volcano will tuen us into a ice age. so go live your lives, let god worry about it.WE CAN DO NOTHING EATHER WAY, ITS ALL A aL GORE scam
Historical rises in CO2
Historical rises in CO2 levels that you cite were naturally occuring oxidation-sourced rises. The current rises are man-made from combustion. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The human population has made dramatic environmental changes to this planet. Our combustion gasses fill the air. Our petro-chemicals permeate every square acre of soil. We have caused the extinction of hundreds of species. We have defoliated most of the planet's forests. We are well on our way to depleting the fish in the sea. We have dammed rivers and levelled mountains. We spread poisons everywhere to kill species that threaten our crops.
There is no argument against the correlation of greenhouse gasses and weather factors such as increased temperature. The arguments center on who is to blame: man or nature. Given the scenario, at best- the outcome is moot.
To imagine that our recklessness has no global implications is denial to the Nth degree. ...Or perhaps just blind arrogance.
...And as for constantly
...And as for constantly tagging Al Gore. He didn't invent global climate change. He packaged it for a world more conversant in sports statistics and television schedules- less eager to understand anything that takes more than three minutes to explain.
Thank You CM for seeing
Thank You CM for seeing Global Warming for what it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Politics!! UGG
Have you heard of HAARP? They have been running some pretty extensive, and (in my opinion) very dangerous experiments for years. Maybe, if your interested you could give me your overview on the project.
William you got it right it
William you got it right it is an AL GORE scam...Why was there an ice age...Why were there Dinosaurs..Was this all Man kinds fault..Was there not enought Carbon in the air so all the earth was cold..This is about money and taxing more of it..Carbon credits give me a break..Remember chicken little...The Sky is Falling..
Why have they changed the term from Global Warming to Climate Change......Obama's on TV today talking about insulating you house to help Climate Change..Just turn down your thermostat..you'll save more money ..Didn't we go thru this with Carter..
Quote: To imagine that our
Quote: To imagine that our recklessness has no global implications is denial to the Nth degree. ...Or perhaps just blind arrogance.
Actually, it's not denial. If you mean climate change, it's supported by fact. Pollution on the other hand is greatly affecting the planet.
Based on the global warming
Based on the global warming doomsdayers logic it must have been dinousaur farts that lead to their demise.
Global warming, I am by no
Global warming, I am by no means an authority, but I was trained as a weatherman by the Navy at sea for 4 years and then in the late 80's I traveled both the Arctic and Antarctic regions as an ice observer. I have been away from it for 20 years now and haven't kept up on it much, but there is surely less sea ice at the end of the melt season than there used to be, not sure about the freeze period. Probably there is about the same coverage now as in the 80's, but I'd guess it's not as thick. Primarily it's because the prevailing winds have shifted a bit and keep warmer air masses flowing from the s sw a bit longer in the year. Why? I don't think anyone knows. It does seem that the seasons change a little later than they used to, which would mean it allows the water, in the Arctic especially, to continue to soak up heat a little longer which melts more ice. To say that humankind has had no effect on this makes no sense, we have pumped gas and soot into the air that is not naturally present. Just the growth of population has to have some effect, much like a room will become warmer when there is more people in it. As an example, during the east coast power blackout of 2003, it was noticed that the air became cleaner within a short period of time without the coal fired power plants running. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=930
On the other hand to say humans have caused the whole problem and if we don't mend our ways, we will all perish doesn't sound reasonable either. The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. Also, don't forget the emerging industrial powers like China and India, what precautions are they taking to reduce pollution, I think I know the answer.
Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution, and leave a cleaner, more enjoyable planet than we were given.
Hey, I'm old too. Global
Hey, I'm old too. Global warming can go to hell. It aint gonna effect me, I'm a Conservative.
Hey George im with
Hey George im with you..haha.Government should be worrying about all this debt they are creating for the next generation..Not something they have no control over..Mother Nature..
Dave wrote, "To say that
Dave wrote, "To say that humankind has had no effect on this makes no sense."
Well, another way to look at it is the earth is very big and very old. It's the height of species hubris to think we cold even make the smallest dent in the globe's weather.
You can't possibly believe
You can't possibly believe that. I agree the earth is old and big, but it is a fragile balance which keeps it all together
Howard, even your old
Howard, even your old California homeboy, Arnold says so
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/
Dave, you still haven't said
Dave, you still haven't said anything that negates the fact that the earth is very old and very big and has gone through numerous much more dramatic climate changes without man interfering.
That's because I can't negate
That's because I can't negate that, it's true. However, there is evidence pointing to an accelerated situation going on that coincides with man's causing pollution in the air. Like I wrote, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I'd have to hunt for this, but I think McCain said during the 2008 debate that he'd rather pollute less and be wrong than vice versa. I agree
I've no argument with
I've no argument with "pollute less and be wrong." I call myself a conversationalist rather an environmentalist. There are all kinds of benefits to being good stewards of the planet that have nothing to do with global warming. And I also see a strong tie between my localist/decentralist philosophy and conservation.
That said, what drives me batty is all the knee-jerk belief in man made global warming. The evidence is shaky and the logic faulty behind what many people believe on the subject.
That's no way to make governmental policy. If you're going to make policy, but sure of the facts and understand the wide spectrum of consequences, not just the narrow consequence you're trying to address.
To me that is such a high degree of common sense that I don't understand why more people don't see it, instead of running off with "the sky is falling" reactions.
I said above, the truth lies
I said above, the truth lies somewhere in between the 2 extremes, having said that, I don't agree that " the evidence is shaky and the logic faulty" regarding our affects on the climate, there's way too much evidence for global warming. I get quite flustered when people ignore something that is right in front of them and just follow along with what some radio show pundit says is the truth. The first ones to jump on this so-called "Climate-gate" scandal about the e-mails hacked from a British University that supposedly shows scientists from the IPCC "cooked the books" were the Saudis, what's that tell you? http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Anyway, I'm no tree-hugger either, more laws and policies aren't gonna help, more common sense is what's needed
I don't listen to talk radio.
I don't listen to talk radio. There aren't even any particular bloggers I follow. I arrive at my opinions quite independently.
Well, we'll just have to
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do truly enjoy this forum and it made me do a lot of reading on the subject I hadn't done in few years. Working from home is great, but it is easy to get sidetracked. Sadly, I have to get to work and try to earn a living, so I can buy fossil fuel and heat my house. I need some Dave warming, instead of global. How's that for hypocritical?
Al Gore should go the way of
Al Gore should go the way of the Laurentide ice sheet 12,500 years ago. He's done a disservice to the legitimate scientific community by claiming to be an expert in the field of climatology, not to mention other fields he knows nothing about.
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/45069-al-gore-shoots-sel…
Since when does a politician
Since when does a politician need facts, Doug? Gore is a sensationalist of the first order, no doubt. Did you also read the line from the NOAA guy who said "“This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.” Anyway, I'm glad you are trying to keep informed, more people should
I'm not sure what "sky is
I'm not sure what "sky is falling" predictions you refer to, Howard. Let me remind you of a fairly recent situation. In the 1980s it was reported that certain chemicals, primarily CFCs, were responsible for ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. The depletion was causing holes in the ozone layer, a natural barrier to dangerous ultraviolet rays that cause cancer and other living tissue damage. This was indeed a manmade predicament. These compounds were invented in the 1930s. Their rise in use as refrigerants, industrial cleaners and aerosol propellants accounted for a dangerous concentration in the stratosphere- all in just fifty years.
Internal combustion engines have been revving fumes into the air since 1876. The biproducts of internal combustion are CO, CO2, NO, NO2, hydro-carbons, benzene and SO2. Though any of these compounds can occur naturally, the levels generated by gas and diesel engines unbalances natural cycles such as the carbon/oxygen cycle.
469,000 vehicles were manufactured in the U. S. in 1914. By the 1930s, twice that number were produced. Currently, on any given day, 250 million vehicles are on the road in this country, alone. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased 20% in the last 50 years.
Arguing that the planet is too old and too large to become vulnerible to the activities of man is a short-sighted and unrealistic. Our species has not only the capability, but the greed and lack of conscience to destroy Eden.
When I get home, I'm going to
When I get home, I'm going to burn an extra load of carbon through the wood stove. I want my house to be more like a sauna than a box I could be comfortable in if I'm wearing alpaca fleece socks and a hooded flannel. My house will be so warm that even the tiled floors won't feel cool.
I'm going to re-release smokey carbon to the atmosphere that was scrubbed from it by the trees over the last 30 or 40 years of its life and feel no sense of remorse doing so. Hey, at least I won't be burning those so called "fossil fuels" or heating with electricity from those horrid nuclear power plants all the greenies don't want us to have even though they take up little space, have a tiny volume of waste compared to a coal fired power plant and leave no carbon footprint!
It's great to be an American. I can still have my say, my wood stove, 2 trucks, 2 diesel tractors, a motorcycle, a 4 wheeler, a snow thrower, a kerosene salamander heater and a 1 ton safe full of rifles, shotguns and pistols.
Soon enough I may even have "FREE" health care! I might end up waiting 6 months in line for clinic style medical care but dangit, it'll be FREE! Wait, if it's free, why don't we have it already?...hmmmm....
I may even go to my hunting camp Friday night just so that I can burn some firewood through the wood stove there, too. I'll burn some white gas in the Coleman lantern for light and run the 1500 watt generator just so I can watch tv in front of the wood stove.
Next thing ya know, Obama will try to tax us on the amount of carbon we use. Wait, isn't he actually trying to do that?! I wonder if he's going to calculate how many times per year each person exhales and place a tax on the carbon dioxide expelled each time. You'll pay more if you jog or exercise.
When I crack open that beer tonight, I'm gonna take a deep breath of the carbon dioxide that shoots out when the cap it lifted off of the bottle. I kind of like doing that. It tickles my nose!
C.M. wrote: "Arguing that the
C.M. wrote: "Arguing that the planet is too old and too large to become vulnerable to the activities of man is a short-sighted and unrealistic."
That's not at all what I said.
What I said was it is species hubris to believe that we really have that much impact on a very old, very big planet.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I'm saying that there is this unchecked assumption that it's true, as your post does above does. Saying we produced x amount of y in c number of years doesn't PROVE it had an impact. It merely proves that's what we did.
All I'm arguing for is logic and common sense instead of running off with whatever scare tactic some fund raising bureaucratic group such as Greenpeace tells you you should believe. Most of the "proof" for climate change comes from people with vested interests in proving it true. I don't trust that.
There are much better arguments in favor of better environmental behavior than what gets foisted on us by these self-interest groups, and that's a shame.
and most of the "proof"
and most of the "proof" debunking climate change comes from research funded by people with a vested interest in proving it false.
The human race has proven it's ability to destroy ecosystems time and again, what's so unbelievable about our ability to speed up climate change?
The truth about climate change has a liberal bias, get over it.
Chris, and I'm not taking
Chris, and I'm not taking sides with the debunkers. Their logic is often just as faulty.
People have destroyed ecosystems on a human scale. That doesn't prove they can destroy an entire planet. See, logic. One proof doesn't prove something else.
If something has a bias, liberal or otherwise, it isn't the truth.
This seems
This seems appropriate:http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/896291.html
We're not destroying the
We're not destroying the planet Howard, Earth will be around a trillion years after us. We are, however, contributing substantially to a faster than normal change in its base temperature. I'm not sure people really understand the sort of affect that a degree or two can have on the overall workings of Earth's weather patterns. So what we get are morons making stupid jokes like: "Man, it's cold out there today; so much for 'global warming.'" (Insert guffaw here.)
This whole damned 'debate' has been reduced to cowfarts and idots making jokes about buying beachfront property in Iowa. It's impossible to get serious about this topic anymore.
Howard, as for the logic
Howard, as for the logic argument you seem to want to have, a friend sent me a great article by Isaac Asimov recently and I'd like to share it.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Come on Chris we are not
Come on Chris we are not contributing to the "faster than normal temperature change". The earth has been been warming and cooling in various cycles for billions of years. Read a freakin science book. If it wasn't Batavia would still be in one of the four major ice ages (oops maybe it still is). Its natural and no wacko political zealot can change that for the sake of creating a reason to increase taxes.
I would challenge you to
I would challenge you to 'read a freakin' science book' as well. Maybe we'll both learn something.
I wouldn't trust any science
I wouldn't trust any science book used in public schools today.
The tax comment that Richard
The tax comment that Richard made brings up a valid point by the way. Why should we pay more for clean production when we can be slobs for way less money?
Here's the answer: Life will cost you much more money over time if you're not an asshole.
Here's an example: I could go to TOPS and steal myself a rotisserie chicken for dinner, yummy. The chicken will taste the same whether I pay for it or not, it will fill my stomach and if I don't get caught there will never be any consequence (for me.) TOPS will certainly lose money and if a hundred other people like me did the same thing with any consistency, TOPS would start having a real problem with their bottom line. Instead, because I'm not an asshole, I'm going to buy that chicken. See, it cost me more money, but everyone is probably better off for it.
Companies that refuse to clean up their production processes just to keep it cheap are assholes. The same products come out of the factories and those products cost substantially less money to produce (at the outset) than clean ones. However, those factories destroy the environment around them and when hundreds of factories operate by those same principles at any level of consistency, the total effect is enourmous.
Hey Chris here was the
Hey Chris here was the science books I have read learnt me Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
You see I am a scientist working for a major industrial corporation and global warming is a farse. Politicians that attempt manipulate the sciences to create there own pseudo science are the holes big gapping black holes.
Yup, that explains the
Yup, that explains the natural cycle of glacials, interglacials and interstadials, this does not address the reality of man-made global warming which is an effect above and beyond that of the normal cycle.
As an aside, what sort of scientist are you? Actually curious here, not looking for ammo.
How you a man, a meaningless
How you a man, a meaningless mortal man in the grand scheme of planetary sciences or any man for that matter be so brash as to think that anything they did could have the most minute effect on something so complex and uniquely dependent on the natural laws of science as climate. Talk to me in a couple thousand years from now but remember..........................................
dress warm.
That's what Rush says as well
That's what Rush says as well Richard, seems to be the main talking point these days. No, a single, mortal man could never have a major effect on a planet, but ten billion of us consuming resources at our current rate, producing chemical byproducts never before seen on this planet, all the while destroying the earth's natural defenses certainly can.
Grab a sewing needle and prick your finger. Not much happens. Now prick it ten times...a thousand...
Humanity: Ten billion little pricks and growing.
Richard, it's polite to add a
Richard, it's polite to add a citation when you're copying content from another site.
From Truth and Liberty -- http://www.truthandliberty.com/Climate.html
From Climate Change Fraud -- http://www.climatechangefraud.com/temperate-facts/greenhouse-faqs/is-gl…
By the way, that wasn't a
By the way, that wasn't a science book you read, it was a political hack website:
http://www.truthandliberty.com/Climate.html
If you're going to steal entire paragraphs from the internet at least include attribution. You see, if you don't you're just a plagiarist with an opinion. A scientist should know better.
Good catch Lorie, I only
Good catch Lorie, I only found the first one.
Doesn't really matter where
Doesn't really matter where it came from its still scientific fact. The second one came from my head. And scienctific facts should be kept separate and held in a higher regard than politics, religion, ideologies and beliefs. Science is not a tool to use or something that should be distorted in a manner to support a political agenda its simply the will to know, the desire to acquire scientific knowledge.
Yet you quote hack websites
Yet you quote hack websites that are funding their own 'science' that tells them what they want to hear. Both sides are guilty of this, I'm sure and that's why I get so angry, we've cast aside reality in the interest of having a fight. No progress is made in fixing real problems because we've created a political and ideological deadlock.
Chris, from your last
Chris, from your last comment, I think you and I essentially agree, but from different spectrums. My only thing is focusing on what the "climate change supporters" push is what they push is pushing legal and regulatory changes that may have unintended consequences for something that I'm not convinced ENOUGH is true.
No the real problem is that
No the real problem is that politicians are trying to use pseudo science to push a political agenda. They are so vain they actually think they could develop a policy or regulation that would actually have an effect on or a program that could effectively control the climate, its ridiculous, their just a bunch of bozos. But climate control is not really what they want, they really want to just control and tax everything, every single major industry.
I don't know when our society
I don't know when our society decided that it was popular to doubt the scientific community in so many areas. There is this strange animosity toward science that to me is frightening and seems to be part of an anti intellectual movement. Maybe the reason for someone like Sarah Palin's elevation.
It is true that the majority of scientists actually DO believe that climate change is occurring and at a faster rate than the natural cycles. Can so many of them be part of Al Gore's vast 'global warming conspiracy'? Do they even have the time to collaborate in a hoax when all they really want to do is analyze data? I won't even attempt to spew any data because it's way over my head and I don't have the time to 'school' myself in this area. I also won't swipe some sexy explanations from a 'pro-scientific' site with the handy copy and paste application.
I guess you can call me one of the science 'kool-aid' drinkers. If enough of them have come to this conclusion wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution and put in place some reductions of carbon emissions?
I did find the Pew Center on Global Climate Change a handy resource for a novice looking for an organization that claims to look at the issue from science and business. From their 'about us' tab
<i>"The Pew Center on Global Climate Change brings together business leaders, policy makers, scientists, and other experts to bring a new approach to a complex and often controversial issue. Our approach is based on sound science, straight talk, and a belief that we can work together to protect the climate while sustaining economic growth</i>". http://www.pewclimate.org/
OK Lori stop exhaling now,
OK Lori stop exhaling now, and you can save the planet. The government is actually telling you that the CO2 you exhale is a pollutant and they want to control it.
Quote Chris Charvella: Earth
Quote Chris Charvella: Earth will be around a trillion years after us.
---------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. The Sun, by comparison, is about 4.57 billion years old, about 30 million years older.
----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
Life in one form or another has been on earth for about 3.7 billion years. So much for the creationist theory and the earth only being 6000 years old. The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase. Life on earth will end long before this as the oceans will have long since boiled away. Sometime after turning into a red giant, the sun will swallow all of the planets. Sites I searched said between 5 billion and 7.5 billion years for this to happen.
A trillion years is 1000 billion so the earth won't even manage to exist 1/10th of a trillion years.
Its obsurd to think that
Its obsurd to think that anything the PEW Center or any other group does will be able to effect or protect the CLIMATE in any way.
This subject has been debated
This subject has been debated with a casual, amateurishness as if we were arguing whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. The ice caps at the poles are melting, sea levels are rising, weather is changing- these are quantifiable, measurable, tangible changes. The changes will continue whether Republicans, Democrats or Socialists win elections.
Individuals can dance around the issue of global climate change and argue semantic points, blame or conspiracy theories until the cows come home (or don't). My point has always been- who gives a damn if these changes are natural, manmade or a collaboration. Assigning a responsible party does nothing to alleviate the resulting problems.
Just as we tackled the ozone depletion issue; if we get around the politics and start fixing problems, they might actually mend. And humans will always find a way to profit in the process.
Lorie do you really think you
Lorie do you really think you or any political body or policy can do something, anything that would ultimately have any effect on the climate of the earth?
Maybe you know like superman changing the earth's orbit or something on the scale of a massive meteor strike or maybe even blocking out the sun with the debris from a massive volcanic eruption.
C.M., what would you fix?
C.M., what would you fix?
Are we still here? All
Are we still here? All Richard knows about global warming is what a kindergarten student can Google.
I feel the need to echo Lorie's concerns about our disregard and sometimes open disdain for science.
Maybe Jesus will come back and help out.
Doug, I would like to up my
Doug, I would like to up my ante to a million gagillion years because, like Richard, I refuse to believe anything that geologists and geophysicists tell me.
Chris, thank you for posting
Chris, thank you for posting the link to the Asimov article. The man was brilliant. Black-and-white debaters could learn a great deal from his reasonable idea: “…people think that `right’ and `wrong’ are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.” His rational presentation represents healthy debate techniques that might help to lower blood pressures, as well.
OK hows this for science
OK hows this for science Chris, even if everyone stopped driving cars, and every single industry stopped producing everything right now, it would absolutely have no effect on the earth's climate. So next time you go out to shovel the driveway and the snow is squeaking beneath your feet, the snot freezing in your nose. Repeat after me global warming is BS.
No one here has the
No one here has the credentials to continue this debate at a reasonable level so I'll be spending the rest of my evening more productively over at GodHatesShrimp.com.
Here are my credentials: I
Here are my credentials: I prepare Title V Air Emissions Permits for major chemical plants and design air pollution control equipment to comply with state and federal regulatory requirements. Some of these permit applications are over 5,000 pages long and include detailed calculations of every single .00000001 lbs. of every contaminant that is discharged to the atmosphere. The governments attempt to control air emissions is a regulatory nightmare. But they don't really care about regulating emissions, they're mainly concerned about collecting permit fees.
Preparing emissions permits
Preparing emissions permits makes you an expert in measuring emissions, it doesn't make you an expert on climate change. It's a skill job and deserves respect, but sorry, no banana. If you WERE an expert you'd do a better job at explaining yourself than copypasting text from slanted websites. If you've published any research papers on teh subject I'd be happy to read them with an objective mind.
I'm not an expert either so I side with the overwhelming majority of people who ARE experts. Back to godhatesshrimp.com. Add a little levity to your day, something tells me you need it as much as I do.
Howard- as with your own
Howard- as with your own philosophical predisposition toward local economy: the solution is in our own backyards. We need to think in terms of our actions and outcomes. If everyone behaved with an interest in conservation and minimizing pollution, public opinion would drive national policy. The corporate conspiracy depends on derailing intelligent dialogue. It's the ploy of the magician: watch this hand while the trick is executed by the other.
Shop local. Don't buy what you do not need. Don't drive if you don't have to; consolidate trips and walk. Don't waste energy. Be a role model for responsibility.
I was just reading an article about Sarah Palin- someone I hate to offer credence to by example. But... Her state benefits HUGELY by from natural gas and oil production. She comes out as a doubter in terms of global climate change. She has to. Her viability as a Republican candidate depends on it. Despite this convenient truth, she established a commission while still governor of Alaska. The commission was dedicated to overcoming the negative impact of climate change on her state's economy. So she, like so many of her double-talking, both-sides-of-the-mouth cohorts, recognize that global climate change is a threat to be dealt with. Instead of advocating solution, these politicans opt for nay-saying to keep the coffers of their re-election funds full of petro-corporation contributions. And the pundits who cynically rally around this arrogant denial to generate a cloud of ignorant, hysterical noise are fueled by people like Palin and her self-serving and vicious circle of deception. It's all about fast bucks, and no vision of the future.
We are victims of a conspiracy- like the ploy of the magician: watch this hand while the trick is executed by the other. We need to reconize the deception and stop perpetuating it.
Well, my whole thing is
Well, my whole thing is decentralize, shop local, avoid big business and big government, take care of the community, which includes conservation.
The environmentalist used to say, "Think Globally; Act Locally."
I say: "Think Locally; Act Locally." The Global part will take care of itself. Be better stewards at home on a small scale, and the big stuff takes care of itself.