Global warming: Truth or Ficition

[lionloversam]

How many of you think global warming is a true issue. I have not developed a opinion for myself yet. And, to the mods, I looked quickly and could not find a thread with this actual topic, so if there is one I am sorry....

[Titunen]

I'm not sure what to believe myself either. Some say it is the global warming, and I think with the way we have treated this planet, it's no wonder.

But some scientists say this is just a phase and that there has always been warmer and colder seasons in the earth's history. Who knows..

[Sadiki]

global warming is a true issue for sure, if temperature will rise high enough water gonna cover over 90% of the world sinse sinse ice will melt in north and south pole.
that is quite a serious issue even, but in the way we live, there is not much we can do about it.

[Daniel]

global warming is an issue, but as it is a naturally occuring thing, then i dont think there is anything to worry about.

[Le_Roi_Lion]

Well this is quite new field of research. The current state of global warming science can't provide definitive answers to large variety questions. There is certainty that human activities are rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. But does this gases warm our planet? This is the basis for concern about global warming, but there is no proof that this happens so it's more prognostic statement.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will rise as a result. By how much, how fast remain uncertain...

There is a lot of factors, more natural than human, that affect our planet's temperature and the scientific understanding of these other factors ? most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols ? remains incomplete.

Is't there a reason for us to be worried? Yes! But it's not truth, at least we don't have any scientific proof for it so it's more fiction than truth.

Edit - interesting only USA rejected to sign the Kioto aggreement on global heat effect but noone really care - why ;). Think about it :evilgrin: .

Hakuna matata,
Le Roi Lion

[Azerane]

Yes global warming is happening, it's a real issue. It has happened before and it is happening again. However, scientists and stuff are concerned about it more now because it's occuring at a faster rate than what it usually does becuase of our contribution to it, and usually where the earth would eventually be able to balance itself out again, they're afraid that it won't have time to adjust.

[Lion King Stu]

Global warming in my opinion is truth just like the truth that Dan has crabs hehe.

[Xinithian]

I believe that global warming is real and is occuring every day. However, I don't think that the effects of it are totally obvious yet. Hopefully, they wont be totally obvious until at least another 100 years, when I'm dead and could care less. But it seems that at the rate of pollution we've been creating in the past 50 years, we're going to experience extreme global warming soon.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Le_Roi_Lion
Edit - interesting only USA rejected to sign the Kioto aggreement on global heat effect but noone really care - why ;). Think about it :evilgrin: .



Personally, I don't think it'd do much good if it did, as there'd still be an out-of-control pollution problem. I think the best thing for the environment is good research, and good research comes from a good economy; the Kioto agreement is not practical for a good economy. I've always thought that it was our brains that got us into this mess, so they sure as hell better get us out. Yes, picking up trash along the road helps, as does reducing air and water contaminents, but I think it'll be the information that we don't know today that'll save all our *** tomorrow.

As for global warming, I don't buy it just yet. I think that the scientists who support the theory (notice I said theory, not hypothesis) that the earth goes through a warming and cooling cycle on a regular basis have shown good, solid evidence, whereas the opposing side relies more upon circumstancial evidence (though that's not always the case). Personally, I think the answer may be both.

[Le_Roi_Lion]

Originally posted by pntbll248
As for global warming, I don't buy it just yet. I think that the scientists who support the theory (notice I said theory, not hypothesis) that the earth goes through a warming and cooling cycle on a regular basis have shown good, solid evidence, whereas the opposing side relies more upon circumstancial evidence (though that's not always the case). Personally, I think the answer may be both. [/B]

That's what I actually said ;).


Originally posted by Xinithian
Hopefully, they wont be totally obvious until at least another 100 years
You could say 1000, 10 000 years because the computer models used to forecast global climate change are still ill-equipped to simulate how things may change at smaller scales (local temperature, precipitation changes, altered weather patterns, soil moisture changes). So even if we accept the hypothesis that the human activity does affect the climate notably, there's no theory what will the global warming cause ;).

Hakuna matata,
Le Roi Lion

[Storm90]

I really don't know if there is really such a thing called "Global Warming". From what my science teacher said (he would never lie to his students), that the earth goes into phases. There's a warming up phase and there's a cooling down phase. Right now apprentaly, the earth is in it's warming up phase.

Though I hardly ever pay attention to the news. In my american studies class, my teacher started to freak out that the ice caps are melting away and that polar bears are going to be extinct at the end of the century. Heh, I should pay attention to the news more often. :/

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

Truth.

I mean, I doupt this is turning out to be another warm age. We are the ones pumping pollution into the atmosphere, and it is our problem. We need to start doing things to assist in slowing down this process, and perhaps even start reversing it. We are out biggest enemy. I just think its funny how this is a topic that many turn a blind eye too.

There is also the problem of Global Dimming, give this link a look:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1325819.htm

Scary No?

[Only-now]

From some sources I have read, I have gathered this: Yes, the Earth is getting warmer, but no we aren't the ones contributing most to it. The amount of CO2 etc we contribute is not nearly as much at the Earth itself produces and contributes. It shouldn't be hard for people to imagine that if the Earth has gone through periods of cold, that it can also go through periods of heat as well. If we do want to reduce our pollution and the small amount we do contribute, I believe the best thing to do would be to develop a new energy source, which is being researched at this moment. Also, I read that even if the Earth got warmer by the predicted 6 to 9 degrees, we would easily be able to adjust to the change.

There are only two things I dislike about these convos on this topic, and those are the people who treat this like a doomsday scenario, and those who decide to make humanity look evil. I haven't really seen that here yet, and regardless of what causes it, I highly doubt that if we stopped all of our pollution tomorrow anything would reverse or stop. Basically, we need more information on the matter, and need to develop a way to deal with it if/when it does happen to a degree (no pun intended..lol) that affects us.

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

Originally posted by Only-now
The amount of CO2 etc we contribute is not nearly as much at the Earth itself produces and contributes.

Really :confused: Not trying to be a smartass lion or anything but where'd you get that info from?

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Only-now
There are only two things I dislike about these convos on this topic, and those are the people who treat this like a doomsday scenario, and those who decide to make humanity look evil. I haven't really seen that here yet, and regardless of what causes it,

Why is that, people are the cause. But face the facts, humanity is the skin of all evil.

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

I agree somewhat ;) were the only ones smart enough to end life as we know it, lets just hope that doesn't end up happenng :lol:

[Juniper]

Originally posted by S0nique
Why is that, people are the cause. But face the facts, humanity is the skin of all evil.

Prove it.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by pntbll248
Prove it.

I can't. But I'll let humanity prove it to me.

[lionloversam]

A wise moderator once had a quote it their banner that went something like: "We are shaped by our choices. So, we can not change who we are. But, with each new choice we can change who we will be."

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by lionloversam
A wise moderator once had a quote it their banner that went something like: "We are shaped by our choices. So, we can not change who we are. But, with each new choice we can change who we will be."


Do we have the power to shape our lives, or are we predestined to be who we are? If our Fate is but one amongst many, then whose life, if anyone's, is real? If our lives are indeed the sum-total of the choices we've made, then we cannot change who we are. But with every new choice we're given, we can change who we're going to be.

-The Inner Mind/T O L*

[LunarCat]

true,
It is not something that will directly affect our generation, but we may be able to slow it down. I'm not much of a scientist, and I do not know enough but, all resources are limited. If not now, when?

[Juniper]

Originally posted by S0nique
I can't.

Then please, don't insult my species.




As for global warming, I'd say there's probably very little to be done to reverse it today, so we better find a way to fix it tomorrow.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by pntbll248
Then please, don't insult my species.

Sorry. But you've entered "The Shadowy Place" . . . :evilgrin:

[Only-now]

True, you weren't breaking any rules, but that is just an annoying thought to keep hearing over and over. Of course there are certain groups of people, or individuals that are evil, but the vast majority are good, morally bound people. We are like any other animal, we above all else want to survive, yet our intelligence has helped us make our life easier. Our goal, however, as I stated is to stay alive, just like any animal. So, through logic, you can see that even if our entire species didn't have any morals, and didn't care about animals or the environment, it would STILL be in our best interest as animals to stop globally warming or "fix" it if it threatens our existence. Personally, I just hate hearing how we are the cause of everything, and how terrible we are, and selfish, and are out just to kill and maim every living thing on the planet. It just isn't true, and I and others (at least I hope) get tired of hearing it.

Anyways, StE, I got that info from a long article I didn't have the patience to read online. I cannot remember the site, cause I found it after going through so many sites, but that is one set of info I recieved. There is a large amount of CO2 released from the oceans and water of the Earth, as well as other living things. If I remember correctly, we only contribute about 10%, which isn't much at all. No one is really saying that global warming isn't happening, but I don't really agree that it is totally our doings that are causing it. Also, even if it is our "fault" (and regardless of that, we should try to develop a way to limit it for our own sake), that really shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that we need to slow it down, reverse it, or fix it. Of course we first have to know whether we are contributing enough to worry, and then what to stop or fix. The only people interested in knowing whether it can be contributed to us after this fact, are the ones who want to criticize all of humanity, or an individual country.

Global warming became an issue for us when we realized it, and it isn't like we are ignoring it. So, really there is no reason to blame humanity because we did not know that is caused such harm. It isn't like we did it anyway, or did it deliberately to hurt the environment...so the blame game needs to stop. We need to focus on fixing or reversing the effect if we can.

~Kiva

[lionloversam]

Very good point, Kiva. Blame games get us nowhere.

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by S0nique
Why is that, people are the cause. But face the facts, humanity is the skin of all evil. Humans are the most destructive, but that doesn't necessarily mean evil. I mean, you can't help but use up so many resources. I think that the human population is too numerous now, and nature was never intended to accomodate this many people. But just because we can't help using lots of resources doesn't mean that everybody's evil.

[Kovu The Lion]

Dunno if I've posted in this, But Global Warming is a proven fact

Tons and tons of people agree upon this that it happens, what we don't agree on is

How it happens,

I'd say it's from the holes in the ozone layers, others would say its greenhouse effects, and some say its from chemicals in the air, which really leads to what I say.

Really dunno what else I can say :$

[Stormfury]

Global Warming is a fact!

Said affects are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Ni?os and La Ni?as, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. This is one big counterbalance to the balance of Nature. Philosophy suggests nature will hold its fire. Nature will have to do something very bad to correct this. But philosophy aside. I believe what disturbs me the most is extreme weather. The World Meteorological Organization suggested a possible link between global warming and increasingly bad weather scenarios. Like hurricanes and typhoons becoming superstorms; and the likelihood of increased number of tornadoes each year. Based on analog records, strong El Ni?os can cause major drought systems. Of something more in particular interest is (ref. Ganopolski-Rahmstorf) the Shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation (see "The Day After Tomorrow (2004) for facts and scenarios".) (Pre-preface theories: The Stommel and Arons Theory: MOC)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Thermohaline_circulation.png/400px-Thermohaline_circulation.png

The IMPORTANCE of Global Warming is realizing it. The affects of Global Warming is unstoppable. But perhaps slowing it down is not. Global Warming is a natural phase. But a phase out of control! Nature will lend its big ole' hand to correct this. The Cycles show this.

[Aurelian]

Sonique is right on the button here. We have always had our ice ages that come and go as the world wobbles around on it's orbit, but the changes that we make on the environment change the course of nature. With the destruction of the atmosphere, we made it possible for the Earth to get too hot during this phaze of the cycle. We can't stop the Earth's natural cycle, altered or not, but we can stop anymore serious altering and hope for the best that life will be able to survive this go-round, and work with the next ice age to fix it as best we can.

Think of it this way. You have a dog, say a playful energetic Pitbull. The Pitbull has puppies, and you give one to your friend, who is busy and a bit neglectful. Now your friend has a Pitbull who is much shyer and timid, and acts out toward strangers. Your friends Pitbull has puppies of it's own(Much later, or course). They give one of the puppies to some really cruel kid who turns around and abuses and beats the Pitbull. Chances are, this Pitbull, due to it's gentle nature being altered, will by mean and agressive. But in the end, as mush as it's personality is the exact opposite of it's grandmother's, it is still a Pitbull.

See, by nature's design, Pitbulls are very physical creatures. Whether that evergy is released though play, nervousness, or agression depends on how we alter their behavior with our own behavior.

[Shadow]

dont forget though that its also said that the world gets hoter every 500 years our so and goes down again...

seriesly its an issue yes but it wont END THE WORLD so at say...sure the best thing would to do something abut it but remember that the whole thing CAN be natrual to " not saying it is" so if you ask me..am not really worried

its so freaking low that even presetents and capmian chosers uses it to win the ppl

"if i become president i will fix the global warming!"


did you guys know that Amarica is the ONLY land in the WORLD that has not sighed on that we all have to lower something (cant remember exaktly what) but thats dubble moral right there (Save the planet) ok here sigh this along with the rest of the world so we can do soemthing abut it (GHA no we dont want to sacrafies anything and wont sigh on!.......SAVE THE PLANET)

thats preety mutch amaricas leaders in summary...."not ditcing the ppl in other words but the richs *** idot leaders who only wants to make money even if it means end of the world.....

[Aurelian]

Hate to say it, but most American polititions arn't the biggest environmentalists in the world, least of all Bush. This is somthing politics arn't going to fix.

[Ciara]

i think this is all true, yes, why not ... <.< i dont really know how to explain it all at once ... :thinks:

[Pnt]

From what I've learned since this thread started, and before, I think that the world is warmer than it was 200 or 300 years ago; there's not much argument against that. There's also little doubt that over tens of millions of years, the Earth is actually cooling off, but that's irrelevant to the current issue, as that's over such a long timespan. What we don't know, however, is the cause. Despite popular belief, many scientists think that this is mostly just a normal phase. Others think this is completely the fault of human beings. Others think that mass amounts of gasses being released from natural earth process, like methane rising from the ocean, is to blame. Personally, I think there's quite a few variables that are responsible.

@Shadow: To my knowledge, that agreement wasn't signed because of political coercion on the part of Japan and other countries, something we didn't want any part of, as well as poor wording of the actual document. It would also cause economic hardships, which could in turn cause economic problems all over the world. A poor economic situation usually leads to poor environmental practices. The United States is not the only country in the world to not sign it, it's the only country that was asked to sign it that would not.

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Pnt
From what I've learned since this thread started, and before, I think that the world is warmer than it was 200 or 300 years ago; there's not much argument against that. There's also little doubt that over tens of millions of years, the Earth is actually cooling off, but that's irrelevant to the current issue, as that's over such a long timespan. What we don't know, however, is the cause. Despite popular belief, many scientists think that this is mostly just a normal phase. Others think this is completely the fault of human beings. Others think that mass amounts of gasses being released from natural earth process, like methane rising from the ocean, is to blame. Personally, I think there's quite a few variables that are responsible.


It is just a normal phaze, opposite of the ice age, among other things.

I would say that a little bit of avarything is invloved. No one cause is at full blame. Things build up(In the past we didn't know how harmfull polution from cars and factopries are, so we had no reason to better them) and nature takes it cause(The world is going to end someday, whether it be by over-heating, decay of orbit, the sun itself dieing, or whtever, and there is nothing we can do to stop any of those things).

The human race has made mistakes, and can be lazy, but no way is the entire race evil or stupid.

[XxBlackXxParadeXx]

Hehehehe i remember doing this in geography, i had a test on it asking name how many ways you can stop global warming or whatever.... lol i litrelly wrote another way to stop global warming is too block out the sun

[Stormfury]

Global Warming Effects Could Be Seen in 10 Years: Jan. 30, 2007 ? A major new report on global warming slated to be released Friday raises new fears that the earth's climate is changing faster than anyone thought possible.

Today, 500 of the world's top scientists are meeting behind closed doors to finish a landmark report on global warming, and the picture they paint is not pretty. They say changes in the climate could start happening within the next 10 years.

--

[ http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=2834152&page=1 .]

[Darkslash]

http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/TheBlogFromTheCore20060428Sm.jpg

Yay for alarmism!

People, we're at the end of a cold period of a cyclical warm/cool fluctuation. It's getting warmer, most of it is not due to human activity. End of story.

[Stormfury]

A Glacial Period (Neogene Period/Cenozoic Era. - Today-) Global warming is a natural recurring phase. It keeps stability to our eco-structure. But with global warming acceleration; that is our fault. We will be 'at fault' for any change in the Earth's naturale cycles. It's still not clear what profound interactions will take play; but in all earnest, it bears attention!

[Darkslash]

So you'll say that the version of "global warming" espoused by pseudo-scientists and agenda-pushers on a mass scale these days -- that the earth would not warm without human involvement, that humans are solely responsible for 2-3% increase in temperature over 200+ years -- is not what you believe?

A cycle is supported by far more scientific fact and common sense -- and the debate then becomes to what extent have humans influenced the cycle? I say we play a very small part, not worthy of addressing by drastic policy measures and economic restraint.

[lion_roog]

From my understanding...the average temperature has risen faster in the last century than during any other time in history.

[Dare]

Originally posted by lion_roog
From my understanding...the average temperature has risen faster in the last century than during any other time in history.

I remember reading something akin to that in my environmental science classes...but then my teacher brought a good point...
...we didn't always have the scientific knowledge/tools that we have today, so just how accurate are the historical readings/accounts? I'm currently trying to look it up, but most of it seems to be buried in biased gobbledeegook. :\

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Wicked
I remember reading something akin to that in my environmental science classes...but then my teacher brought a good point...
...we didn't always have the scientific knowledge/tools that we have today, so just how accurate are the historical readings/accounts? I'm currently trying to look it up, but most of it seems to be buried in biased gobbledeegook. :\

Here is a graph I found on Wiki...Not sure how reliable the data is considering it's Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[Darkslash]

From my understanding...the average temperature has risen faster in the last century than during any other time in history.
We can't possibly know that! Any time in history? Say, perhaps, the first century of this planet's existence? Nobody was around to take a measurement. So all we know is that for the time period we have been taking temperatures, we have seen the sharpest rise only recently.

Correlation does not mean causation.

EDIT: This Graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png) supports a cycle over millenia -- so if we have observed a sharp rise in 100 years, it means virtually nothing in this perspective. That is, if we place our faith in the same scientific speculation that led to both graphs' production.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
We can't possibly know that! Any time in history? Say, perhaps, the first century of this planet's existence? Nobody was around to take a measurement. So all we know is that for the time period we have been taking temperatures, we have seen the sharpest rise only recently.


Well, if you want to get technical about it the first century of this planet's existance would be referred to as Pre-historic. But I don't feel like getting into the semantics of "history".

But your graph is interesting.

[Stormfury]

Both de facto el cartas seem correct. We are technically at an end of a cooling phase. We have surplussed a warming phase expedientially. There is a new cycle infraction to the puzzle. The only thing about antedated materials like all information of a past, it tells nothing about the future. It however can project likeliness, that's about it. An accelerant such as I said "global warming acceleration" could cause an ice age. As it was said before, the catalyst would be us.

I believe like many others; it's far too late, this new infraction cannot be stopped. There are two outcomes in the human psyche, 1.) don't believe -- or 2.) believe in. I believe in global warming/global cooling and our influences; and accepting any fate therein.

[Only-now]

I don't believe there is any harm in questioning our methods and their effects on the environment. Not just in this situation but all situations...it is healthy and will lead to a "better" and more "sustained" Earth to inhabit. At the same time however, I disagree that changes that occur on the Earth (many of which are not fully understood and mapped out..and might not ever be)..that are drastic or unknown to us....should be a) blamed on humanity instantly b) used for political agendas. Obviously...people will continue to do that...but just throwing that out there.

To get to what I believe...I have pretty much always been skeptical that human beings are the main cause of acceleration or any global warming at all. Of course much of the liberal bias, and environmentatlist you hear...love to rant about how our SUVs..and pickup trucks are ruining the world...but once again...all political agenda. I have heard from my parents...as well as rarely on television (since most television is liberal)...that a large majority of scientists don't believe that global warming is our fault...or that it is anything out of the ordinary that shouldn't be happening or is being accelerated by us. Even without much knowledge of weather cycles and the environment...it is easy to understand the concept of a climate cycle. So much of earth runs on a cylcle-like track. Our rotation, revolutions, water cycle, rock cycle, biological life cycle. Plus..with the relatively short amount of time that humans have been here...and with the relatively short amount of time that we actually live (100 years or so)....it is hard to say confidently that this change is one that is new and profound. There is so much time in which we didn't write history...so much we missed..and so much time that we didn't even exist.

Nature is a very powerful force. Human beings have some power to alter, and effect it as well...but in the end...it is very hard to overcome the Earth's processes. So...I would have a hard time believing that we have had a major impact on the climate of the planet...nor do I believe that a climate change (natural or if it WERE our fault) would be anything to worry about to the point we have to question whether we will survive etc.

So...I am throwing my coins in the basket that is labeled "This is a natural occurance in Earth's climatical cycle".

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

Last time I checked, Mt. St. Helens threw into the atmosphere more greenhouse-causing crap than all human activity has ever generated...

[Stormfury]

There's a lot of analogue that supports a global warming accelerant. These carbonic acids build and attain themselves to our savvy and almost indefinite eco-structure. The Phanaerozoic Eon cannot compare itself. There is little reason to compare geological periods because they're vast and ever-changing. Charts have mentioned a sharp incline of carbonization in the Earth's troposphere (383 parts per million stands by volume), about 63+ ppmv since major industries. Within -250 years time. It' is to say; we bare some significance.

Friday that report comes out and I am rather intrigued what it has to say.

[Darkslash]

Of course we "bare" [sic] some significance -- how much, in the grand scheme of things, is the point of contention.

[Stormfury]

What if we could oust or cut petroleum products in the (let's say) next decade? What kind of impact would that have on our global warming environment. ? Currently, the EPA projects a 44% increase from 1990 or a (13 billion metric ton of CO2 equivalent by 2020.) Cutting down emissions would consist of; traveling when necessary, high-priority tree reintroduction, replace methyl t-butyl ether with oxidizing ethanol fuels, et cetera. Formulating a theory on 'how much is too much?' is not scientifically known. But speculation is!

[Darkslash]

The bottom line of what America (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world) will do regarding any change in energy policy is to do what is most economical. Government forcing a change by regulation will not get us anywhere. But tax breaks and entrepreneurship will -- and these have been working. In my state, Indiana, dozens of new ethanol plants have opened because of a business-friendly state government. Job growth is a nice side product of this. But the bottom line is that the private sector will decide what our course will be, not politicians.

(side note: catalytic converters convert nearly all automotive exhaust to C02, yay for another government regulation...)

[Only-now]

The fact that geological time periods ARE ever-changing and vast is exactly my point. Much of the time this Earth has existed we have not been around to observe. That doesn't mean we should just ignore it and say it doesn't play a part. If there were climate cycles that mimic this...then this would not be such a major issue nor anything to raise alarm over. If we could somehow compare those past times with now...well...there would be a whole lot of time to overshadow the small percentage we can look at now. So...my point is that we don't know what happened back then...and it is likely that the Earth worked on these cycles...but even if that was not the case..the simple fact that we don't know sheds some doubt on global warming being significantly attributed to us.

As Darkslash said...sure..we may have played some part...but how big is it? HOW significant is it? We may be adding VERY little..and the observations we are taking simply show a correlation that is not necessarily based on just one factor. Say for instance the Earth is naturally heating..but we are also raising it VERY slightly. Well...if we observe it and wrongly rule out nature itself, then it will look like we are causing a huge increase...when we really aren't.

I don't think anyone has a problem with looking for alternate fuels, or even trying to keep the environment in better shape...but it is much harder than it looks. We can't just instantly change the way we live...or magically find a new fuel source...or convert all the existing facilities to a new fuel source etc. I know you don't necessarily want that instantly or anything...but I do believe that people..and the country in general has nothing against changing over...but as a country....we also have to worry about the cost of all this...and how it effects the citizens. Just for example..and a generalization: Say we were doing something to hurt the environment..not like catastrophicly..but something that isn't really good. Well..if it would cost the country more money, in taxes and projects, and regulations....to the point it would actually hurt the economy...well, I doubt it would happen then. The research is happening..and the time will be right for things to change over. Lets face it...if global warming isn't the issue...we are going to run out of oil/petroleum eventually.

~Kiva

[Pnt]

After reading parts of that new report released a bit ago, I'm more convinced than ever that Global Warming is what happens when politicians get involved with science.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by S0nique
Friday that report comes out and I am rather intrigued what it has to say.

Report Blames Global Warming on Humans:

PARIS (Feb. 2) - International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, called it a "very impressive document that goes several steps beyond previous research."

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

The 21-page summary of the panel's findings released Friday represents the most authoritative science on global warming. The panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The scientists said the changes are "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told The Associated Press in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.

"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.

Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Trenberth said scientists do worry that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona said. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years _ although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases -- this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.


2/2/2007 05:43:25 - America Online, Time Warner, Inc.

----

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4 is due soon!

"The BBC has reported that the report will conclude that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

[Only-now]

Doesn't change my mind.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

For all the hoopla about the report, it really does not say anything new, except that it both informs us that it is unstoppable yet we should try to stop it. What a bunch of fluff -- a panel whose mission is to report on the assumed warming of our planet has concluded in accordance with its mission (you see, if they concluded that there was not warming, they'd be out of their cushy UN jobs).

Has anyone ever given a thought to whether our planet's warming will result in a net positive for us? Think of all the new tundra that will now be inhabitable (Alaska, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Antarctica)!

[Only-now]

I know this is old news and such...but I found this on the net. These numbers come from the same sceintists that wrote up this latest report..the IPCC. This scientist believes that most who support human induced global warming are ignoring the exchange between the ocean and vegetation etc. So..he is citing a report here from the group that would now oppose him.

"He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

~Kiva

[ThiagoPE]

I don?t know there but here since the frist day of this year the TVS keeps talking about this subject almost every day! (and I should Care about because if the ocean level increase in the next years my city will be vanished from the map!)

I think they really want to consientize people that we still have time to do something and save the planet while still not too late.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."


" Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels."

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Has anyone ever given a thought to whether our planet's warming will result in a net positive for us? Think of all the new tundra that will now be inhabitable (Alaska, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Antarctica)!

What about the other parts of the world that will become uninhabitable? Areas near to the sea but only just above sea-level will be flooded much more often, if not completly swamped (Bangladesh for example), never mind Africa with her expanding desert as is. Areas that are extremely hot will get hotter (Sahara desert) and areas that were once ice and snow will become warmer (Antarctica). Ignore the idea that the ecosystems in these areas will vanish faster than an ice cube in the Kalahari of course, think of the very vague and only human benefits to this.

As a biologist, geographer and wildlife conservation student, I believe that Global Warming is a reality and that we have to do something about it. In my opinion, anyone who ignores the signs of this is either ignoring it and hoping the problem will dissapear, or extremely stupid. You have to admit our climate is changing; our seasons are moving/lengthening and its telling in our animal populations, you can't tell me species from warmer climates and environments aren't visiting areas further north. Hell, even I noticed wihout promting.

I'm not saying that humans are the only cause of this and you won't hear me say so. Its a contribution of many factors but humanity is not helping. Cutting down rainforests, carbon emissions and pollution has a detrimental effect on the environment as is, ignoring the possible build-up of gasas contributing to Global Warming.

Sir David Attenborough did a thorough study of this. He himself wasn't quite a believer of it and went into it with a one-off TV programme, delving into the facts and myths about it. Our future is grim unless we do SOMETHING!!

I wasn't going to look into this thread as I could get flamed / lose my temper / sigh at/hit those who wouldn't believe its happening, but ... I did. Wouldn't have this problem if me and STL had sorted out something to do with humanity a long time ago ... <3 STL :hugs:

[Dare]

Originally posted by Dyani
What about the other parts of the world that will become uninhabitable?

They say global warming is already cause problems for native peoples up in Alaska - melting permafrost has caused serious erosion to the point where two native towns actually have to relocate off their ancestral land because it's no longer safe to live there.

Even if it isn't global warming's fault, 'tis still a shame.
:(

And now...considering how much of the Alaskan pipeline is built on permafrost...I imagine the permafrost melting beneath it (possibly causing breaks and whatnot) isn't a good thing. They'll have to go back and restructure it I guess.
Money money money...

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Dyani
Wouldn't have this problem if me and STL had sorted out something to do with humanity a long time ago ... <3 STL :hugs:
The only thing wrong with humanity is people like you and STL...

[Dare]

Originally posted by Tiikeri
The only thing wrong with humanity is people like you and STL...

That was uncalled for.

[Darkslash]

You have to admit our climate is changing;
If you'd been reading what I've posted, you'd see that is indeed what I believe.

In fact, though you would consider me "ignorant" and "stupid," I wonder if it is not those who have completely shut off in their minds the possibility that these "studies" of such vague phenomena may actually be in partial or whole error in their conclusion who are the more stupid. At least admit that we don't know the cause for sure; at least admit that we have had a virtual nanosecond in the history of time in which to observe the climate; at least admit that an unexpected change in the cyclical temperature fluctuations of our planet should not lead ourselves first to blame.

And I don't think you fully understood my question, or at least I wasn't clear in my intended point:

"Would the earth gain or lose more total land, assuming this report is correct?"

That is a pragmatic, sensible, and cautious approach to this issue: there are things we as a human population can undertake as precautions against the changing climate. After all, since the warming, according to the report, cannot be stopped, and since we have roughly 100 years to adjust, why not start considering the implications, the worst-case scenarios, etc., rather than going on a vendetta against human progress?

My point was, since so much coastline will be flooded, we can move north or south into newly hospitable climates. Yes, the entire Sahara will be an oven, yes, entire ecosystems will die, yes, land will go under water -- at this point, according to the report, it's pretty much tough luck. I don't give a darn about a freakin' monkey -- according to the evolutionary theory, if it wants to survive it should learn to move north too. The earth will survive, we humans will survive -- as long as we know in advance what we're going to do.

We start by attempting to calculate the amounts of land, conservative and liberal estimates, that will be flooded and/or rendered uninhabitable and calculate the amount of new land we will live in, and see if it comes out as a net positive.

Like the report stated, there really is no silver bullet for climate change -- multifaceted adaptation to this changing world, the hallmark of human existence, will get us through -- no amount of blame-placing will do that.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Tiikeri
The only thing wrong with humanity is people like you and STL...

Exactly, what was the purpose of that statement?

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Darkslash
[B]"Would the earth gain or lose more total land, assuming this report is correct?"

why not start considering the implications, the worst-case scenarios, etc., rather than going on a vendetta against human progress?

My point was, since so much coastline will be flooded, we can move north or south into newly hospitable climates. Yes, the entire Sahara will be an oven, yes, entire ecosystems will die, yes, land will go under water -- at this point, according to the report, it's pretty much tough luck. I don't give a darn about a freakin' monkey -- according to the evolutionary theory, if it wants to survive it should learn to move north too. The earth will survive, we humans will survive -- as long as we know in advance what we're going to do.[B]

My whole arguement of *the climate is changing* was only aimed at those who have their heads deep enough in the sand to not know/believe these things are happening. And if you read my post correctly, I said that I wasn't blaming humans and that you wouldn't hear me say so.

I wasn't going on a vendetta against human progress. It probably hasn't helped the situation but thats beyond the point. We are, for the majority, a selfish species. We have the ability to think and plan ahead yet we really only care about ourselves when it comes to the future. The only reason why Global Warming has become such an issue is because it threatens us. The only way humanity can really step forward is to consider the whole world. Everything in it is in the palm of our hands. If we are God over the world, wheres the benevolence and omnipotentcy? We could do everything in our power to stop this but we don't, or very little. Your post just shows this, *I don't give a darn about a freakin' monkey*. Would you care that lions would probably die out too?

Also, if we are gonna move into the warmed tunda, this is where the OZone is considered thinner so we'll die of radiation. What about those hundreds of millions of people on the equator who cannot afford to move? Are you going to help them move? From the way you're talking, you only seem to care about people near you/America.

This whole *according to the evolutionary theory, if it (the monkey)wants to survive it should learn to move north too* is so full of BS I want to be sick. Ok, start with the facts. A monkey does not know/understand about the warming earth and probably only cares about humping the nearest female. Global Warming is going to take a while, therefore the coastline will encroach on the land slowly. Monkeys understand little about moving from their territory unless something catastophic occurs (whether local or global) and by then, it could well be too late.

America was too late with dealing with Green issues as with a lot of things. Bush ignored it to the last minute and even now he's only doing small things. :woeisme:

With the "Would the earth gain or lose more total land, assuming this report is correct?" debate, I would have thought we would have lost more land. How would we gain more land without creating it ourselves?

[Pnt]

If I can add my two cents about the conduct in this thread, I think we all need to remember to keep a respectful attitude, or leave.


Originally posted by Dyani
America was too late with dealing with Green issues as with a lot of things. Bush ignored it to the last minute and even now he's only doing small things. :woeisme:


This is not an American problem, this is a world problem. This situation wasn't caused by George Bush; the man has been in office for six-seven years. Global warming existed long before Bush, and it will exist long after. Every single human being on the face of this earth is to blame for global warming*, including you and me. Passing the blame off to Bush is a means through which people can pass off their own responsibility; he's becoming a whipping boy. Truth be told, there's not much Bush could have done; he can only enforce laws that Congress passes. This is exactly why I think Global warming has been politicized. It isn't science, it is down-with-capitalism-and-Bush scare tactics. Propaganda. I want to see a report with actual raw data because I'm tired of being told what scientists have decided, I want to decide for myself. Politics and science don't mix well at all, and when politicians use science as a means to get their political view across, we all suffer the consequences.

*Again, this is assuming mankind is the major factor in this. I personally think that global warming as it is currently presented isn't a scientific hypothesis, but political propaganda and rhetoric. Even with this new report, they've shown nothing scientific to the general public to back up their claim, or the organizations that have reported on it have failed to mention even one bit of data.

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Wicked
That was uncalled for.
Maybe so, but it's true.


Originally posted by S0nique
Exactly, what was the purpose of that statement?
Just voicing my opinon.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You really make me laugh sometimes :p ... Don't break the rules.
I'll break the rules if I want to. Oh, and I'd like to see you laugh when I turn up outside your house, I still have your address you know ;)

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Tiikeri
I'll break the rules if I want to. Oh, and I'd like to see you laugh when I turn up outside your house, I still have your address you know ;)

Tiikeri calm down, theres no need to threaten STL. Its a pathetic thing to do and also should the police get hold of it, could lead to legal action.
Also, yes sure you're allowed to break the rules. Just don't be surprised should you be banned.


Originally posted by Pnt
If I can add my two cents about the conduct in this thread, I think we all need to remember to keep a respectful attitude, or leave.


This is not an American problem, this is a world problem. This situation wasn't caused by George Bush; the man has been in office for six-seven years. Global warming existed long before Bush, and it will exist long after. Every single human being on the face of this earth is to blame for global warming*, including you and me. Passing the blame off to Bush is a means through which people can pass off their own responsibility; he's becoming a whipping boy.

Sorry if I sounded disrepectful unless that was aimed at Tiikeri ... ?

Ok. Global Warming is not an American problem, true. However, while the rest of the Western World has been at least trying to act to slow Global Warming, Bush has not done anything. Only recently has he been emphasising the idea that Global Warming is a threat. Before he wasn't really paying the issue the attention is deserved. Thats what I was meaning. Sir David Attenborough even says he is an environmental villian in that aspect.
But I do agree that Bush is becoming a scapegoat. He has made mistakes in the past that not everyone agreed with, but people are moaning about him more than nessisary.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Tiikeri
Just voicing my opinon.

I'll break the rules if I want to. Oh, and I'd like to see you laugh when I turn up outside your house, I still have your address you know ;)

And it was perpetrated for what reason? Don't answer that question, it's rhetorical.

Rule-breaking is allowed 3 times or less*. Depending on a moderator's discretion.

So... what's going on my friend?

[Darkslash]

If we are God over the world, wheres the benevolence and omnipotency?
We aren't God over the world, aren't omnipotent -- we are as fragile, at the foundation, as any other organism on this planet.

Frankly, I stick to my statement. I really do not care if I need to kill and eat a lion to survive in a global catastrophe. I absolutely believe that humans are our first priority when and if something needs to happen, some sort of mass movement, we'd better focus our resources on ensuring people's survival. "Barbaric" would adequately describe concern for, and resources spent to transport/rehabilitate wild animals. If evolutionary theory is correct, they'll move or evolve on their own, it's simple. They're not helpless.

On to another point: Who said the poor had to afford the move? In a crisis, and with a plan thought out ahead of time, we can take care of our neediest. Kyoto Protocols and emissions regulations will not prevent their countries from ultimately flooding and will not prevent the deaths of millions -- but a plan for survival will.

I'll attempt to clarify, for a second time, my conjecture about the "net positive" -- could it be possible that the amount of land rendered uninhabitable by rising seas and temperatures be counterbalanced by the land made newly temperate and habitable?

[Stormfury]

Weather-wise and near-term future of GW will insight some interesting conditions. But let me back it up and see something on the grand scale of things.

Global warming is somewhat nonpartisan to weather-related changes. Now we're having a low or a high-end El Ni?o event (See: ENSO Diagnostic Data and TAO-array). Global warming would have little relevance to this in some ways (Collins et al. 2005, Climate Dynamics, 24, 89-104. 19), but they're very much linked anyway. Said pattern El Ni?o event suggests : warmer-than-average temperatures over western and central Canada, and over the northern United States, wetter-than-average conditions over portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast and Florida, and drier-than-average conditions in the Ohio Valley and in portions of the Pacific Northwest.

Global warming -- and its acceleration will cause a super-heated planet? Or "Hell planet." Which would become uninhabitable. Apart from the norm, weather-changing is a GW acceleration scenario.

[Only-now]

The point of my last post was that in the data that scientists use..and the models they make..they leave out the natural cause of those emissions....so they basically leave the CO2 levels at the point they are, and then shift all the blame to humanity without attaching the correct amount of natural CO2 to the natural sources. Not to mention, it was also mentioned that these natural emissions can fluctuate, and rise or fall...so that leads to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere...if you read it, it is basically like a cycle..once more.

I also agree with Pnt on the issues that this is not an American problem...it is a world problem. There are many industrial nations..some without any environmental laws. Global warming has been happening for years...even before any of the newer environmental pacts or programs were in effect...and during that time the whole WORLD was doing what they are still doing now...so it isn't just our fault (if it is man's at all). I also agree that it would be cool to see a report that wasn't just the conclusions of scientists. I believe in this day and age it would be much more accurate if we could just have the results and make our own decisions. Much of the time scientists can't be trusted with what they SAY is right or wrong.

Oh..and luckily for us, if StL and others do come up with a plan for humanity...we won't be forced to obey it. (as it would lead to man's downfall)

~Kiva

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Only-now

I also agree with Pnt on the issues that this is not an American problem...it is a world problem.

Yeah it's not America's problem yet it took long time from USA to recognize the problem. China and USA are still create the most of the "green house gases" in the world and still they haven't even signed up on Kiotos contract which was made in UN to protect world from fast polution. So in another words USA and China are not willing to get the amount of polution degressed, but maybe after realising the problem they will.

And it's deffinedly the whole world's problem. People should deffinedly think about using public transportation as much as they can and use avoid cars and especially vehicles that use a lot of gas when they don't really need them. I know in US a lot of places own car is only way to get to places, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can't make the damage we caused already undone but we can try to slower the process as much as we can.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
Yeah it's not America's problem yet it took long time from USA to recognize the problem. China and USA are still create the most of the "green house gases" in the world and still they haven't even signed up on Kiotos contract which was made in UN to protect world from fast polution. So in another words USA and China are not willing to get the amount of polution degressed, but maybe after realising the problem they will.


Just because we didn't sign the Kyoto agreement doesn't mean we don't care about the environment. To my knowledge, we weren't ready to enter a binding treaty because it could damage our country's economy in the long run. Some may think that the world's well being is more important than our country's economy, but if we stop to think about it, if the US economy tanks, the rest of the world isn't far behind. That's not an arrogant statement, quite a bit of the world is reliant upon the US dollar, US exports such as agriculture, or various US companies. With failing economies, no one's going to care about the environment, they're going to care about getting food into their children's stomachs, so the global warming issue is put aside. I firmly believe that this issue can only be tackled if the world's economy stays strong, as more money flowing means more money that goes to research for future issues. In the end, our research and technology for resolving this problem or helping us live with it will be what saves us, not the realistically small amount of pollution we reduce under a treaty.

Our country actually has many laws in place that limit pollution, many more than currently developing countries such as China and India. Many of our companies are also choosing to reduce their output due to public opinion and concern for the local community's property value. We're also among those at the front of finding new and cleaner technologies as well.

I saw a commercial once that summed up the problem quite well. This girl noticed fish dying in a local stream because of a huge chemical plant giving off pollution. Children started getting ill from the chemicals as well. She led a local community's efforts to get the plant shut down, and support grew like crazy. Eventually the plant was closed. Unfortunately, the plant employed almost everyone in the town. Now unemployment in the town was out of control. They couldn't afford to treat their kids or feed their families. They started drinking out of the polluted water when their water services were turned off. In the end, the solution was far worse than the problem. While I can't remember the original message of the commercial, it's final statement was correct, saving the world isn't easy.

[Sadiki]

well I was reading that on wikipedia so weather it's true or not we still can't get around China and USA being the ones who let out the most of those gases that effect on our enviorment. what comes to the research of finding ways to lower the amount of polution, I bet US does research on it as much as other countries do, but I think instead of working as invidual companies trying to make money out of what they figure out, they should work together.

And I'm not trying to make it seem like US and China are the ones to blame for that or that the fault is mostly theirs. Just thinking that sinse it's everyone's problem people should forget about money for a while and make try to find a way to save our planet, because even some people say that it's not an issue or that it's a natural cycle. The fact still is that Ozone layer is getting thiner letting more and more ultraviolet rays on earth and also warming up the planet. i don't see how people can deny that. Also the increasing amount of Carbon dioxide is adding up the temperature in this world.

[Stormfury]

Senate Enivronment and Public Works (EPW) Committee hearing with Senator Clinton and Al Gore (5:37).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3jxTw4ADfIA

Pigouvian-Carbon tax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
^ Looking for this in its entirety; anyway...

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ipwg2/images/CIMG7025-tn.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3014590&page=1

IPCC Working Group II - Fourth Assessment Report, Friday, 6 April, 2007.

[Utora]

I don't believe in Global Warming. I think Earth is simply going through her cycles.


Scientists can see the poles of the Earth by studying magma flow after it hardens. The flows move with the magnetization of the Earth's poles.

They are starting to find the poles are changing, which happens every so many thousands of years. The electro field around the Earth starts to weaken as these poles shift.

That field is a part of the atmospheres regulation of the temperature here on Earth.
So, it's going to get a bit hot as the poles change again. The North and the South poles will change completely..but this is carried on over many many years, and I doubt any of us will see it in our lifetime.


Earth goes through volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, meteors and comets, wildfires, floods, storms, ice storms, earthquakes, mudslides, ..etc etc.

I'm sure man has changed the world's cycles a bit throughout our existence; but overall...we probably aren't causing "Global Warming" in my opinion. Earth is running her course I believe....


---

I could gather the studies I've researched for anyone that wants exact information..I kinda just drew from what I remembered from my findings in the past two years on this topic.

[Dyani]

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
The guy puts forward a good arguement, worth 9 minutes watching ;)

[Zoltan]

Just to relax everyone, the Kyoto agreement is a nice thing, but wouldn't be enough to stop the warming.
So crying about why the USA government didn't sign it is pointless. Out of business. Whcich is sad, but that's how recent world works until somebody decides to change and successfully reaches the goal.

It seems that Earth has cycles of warming up and cooling down. But thinking that our hands are clean in this mess is cowardice, not daring to take responsibility for our acts. Whereas there's this natural cycle, our CO2 pollution is far not natural. So we have a nice lion's share in it. It's everybody's fault: everybody's who don't dare to take controll out of the hands of these world-destroyers.
Anyeay I read about a new idea how to decrease warming. And it would be pretty cheap relatively. For some million dollars sulphur could be spread in the atmosphere. This would be similar to great volcanic cataclysms, which cool down the Earth beneath. It could stop the warming, but we could only gain some plus time to preserve Earth's climates from a final turning point, and to prepare for a drastical change in our economies and CO2 release. Because if we can't maintain the sulphur shield anymore, and there's still no change in our additional CO2 release, the whole warming effect would fall on the Earth in one great wave, which would be pretty catastophical.

So what to do? We need a drastic change of view globally. Let's hang everybody who doesn't follow.

[Toushiro]

its definitely real and its happening but theres nothing we can do to stop it or even slow it down. however, it wont be as big of a problem or a cataclysm as most people think itll be. some areas on earth will be affected more than others but its nothing this planet hasnt seen before. if it wasnt for the Iraq War, oil and George Bush, nobody would even care about it except a few climatologists and meteorologists.

theres more important things for politicians to be worrying about... like the state of our college and university funding.