yeah, if we had no clue, that would be accurate. but i see areas where there is broad agreement (maybe not 100% but damn close)and simple pollution reducing plans are not going to harm us, i suspect. it might cause some big wigs a few bucks, but i'm not cryin for them.

working on renewable energy sources is not going to make things worse. aside from enviromental benefits, i believe the sooner we become independent in that area, the better. if people want to do it because they are sick of OPEC financed terrorism and such, and not because of the climate change threats, fine with me. and i think there are other areas where there can be more than 1 good reason to do something.

i understand that some on the far right are never going to accept anything that (as they perceive it) looks like it's coming from "those left wing kooks." but i think that there are many things that can be accomplished if we perhaps start to look at other benefits some of these ideas might create.

if i understand your analogy,,,,maybe a shotgun is too much, but a scalpel too small,,,maybe we need a screwdriver and a pair of pliars...(somewhere in the middle)

It wont cost them a farthing. It will cost you.

As for your suggestions, I dont know anyone arguing against looking for other energy sources, or reducing pollution. As I said, that is not the issue. The Issue is the whacky crap that is coming out from the greens where we have to stop food production (virtually - go back to all organic), ELIMINATE all polution (which means going back to pre-industrial society), installing mirrors on mountains, etc. etc. etc.

Cleaning up the environment is a good and noble thing - unless taken to extremes. We can remove 99% of the mercury from our rivers at a reasonable cost. To remove the last 1% would cost more than the GDP of the US, and would accomplish no real benefits (since all polution is present to some degree in nature to begin with). Yet the Al Gore's of the world would have us eliminate 100% when the benefits just are not there, and the costs enormous. Until they can prove that eliminating 100% will save us from armegeddon, I do not see ruining the economy of our nation, and all nations, since that would cost more lives than a few sunburns ever will.

well, as far as energy goes,,,no one argues it very often, you are right there. but it's kind of like the darfur situation (and so many others, just an example, not trying to change the subject), much more lip service and nothing never really gets accomplished. if we put our mind to it, we could be energy independent in less time than it took brazil (i think it took them roughly 15 years or something like that). but we won't in most likelihood, because it will continue to be lip serviced by corporations (like those "it's a start" ads by BP, which have been going for almost a decade now) and government.

Ever read Friedman and Williams? Gore is not far off with his carbon credits (although since he owns the company that is a sham). Tax Pollution! You want something done? Make it economical for something to get done. Tax pollution!

Heard that in DC lately? Ever? Doubt it. But that will spur private investment to do the right thing. And they will do it, not government.

Now, these people a just crazy, and I don't really want to listen to them. They are about as stupid as the people protesting against seal-hunting in the Canadian North.

Which doesn't mean the whole idea of reducing chemical production, or trying to find greener energy sources (or better, fiscaly favoring green company) is wrong.

I think that the Carbon Market is the best idea to actually impliment in an efficient way the whole anti-warming patent. People who will work hard and be clever ennough to find non-polluting way to transform industries will make a BIG BUCK out of it...

IF the Carbon Market is implimented. It's already in Europe, but I'm sure many people would get rich in the USA (and not that much would get poor) if it was implimented 100% in North America.



that's a pretty stupid assumption. So far, I've seen Al Gore to be more of a realist when he's talking about what the compagnies can do. Sure, some stupid eco-fanatics can always come and cry that there is still mercury in water, but as long as toxic level are within safety parameter (god, that sounded so Trekkier.. arg..), I don't see the problem about "polluting".

YOu should get out more and listen to him and the likes of him. You would not say that was stupid or an assumption, just a summation of his lunacy.

if ya notice, i don't even address anything concerning al with you guy...i know how you feel, you know how i feel. minds will not be changed here. i have enjoyed discussing the issue with ya tho:)

I do, and that was directed at cikomyr. I think overall we agree on most, perhaps just not in the level that we need to go to.

i agree, it's a matter of details and degrees ratehr than a black and white disagreement. i'm sure we'll have that on another thread, lol

Ok lets see if you can understand this. You are young and ignorant so I will type slowly so you can get it if you try.
In 1964 we were just starting to get a grasp on global temperature. I was postulated that global warming was a prelude to the next ice age. NASA started to try to prove or disprove this theory. Silly little things like sending probes to other planets to see what was happening there. The soviets sent probes to Venus and we sent probes to Mars. Comparing notes we found that the temperatures had a correlation that seemed to work out to a guess at one degree per century. Now that is not strictly true. The Sun heats the area around the planet to about 250 degrees but it does not get that high on the earth yet. Why? Because we have 200 miles between the earth and space and 21 miles of very thick atmosphere. Heating up all that moving air helps cool the Earth. Even though the Earth and other planets temperatures average rise is 1 degree per century but the average is an average because it is not exact. When Mount Pinatubo erupted the earth took a five degree nose dive, and when Mount Ungin (not sure of the spelling) erupted the Earth took another three degree nose dive. So the Earth took a hit for eight degrees yet the average stayed at a one degree rise for the century. So in reality the rise is greater than one degree per century had we not had the eruptions.
Now the fun part. The best that NASA has been able to surmise is that man is responsible for 6/100 of a degree rise for the century.

I have been arguing the global warming sham for a while. I, like the scientist don’t dispute the fact of global warming, I dispute the unproven belief that with the evidence gathered so far does not point to man as the cause of global warming. At six one hundredths of a degree per century does not make much of an impact on the world.

The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was published on February 2, 2007[7]. Its key conclusions were that[8]:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[9], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[10]
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%
World temperatures could rise by anything between 1.1 and 6.4°C (1.98 and 11.52°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3]
It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years.

The report was authored by about 600 scientists from over 40 different countries. It was reviewed by over 600 others and governments. then, before being accepted, the entire report was reviewed, line by line by over 113 different countries last January in Paris.





WWW Link

I love it when people assert that global warming has been proven to be man-made and is a scientific fact. Yes, global warming itself is a measurable phenomenon , but whether it is a natural occurrence or is man-made is hardly proven within the scientific community one way or the other and those who claim that it is are either deluded or flat out liars.

While the man-made theory has become the popular one among a large group of scientists there are still those who contend that man's contribution to the problem is minor at best. Why do we not hear more from those scientists? Because the media doesn't report on them as it's not the scary story they need for ratings.

Also, I was listening to a news story a few days ago where a Canadian scientist was describing how he and some of his fellow scientists who rebuke the man-made theory have had news media refuse to report their findings and have even received death threats for voicing their ideas.

Man-made vs natural is hardly a settled issue except in the minds of those who have financial and political agendas to feed.

go check reply #11...actually read the linked article and see that i did not assert that whatsoever



no, because they are a very minor group of fringe scientists and/or are sponsored and directed by large oil companies and the like. feel free to stick with the "10%ers" (at best) .

That is the crux of the argument, as they state it as fact, yet provide no proof. Again, scientific method is being held hostage to politics of the day. They show no cause and affect, and do not take into account (at least in the report) what affect the activity of the sun has said. But that is not really the point of this article. This is:



(Sorry the editing does not carry over).

As you can see, the report states that some areas are going to get deluged, and other areas are going to have drought. Pretty much the way the world has reacted since the inception of time to all GW and Ice age episodes. Which goes to bolster my arguemnt that the UN report, and the chicken littles of the whole GW politics are full of bull piss.