Is global warming a reality?

Discussion in another thread made me want to continue the discussion.

In addition to voting, please expand upon any of your ideas as you choose. Let's stay on track with this one and not go off on outside tangents, only topics that are directly connected to global warming.

I believe in global warming for a few reasons. The main reasons being that I can tell that our climate is changing myself. Anybody that spends a fair amount of time outdoors can tell that things have changed. I can tell a difference in just a couple of decades. It scares me to think what it will be like for my children and my grandchildren. I also believe that global warming is mostly man-made because the majority of scientists and experts have proven over and over that we are impacting our planet. I'll take a scientists opinion over a blow hard talking head like Rush Limbaugh any day of the week. What blows me away is that some people actually believe we aren't changing things. You can't continue to pump pollution into the air, water and ground and not expect something bad to happen. I mean, it's common sense. Some people just refuse to let anything cramp their style no matter what the cost. They won't sell their hummers and giant SUV's because they think that would be anti-American. I think that people who insist on pumping the air full of crap from driving their huge gas hogs around should be charged a luxury tax especially if they have no reason to have one. I can understand farmers needing big trucks or families with several children needing a van but what gets me are these white people who live in McMansions who have one child driving around in a flipping hummer. I mean, what's the point? And even if people are hellbent on not believing in global warming, why not take the better safe than sorry route? Is it really going to kill anyone to change their habits in an attempt to save this planet for our grandkids and great grandkids?

Union of Concerned Scientists

My vote is Completely false.
I believe that years ago it was the ice age fear and who knows what it will be next. Global warming is just another something for some to manufacture in their "fear mongering" heads and write about or put on the news, make speeches on so they can make themselves seem important.
I am sure that the main person pushing this has "invented" it talked to Elvis and confirmed it.

Like Gringa, I'll take a scientists opinion, in fact nearly 32,000 scientists who reject not only Kyoto, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. Link

People seem to forget, it used to be a lot hotter than what it is now, it had zero to with SUV's or "white" people driving them. Funny, I had no clue there were no black, yellow, red or any other race driving SUV's and living in mansions.



We're dealing with nothing more than natural cycles.

Quote :

It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.

Link

Mongo wrote:

Like Gringa, I'll take a scientists opinion, in fact nearly 32,000 scientists who reject not only Kyoto, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. Link

People seem to forget, it used to be a lot hotter than what it is now, it had zero to with SUV's or "white" people driving them. Funny, I had no clue there were no black, yellow, red or any other race driving SUV's and living in mansions.



We're dealing with nothing more than natural cycles.

Quote :

It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The Earth has been in the Modern Warming portion of the current cycle since about 1850, following a Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1850. It appears likely that warming will continue for some time into the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity.

Link

Gee, I hope you are right because if you and the "32000 scientist" are wrong we are killing our great grandchildren. So you don't think that pumping our environment full of crap isn't doing anything to it? What do you know about the website that came up with that graph? Do you know who funds them? Also, isn't it funny how these "scientist" are also saying that carbon dioxide is good for us and giving psychos like Michelle Bachmann something to go on about. Sure, it's great for plants and trees and makes them grow faster but the problem is, we are making more pollution than the trees can keep up with. The hard truth is that we can't breath carbon dioxide no matter what some nutty scientists are being paid to say by oil companies and the republican party. And I looked into the claim that 32000 scientists believe that global warming isn't real and it turns out....they aren't all scientist after all. The vast majority of scientists who actual study climate and know what they are talking about believe global warming is very real. I don't understand why anyone feels the need to fight about it. If there is even a slim possibility that it's happening (and the chances are far more than slim) why not take action just in case? Why are people so set in their ways that they rather risk dying than changing?? Who the heck knows.

A link regarding the faulty poll. oops

Gee, Gringa, what do you know about the "scientists" that are on the side of man-made GW? Other than the fact that they are on the payroll for their "opinion" that is. Mongo is right, GW is a natural cycle, not man made. Your link is from a lefty, greenie blogger. Surprise they disregard them as scientists.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Gee, Gringa, what do you know about the "scientists" that are on the side of man-made GW? Other than the fact that they are on the payroll for their "opinion" that is. Mongo is right, GW is a natural cycle, not man made. Your link is from a lefty, greenie blogger. Surprise they disregard them as scientists.

The fact is that the 31000 people are not all scientist and most of them don't study the climate. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent, I'm just saying this isn't their field so their opinion on it is about as good as any other regular Joe out there. If you are having heart problems, do you go to a foot doctor? No. I want to know from people who study the climate what they think. And it's too bad that has become a political issue. This shouldn't be a republican vs democrat problem. It threatens all of us. Instead of being stubborn and denying it's very existence, why not open our minds to the possibility of it being real. If we do what some republicans want, which is change nothing, we are doomed if it turns out to be real. Why not take the safer path for our childrens sake? It's my belief that if democrats said the sky is blue, the republicans would go out of their way to say it's not. Right now the republican party is the party of no and the party of stubborn. They will go against what the democrats want even if they know it is totally wrong, just out of spite. It's not helping our country in any way. The fact remains that the majority of climatologists believe that global warming is real. That is an international opinion of thousands upon thousands of scientists and they aren't all on the payroll of democratic party. Why can't people just come together on this issue and take some precautions just in case. Isn't it better to be safe than sorry later? And I respect your opinion Judge but it is just an opinion and you could very well be totally wrong. This is too important to take any chances on. Republicans have been wrong many times even if they don't like to admit it. My main point is....If there is a chance that it is real (and many studies show that it is) why not take action and possibly make things better for later generations instead of sitting around being stubborn just because some politicians are telling us the environment is all fine and dandy. Is it going to hurt anyone to take those precautions? Yes, it would. The poor poor oil company CEO's might get their multi-million dollar bonuses cut. Woe is me. lol

Gringa, you raise some good points, I too want to have a clean earth and I don't have a problem with a clean environment. I do have a problem with paying taxes for a wild goose chase or being limited on my usage just because some think I'm hurting the environment when I don't agree that I am. Your SUV scenario is an example of what I call knee jerk reactions to what I really believe is just natural cycles.
German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany said "We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas." The side for man made GW claimed a while back that the debate is over. There are a lot of scientists that disagree.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

Gringa, you raise some good points, I too want to have a clean earth and I don't have a problem with a clean environment. I do have a problem with paying taxes for a wild goose chase or being limited on my usage just because some think I'm hurting the environment when I don't agree that I am. Your SUV scenario is an example of what I call knee jerk reactions to what I really believe is just natural cycles.
German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany said "We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas." The side for man made GW claimed a while back that the debate is over. There are a lot of scientists that disagree.

Well, I'm willing to tighten my belt and limit my consumption and pay a little bit in taxes if it could possibly save our planet. Like I said, it's better to be safe than sorry. No side will ever be able to prove their case until something happens to actually prove them correct. That's good enough for me and since there are more climatologists out there who say it's real than not....why take the chance?

While I am middle of the road on Global Warming, I do get a little worried about air quality in my hometown, Louisville, KY. I guess Louisville is like many larger Metropolitan cities and has Ozone Action days about during the summer. Basically that is when the high heat and pollution combined make being outdoors not advisable especially for the elderly and absolutely for those with asthma.

I do tend to feel the most sympathy for the elderly and those with asthma because sometimes when the pollution index does not quite reach Ozone Action status, they still have difficulty outdoors. This is why I never had a problem with the concept of the old Louisville Vehicle Exhaust Testing, just they way it was implemented. It used to be all cars had to be tested once a year. My arguement was that a car less than 5 years old should not have to be tested because something like 99.99999% pass so you are wasting those drivers time having them sit in line to be tested. I also beleive that cars that pass easily should be able to skip the next year and come back two years later. To me that is common sense but common sense generally is not very prevalent when the government deals with environmental issues.

gringaloca wrote:

What do you know about the website that came up with that graph? Do you know who funds them? A link regarding the faulty poll. oops

Per their website:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness.

The Institute is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and by the independent earnings and resources of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds. The Institute has a modest endowment, no debts, and a policy of incurring none. It is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation.

Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published

Mongo wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

What do you know about the website that came up with that graph? Do you know who funds them? A link regarding the faulty poll. oops

Per their website:
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness.

The Institute is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and by the independent earnings and resources of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds. The Institute has a modest endowment, no debts, and a policy of incurring none. It is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation.

Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published

Well they sound innocent enough. Don't they? hee hee Of course they aren't going to announce from the rooftops that they are a tiny organization of about five people working in a converted apple warehouse in Oregon. They also sell home-school kits for people who are afraid to send their kids to those darn socialist public schools and provide a guide on how to survive the end of the world.
They don't sound odd a bit. I researched and found out that this "petition" is totally useless. It's even signed by Dr. Hawkeye from Mash (the fictional character), some star wars characters and a member of the spice girls. Like I said before, I'll stick with the real scientist.

Link to a letter to the editor regarding the "institute"

Quote :

I like to approach these arguments with a balanced open mind, without pre-conceived notions. But, the first thing I look for are ulterior motives on either side.

When I look at Gore and the other proponents of reducing greenhouse gases, I wonder if anyone can speculate what he stands to gain personally – except to help address a major problem our society faces. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t own stock in some secret corporation that benefits from lower CO2 levels.

But, when I look at the websites for Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and the Heartland Institute of Chicago, I see that they both share a common pro-business, anti-regulation ideology, and indeed have ulterior motives for wanting to discredit Global Climate Change.

From the Heartland website: “Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include …market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”

They further propose, “The best way to ensure effective stewardship of the environment is to encourage the development of wealth that makes environmental stewardship possible.” And, “The fact that government agencies do these things very poorly or not at all is a strong argument in favor of free-market environmentalism.”

I’ve seen how the “free-market” has performed by the examples of Exxon, Enron, Halliburton, and others that take advantage of the American consumer, deplete our resources, and soak the taxpayers by bribing our public officials for no-bid contracts, special legislation, and targeted tax breaks.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sounds very substantial and important. Art Robinson, one of the directors describes himself this way, “I am Professor of Chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” Sounds like a big operations, right? But they only have a total of six staff members and a handful of volunteers. They do not conduct any research on the subject of climate change, but several of their staff, including Robinson, dedicate time to the “Petition Project” and a newsletter called “Access to Energy”.

Al Gore has nothing to gain but rich republican CEO's have tons of money to lose.

Quote :

Frederick Seitz is a condensed matter physicist, and has never been a climate scientist.

Seitz is a former Chair of the George C. Marshall Institute; is Chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project; is on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and has been a Science Advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. All four organisations actively lobby against any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all four are well known for publishing disinformation concerning science in order to achieve this objective; and all four are funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.

Seitz has also worked as a consultant to the tobacco industry, and was described in an internal memo by Phillip Morris Co. in 1989 as “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”.

Seitz was instrumental in organising the original “petition project” of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine or OISM: a petition that led the National Academy of Sciences to take unprecedented step of issuing a statement disassociating itself from the project and from its former president.

The petition, despite being frequently cited by global warming critics as showing that thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus on global warming, contains almost no people with relevant expertise; and its vetting was so lax that it included fictional signatories such as Star Wars characters and a member of the Spice Girls.

Seitz is also known for a highly disingenuous article that he published in the Wall Street journal in 1996, purporting to criticise the IPCC review process, and implying he was privy to this process, without revealing that he has never had any involvement with the IPCC and has never been a climate scientist (see also here).

Link 1

Link about Dr. Seitz's Lies and baseless attacks

Why am I not surprised that you would trash anything that's not backed by the alarmist "scientists" you gave a link to. These are the guys that don't want a debate. Why? They know they have no evidence.

Here's another site for you to poke fun of instead of reading what they have to say while keeping an open mind on the subject.

I agree with what Alexander Cockburn said in 2007.

The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of "scientists" on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By scientists they actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer-modeling coterie include very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers' propositions. Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of grants, tenure and kindred academic garottes.

Mongo wrote:

Why am I not surprised that you would trash anything that's not backed by the alarmist "scientists" you gave a link to. These are the guys that don't want a debate. Why? They know they have no evidence.

Here's another site for you to poke fun of instead of reading what they have to say while keeping an open mind on the subject.

I trashed nothing. You posted about that petition. The petition ended up being done by a tiny right wing group that is funded by the fossil fuel giants. The petition was supposed to contain tons of scientists signatures but they failed to tell you that it wasn't vetted at all and most of the signatures are from scientists that don't even study the climate and some signatures belonged to fictional characters like Dr. Hawkeye. You keep talking about the alarmists scientists like they are a fringe group of crazy liberals and that isn't the case at all. The vast majority of scientist who actually study the climate believe that global warming is a man-made problem. When you decide to post something that has such faulty information you can't blame people for pointing it out to you. That's why we are on this board, right? If you choose to believe that Dr. Hawkeye is right about global warming, that is your right. As I said, I didn't trash anything, the study was trash before I ever touched it.

PS I did read it and didn't fall for it. I always keep an open-mind, do you?

Mongo wrote:

Why am I not surprised that you would trash anything that's not backed by the alarmist "scientists" you gave a link to. These are the guys that don't want a debate. Why? They know they have no evidence.

Here's another site for you to poke fun of instead of reading what they have to say while keeping an open mind on the subject.

Heartland=The Oregon Institute of Fossil Fuel, I mean Science. Same people. And the "alarmists" have no evidence? Ummm, where have you been?.They've got tons of it. Let me take a wild guess, have you ever sat down and watched An Inconvenient Truth? I mean the whole thing? If you say you have, I have no way of knowing but what I have found is that the majority of people who are sooooo against those alarmist aka real climate scientists haven't taken the time to study the opposing side AT ALL. They think Al Gore is horrible and would never pay to see such a movie because it would be helping those evil democrats. lol. What I know is that if the republicans were no longer connected to the fossil fuel giants and no longer had a stake in this and they started telling all of their supporters that come to find out, global warming is our faults and we need to cut back suddenly their followers would see the light. I just wish that instead of following what they are told they would just take a walk on the wild side for once and see what their hearts tell them. As a previous poster stated pollution is bad no matter how you slice it. Even if it didn't cause global warming, it's making it hard for people to breath and go outside without being burnt to a crisp. It wasn't like that when I was growing up. I used to lay out in the sun for hours and not get a burn. Now I can't go out for 20 minutes without sunblock, a hat, sunglasses... you name it. Sometimes the evidence that things are changing is right outside your door if you pay attention. Now isn't the time for hard heads. We have one planet and it is being polluted and we can make a difference if we quit driving giant gas suckers, started investing in alternate energy like solar and wind. Imagine all the jobs it could create and save the environment at the same time. How can anyone think that is wrong? I guess if you just LOVE pollution that sort of thing might ruin your day or if you are like Michelle Bachmann and breath carbon dioxide.

Gringa, I don't think that wind and solar can sustain us. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy.

Annie Oakley wrote:

Gringa, I don't think that wind and solar can sustain us. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy.

Smart woman!

gringaloca wrote:

Heartland=The Oregon Institute of Fossil Fuel, I mean Science. Same people. And the "alarmists" have no evidence? Ummm, where have you been?.They've got tons of it. Let me take a wild guess, have you ever sat down and watched An Inconvenient Truth? I mean the whole thing? If you say you have, I have no way of knowing but what I have found is that the majority of people who are sooooo against those alarmist aka real climate scientists haven't taken the time to study the opposing side AT ALL. They think Al Gore is horrible and would never pay to see such a movie because it would be helping those evil democrats. lol. What I know is that if the republicans were no longer connected to the fossil fuel giants and no longer had a stake in this and they started telling all of their supporters that come to find out, global warming is our faults and we need to cut back suddenly their followers would see the light. I just wish that instead of following what they are told they would just take a walk on the wild side for once and see what their hearts tell them. As a previous poster stated pollution is bad no matter how you slice it. Even if it didn't cause global warming, it's making it hard for people to breath and go outside without being burnt to a crisp. It wasn't like that when I was growing up. I used to lay out in the sun for hours and not get a burn. Now I can't go out for 20 minutes without sunblock, a hat, sunglasses... you name it. Sometimes the evidence that things are changing is right outside your door if you pay attention. Now isn't the time for hard heads. We have one planet and it is being polluted and we can make a difference if we quit driving giant gas suckers, started investing in alternate energy like solar and wind. Imagine all the jobs it could create and save the environment at the same time. How can anyone think that is wrong? I guess if you just LOVE pollution that sort of thing might ruin your day or if you are like Michelle Bachmann and breath carbon dioxide.

And there it is, no wonder you seem so mis-informed, you actually think Al Gore's An Inconvenient Lie...umm.. Truth as he sees it in his silly little world, is based on facts.

Oh Gringa, where to start. Well, for openers, yes, I've seen that concoction of lies, half truths, misconceptions and utter nonsense. It wasn't even entertaining, much less truthful. I've read articles, listened to talk shows and watched documentaries on the subject, and from both sides of the issue. When I first was interested in the subject matter, I wasn't sure where I stood, so I took a lot of time and did a lot of research on the matter before I came to the conclusion that those on your side of the issue are wrong as far as it being man made or a dire issue. It's like people freaking out over the swine flu, it's hype for the sake of hype.

No, they have NO evidence that global warming is man made, that it is going to kill the planet or that we are all doomed if we don't heed to the Almighty Al and his merry little band of Eco-nuts.

I love how it's the Republicans fault in your opinion by the way, or that we all hate Democrats. I really don't get your disdain of all that is conservative really, it leaves me totally perplexed. But to each their own.

I also have no clue as to why you think I couldn't care less about pollution. I never once said that we shouldn't try to keep the environment clean, on the contrary, I want to live in a clean environment. I'm just not a tree hugger or what I like to call an Eco-nut. I feel the US does an excellent job of keeping the environment clean and has for a long time.

An explanation of greenhouse effect for you:
The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is incorrect.
The bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect - perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect.

The big warming numbers don't come from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists - but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions.

CO2
Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).

That's all for tonight, I can always keep going on this issue, I have lots of data!

Annie Oakley wrote:

Gringa, I don't think that wind and solar can sustain us. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy.

I think it's something to look into. I think we need to have our scientists looking into new ways of generating power. Some of the ideas that are coming out are really interesting. I'm just hoping they can come up with something that doesn't produce so much dangerous waste.

Mongo wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Heartland=The Oregon Institute of Fossil Fuel, I mean Science. Same people. And the "alarmists" have no evidence? Ummm, where have you been?.They've got tons of it. Let me take a wild guess, have you ever sat down and watched An Inconvenient Truth? I mean the whole thing? If you say you have, I have no way of knowing but what I have found is that the majority of people who are sooooo against those alarmist aka real climate scientists haven't taken the time to study the opposing side AT ALL. They think Al Gore is horrible and would never pay to see such a movie because it would be helping those evil democrats. lol. What I know is that if the republicans were no longer connected to the fossil fuel giants and no longer had a stake in this and they started telling all of their supporters that come to find out, global warming is our faults and we need to cut back suddenly their followers would see the light. I just wish that instead of following what they are told they would just take a walk on the wild side for once and see what their hearts tell them. As a previous poster stated pollution is bad no matter how you slice it. Even if it didn't cause global warming, it's making it hard for people to breath and go outside without being burnt to a crisp. It wasn't like that when I was growing up. I used to lay out in the sun for hours and not get a burn. Now I can't go out for 20 minutes without sunblock, a hat, sunglasses... you name it. Sometimes the evidence that things are changing is right outside your door if you pay attention. Now isn't the time for hard heads. We have one planet and it is being polluted and we can make a difference if we quit driving giant gas suckers, started investing in alternate energy like solar and wind. Imagine all the jobs it could create and save the environment at the same time. How can anyone think that is wrong? I guess if you just LOVE pollution that sort of thing might ruin your day or if you are like Michelle Bachmann and breath carbon dioxide.

And there it is, no wonder you seem so mis-informed, you actually think Al Gore's An Inconvenient Lie...umm.. Truth as he sees it in his silly little world, is based on facts.

Oh Gringa, where to start. Well, for openers, yes, I've seen that concoction of lies, half truths, misconceptions and utter nonsense. It wasn't even entertaining, much less truthful. I've read articles, listened to talk shows and watched documentaries on the subject, and from both sides of the issue. When I first was interested in the subject matter, I wasn't sure where I stood, so I took a lot of time and did a lot of research on the matter before I came to the conclusion that those on your side of the issue are wrong as far as it being man made or a dire issue. It's like people freaking out over the swine flu, it's hype for the sake of hype.

No, they have NO evidence that global warming is man made, that it is going to kill the planet or that we are all doomed if we don't heed to the Almighty Al and his merry little band of Eco-nuts.

I love how it's the Republicans fault in your opinion by the way, or that we all hate Democrats. I really don't get your disdain of all that is conservative really, it leaves me totally perplexed. But to each their own.

I also have no clue as to why you think I couldn't care less about pollution. I never once said that we shouldn't try to keep the environment clean, on the contrary, I want to live in a clean environment. I'm just not a tree hugger or what I like to call an Eco-nut. I feel the US does an excellent job of keeping the environment clean and has for a long time.

An explanation of greenhouse effect for you:
The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is incorrect.
The bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect - perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect.

The big warming numbers don't come from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists - but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions.

CO2
Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural.
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).

That's all for tonight, I can always keep going on this issue, I have lots of data!

I know this seems like a silly question but do you think pollution is a bad thing?

gringaloca wrote:

I know this seems like a silly question but do you think pollution is a bad thing?

As I said in my last post in this thread, I want to live in a clean environment. Yes, I think pollution is a bad thing, but we're getting to the point that we're wanting knee-jerk solutions to something that there really isn't anything we have any control over in global warming. I truly believe that in this country we do an excellent job of keeping the environment clean, and we continue to do more. I'm with Annie, I think nuclear energy is the way to go.

Mongo wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

I know this seems like a silly question but do you think pollution is a bad thing?

As I said in my last post in this thread, I want to live in a clean environment. Yes, I think pollution is a bad thing, but we're getting to the point that we're wanting knee-jerk solutions to something that there really isn't anything we have any control over in global warming. I truly believe that in this country we do an excellent job of keeping the environment clean, and we continue to do more. I'm with Annie, I think nuclear energy is the way to go.

We are one of the top polluters in the world. Of course China is worse because their industry has really taken off but we aren't far behind. With the great minds we have, we can do much better. If we can all take some steps to cut back on our consumption and joining the rest of the world by joining in the Kyoto protocol we can drastically decrease the amounts of pollution we are putting into our air. Anything that can reduce the amount of pollution to make this world a little healthier is a good thing. We all are smart enough to know that pollution is not a good thing and we are also intelligent enough to come up with new/better ways to live our lives without destroying our air and water. This should not be a republican vs. democrat issue. It should be something we are all wanting to change. We all need this planet to stay healthy so we and our future generations can continue to live and enjoy the outdoors. I would be so happy if the we could all join together to benefit mother earth. Whether you believe that global warming is man-made or not, pollution is a huge problem and we all have to do our part to make a difference. If that means I have to cut back on certain luxuries in my life, so be it. I'll do what I can for my children and great grandchildren. I don't want future generations to look back and hate us because we were all so spoiled that we weren't willing to give up a little so they can enjoy all the wonderful things we take for granted every day.