I'm sick of people denying global warming!!!

[Against ME]

It's making me sick, I live in the midwest, and I'm currently taking a philosophy class, that is taught by a conservative. He's a good man and all, but he's gotta be the most conservative person alive, and to add to that the mid-west is full of kids that are conservatives. They are all just extensions of their rich parents that love tax breaks. We've been arguing about Global warming for awhile, and it started out that me and the class freak were the only two that thought it was real, and since then i've successfully persuaded 7 people to see that we need Kyoto, and that the ozone isn't getting better.

It's pissing me off, something like 25 trillion tons of greenhouse gases is pumped into the atmosphere, by the United States alone. Skin cancer is on the rise, i find many older people talking about how the sun isn't how it used to be, and I always correct them that the atmosphere isn't as it used to be. I Can't be alone in my belief in green house effect, and global warming, how many of you agree with me, how many of you say it's bullshit?

[Occulus]

1. Probably a bit of both, actually

although I tend to think that we are indeed altering our own climate at a much faster and more drastic rate than would otherwise be the case.

[DUreader]

2. propaganda works especially with corporate billions behind it

They didn't buy up the media for fun

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. I deny that they are denying it

:)

I have issues about the Kyoto Treaty, but those are logistic/legal/political. I don't deny that global warming is a big honking problem.

[Against ME]

4. Yeah, what are your problems with it?

It is definately not perfect, but it's a huge step in the right direction.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Unrealistic

It could never pass the Senate in its current form. It holds the first world to a standard that it doesn't hold the rest of the world to, which is a big problem especially with China.

[aneerkoinos]

16. "Unrealistic" is not the best word

Kyoto will become reality if and when Russia ratifies it, so it is quite realistic even without USA. Unrealistic would be to make up a treaty that sets same standards for developing countries as for industrialized countries. Unrealistic is also US if it thinks that rest of the world is just going to sit and wait when AWOL (American Way of Life) destroyes our planet.

What about a treaty that set's per capita limits on emissions, at e.g. 70% of current world medium for each country? Wouldn't that be fair? Or is fair only when US gets to consume and pollute on behalf of the rest of us, and not Chinese, 1/4 of earths population?

Don't get me wrong, I want China, India and other emerging economies on board, and not to repeat the mistakes the industrialized have made and are making. But guess what they will say on the next round: "look, sounds good, we should protect our enviroment and do our part, but what's the point if US is not on board?"

Developing countries are just poor excuse. US dropped out in the middle of negotiations and didn't even try to influence the treaty the way it wanted. The real reason for dropping out is that USAns are greedy, irresponsible and stupid beyond all measure.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. The best word

It IS the best word because it is unrealistic to think such a slanted treaty would pass the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. dropped out of the negotiations rather than continue to be pressured into an unworkable treaty. Yes, the U.S. consumes a lot of world resources. The U.S. is also responsible for a lot of the technological advances of the world.

Remember, you are trying to roll things back from where they are and not starting from scratch. That means it will have devastating impact on a large advanced economy like ours. The treaty as proposed would further destroy the U.S. economy. What president would support that other than as a PR gesture?

In the meantime, you can't come up with a treaty that ignores the largest nations on the planet and complain that the U.S. isn't on board.

[Against ME]

28. Destroy our economy?

How so, it allows for a gradual step down in pollution, that would be done by better equipment, and standards. I hardly think that would destroy our economy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. No

It was such a wild rollback A) and B) it was unbalanced toward third-world and second-world nations.

[Against ME]

38. Wild Rollback?

And yeah, it's not gonna be as strict on second and third world countries, because a developing nation cannot worry about such things, without the help of a 1st world nation, and 1st world nations aren't willing to help.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Which means

It won't pass here.

Do I want to see us more environmentally sound here? Hell ya. Is Kyoto the way to do it? Not the way it is.

[Against ME]

44. It won't pass here, why is that?

Is it a problem with the protocol, or a problem with the American mindset? Would Americans willingly adopt anything that might cause a business to spend a few extra dollars, or a car to cost a few thousand more?

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. The first maybe

A few dollars perhaps, a few thousand not likely.

[aneerkoinos]

34. US senate is not the world

But you seem to mix them two. As you have seen, the treaty was not unworkable, it was US that was not willing to work and compromise and take responsibility.

US can't cant afford it's "economy" economically, ecologically or morally. Get real, stop dreaming. Tell your leaders to stop lying about AWOL (American Way of Life) and it's sustainability. Do some soul searching on your argument, why do you think USAns deserve more stuff to consume and less responsibility on pollution? Where is the moral ground of your consumerist philosophy?

What president you ask, well Carter did long ago. At least tried and got beaten. I don't blame later politicos taking lesson from that, AWOL is hard to beat, but I question the intellect and morality of those AWOL people who can't blame ignorance.

Last, EU and friends came up with a treaty that did not ignore the largest POLLUTERS on the planet (THEMSELVES EXCEPT USA!) and a treaty that was politically feasible with the rest of the world, but for it's egotistic reasons US dropped out. Sure I can complain, and even more: if you are pissed at some people flying planes at buildings, guess how pissed I am at US polluting and destroying the Earth I have inherited and want to leave to my children and grandchildren?

You have no excuse.

YOU DON'T FUCKING OWN THIS PLANET! IT IS THE HOME OF ALL THE LIFE WE KNOW! I PEE ON YOUR DOLLARS YOU AWOL OF HUMANITY!

[aneerkoinos]

35. I'm angry and I let it show

selfishly, ranting easies my feelings, but probably does not help to change your attitudes. I hope you meet someone wiser with kinder words that can do a better job than I can.

I give you a lot of heat, but the anger behind it is not personal, really, but comes from general frustation and sadness and fear for my child and his future, and you just expose yourself as a target of opportunity. If you think I'm stepping over some boundaries, I apologise, it is not meant personally against you but expression of my feelings towards all USAns and likeminded people everywhere in the world who might forgive the anger and take notice of the message...

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. The Senate

Reflects the will of the American people. There is no way they would agree to Kyoto as written. So, as much as this sounds stubborn, either the rest of the Kyoto signers work with the U.S. or they get nothing accomplished at all.

[aneerkoinos]

41. You are hilarious!!!

Yes, let's presume Senate reflects the will of USAns (Most of American states have ratified the treaty, mind you). So I quite rightly blame the USAns, not just political leadership. Have I not made this clear?

Senate would agree to Kyoto if You, the people, had the will and means to select a senate that would agree to it. No disagreement here. But what kind of excuse is the "Kyoto is bad because US senate don't support it"? It's not an argument. Your own argument for not supporting Kyoto (them evil developing countries) you have seemingly abandonded since the Senate is your only argument non-argument left. The argument is not about US Senate (that is ridiculous) but the issue and your personal stand on the issue. What argument there is about US senatus is that you are saying that the oikumene should bow and respect their will and have no opinion or action of their own. Well sorree, We the people had different opinion and acted according, and fingered the allmight propollution senatus.

Now we are this close to final ratification, and guess how US senatus and you people look from here (=we the rest of the people)? Criminal outcasts of a rogue state hellbend on destroying what is our common heritage. The Senatus of the world will not look kindly on you pirates and misfits...

Truly, you take unilateralism beyond and waaaaaay out of any common reason. You actually think USAns rule the world? That without US nothing can be accomplished? When Kyoto is just the very proof that without US something very significant (but imperfect of course) towards common good of humanity can be accomplished, and shows for the rest of the world what USA is really about. Your hubris is beyond belief...

And finally, I really hope I misunderstand you, but are you saying that if the oikumene does not do as senatus USA tells us, you will show us that nothing CAN be accomplished and to prove that you will pollute the hell out just in spite and to show us? Thats how your last comment sounds to me, I hope that's not true... well, it would not go beyond belief that majority of USAns (that I do believe you represent) might actually be that sick and vindictive and insecure of their leading position... if that were true, maybe you deserved to be nuked by SK or by somebody other, in order for the rest of us to survive. Please tell me I misinterprete your words and you deserve to live...

And please note that even to have such suspicion of your words just reflects on how the world really thinks on US, we are willing to give benefit of doubt but equally ready to believe to very worst of you. And that's not just "blame Bush", but actually the possibility that the majority of USAns may really think that way. The jury is still out...

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Kyoto won't pass

Ergo it is unrealistic.

Well, we don't have "the will and means to select a senate that would agree to it." We don't want to see our economy destroyed while China and others can take our place pollutionwise. Come up with a fair treaty that impacts everyone, then you might find American support.

Ah, so we are "pirates and misfits" because we dare disagree with you. That is not a way to make allies, my friend, it is a way to drive everyone into a camp that opposes you.

Oh, you certainly can accomplish something without America, but America won't be part of it that way and that limits your scope immensely. Some nations will follow that lead.

No, we will not prove anything, America will simply let you shout at the wind and go along her merry way.

What is this in your semi-coherent rambling about being "nuked by SK or by somebody other?" We are going to be nuked by an ally who has no nukes?

[Against ME]

52. Once again, you assume that it will destroy our economy.

But it is designed to be gradual, and not that substantial.

Why do you assume that all countries should be treated the same, having China as a 1st world country will help us, having any 2nd 3rd world country as a 1st world country would help us. And once they're developed they will have to ahear to the Kyoto.

Now if America was a child, your argument would have relevancy, but since we do not act immature, and whine over a country getting to develope, while we're forced to do something that will help us, what you say is based around immaturity.

Your assumption that China will mysteriously become a world power, because we decide to improve our emissions is laughable, and well rather petty. And your assumption that the United States doesn't need the world, and can do what ever it wants is jingoistic, and gives rise to wars like Iraq.

Gradually improving car emissions, and factory emission will not destroy our economy any more than it will turn China into the world power. The immaturity of your argument, is something that I would credit to George Bush, and someone that has a ultra since of nationalism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Not immature, just realistic

China is a major economic power already. Their use of fossil fuels is rising like an inexorable tide. Yet, Kyoto passes them by.

Fortunately, even the often-blind U.S. Senate realizes this would be a horrible mistake to sign this foolhardy treaty.

The nice thing about this is, we could debate the merits of the treaty endlessly but that won't change the results one iota. As long as the other nations insist on such an unbalanced agreement, they will insist that America stays as a non-signatory.

[Against ME]

55. Okay, they are economically powerfull, but only economical.

China contains over 3 times as many people as the United States, and It's pollution emissions doesn't even compare. For Kyoto to apply to an already unstable country struggling to come about, would be insane. The world see's this, and yet you do not.

A country containing over 1/6 of the earths population is struggling to become 1st world, they're green house gas emissions are vastly below that of a country with 300 million people verse their 1,100 million people, and they are developing. And yet you are angry because Kyoto doesn't apply to them? Kyoto is designed to manage, and control insane polluting and insane emissions. According to your logic, wouldn't the United States have to lower its emmisions to the level of China's. Or rather 1/3 of China's, to be porportional to the population to pollution ratio? And if you want China to lower it's emissions, wouldn't that make the United States lower it's emissions even more, if we're being fair.

You wanna talk about fair, how fair would it be to make them lower their emmisions when they are already below the projected emissions of the U.S. after kyoto. How fair is it to do anything but catalyze their development?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. China

I don't have the stats handy and I consider Kyoto not worth the time to look them up. But ownership of private automobiles is rising rapidly in China. As is the use of fossil fuels and other pollutants. Clearly, you would give China carte blanche to pollute all it wants while curtailing what other nations can do.

That doesn't work. If all of the major nations don't have the same or similar restrictions, then jobs and commerce will flow to those places that are less restrictive. Only a fool would sign his own nation's economic death warrant.

[Against ME]

58. You once again use the logic of a 6 year old.

Comparing the pollution of the United States, and of China, and using the logic that you are using would be like...

Having a father and a son go check their cholesteral, and the father's cholesteral(USA) is around 300, which is dangerous, and the kids around 100(China), which is not dangerous especially for a young kid. Now the father needs to take lipitor to get his cholesteral down, but he is so immature that he finds it unfair for him to take medicine, and not to make his kid take the medicine. Not realizing that it would be counter productive, and harmful to the kids growth to do so, but on the same hand it would probably save the fathers life.

Restrictive? Environmental standards don't limit the ability, or even the production of a factory, all it does is make them spend a few dollars in refining their production proccess as to make it healthier.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Logic?

I doubt you even understand the word given your bogus metaphor.

This is NOT like a father and son both in for a checkup. We are ALL the same damn patient. What I do impacts you and vice versa. So, there is NO difference between Chinese pollution and American pollution. As a result of that obvious fact (which you choose to ignore) there needs to be no difference in how they are handled.

[Against ME]

72. Okay, if they are handled the same,

then they will be held to the same pollution standards, overall, or by population. Either way China is below what we would project, so they would not be effected.

[mercator]

42. Good..

Let the rest of the world deal with Kyoto.. That'll ensure the US economy soars while theirs stagnate and die.

[G_j]

5. if you've enlightened

seven people, then you are doing great. Think of that as a ray of hope.

[utopian]

6. All you need to do is take a look around

Here in Oregon, summers are getting hotter. This summer is a scorcher. It was a lot different when I was growing up. We used to see some rain in the summer. Not anymore. We used to see 90+ temperatures in August. Now it starts in June. We used to get a few good snowfalls in Portland most every year. I've been back in the state for six years, and the most I've seen is a few flakes.

It doesn't take a genius to see it in their own back yard.

These people who deny global warming need to get their heads out of their asses.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. As an Oregon resident (for another few days)

I agree. This summer has been incredibly hot. As of this weekend, we are moving into our fifth spell of over 90 degrees. In my 18 years in Oregon, this has never happened before. I have come to expect one hot spell, lasting about a week, each summer, with temperatures in the low 80s the rest of the time. This summer is unreal.

It seems that I'm going to have to escape to the Midwest to cool off!

[ChemEng]

49. What you are describing is anecdotal, otherwise known as weather....

It is not scientific evidence. Here are some facts:

1. Satellite measurements and weather balloons for the past 20 years show no warming of the atmosphere.

2. Urban area have shown temperature increases, but this is due to the "heat island" effect.

3. The impact of the sun on the earth's weather is just now starting to be understood. There are several solar cycles that last between 11 years and some much longer. The impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation has been documented. NONE of the climate models take into account the impact of the sun.

4. There are major weather oscillations that last 30 years or so that are beginning to turn go negative. For instance, the PDO, or Pacific Decadal Oscillation, has begun to turn negative. Most meterologists believe that in the next 20 years, the North American continent will enter a cool period. My point here is that we need to separate normal weather cycles from longer term trends. In other words, it may have been hot over the past 10 years, but it should have been from normal weather patterns.

5. Climate models predict warming will be the greatest the closer one is to the earth's poles. Data does not support this prediction.

The bottom line is that we should argue the science, not your "feelings", or as the original poster said, "beliefs". Keep your "beliefs" for your religion. I, for one, am not convinced of "global warming."

By the way, I can't resist my own anecdote: it just snowed in the Denali park entrance area in Alaska for the first time in July.

Article Published: Friday, July 18, 2003 - 2:21:47 AM AKST

July snow chills Interior
Summer temps likely to be back by weekend
By TOM MORAN, Staff Writer

What the heck happened to July?

It felt more like mid-October on Tuesday and Wednesday, as records fell all over the heart of
Alaska. The culprit was a storm moving south from the Arctic Ocean that resulted in wintry
temperatures, heavy rains and the first measurable snowfall to ever hit the Denali National Park
and Preserve entrance area in July.

The weather also closed the Denali Highway and led to dangerous conditions on the
Richardson Highway as of Thursday afternoon.

[MrPrax]

7. I live in the Midwest as well and

Yup a lot of wishful diluted thinking...I am not a fan of Kyoto coz it really doesn't go far enough, quick enough
Might be a step in the right direction, but I suspect the jig is up
Did you notice the WMO release a few weeks ago...
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2003_82/news/10693-1.html

[opihimoimoi]

8. First comes DENIAL, then ANGER, then, slowly, ACCEPTENCE

By then much of Fla will under water..

Come, Save Florida, help build dikes.

[DemLikr]

20. I like your sense of style, Opi.

and the accuracy of your aim.

[LiberalLibra]

26. I will come help build dykes under one condition, leave Jeb in the......

.....part that goes under water. Deal????

[opihimoimoi]

57. Its a Deal

Come, help shovel sand

[Gringo]

66. Pleeze - nobody will miss Flori-duh.

Most of all me!

Silliness aside, I think there's a lot of dishonesty on both sides. The original post implies that somehow "global warming" and the "ozone hole" are the same thing, and they are two very distinctly different phenomena.

I believe that the panic attacks on the eco-warrior side are out of proportion, and that the unwillingness to conserve more, and live cleaner on the part of industries and consumers is unconscionable as well.

I drive a car that gets great gas mileage, and ride my bicycle to work every day, because I like cleaner air, it's healthful, not because I think Miami is going to be underwater anytime soon.

It's undisputable that the climate is changing, and seems to be warming somewhat. Whether that will continue long-term cannot be predicted accurately, and the amount of that warming due to fossil fuels it difficult to determine. We may be staving off another ice age, for all we know. Parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are getting thicker, while lige chunks of floating ice have broken off. We are dealing in theory here as to what it all means and where it's going.

The ozone hole, by the way, is getting better, much better in fact than it has been in many years. CFC use, banned and largely phased out through the 70s and 80s, is now very low, and over the coming decades, CFCs in the upper atmosphere will begin to dissapate, and we should see improvement in UV levels. It should be noted that thinning ozone at the poles is a natural phenomenon that predates our existence. We merely exacerbated it with our freon and hairspray.

If you want to worry about environmental disaster, you'd be better advised to look at the very real problems being caused by overpopulation - that's the stuff nobody wants to look at because it's too scary. Whether it's the lack of clean fresh water, air pollution, too much urban sprawl, destruction of huge amounts of wilderness for housing and grazing/agriculture, dismal rates of recycling, overharvesting of the ocean fisheries, our sheer numbers will probably be the death of us long before the ocean laps at the gates of Walt Disney World. Until we really grapple with population, and make a real commitment to recycle our waste while using more sustainable food production techniques, we will be in real peril.

[rman]

9. "belief"? How to spin these facts:

in the last 143 years
10 hottest years are since 1990
3 hottest years 1998, 2001, 2002
2003 is likely to set a new record

Reaping the whirlwind
Extreme weather prompts unprecedented global warming alert
The Independent, july 3 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=421166

[geomon]

19. There are two issues here.

The first issue concerns current trends in Global warming and the second issue concerns the causation.

It is getting hotter.....

I don't think that very many people could argue against the likelyhood of an upward trend in global average temperature. That said there are climatologist who utilize various tools to produce paleo-weather patterns and who have used questionable statisctical analysis to argue against globally warming but they are in the minority of climatologists.

Furthermore ,the cause of global warming is of great debate because the evidence, for the most part, is indirect.

I personnaly believe that our earth is indeed warming up and that this has caused localized problems and potentially worldwide problems. (from flooding,argriculture, air quality etc...)

Although I am on the fence with regards to the degree that human activity is to blame, I support efforts to reduce "green house" gasses as this will also reduce the overall degradation of our air and it will also result in a reduction of the use of finite resurces.

[htuttle]

10. Global warming has been pretty obvious up here in Wisconsin

We used to have snow on the ground during the winter here. Now we get a day or two of snow every few weeks.

There used to be a lot of people around here who made their living in the winter selling snowboards, running ski hills, and plowing snow. THEY can all see what global warming has done to their income.

We've been spared a drought up here so far, but we can see what's happening to farmers only a state or two away.

People who deny global warming are deluding themselves.

[tanizaki]

11. It's gone from science to dogma

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19892-2003Jul7¬Found=true

Recent Washington Post article on the topic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

In June, Harvard released a study showing that the Middle Ages were the warmest period in the last thousand years.

ISTM that there was far more proof of WMDs in Iraq than there is of global warming caused by the activity of man. So far, man's activities cause global warming only in certain computer simulations. It seems hypocritical to complain about going to war when one is less than 100% sure while at the same time calling for wholesale policy changes based on computer simulations.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. that was debunked in the Scientific American

I've been giving away magazines in anticipation of moving, so I don't remember which article, but it has been debunked.

[Against ME]

30. Oh, it would be a bad thing to stop co2 production, and

limit the greenhouse gas emissions of each country? Look at it this way, if I'm right then we have saved the world from the Green house effect, we will not become venus. If you're right, then the world continues to produce gas that is toxic to humans, and causes respitory problems.

We're calling wholesale policy changes because we've learned much about our own atmosphere from other planets, and we see that at the current rate of emissions we aren't far from turning into Venus. While you claim that the warming trends are do to natural evironmental changes, there is no way to prove that, it's not science it's dogma. While we say it's causing a green house effect, that as we've proven can happen, and as Venus shows us does happen.

So say I'm wrong, that doesn't change the fact that we're pumping 25 trillion tons of greenhouse gases per year, which are toxic to humans as well as all other animals on the planet. Which is directly linked to an increase in skin cancer, and and increase in respitory illness. If I'm wrong, all we have done is put standards that needed to be in place, and kept us all a little healthier for it.

[ChemEng]

50. You have too be kidding, right??

Where to start....

The Earth is not going to become like Venus. There isn't enough coal, petroleum, natural gas, or cow farts in the world to make that happen. Saying that just turns people off.

CO2 is not toxic. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be no plants, and thus no food for animals, including people. Let's debate the theory and science of global warming, but don't call CO2 a toxin or a pollutant. It is neither. It doesn't cause respiratory desease, or skin cancer.

And the theory of global warming has become dogma for a lot of people. See my post above for a few facts......

[Gringo]

67. Also, AgainstME seems to be confusing CFCs and CO2

They are two very different things.

CFCs damaged the ozone. They've been phased out in most countries, and atmospheric levels are dropping. Some improvement has been seen in the ozone hole and that should continue very gradually over many years.


Hydrocarbons are theoretically partially responsible for the current warming trend. They can be poisonous in high concentrations, esp. Carbon Monoxide. The other chemicals emitted in car exhaust can be quite toxic, and they turn into poisonous (low-level) ozone in the sunlight, so AgainstME is quite correct in stating that it is most certainly in our best interest to keep emissions of these compounds to the minimum possible.

[Against ME]

70. Actaully, i said nothing about ozone depletion,

and I am right in saying CO2 causes global warming.

CFC's do not cause global warming through greenhouse gases, and don't actually cause any warming. The problem with CFC's is that it depletes the ozone. Ergo letting in UV rays which is very cancerous, and dangerous to life on this earth.

[Against ME]

68. You are just wrong, CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.

Check this site out and tell me i'm wrong.

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l28044.htm

"Mechanism for monitoring CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions"

So as you can see CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is toxic to mammals, it is a polutant to mammals, and it can cause the GreenHouse effect. Just because Plants convert it to oxygen, and rely on it, doesn't mean it cannot cause the GreenHouse effect.

If this link doesn't suffice, I will be happy to provide you with another that says a little more about CO2, this is the first one that came to mind though.

[CafeToad]

15. A couple of graphs and data

Global warming has occurred recently . . .



from

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/schools/12-16/activity/dataqust.htm

Here's carbon dioxide measurment, also for recent times:


Scientists have been precisely measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. The results of these studies are plotted on the graph below. The yearly average CO2 level is represented by the smooth black line, and seasonal changes appear as small peaks and dips.




from
http://earthsci.terc.edu/content/investigations/es2105/es2105page07.cfm?chapter_no=investigation


for a longer time period (i.e., to explore non-human changes in climate), see http://earthsci.terc.edu/content/investigations/es2105/es2105page06.cfm

[TheBigGuy]

17. I think the question is whether its man-made or natural.

That global warming exisists isnt in doubt.

I think the question is whether or not its natural or manmade, or a combination of natural or manmade factors....

[whoYaCallinAlib]

18. I'm still waiting for conclusive proof one way or the other.

If one believes something without proof, they will believe anything.

[LiberalLibra]

25. I don't know where you live but I invite you to Colo because..

....you will believe in global warming after living here for 5 years or so. Skin cancer is on the rise at an alarming rate. Every single year for the past 5 years the summer time temperatures have risen so much as to breaks all time highs that have stood for 50 to 90 years only to have those new records broken again the following year. Winter time temperatures have risen also to where we now have wet heavy "sping snow storm" as the locals call them all winter long. The ozone alerts around here are almost a daily thing now whereas we almost never had one before. You won't live in Colo more than 5 years without realizing the weather patterns and moisture level or lack of are changing at a truly frightening rate. BTW, I'm moving out of state in a couple opf months and this is but one of many resons why.

[DemLikr]

21. Oh, dear , sweet Mini-Me

I suspect you're not in earnest here...admit it, now.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

24. I'm "earnest as hell!

Everytime I read one article that "proves" global warming is for real, I read another that "proves" it's a fiction. I'm not smart enough to figure out who is telling the truth. But, obviously, you are. But that doesn't make me dishonest. I'm a CPA with an MBA. I'm paid to be skeptical. I'm sure I know a few things that you don't. Doesn't make you dishonest. So I would appreciate you not challenging my ethics just because I may not be as educated on global warming as you. Fair enough?

[amazona]

22. global warming a proven fact

I live in South Louisiana. I can't imagine that anyone who spends any time outdoors in the so-called sportsman paradise is in denial of what is happening. The advance in migration patterns is extremely striking and is visible as close as your nearest bird feeder. It's already fall migration. Wilson's phalarope on July 9, our first winter hummingbird arrival on July 21, first breeding of Gray Kingbird (a tropical species marching west from south Florida), a male Rose-Breasted Grosbeak observed at the feeder in July for several days when such birds have never been seen in the state in July before...it just goes on and on.

Everything that was predicted in the 1980s is coming to pass. Just as predicted, the weather patterns have become overall warmer but also more extreme, with sudden extreme cold snaps in some places. Storms are becoming more common and more violent. Ask the good folks in Memphis if they ever saw the like of the disaster that occurred over there a few days ago before...and this wasn't even a named storm! We actually had a tropical storm form in April, formerly considered to be impossible because the oceans couldn't get warm enough. We had a tropical storm (Bill) form in the Gulf of Mexico so that it struck almost without warning. (This is the storm that destroyed my house.)

As far as I'm concerned, if someone doesn't believe in global warming, they are basically saying that what happens to me and what happens to other people in what they consider "low lying areas" is not important. Well, my so-called "low lying area" was classed by the gov't as a no flood zone. That tells you right there that something has changed!

Some people don't have the empathy to care until their own house is blown away, I guess. The Midwest is not going to skate on this....Haven't they noticed the increase in F5 tornadoes?

[catzies]

54. I don't call it global warming, I call it climate change.

"Global warming" just gets all the RWers foaming at the mouth, but when you call it climate change they agree, because they've seen it too. It's everywhere. We're not one big climate; we're many microclimates, all of which are behaving differently.

My dad worked for NOAA until he retired, and in the 1980s he told me exactly what you said. Climatological extremism is happening, it's real, and it's just what you described.

[Ratty]

23. Global warming is a fact

It's the cause which is legitimately debatable. It might be a result of industrialization or it could be part of some kind of natural cycle. That's why scientists get grants to do weird things like measure and sniff cow farts, see if natural greenhouse gases are so massive as to make anything man creates insignificant.

This is one area of debate I stay out of. I just don't know enough to make any kind of informed decision. I also think the issue *has* become politicized--by BOTH sides on the debate, so I really don't trust anyone on any side.

[theriverburns]

29. Depends how you look at it

A liberal sees Global Warming as a tragedy. A threat. A Republican doesn't sit around wringing his hands like a nervous nellie. A Republican sees it as an opportunity. Think: PRIVATIZE THE GREAT LAKES!!

[Forkboy]

31. Here's a great thread from the Enviromental Forum

Apologies to PMBryant for stealing any thunder :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=258&mesg_id=258&page=

The Enviromental Forum is fantastic thanks to a handful of posters who stay on top of these issues for us!

Kudos to all of them!

[SemperEadem]

32. most likely..

they buoy the notion of global warming against the fact that it's not really going to do anything significant for at least another 300 years and by that time, they, their children and the grandchildren they know about will be long dead.. and if they can't extend their imagination to the future chutes of their family tree, then they are satisfied that it's something that doesn't concern them... recognizing it as a problem means they have to give up what they believe they're entitled to, and that ain't about to happen.

kind of like how drugs in urban areas used to be a non-issue until the drugs found their way out into the suburbs and into their homes that it suddenly was an epidemic problem.

[billyskank]

33. I found this article scary...

Shadow of extinction

Only six degrees separate our world from the cataclysmic end of an ancient era

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,988440,00.html

[Catshrink]

40. Molly Ivins on global warming in Alaska

She addresses this in her editorial from Anchorage last week. Here is the link.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15350&CFID=8629830&CFTOKEN=30904825

As always, she's awesome!

[mercator]

43. So far..

The only thing I've seen about ozone/global warming is the space shuttle Columbia burning up over my house. The whole foam thing being enviro-friendly is THE reason it burned up.

[Sirius_on]

47. There really isnt any true global warming

The only type of warming that has taken place is in isolated urban heat islands. Over the past century some scientists believe the average temp of the planet has risen by 0.5 Cel. This stat is hardly enough to even begin to rationalize true global warming. The true way to emasure the earths temp is from elevated weather sensors. Within a urban heat island the temp may be up to 10 degrees warmer then areas outside it. Although at higher elevations where weather instruments record, no urban heat islands exist.

The temp of the earth may actually be lowering according to the oscellations of the oceans and sun. There are certain periods the earth naturally goes through that will influence the mean temp of the earth itself. Just remember, if there is a place on the planet that is well above average in tempature, there is probably a place that is well below.

In Michigan where I live, there has been 10 consecutive months of below normal temps...hardly enough to signal cooling, although worth watching.

Heres a good link on Global cooling and other myths about global warming...mainly urban heat islands effects on the theory.

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf

[DK_Prof]

59. Agreed - there is no proof whatsoever of global warming

The "evidence" is laughable, and does not stand the scrutiny of the scientific method.

Global warming may in fact be real, but there's no evidence of it. People who worry about the tiny temperature fluctuations that are being talked about here need to look up some of the charts that show the planets temperature over the past thousands and tens of thousands of years. There have been many periods in the past where the temperature of the planet has fluctuated much, much more.

In any event, since very long term, the planet is ultimately still cooling, global warming may not be a bad thing, if it exists.

[gristy]

63. Global warming may cause the Gulf Stream to shut down

causing a self-reinforcing global cooling, resulting in the next ice age. You should look at the link below (or any of hundreds of others) on this topic. It's been in the news for several years.

What "tiny fluctuations" are you referring to? Please review graph showing mean global temps earlier in this thread.

http://www.discover.com/sept_02/featice.html

The New Ice Age
Worried about global warming? Talk to a few scientists at Woods Hole. Oceanographers there are seeing big trouble with the Gulf Stream, which warms both North America and Europe

[gristy]

62. whaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttt????????????

"There really isnt any true global warming" The only type of warming that has taken place is in isolated urban heat islands. Over the past century some scientists believe the average temp of the planet has risen by 0.5 Cel.

Maybe on your planet. We've got animal migration dates shifting, glaciers melting, N. Atlantic salinity dropping, Arctic sea ice opening up, Antartic ice shelves collapsing, and average global temperatures rising markedly (see previously posted graph).

The planet you just dropped in from may just have warming on urban islands, but I assure you, planet earth is indeed experiencing climate change.

[Against ME]

64. Well, that's interesting and all,

but you cannot debunk global warming by saying that it's all just "Urban heat Islands", and that some parts are cooling.

The thing about any planet, is that there are year to year variations that neither signal a gradual warmth, or a gradual cooling, but if you take a sequence of years, and the average all over the planet, only then can you get an idea of the true nature of changes.

While the average temp has risen .5 cel., you contend that it cannot be actually due to global warming because you live in a location where the temp is cooler? Which is a better gauge, an isolated spot, or the globe as a whole.

And while Michigan may be cool for awhile, India is having record heat waves, Sri lanka is experiencing devestating tropical weather, that is killing their crops and destroying their economy.

"He added, “Changes in climate are known to have occurred in the past. However, such changes were due to natural causes. Recent changes, such as the increase in the mean global temperature of 0.6 degreees Centigrade since instrumental records began in the 1860s, are largely attributable to human activities.” The report showed that the 10 hottest years since 1880, when records began, have all been since 1990, with 1998, 2000, and 2001 as the hottest. The trend is continuing with May 2003 being the second hottest on record. Long forecast as a problem in the future, the WMO now says global warming and climate change is a reality for which humans must quickly address with workable solutions."
—Joel Stonington

need i say more?

[zoidberg]

48. Why are you debating Global Warming in a philosophy class?

You might as well discuss Anselm in a Geology class.

[Against ME]

60. Well, anygood philosophy class has no restrictions,

the conversations went where they wanted, and that's why it was so great.

[Lorien]

51. A family friend is one of the world's

leading authorities on climate change. He has been studying it for 45 years in Antarctica by extracting ice core samples that allow he and other scientists to analyze the atmosphere's content going back thousands of years. He says the earth's atmosphere has remained consistent throughout mankind's rise UNTIL the industrial revolution, when there was a marked change in the earth's atmosphere, which has continued dramatically until today. He and his fellow scientists predicted the melting of prominent arctic ice shelves due to climate change in the 1960s-but they predicted that it would happen in 50-100 years. It's already happened, decades earlier than expected. Their prognosis for our future is grim; the rise of the earth's temperature will bring not only rising sea temperatures, but a massive increase in insect life, disease, severe storms and drought. Eventually growing crops will be out of the question-but how soon? Fifty to one hundred years, they estimate again. Hopefully it isn't another optimistic estimation.

[govegan]

61. Global warming is good for you! (like toxic sludge, Iraq war)

A most important point to keep in mind, especially as some of the PR folks obviously try to influence these discussions):


"In the United States the mere threat of impending climate change has impelled the oil and coal industries to engineer a policy of denial. While this campaign may seem at this point no more sinister than any other public relations program, it possesses a subtle antidemocratic, even totalitarian potential insofar as it curbs the free flow of information, dominates the deliberations of Congress, and obstructs all meaningful international attempts to address the gathering crisis."


-- Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On" (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1998)

"There is no debate among statured scientists of what is happening," says James McCarthy, who chairs the Advisory Committee on the Environment of the International Committee of Scientific Unions. "The only debate is the rate at which it's happening."

GET THAT CHIMPY AND SIMIAN PALS: THERE IS NO DEBATE AMONG STATURED SCIENTISTS.

There is a vast array of groups with environmental or scientific sounding names that have been set up and funded by energy industry groups, such as: the Global Climate Information Project, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the American Policy Center, the American Energy Alliance, the Climate Council, the International Climate Change Partnership, the International Chamber of Commerce and Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the list goes on.


Reputable scientists tell us that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently at their highest level in 420,000 years. (from ice core samples, reported in "Climate Change: Cornucopia of Ice Core Results" in Nature magazine, June 3, 1999, by Bernhard Stauffer)

The late Dr. Henry Kendall, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, said in 1995, "The world's food supply must double within the next thirty years to feed the population, which will double within the next sixty years. Otherwise, before the middle of the next century (the 21st)--as many countries in the developing world run out of enough water to irrigate their crops--population will outrun its food supply, and you will see chaos. All we need is another hit from climate change--a series of droughts or crop-destroying rains--and we're looking down the mouth of a cannon."

Now, totalitarian, fascist loving folks like the chimpster are all too happy for chaos. The kind of chaos that allows revocation of civil rights (for the public good of course), and eventually martial law or some other nefarious means of control of the average citizen.

No, climate change is real, and the cause is pretty much indisputable when addressed from real, researched, non-biased scientific data.

Also, keep in mind, we are talking about CLIMATE CHANGE, not everyday heat. Long established weather patterns are being disrupted, and it does not always result in a string of hot, dry days in any given locale. The global climate is extremely complex, and analysis of it has always been one of the primary uses of the most advanced computer resources available.

How can we best combat climate change? One of the very best is REGIME CHANGE, here in the USofA.

We need leadership in government, not ownership.

(some of this information is gleaned from Trust Us, We're Experts! or How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future by two of my favorite muckrakers, Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber, available from www.prwatch.org)

Any concerned citizen who wants to have the largest possible individual impact on climate change there is one action you can take right now. Go Vegan! The healthiest, most natural diet, is (surprise, surprise) also the most evironmentally benign by at least an order of magnitude over the standard USofA diet (SAD).

[opihimoimoi]

65. GET READY FOR....... FAMINE FOOD, body parts, roots, guts, leaves,

hooves, pig feet, Chicken Head Stew, manapua made from tripe, etc

Poor times equals poor food.

Poor food is next to NO FOOD.

The GW thing will reduce our world wide yeilds of food.

Our demand will supercede the supply, Hello Famine.

Even the rich developed Nations will suffer.

No one is safe.

Anarchy, rape, mob rule, all because the Pubs was and is in DENIAL

[freeforall]

69. I agree that there is global warming

...We've been having much warmer winters here in central Alberta the past 15 years, and something has got to be causing it!

Of course the corporations will deny it. They don't want to cut emissions.

[bunnyhop]

73. Repugs would rather get cancer than give up their SUV

To them a 3 ton SUV is like a gun. Proof that they're big and powerful and not the useless and impotent failure that deep down they know they really are.