Interesting....

[Cruisingdad]

I am sure this will provoke a heated response (or lack of) from many people... but here goes:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Glo...2834552&page=1

[PBzeer]

Global Warming - a cause supported by people who have plenty, for those who don't, to do with less.

[madseiler]

What happened to global cooling?
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

[PBzeer]

Global cooling would require too many people to buy fur coats, and that would get the PETA crowd upset.

[Cruisingdad]

global warming seems to have two camps: Those who strongly support it and those who strongly do not. I have tried to keep an open mind... but the evidence seems to be mounting against it being a normal phenomenon & earth cycle. It seem that even scientists with their careers at stake (like the guy from Nasa in Houston that went against the Bush administration and spoke his findings) are coming out of the "there is no global warming" box.

I do have to say that I find it interesting that the UN report is made by scientists, then it has to be reviewed by EVERY member states POLITICIANS to decide what is actually presented. What the hell does a politican know about it? And if it is not true, why would the VAST, VAST majority of all scientists speak out about it with such a fervor?

The unofficial word is that the scientists are up in arms over the politicians watering down (no pun intended) their report and making statements that are not supporting the facts. They are purportedly going to say that the ocean level will only rise 1-3 feet over the next 100 years (because of the politicians) versus the much higher theories (theories being the optimal word) supported by computer models. But let's say they are right. Let's say it is only... 3 feet. Can you guess how many islands that will put under water? Fort Myers Beach is what... 4 feet above sea level? What about a high-high tide? What about a tropical storm? Any storm surge basically puts it under water right now. At 4 feet, would that sink New Orleans? The last paragraph of the article depicts the President of Indonesia saying that by 2030, 2000 of their 18000 islands will be under water. That is not one hunderd years... that is 23.

Thoughts?

[PBzeer]

One word says it all....theories. Climate change scenerios are based on computer models, which are inexact at best. One volcano erupting would completely skew thier forcasts.

Remember how last season was going to be such a bad one for hurricanes? Oops, we didn't realize El Nino was going to have such an effect. And that's just a 6 month or so projection. When you do a DR on a chart, the longer it runs, the further off it gets, right?

That doesn't mean we should ignore the possible effects of humans on the enviorment, but fanaticism and obsession are never good things. Not to mention that the draconian measures that are always promoted don't really affect those who are most contributing to this "problem", because they'll just ignore them as being too costly.

[Cruisingdad]

Well, I am not a climatologist, but here is an observation. I went into Dallas the other day. I got stuck on LBJ (what a surprise for anyone that has been there). A moment of awe struck me as I gaxed off into the distace of countless, countless cars and truck. The brown haze and crap hovered above them. Both sides of the highway were bumper to bumper off into the horizon. That was only one small section of Dallas, an even smaller section of Texas, an even smaller section of the US, and an extremely small section of the world.

So, from the purely non-Phd, non career climatologist, point of view: How can you have that many cars and trucks pumping that much crap into the atmosphere without there being considerable conscequences??? I have not even brought up the factories, trash burning, forest burning, etc. And as far as the volcanoes, one pop there and it does throw it all off - the wrong way. We cannot do anything about volcanoes, we can about our impact.

Not starting an argument, I truly am trying to keep an open mind about it. But my opinion is starting to waver 'to the dark side' of the force!!

Regarding the alarmist position, I agree. But at the same time, it would seem logical to me that there would be many businesses and countries with a hidden agenda on Climate Change more than there would need to be scientists with a hidden agenda. What difference would it really make to a scientist??? They aren't going to get anything out of it. Now Detroit and Saudia Arabia on the other hand, well that seems a different story.

THoughts?

[Valiente]

I think the real problem is that humans remain jumped-up chimps with little tolerance for anything that doesn't offer immediate gratification.

If we accept that it took 200 years of gradually increasing emissions to get to now, we should equally accept that it would take 200 years of emission reductions to get us back to that equilibrium. Most people have difficulty understanding why carrying a credit card balance or a 30 year mortgage is a bad idea, and politicians start campaigning two years into a four-year term for the next election...

...so things will have to get significantly worse before something is done that will have little or no effect on those "sacrificing", but may provide some stability for their grandchildren.

And people ask me why I bought a steel full keeler...

[Cruisingdad]

Val,

The same reducction would have little impact because of the increased number of cars. My grandfather said he rode a horse to school (whehter he was lying or not... as it was uphill both ways). Still, the citizens of our nation and most others in an industrial coutry either own a car, multiple cars, or use cars and busses in transportation. Nah. Because o the massive number of people here today, it would have to be something considerably larger in reduction.

At least that is my observation.

Here is another one: I met with some guys from England not long ago. We really hit it off and became friends. They did not have a problem with the Iraq war, not a problem with the perceived (or not perceived) AMerican dominance in foreighn affairs, etc. However, on the subeject of climate change, they were not very positive of America's influence and the Kyoto Treaty. In fact, they were somewhat brazen over AMerican ignorance and seemed to portray that that was the opinion of a large majority of the English and other people of the world.

Agree with them, or not agree, I wonder if that is the perception?

[sailingdog]

Well, the real problem is that America is one country that vastly skews the pollution averages... per capita, Americans probably generate far more waste than any other country. We've gotten to the point where most things are disposable to some degree or another... if you have a broken VCR or DVD player, do you repair it... No, of course not.... since it is cheaper to buy another one. Do we recycle any of the vast amount of electronics that we throw out... not really... in fact we're pretty poor at recycling anything at all.