Global Warming

[-Bar]

One of the cycles is Mass Extinction. So it will take care of itself, whether with or without us.
So, hopefully, it can fix the problem(us), and, just maybe, we wont be killed off in the process.
If you couldnt tell, I believe global warming is happening.

Well, thats your right. And your money.

I'll stick with my belief in militarism, one way to stop global warming is to put duck-tape over the mouths of all those hot-heads in the Middle East, China, Russia and the UN.

[mapes]

I am by no means a climate scientists....and off the hip I probably couldn't remember any of the compelling arguments that back up that global warming. I do believe it's happening. I don't think we could continue drop millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and not change something. I suggest instead of getting information from the TV perhaps you should read some books. Tim Flanery is a good author on this subject.

[GeneralSnake]

Well, thats your right. And your money.

I'll stick with my belief in militarism, one way to stop global warming is to put duck-tape over the mouths of all those hot-heads in the Middle East, China, Russia and the UN.

How is it taking my money?

[-Bar]

How is it taking my money?

Well you won't be spending it.... but the government will amongst other things.

[Thrashdragon]

How is it taking my money?

Think the economy is bad now? If all the environmental controls the global warming crowd wants are implemented, this little recession we're in now will seem like a golden age. Everything will cost exponentially more to produce, as you're only allowed to produce certain levels of greenhouse gases, so new, more expensive technologies will have to be introduced, and businesses will have to spend money to ensure they are in compliance with new guidelines, the government will have to increase taxes in order to fund inspectors to check on that compliance, etc.

Ideally, we would suffer through a short period of hardship, but then reap the benefits of all the new, cleaner technology developed.

In reality, businesses would just bribe government inspectors, although since they would in all likelihood be powerless (like the EPA is now) they could probably save their money. Instead of developing new and cleaner technology, we'd just import more goods from developing nations that either aren't regulated or are ignoring the regulations, leading to an even larger exodus of jobs from the country than that NAFTA idiocy caused.

Not to mention that "developing nations" are not bound by the Kyoto Treaty, which is why we haven't and shouldn't ratify it (China and India are considered "developing nations"...China is about to surpass the US as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases (if they haven't already), and they are building a new coal-fired power plant every single week).

Any computer user should be aware of the irony of supporting radical environmental controls, as there aren't many things more unfriendly to the environment than old computers.

[Hammy]

Global Warming **yawn**

Blah blah bleeh blah.

If it isnt emissions this week, it will be the tonnage of sewage we create.

Next week it will be the amount of air we breathe - are you taking more than your fair share of oxygen?


The answer is to stop having kids and to stop living. I'll opt to go out last

[BenKenobi]

Good debate, all is going according to plaaaan

hehe

[Storm_Shadow]

I've found it interesting that folks in the scientific community look at empirical evidence, and then ask each other if they 'believe' in global warming. (Do you believe in magic?)

There clearly have been temperature cycles: England was known for bitterly cold winters several hundred years ago, but now all you hear about is the fog. Go back even a few hundred MORE years, and there is evidence that they had successful vineyards for making wine, though, which would require even warmer temperatures still.

There has been talk about an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence/proof on either side of this, but the motivation seems to be along political lines. The people who yell loudest about human caused global warming are A) some of the largest consumers of fossil fuels, and B) raking in profit from "Carbon Offset" programs. Nothing wrong with profit, but any time politics or influence/power/gain comes into play, my personal "BS-o-meter" starts to kick in.

On one hand, burning carbon based fuels releases carbon dioxide, when tends to have an insulating effect. Thus, mass release of carbon dioxide COULD affect global temperature on a large scale. Most CO2, however is stored in water (ocean), and is released or absorbed more or less based on the temperature of the water. ... So I ask myself - will driving my SUV (if I had one) increase the temperature of the ocean? (and will paying someone to plant a tree or replace an incandescent lamp with a fluorescent one in an African town that didn't even HAVE electricity last year... change that?!)

That is all well and good for this planet, but then you look at the temperature of the sun, which IS the thing that most affects temperature change. It's been on an increasing heat cycle, and all of the other planets are heating up accordingly. Now, does my SUV and my long showers make the sun hotter? And if I rode my bike to work instead of driving my car, would it help cool the planet down more than the sun is heating it? All very real questions.

I'm not a tree hugger, but I do enjoy spending time in nature. I know only too well how much pollution and rapid development has affected nature. However, 'global warming' made more sense last year when we had record drought than it did the year before that and this year when we had record rain-fall and cold temperatures.

My opinion: making sweeping legislative changes to how we operate based on the supposition that WE caused this to happen and we can reverse the effects = the height of audacity on both counts. Are we a factor? We certainly could be. Could we be a determining factor? I don't really think so.

Greenland's legislative assembly met last week for a summit on global warming. After 3 days of deliberation, then voted 7 to 3 that they were FOR it.