It's not liberals or conservatives that are dense, but political generalization and rhetorical personal attacks. Let's talk about the issues and not affiliation. This country will continue to get nothing done unless politicians compromise and hopefully eliminate political parties.

talking about Albert Einstein , i think he always(only??) likes to wear the same clothes , sounds like he's against(or dont like) excessive and reactionary greed of all kind , usually having this kind of distaste towards that kind of "greed" are people who are self-sufficent in materials and "productions" or got no trouble in asking for production materials which they are lacking of sometimes ...

i think he is a scientist , together with some "genuine" researchers and others like-minded , i guess people like them are very very few ...

just my thoughts ...

Just one small one, if you drop it from a great enough height

danimalz does make some good points. The one thing people tend to forget/ignore when they talk about climate change is that the most unnatural climate of all is one that isn't changing. The Earth has two states, and only two: It's getting hotter, or it's getting colder. This has been the case throughout it's entire history.

We're still emerging from the ice age right now. An increase in global temperatures is exactly what should be happening, and would be happening even if humanity had never existed. If it weren't going up, it would be going down, and we'd be worrying about our descendants living in igloos. (In fact, it's not so many years since the papers were peddling an imminent ice age as a big worry, if you check their archives. . . )

So which scenario appeals more to you: A snowball Earth with glaciers on the march, or a hotter Earth with more bad weather? Pick one, "Keeping it the same" has never been an option.

The climate is undoubtedly changing. How much of it is due to humanity is still debateable. Whether or not it's a bad thing is also debateable. An ice age wreaks more drastic changes to climate and geography than any other event known to man, it could be argued that anything that helps stave one off is worth the cost.

A warmer Earth might suffer rising sea levels that could loose us some valuabe land, but how many crops do you expect to grow on sheet ice? How will cattle survive in a permanent winter? How would we cut down on pollution from burning fuel in a world that was perpetually too cold?

The Earth does not have a natural, stable state that we've somehow knocked out of kilter. It is a highly dynamic place that has never once stopped changing. Implying otherwise is the biggest lie sold by the media and some environmental groups.

Global warming may actually trigger the next iceage, so is it still worth the cost?
The change may be normal, but that does not mean it is desirable and that it's a Good Thing to accelerate it.

Global warming *might* trigger it, but global *cooling* certainly will. Ice ages aren't an "if" they're a "when" - they'll happen because they're a natural phenomenon.

Haha, your post made me laugh.. I love when people just like to ignore their surroundings cause it makes the problems go away, like I explained before. Go have a read and at least back up spewed facts you spray..

http://www.koshland-science-museum.o...cc/intro01.jsp

http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/ <-has very good graphs of estimated global temps, the rising of temps is not normal, not comparing to the previous thousand years.

Let's say the earth was going to heat up anyway.
The difference is in the accelleration. I might just as wel reason that it's ok to begin smoking, because I live close to a busy highway and am thus at a higher risk of getting cancer anyway. The thing is that the extremes are completely undesirable and I think any action taken to at least delay the change towards such climates for as long as possible would be sensible. I live in The Netherlands: Will we survive an ice-age? Will we survive the high sealevels and flooding? Either extreme is bad new for everyone.

I find it interesting you lump people from California with people from Texas and Florida... Largely people are California are the liberals you hate are they not?

Haha, your post made me laugh.. I love when people just like to ignore their surroundings cause it makes the problems go away, like I explained before. Go have a read and at least back up spewed facts you spray..

http://www.koshland-science-museum....gcc/intro01.jsp

http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/ <-has very good graphs of estimated global temps, the rising of temps is not normal, not comparing to the previous thousand years.


After all that you've read amongst all of your links - kindly summarize for us the top five things that have convinced you in your belief that man is contributing to 'global warming'

Oh, and then please suggest what you would propose to replace fossil fuels without starting WWIII.

Meh its one of those topics that I don't think have a definitive answer. In the grand scheme of things we have only scratched the surface about how earth works and we are still only learning now. However I do believe that we are certainly not helping things but I doubt we will have a "Day after tomorrow" esque event.

FACT TIME

Global warming may or may not be happening. If it is, and if man is contributing to it, then i suppose we can
all agree that the main factors are the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

My point in this post is to suggest that all the time and energy spent on studying the possibility of global warming is misplaced. I firmly believe that the Earth is sufficient in cycle, buffered with oceans, flora and fauna to balance itself while maintaining an agreeable (to life) margin of climate. The fact that life has existed - thrived - continuously since its beginnings 500 million years ago while enduring asteroids, volcanic activity, ice-ages, etc. is hard to ignore. Yes this is a FACT, and is more convincing that pages of Statistics produced by people seeking to prove thier own ideas, for thier own reasons.


But there is a greater and more immediate threat that SHOULD be given the scrutiny and media cycles currenly wasted on 'global warming'. This is the FACT that fossil fuels are limited (duh...). But not that oil is running out so much as that production of oil and gas are very, very near maximum limits. The immediate threat is not supplies running out but rather demand exceeding production capability. NOTE: the single and ONLY producer of oil who can slightly turn up production today is Saudia Arabia (Why is USA in Iraq?? Europeans, we will accept your kind thanks in a year or so). Oh, and:

China has only just begun to develop a modern thirst for oil (check your gas prices recently?) Never mind about India, Indonesia, and the rest. Scary? you bet. Do these people (half the worlds population) have the right to their turn at the oil taps? Would we (could we?) stop them?

Now ask yourself - in light of global trends (FACTS) is there any possiblity that the buring of fossil fuels has any remote possiblity of slowing down? Will China (or anyone else) agree to take the time to scrub C02 out of thier smokestacks? Is any Kyoto agreement worth the paper it is written on? (STOP RIGHT HERE - arguing about global warming can now cease - )

Are people being told what all of this means? Well, the media likes to spend a lot of time on the price of gas in the usa at the pump and it has barely even begun to rise.... Does the average person understand the total impact of scarce oil on the price of other things? On everything?

The single only sustainable short term (ie. we have the capability today) alternative to oil that I know of is nuclear power. Oh, boy....

Anyway, I sincerely hope that the world can work together to have even a plan for what must be done. At the very least, please, let's not waste time worrying about unknowns related to forgone conclusions.

Cheers

Yes true, the earth has sustained a lot in its actual short life time, some may think 4.6 billion years is a long time but compared to that of other solar systems, stars, etc, it's rather short.

Notice how one global killer took out the dinosaurs, then new species emerged after some time, that is a fact.

But you ever consider that the Earth might not have been made to sustain humans to trash it? Was it earth's intentions of causing a freak accident of life and then intelligent life out of the bunch only to consume resources that are now ending up trashing it in a way that was not to be intended or for earth to sustain.

Tell me this, did earth expect life to start driving cars with pollutants within a 100 year span our of the 4.6 billion it's been around and how well do you think it's going to cope with the radical change us humans put on it? Changes on this earth take an extremely long amount of time to produce the resources it has and to heal itself when corrected.

To me I think the trends we are seeing now are caused by humans, our acts against nature and it's actual course to survive until well, the sun consumes us, which is going to happen, just not yet.

I don't think I have to give you 5 reasons, I can tell a difference in the weather patterns by living in the same state almost my entire life, what use to be an actual reoccuring thing has changed, I can tell a difference in the skys compared from when I was a kid riding my bike down the neighborhood street, there are almost twice as many hurricanes as there was in the past 100 years.
People use to expect the same thing almost yearly, especially farmers, it was called an almanac and it use to be almost dead on. I believe there will be some freak out of pattern occurances but the changes we're enduring now in such a short time frame is not normal to me and especially for an earth and planet that shows trends of such patterns in such longer time frames.

We are seeing ice bergs melt and break off, sure it's happened before but not at the rate it's happening now.

Global warming is real, it would probably happen on it's own in earth's own patterns or behaviour or fate, but I do believe as humans, we are only speeding up the cycle, ignoring it cause we'll just let our children deal with our mistakes. We only have one earth, not like we have ample supply of them, we should treat earth as the most precious possession, instead of our nice shiny big SUV. Think about future generations before you think of some hunk of metal that makes you look cool, or whatever you drive an car for...

Here are trickykids own facts.

Trickykid - i may sound like i am attacking you personally, but im not. I feel it is my duty to help you see the way
you are being decieved. A close look at the facts you refer to show that fully half of them are basic facts about
things unrelated to global warming. The rest are very plainly skewed and/or unsupported, intended to scare you. (see below).
If you want a scholarly study, that is objective, see my link...

Everyone - bear in mind that the list of 'facts' below looks to be from San DIego State University - isn't that scary???


http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...83-10-0225.pdf



Following are taken from http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu

1. The Earth was formed about 4,560,000,000 years ago.

irrelevant

2. In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen (less than 1%).

irrelevant

3. Early plants started to develop more than 2,000,000,000 years ago.

irrelevant

4. Through photosynthesis, plants uptake carbon dioxide into the biosphere as organic matter, and release oxygen as a byproduct.

Oh, and by the way, the plants die & decay, and the C02 is re-released into the atmosphere.

5. Through geologic time, oxygen accumulated gradually in the atmosphere, reaching a value of 21% of atmospheric gases at the present time.

irrelevant

6. Through geologic time, surplus organic matter has been sequestered in the lithosphere as fossil organics materials (coal and petroleum).

This is hardly uniform (wouldn't everyone have oil reserves?. Most of the surplus organic matter has been recycled back through the action of microbes. Ultimately, the excess CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans, and deposited as carbonic acid and carbonates on the sea floor.

7. Early animals (with external shells) started to develop about 543,000,000 years ago.

irrelevant

8. Animals operate in the opposite way than plants: they uptake oxygen, burn organic matter (food), and release carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

The activity of 'animals' only takes the place of microbes in an already existing cycle that releases c02.

9. Humans began to develop about 5,000,000 years ago.

What's the relevance!!????

10. Cooler climatic conditions have prevailed during the past 1,000,000 years. The species Homo sapiens evolved under these cooler climatic conditions.

Cooler than what? The earth is always either: 1. cooling 2. warming

11. Homo sapiens dates back to more than 300,000 years.

What is the relevance??

12. The variety Homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans belong, dates back to about 120,000 years.

What is the relevance?

13. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as low as 190 ppm during the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago.

This should be obvious to anyone with an education. During an ice-age, the entire ecosystem is reduced, the cycles of photo-synth and microbial activity are thus smaller. Since the ability of the ocean to absorb c02 is unchanged, naturally the c02 wil be much lower for that particular climatic cycle

14. The last Ice Age began to recede 18,000 years ago.

What is the relevance

15. The agricultural revolution, where humans converted forests and rangelands into farms, began to develop about 9,000 years ago.

What is the relevance

16. The agricultural revolution caused a reduction in standing biomass in the biosphere and reduced the uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however so slightly, to global warming.

This is a fancy statement that has no basis. It also implies that global warming began 9000 years ago.

17. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to 299 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average 0.00519 ppm per year.

Another skewed presentation of 'facts'. First look carefully at the timeframe given. It begins with an ice age and ends with 1900, but the industrial revolution began 135 years ago (according to below). Also, if you know what ppm is (parts per million), then we can present the numbers properly (in percent) which would be .02% drastically inflating (sarcasm) all the way up to .03% (these are hundreths of percents...

18. The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began about 135 years ago.

Okay... so?

19. In October 1999, the world's population reached 6,000,000,000, which is double that of the year 1960.

Okay... so?

20. The world's population is increasing at the rate of about 90,000,000 per year.

Okay... so?

21. The current world population is 6,427,848,214 (050401).

Okay... so?

22. The global fleet of motor vehicles is estimated at 750,000,000 (2003).

Interesting... so?


23. The global fleet of motor vehicles has been recently growing at the rate of 16,000,000 per year.

Interesting... so?


24. Motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, and scooters) account for 80% of all transport-related energy use.

... but transportation is only 27% of total energy use in USA (2001) They are trying to make u hate your car.

25. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 299 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, a 5.6% in the 59-year period, or at an average 0.288 ppm per year.

299 ppm increasing to 316 ppm is an increase from .0299 percent to .0316 percent (sigh...)

26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 have revealed an increase to 376 ppm in 2003, a 19% in the recent 44-year period, or at an average 1.36 ppm per year.

Again using math to scare you.

27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.5 ppm per year over the past two decades.

Again scaring you with numbers - thats 1.5 parts in one million, ever try measuring that???

28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1998, more than in any other year of record.

Was this the year of mount saint helens or pinatubo or maybe some other reason??

29. Records of world temperature have been kept since 1861. The last decade of the 20th century was the warmest. The year 1998 was the warmest of record; the year 2001 was the second warmest.

Not giving you the actual TEMERATURES (wonder why?)- this is a skewed fact at best

30. About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Think! there giving you this big looking 75% figure. yet it relates to an actual increase in the co2 as nearly infinitessimal according to their own numbers above - in any case where is ths supporting data ? be smart

31. The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.

..falling asleep (nice big word though, anthropoblahblah)

32. Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.


..sigh

33. Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.

no proof, even while admitting "however slightly"...

That was one of the links I provided, there are many others. I did not claim all of these were my own facts.

You drive your SUV around and keep the lights on, even if doing such things don't hurt the environment now cause you think everything will never run out, that's fine. Yeah, we won't see the end of the world, but I hate seeing what is done to it nowadays. People don't give a rat's ass about anything but themselves, you sound just like one of them. I'm not personally attacking you but you seem like the narrow minded person and people I know who just don't care, they care more about keeping the inside of their car clean by throwing the trash out the window instead of holding onto it til they can actually put it in a trash can.

The link that stated those facts, some just look like facts, nothing pertaining to global warming in general. But I do believe some of those facts will be relevant further down as time passes. We can't even feed 2/3's of the world but somehow we keep doubling in size, it's going to get to the point where the earth cannot sustain humans as we are destroying our only home with the "little" things we take for granted.

Go for a walk instead of going for a joy drive, enjoy it while you can til you look out your window only to see a brick wall .

And what's the matter with a little worrying about the future of our planet, what's it going to harm you by others actually caring? Why do the people who care less and ignore any type of warning sign get defensive when some person cares what others do to the planet we all live on in fact, not just you. So you can express all you want, I'll believe what I want, go by the facts presented to me by scientists dedicating their life to in finding the correct answers while you can go drive your SUV, leave the lights on and do what you do daily. Even a little overreaction is harmless, at least some people care for the long term.

At one time doctors said smoking was harmful to you, now look.. oh well, I'm done debating though, I'm not trying to convert you to believe in global warning but you keep talking about facts but I haven't seen one link or fact backed up from anything you've recited here, theories perhaps. You can guess all you want and believe what anyone wants to tell you, but the people and scientists who are just simply looking out for everyone's future in general are the one's I'll believe, who have nothing to gain but maybe a clean home to live on.