Global Warming

[Beo]

I don't believe in Global Warming, just my thoughts though. Load of crap IMHO, Greenland had some of their coldest ever winters in 2006 & 2007 (read it in National Geographic and Popular Science both mags covered global warming and talked about Greenlands winters) and the ice of the polar caps will always melt and more is made as this is natures process, other reports show that global warming is nothing more than a government scam to get you to do what they want. Sure cities are over crowded and pollution is high there but nature has a way of cleaning herself up. On the other hand I do think we are mistreating our planet in a really bad way.

[Rick]

We set a new record high today in Indiana. It's 67, the windows are open and I'm enjoying the breeze. Global warming anyone?

[Beo]

That does not mean there's global warming, just go ahead and listen to the government and one day they'll show you the stats on unarmed civilians and take those too. Al Gore got a nobel peace prize and didn't know what he was talking about.

[Elkchsr]

"Global warming" is a term, not a definition

I would go one step farther and say it's a religion as religions are defined

But that was a good post

[granite]

It's going to be 69 degrees F tomorrow. Yup, regular winter temps! No GW here.

[Cori]

It is actually beginning to warm up here, but it was starting to get cold a lot earlier then usual.
I also agree that Global Warming is a term.

[carcajou garou]

While everybody argues "global warming///climatic change"

We have to remember to change what we can..... and learn to:

Adapt, Overcome, Improvise

This is just to new reality.

[Cori]

Very true.
I am sure we will all be able to too, because, like scientists say(not that I believe everything)we obviously adapted to like, all sorts of stuff.

[Beo]

Okay, here goes my take on this global warming garbage. Personally I do not believe in it as the scientist say (such as the polar ice caps are melting and one day will be gone) sorry just don't believe it.
The Earth's climate changes in response to external forcing, including variations in its orbit around the sun (orbital forcing), volcanic eruptions, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies elevated levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. Some other hypotheses departing from the consensus view have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity. None of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. The thermal inertia of the Earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.
To me this is the Remy answer to what global is, no offense intended. And after much reading and study this is the debate in Remy fashion.

Over the past several years, public perceptions and attitudes concerning the causes and importance of global warming have changed. Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate. Poor regions, particularly Africa, appear at greatest risk from the suggested effects of global warming, while their actual emissions have been small compared to the developed world. At the same time, developing country exemptions from provisions of the Kyoto Protocol have been criticized by the United States and Australia, and have been used as part of the rationale for continued non-ratification by the U.S. In the Western world, the idea of human influence on climate has gained wider acceptance in Europe than in the United States.The issue of climate change has sparked debate weighing the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail. There has been discussion in several countries about the cost and benefits of adopting alternative energy sources in order to reduce carbon emissions. Organizations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil have emphasized more conservative climate change scenarios while highlighting the potential economic cost of stricter controls. Likewise, various environmental lobbies and a number of public figures have launched campaigns to emphasize the potential risks of climate change and promote the implementation of stricter controls. Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years, or called for policies to reduce global warming. Another point of debate is the degree to which newly developed economies such as India and China should be expected to constrain their emissions. China's gross national CO2 emissions are expected to exceed those of the U.S. within the next few years, and may have already done so according to a 2006 report. China has contended that it has less of an obligation to reduce emissions since its per capita emissions are roughly one-fifth that of the United States. India, also exempt from Kyoto restrictions and another of the biggest sources of industrial emissions, has made similar assertions. However, the U.S. contends that if they must bear the cost of reducing emissions, then China should do the same.

Still don't believe in it

[Beo]

Remy I need you to put it into lamens terms for me, maybe i'm just a dumb hick, maybe i'm misinformed, maybe i'll never know but if anyone is gonna tell me about it don't use a bunch of scientific banter (no offense) break it down to the everyday working man's words. The earth has survived flooding, dino's being taken out by a huge meteor (so they say) or the ice age, which we know happened. So i'm of a mind to think the polar caps are not melting away and we're in no worse trouble than we ever were. Help explain to me if you can.
Thanks
Beo,

[carcajou garou]

Remy, hi again

"we need to Sit, Think, Observe, and Plan..."

You forgot to add: "ACT"

your plan is just as bad as the unplanned actions that accumulated the messes that we are in now.
Inaction is the slow strangled death of a solution.

""Adapt, improvise and overcome" has for too long been synonymous with crushing, killing, invading, displacing, pillaging, soiling, eradicating, imposing, destroying..."

Your definition of it being synonymous does not mean it has to be so.
It means to SURVIVE... otherwise...dead men can't affect any solutions. We would have died off a long time ago or We would still be protosimians cowering in the darkness awaiting the jaws of death.

Thinking is good, acting is good, both in measure..
one without the other well...

[Beo]

And what exactly is wrong with crushing, killing, invading, displacing, pillaging, soiling, eradicating, imposing, destroying... to the victors go the spoils. Oh my did I say that out loud

[carcajou garou]

Heck I came from the wrong side of that last post Beowulf
but I don't hold no grudge, well yah!!! there's still time

[Rick]

Talk to some of the Alaskan folks on here that are near any of the glaciers about how much they've receded in recent years. Hubbard, Mendenhall, Kennicott, Margorie, Lampugh and the rest are growing smaller and smaller each year. It's something the folks that live in and around those areas in the fishing villages live with.

Ice cores taken from those glaciers and others demonstrate an alarming rise in temperature in recent time. I don't know the cause but it is happening. Glaciers can be "read" much like tree rings on a tree. They even capture tiny pockets of air so even that can be analyzed.

Your points are good, Remy. In trying to increase the yield over the same size ground, we've made some mistakes. Hopefully, we are learning from them. We are starting to see free range produce and organically grown vegetables. That was started by individuals with moral and ethical concerns about the use of pesticides and has spread to the corporations. I'll not debate the greed aspect but not every farmer that grows organically is part of the corporate world. Some do it because they believe in it.

One thing is painfully obvious, there is no final word on the subject. There probably is no correct position to take either. If there is, it's too well camouflaged by every side's facts.

[corndog-44]

About every 10,000 years the global weather pattern changes and I'm looking forward to it. As the cold weather areas of the earth warms people will begin to migrate to these areas. Global landscape will change along with new adventures for wilderness lovers like ourselves. Already the grizzly bears are migrating further north and crossbreeding with the polar bears...a new species of bears? What I fear more than global warming is nuclear energy waste.

[Rick]

Corndog, it will be known as the Wabash Sea in stead of the Wabash River. You'll have ocean front property and Chicago will a series of building islands. Could they be called the Great Lakes Ocean?

[Cori]

I am hoping that people understand this is most likely just another climate change, or the complete end of the ice age?

[Beo]

Personally I hope it affects the San Andreas fault and that chunk of crap land we call california sinks into the ocean, too many freaks out there. Smok and our other Cali's not included jk I agree that we treat our planet like crap, look anywhere and you'll see it if your eyes are open, but I do not believe that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and we're in trouble, as corndog said it could be the earth changing again as it does every so many million years.

[granite]

I do not believe that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate and we're in trouble, as corndog said it could be the earth changing again as it does every so many million years.

Sure, those polar ice caps aren't melting:

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...polar_ice.html


The study concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years, nearly twice the global average. Temperatures are projected to rise 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 7 degrees Celsius) over the next hundred years.

The rising temperatures are likely to cause the melting of at least half the Arctic sea ice by the end of the century. A significant portion of the Greenland ice sheet—which contains enough water to raise the worldwide sea level by about 23 feet (about 7 meters)—would also melt.

Temperatures don't rise 3 to 4 degrees in just 50 years without a little help from somebody or something. This isn't a little million year cycle. If you have waterfront property consider investing in a seawall.

[MedicineWolf]

On many of the walls here at the Feira Milano conference center, site of the giant United Nations meeting on climate change, Green activists have posted flamboyant posters showing a picture of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), with a quotation from him: "Global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'"
The idea being proffered by these sophisticates, of course, is that Inhofe is a typical American rube. Global warming a hoax! What a dope!

In fact, Inhofe is one of the best-informed Senators on the science and economics of global warming. And "global warming" -- as it's used by environmental extremists -- is indeed a hoax.

Yes, the Earth's surface has warmed a bit over the past century, but is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles? And can changes in human activity -- specifically reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions -- have anything more than a tiny effect on temperature? The answers to those questions, which are at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol and other attempts to force cuts in energy use, are simply unknown.
It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression. The quote on the poster comes from Inhofe's speech during debate over the McCain-Lieberman bill that would have curtailed greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, a measure similar to the Kyoto Protocol, which President Bush rejected in 2001 as "fatally flawed" and which still lacks enough ratifying nations for implementation six years after it was signed. McCain-Lieberman was rejected, too -- in part because of Inhofe's strenuous efforts as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. One of the themes being promoted by Greens at this conference is that the American people want Kyoto-style measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and that the close vote on McCain-Lieberman proves it. Wednesday's issue of ECO, the daily conference newsletter backed by WWF International, Greenpeace and other environmental groups, refers to "mounting anger at home" to President Bush's stance on climate change. "The American public is catching on to this charade," claims ECO. But several times this week, Inhofe has patiently explained the real arithmetic behind the Senate vote. First, it was 16 votes short of the 60 effectively needed for passage under Senate rules. Second, it was riddled with concessions to win votes. Without the amendments, Inhofe figures only 32 Senators would have backed it. Finally, the bill was sold under a claim that it would cost only $20 per household per year. A study commissioned by TechCentralStation and performed by Charles River Associates, the respected economic research firm, found that the costs would be at least 17 times that much. Inhofe heads a congressional delegation of eight Republicans in Milan. The others are Sens. Larry Craig (Idaho), Craig Thomas (Wyo.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Chris Cannon (Utah), Fred Upton (Mich.), Chris Shays (Conn.) and Jim Greenwood (Pa). There are no Democratic members of Congress here but plenty of Democratic staffers. I sat down with Inhofe at breakfast at his hotel in Milan Thursday morning. Considering the fact that nothing much has been happening at COP-9, the ninth United Nations conference of the parties to the 1992 Rio agreement on the environment, I started by asking why he was here.

"I'm here," he said, "to show that we are not going to ratify Kyoto."

That's Inhofe at his finest. Straight talk. No nonsense.
Unlike some other members of Congress, who accept the scientific basis for Kyoto but say that the treaty costs too much and exempts developing countries, Inhofe disputes the science. He knows the studies, and he recognizes that the tide has turned in the past few years.
"Virtually all of the research since 1999 has been refuting [the theory of human-caused global warming]. It is ludicrous that Kyoto can be as damaging economically as it is when there is no science to justify it."
New research, for example, has challenged Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" formula, which asserts that temperatures have risen sharply, in an unprecedented fashion. In fact, warming was worse centuries ago, before industrialization and automobiles. The delegation met Wednesday with counterparts from Europe, and Inhofe and many of his colleagues were shocked at the Europeans' refusal even to consider scientific research that casts doubt on predictions of cataclysmic warming. "They just don't want to talk about the science," said Inhofe. "They don't want to listen. They were Zombies" -- unlike "real people in the U.S." Those Americans, said Inhofe, "we are turning around" with the recent research. Some members of the delegation have been as forceful as Inhofe on the subject of climate-change science. For example, in 1998, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Sen. Larry Craig said, "As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself [i.e., Al Gore] is caught up in making."
The talk of the conference has been Russia. Will the Russians ratify Kyoto? The treaty requires the votes of nations producing 55 percent of all emissions from developed countries. Currently, the tally is 44 percent, so the Russians, with 17 percent, hold the key. Inhofe says that some Russians see negotiations on ratification "as a way to make some money. They want to see how big the bribe will be." But, in the end, he thinks the Russians will reject Kyoto, for reasons of science and economics, just as Bush rejected it as shortly after his inauguration.
"I'm proud of Putin for having the courage to look at the science," said Inhofe, referring to the Russian president. "In this environment, it takes courage." Inhofe also agrees with the assessment that this has been a particularly depressing conference for the Greens. The plenary sessions are only about half-full, and "there was no enthusiasm in the room." Meanwhile, Inhofe points out, the United States is shelling out $4.7 million, footing the bill for about one-fourth of the cost of the U.N.'s extravaganza. But the price may be worthwhile, if only because Inhofe is getting his message out. He's teaching the value of straight talking to the Europeans and the Green NGO officials who, for a long time now, have assumed they can set the world's agenda. This year, with Kyoto on its deathbed, they're learning otherwise. It's delightful to see.