Do you believe in man-made global warming?

[FoMoJo]

10,000 years ago the Earth was in the midst of its latest ice age. Continental ice shelves covered much of the upper latitudes.

Obviously we've been warming ever since.

That is not the argument.  Even the most obtuse of us are aware of the natural cycles which effect the global temperatures.  The argument is whether man's activities are increasing the effect and whether it may tip the balance.

[Tave]

Balance of what?

My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?

We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."

Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.

Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?

[giant_mtb]

Balance of what?

My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?

We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."

Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.

Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?

No.  It's too complicated for your logical mind to comprehend.  Just listen to me.  The earth is warming and you must live sparsely in order to stop it from warming.  Do you really want your state to turn into what Florida is today?  Warm and sunny?  No, no you don't want that.  Nobody wants warm and sunny.  Listen to me, obey, and give me money.

[FoMoJo]

Balance of what?

GHG sinks and sources .

Although a bit unconventional regarding GW studies, this article concerning The full greenhouse gas balance of an abandoned peat meadow gives an indication of what balance I was referring to.  As it appears to be an actual scientific paper , perhaps 565 may need to tell us what it is saying.

My comment was in response to the articles concerning the ice shelves. Shouldn't they be retreating?

Of course they should. 

We have people on one side yelling, "a massive ice chunk just broke off of Western Antarctica," and then the other side responds, "Eastern Antarctica just experienced record snow falls."

Forget all that for a moment. Forget Greenland and the Arctic Sea.

Shouldn't the polar ice caps be shrinking, per the geological record?

However, are they retreating faster because of man's various activities which produce GG beyond that which naturally occur?  That is the argument.

I'm not saying that it's conclusive one way or the other but I believe the research is important in order to identify whether and which of man's actions cause a detrimental effect to the earth's environment.  Many activities in the past which were argued as being harmless have, in fact, harmed the environment.  Perhaps some don't care and are willing to let the next generation deal with our left over garbage but that's a different argument.

[Sigma Projects]

Many activities in the past which were argued as being harmless have, in fact, harmed the environment.  Perhaps some don't care and are willing to let the next generation deal with our left over garbage but that's a different argument.

Couldn't have said it better myself. No one likes to play it safe...

[Catman]

It's looking more and more as if the Global Warming people are wrong and they don't like to answer questions.  I think the point at the end of this video is probably the most important one we should all listen too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-fzVH6v_U

[GoCougs]

I still think they don't like to answer questions because to the GWist it's challenging their god and otherwise a foregone conclusion that it is truth.

Imagine challenging the Christian god circa 1540 on the floor of St. Peter's Basilica. Yeah, not going to get anywhere.

But then again, even if proven to be slightly, somewhat or entirely true, the end result game must be the same - get government out of it and let people and corporations decide.

[giant_mtb]

Since when does modern science care about religion? 

[hotrodalex]

Since when does modern science care about religion? 

Cougs is saying that global warming is the "religion" of the GW activists.

[Onslaught]

But then again, even if proven to be slightly, somewhat or entirely true, the end result game must be the same - get government out of it and let people and corporations decide.

Those are the only ones that would call the shots. And it would be all about the dollar and nothing else. I trust Government more than Corporations. But that's not saying much.

[TBR]

Those are the only ones that would call the shots. And it would be all about the dollar and nothing else. I trust Government more than Corporations. But that's not saying much.

Corporations are run by people and sell their goods to people. If people demand eco-friendly products, corporations will make it happen. In fact, it's already happening.

[Onslaught]

Corporations are run by people and sell their goods to people. If people demand eco-friendly products, corporations will make it happen. In fact, it's already happening.

Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.

[Rupert]

And still do. It's just that things like the federal government give them fewer chances than before.

[Onslaught]

And still do. It's just that things like the federal government give them fewer chances than before.

Evil old government not letting them dump into rivers and fill the sky with shit.

[TBR]

Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.

Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.

But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.

[Onslaught]

Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.

But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.

I know. But I think he'd like for them to be free to do whatever.

And someone would have to know before the PR got bad.

[Rupert]

Not if the bad PR costs them more than the dumping saves.

But, I actually support that kind of anti-pollution regulation, but we're talking about CO2 here.

Bad PR either won't cost more than illegal pollution saves, or will be unknown without the fed/state there to know about it for most cases.

[Sigma Projects]

but we're talking about CO2 here.

I don't feel like going through all the pages, but I'm pretty sure it's not just about CO2, just like it's not just about deforestation or just highly polluting factories or just about anything, i figure it's a ton of things that are contributing to a gradual change in climate. But we're humans we'll fix whatever problem comes are way, but only when it comes. We're too preoccupied with the now to deal with the then.

[SVT666]

I don't feel like going through all the pages, but I'm pretty sure it's not just about CO2, just like it's not just about deforestation or just highly polluting factories or just about anything, i figure it's a ton of things that are contributing to a gradual change in climate. But we're humans we'll fix whatever problem comes are way, but only when it comes. We're too preoccupied with the now to deal with the then.

Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?

[NomisR]

Corporations would pollute every chance they had to save a dollar. They have in the past and would do it again.

Cost benefit analysis.  Not always. 

If pollution should come at a greater cost in the future to their bottom line and hurts their image, a corporation would not choose that route. 

Of course, if the cost reduction and profit from pollution outweighs the cost for pollution, the corporation "may" choose pollution. 

It's not always clear cut black and white as big brother would like to have people believe.

[NomisR]

Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?

Arrogance..

I think we have a better chance of lowing the tempurate by painting all our tarmac white than reducing carbon emission. 

[Raza]

Arrogance..

I think we have a better chance of lowing the tempurate by painting all our tarmac white than reducing carbon emission. 

Let's do it!

[Onslaught]

Are we arrogant enough to believe we should change the climate, or are we arrogant enough to believe we can?

It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.

[giant_mtb]

Cougs is saying that global warming is the "religion" of the GW activists.

Oh.

[NomisR]

It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.

Oh, you can really fuck it up.. for sure.. but carbon isn't one of them when our contribution to it is so minute compared to what nature emits.  Again, our paving the world over with tarmac and covering it with steel and concrete would create more of a warming than carbon would. 

I would contribute my part in "being green" but the way they're going about it is destructive and non-productive. 

[Onslaught]

Oh, you can really fuck it up.. for sure.. but carbon isn't one of them when our contribution to it is so minute compared to what nature emits.  Again, our paving the world over with tarmac and covering it with steel and concrete would create more of a warming than carbon would. 

I would contribute my part in "being green" but the way they're going about it is destructive and non-productive. 

I'm not a scientist. But wouldn't cutting down all those trees and grass and green shit to pave the world kind of affect the c02 levels? More gas going into the air and less shit around to breath it in naturally would seem to be a problem to me. Throwing off the way things have been in the world for a rather long time. But like I said, I'm no scientist.

[NomisR]

I'm not a scientist. But wouldn't cutting down all those trees and grass and green shit to pave the world kind of affect the c02 levels? More gas going into the air and less shit around to breath it in naturally would seem to be a problem to me. Throwing off the way things have been in the world for a rather long time. But like I said, I'm no scientist.

Yes, exactly!  I would support planting more trees, more reponsible logging than what they're planning because the other stuff you KNOW will do something.  Just reducing "carbon" may do little to nothing.  Plus, at least trees will reduce carbon dioxide which is a win win situation in this case.  But they seem to be more hell bent on destroying civilization.

[SVT666]

It's not arrogance. I'm not sure if it's true or not in the end. But I think someone is dumb if they think people can't fuck the world up. The earth ain't that big.

Actually it's total arrogance.  Sure we can fuck up drinking water and air quality, but pollution and global warming are two different things.  It's total arrogance to think that we can change the climate.

[93JC]

I think it's silly to presume climate is static.

And whatever happens, Earth will go on. On an evolutionary scale we, humanity, are a fart in the wind.

[NomisR]

I just farted in your direction, you shall smell it in a few days