Global Warming VS Global Cooling and Greenpeace
 

Who recalls back in the 70's when it was global cooling and the ice age was coming. Oh no, the ice age, it's man's fault. And evil capitalist. BOOO. Save the environment. Anti-establishment. YEAH for Socialism!!!

:down: Please. Does anyone remember global cooling? The same guys who founded earth day started that in the seventies and changed from global cooling to global warming, it's political.

And we're told that all sciencetist support it. Which is a lie, becuase a lot don't and have various opinions, just like evolution, there are those who think its defunked. But no, go against us and our ways and we'll scream and yell until you just ACCEPT IT, you have no right to go against the masses of socialism.

Ok, since there are a lot of UK users here, unleash your eco-friendly capt planet ideas.

Ever wonder why the guy who founded green peace left his own organization?

If you watch the incremental truth it explains alot n stuff :)

Well

Electric cars suck.. They are bringing out an electric Subru Impretza.... top speed 80mph.. for a subru!!

...


However i did buy a lamp for my office desk so i dont need the lights on at night.. thats my fair share :p

[high]* Shazz watches a hurricane own Distance :D[/high]

I am glad it will be over with.Life sux anyways.You know who god is?You pray for something everyday.He is the one who ignores it

Last time I looked there was no public road where it was legal to run that fast (at least in the states). 80mph is fine for most people.

However moving your power source 'over to the grid' isn't the answer either.

He's not ignoring you, he's using 'tough love'. God gave us mother earth...I think that's more than enough giving for anyone. :)

Mother earth we dumped it anyways

Exactly!! Everyone thinks that electric cars are the answer.. well what powers them.. electric.. and how to we get electric... By power plants / burning fossil fuels

Also 70mph is the speed limit.. But when you are driving a 3l Sports beemer.. who cares :p

As long as you can drive safe and you know where the cammeras are theres no worries

part of me can't belive that's your actual argument. :rolleyes:

There is a reason ELECTRIC cars won't happen. Becuase you plug them in. Anywhere. For cheap.

HYDROGEN, the NEWEST SCAM, will require refueling stations. Which equals DOLLARS. FAR MORE DOLLARS then ELECTRIC cars.

BTW, this is all about money, remember R-12 the stuff in your car, DUPONT owned the patent on R12 and when there was 7 years left, they funded to have it deemed unsafe. And congress passed a bill banning it and replacing it with RU134A which it just happens DUPONT owns that patent, and today, they are funding to have RU134A removed and replaced with a new product of theirs.

Why would you think like that? Has your depression done anything for you?

Life is freaking awesome, and God is 10x more awesome. I lived my life without him, money, cars, girls, sex with tons and tons of girls, drugs, more money and more cars.

Left me empty.

Life with God is better and the girls are better to. PERIOD.

The hydrogen engines that are being tested convert water for use so the only fueling station needed would be a garden hose.

This is not true. The scientific consensus is that global warming is induitably happening -- and more, that human activities are adding to it.
Suuuuuuuuure, if you dig hard enough you will find someone to disagree; so what? There are "scientists" who STILL disagree that AIDS is caused by HIV. So the big what? The scientific consensus is that it has been proved beyond all doubt that AIDS is caused by HIV.
Puhleeeze, caring rationally about your enviroment does not equal "socialism".

This is a classic example of poising the well. The church once said that the Earth was the centre of the universe, so I'm no longer going to believe anything the church says. :o

Climate change is an enivronmental issue. A person's political views should play no part in assessing the information presented.

You're repeating yourself. Simply stating the same thing twice but with slightly different wording does not make a point any more valid.

The term you want to use is climatologists. Otherwise, Tim Skellett has adressed this issue.

You have every right to disagree, although your argument would be somewhat more convincing if you presented some facts to support your decision.

Ad hominem isn't an argument. Geographical location in no way affects a person's ability to assess facts and reach their own conclusions.

Useful as triva, but one person's views doesn't disprove climate change.

You can obtain electricity from many sources, which includes renewables such as solar/wind/hydro. The source of the electricity is important in determining the "greeness", however it is simply false to state that all electricity comes from the burning of fossil fuels.


-----

So far I have not seen a single fact presented against climate change in this thread.

Anyone with a bible knows that world was never the center. Thats a good example of the masses following a few peoples suggestions rather than actually looking things up on their own.

Thats a nice statement, but it isn't true. A lot of people do things and base their views on politics. The left is behind this, the right is behind that, bla bla bla. A large majority of environmentalist are considered to be anarchist and anti-establishment.



And again, I disagree with both of you.

Likewise, please do.


Heres a thought, are you a climatologists? I'm not. And how do we know we aren't being lied to by people with an agenda? You said earlier that the church said the sun revolved around the earth. Just food for thought. You can only asses what your presented, fact and truth are not always the same.

No I was using that to point out the fact that a lot of these groups are politically motivated. Thats why he left greenpeace, he found that people with an agenda were taking over his organization and didn't really care about the things he originally started the group for.

Less to do with Climate change and more to do with people pushing an agenda.

True, Nuclear for example is mostly steam power from a fission reaction.


I have not seen a single fact supporting it. This was to debate the validity of it, and mostly becuase I wanted to see people like you start commenting. I really dont' care about the comments of people who agree with me, it was the other side of the table I was looking for.


Actually Tim, the consensus is not what you just said, it's evenly split, stop getting your facts from the media. If we both started google searching we could both come up with lots of opinions and thoughts from both sides and facts.

You are basing everything on the belief that some people have no reason to lie to us.

Pardon me, I honestly do not want to be offensive, but you are completely and utterly wrong on two counts.

1) It is not "evenly split" whatsoever. As said, the scientific consensus, by a huge majority, is that global warming is most certainly happening; the only real controversy left is how much human activities cause and/or add to it, and even that issue is not so big any longer.

2) I was in science (albeit not climatology) till I had to go into semi-retirement. I'm quite capable of looking up the genuine science sources, and I do. That's where I check my facts. I can name sources for climatology science and global warming if you like.

Now how about you? You have not given one single fact yet; it's never to late to start.

Give me some sources and facts. And again, I disagree. And Fact on the consensus, I'm debating that statement first.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church certainly disagreed with Galileo's views on the earth revolving around the sun. However, furthur discussion on this point will divert away from the principle purpose of this thread. It was initally raised to say that if you wish to discredit something, then do so against the actual argument being presented, not a different one present several years previous.

I stated a person's view should not influence their view on climate change, not that it did not. Stating that it is a socalist agenda is not an substantial argument. A large majority of environmentalists are considered anarchists, in your opinion. Even if it was a fact that they were anarchists and anti-establishment then this still would not detract from the facts surrounding climate change.


What are you disagreeing with? Neither of us claimed all climatologists supported climate change, that was a claim you made and then knocked down.

There is plenty of evidence to support climate change, of which I will have no problem in providing. However, given that it was you who created this thread in an attempt to discredit it, I feel it is only appropriate that you first support your position, so that a counter argument to your claims can be provided.

I'm not a climatologist, no, although I have studied climate change and the environment for about two years now as part of my university course - my knowledge is by no means complete but I would say it is reasonable. May I enquire as to your knowlege on the subject? You argue that people supporting climate change could have an agenda, yes they could, as could people who do not support it. If you would like to present such agendas I would be willing to discuss them.

A business that pollutes massses of greenhouses gases could also have politcal agendas. If climate change is bogus then you need not rely on speculating as to people motives, you could prove the argument at hand wrong, not attack the people presenting it.


You have seen no evidence for climate change? Are you joking? Or did you mean to say you feel man has no role to play in it?

You yourself have given so far zero facts and sources for all your claims.
Dsagree then with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme.

Or disagree with the USA National Academy of Sciences.

Or disagree with the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), all of whom explicitly acknowledge that global warming is taking place.

Here is a paper on the actual scientific consensus, which gives the facts by analysing scientific abstracts in the ISI database on the global warming debate. It finds the scientific consensus overwhelmingly acknowledging that global warming is taking place.

Sorry PennylessZ28, but by now it's clear that short-sighted, profit/power-motivated, me-first behaviors and attitudes are having a very negative impact on our world. Global warming is real. Nor is it the only serious problem we're causing.

So you think that everyone concerned with global warming has an agenda? You're probably right. I freely admit that I have an agenda. I'm concerned about the world my grandchildren will grow up in. I'm concerned about shifting, unstable weather patterns and the impact that will have on food sources. Unstable weather patterns can dramatically increase or decrease rain levels, and even temperatures. Global warming won't prevent an area used to warm weather from suffering freezing temperatures if winds that had always come up from the south suddenly start coming down from the north for example.

I'm concerned about storms increasing in severity, the migration of dangerous southern insects northward, melting ice caps, rising seas decreasing the amount of land available, and yes, the impact on wildlife. We're close to losing the polar bear for starters.

That's very different from the agenda of someone whose profits are impacted by global warming concerns. People who are concerned about global warming don't stand to make a lot of money on trying to stop or at least mitigate it. People who claim it isn't for real are those who profit from fossil fuels or other contributing factors, the 'scientists' they bought, and the fools who believe their rhetoric. In the case of the first two, money is the factor. The fools are swayed by fear, mis-information, need of a sense of security even if false, and/or justification of their own excesses. Some religious leaders have taken advantage of this. From much of what you've said, I suspect you've fallen for one of these.

Diane

actually you have to dig harder to find those who do believe in this nonsense...unless you are at the UN and we ALL know the UN never screws up :rolleyes: ...oh, and maybe Ted Dansen who swore the oceans would be dead in 10 years (this was 20 years ago he made this prediction) lol.

Finally I will say that practically all learned climatologists will tell you that any warming occurring of any significance is related to changes in the sun...not anything man is doing. These are just socialistic scare tactics aimed at undermining the free market economy and capitalism.

You need to get on the right track buddy :) I am not going to get all opinionated here, but get on the right track. Life is better on the other side ;)

very true!

I guess you missed my post above. It wasn't so hard to find out that those specifically acknowledging that global warming is happening include the USA National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Read just above, will you? I put certain words in bolding to help out.
First you claim it's all nonsense, now you claim it's because of "changes in the sun".
You are contradicting yourself.
Next: The amount that is due to natural Earth cycles, that due to human activities, and that due to solar cycles is debated, but what is quite generally accepted by climatologists is that human activities certainly add to what's happening.

The earth has been going through extreme climate changes for billions of years. Human contribution doesn't help neither does a thousand other factors which haven't been mentioned in this thread.

The earth was signifcantly warmer 100-200 million years ago. Who do we blame for this? The dinosaurs? :D

Obviously there is climatic change, there always has been, always will be.
To say man has a significant impact on it shows a lot of arrogance on man's part.
A single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man does in an entire year.

You could also say that at one point the Earth was a molten sphere, and one day it will be engulfed by solar breakdown, and one day it will be a frozen sphere.
None of that really tackles the point, does it? The point is that global climate change is affecting us now, and will do so much more soon, and most of the ways it affects us are and/or wil be negative.

You don't try shrugging off disasterous droughts by saying droughts have happened before.

You don't ignore hurricane warnings because much worse hurricanes happened 100 million years ago, do you?

It really makes no sense at all to shrug off global warming simply because say for example the Earth was hotter 200 million years ago, just as you don't shrug off a mugger in a dark alley threatening you just because the crime rates in Rio 10 years ago were far worse.
Most scientists working in climatology would disagree with you.

Obviously there have always been hurricanes and always will be. That does not excuse ignoring hurricane warnings; nor does it excuse you from looking at anything you do that exacerbates hurricane damage.
Not true. It can be simple, sober, scientific analysis.
Not true; the volcanic eruption has to be above a certain size to do that.

Into addition, we simply don't have such large volcanic eruptions happening every year (thank heavens), and if we pump greenhouse gases into the atmoshere in high enough quantities to have a significant effect, then we are adding to the problem.

Adding to a problem is never a good idea.

Your arguments just don't hold water, most of them are blatantly incorrect.
There are volcanic eruptions of sufficient magnitude to carry particulate into the troposphere EVERY YEAR, in many years multiple occurrences.

Investigating climate conditions from the past does indeed have bearing on the present, and you don't have to look back 200 million years for examples.
The last major global warming was during the 1600's, when the mean temp of the earth was a full 4 degrees Celcius warmer than it is today. This era is commonly called "The Golden Age of the Renaissance". Economic and agricultural prosperity abounded at the time, greatly attributable to the effect of the warmer temperatures on crops, international commerce and exploration, and milder living conditions for the populations.

This is not speculation, it is fact.

The allegories you use as comparisons are ridiculous. You can't stop droughts, hurricanes, or climate change. The most you can do is prepare to survive them.
You could stop a mugger of course, but that hardly has global impact.

The very papers submitted by the organizations you reference as the authority on global warming have been refuted by the same scientists who supposedly endorse them.
In fact these same scientists point out that they didn't even see these findings they supposedly endorse until after they were published.

A recent study shows that if mankind gave up all industry and parked every car in the world, today, it would take more than three hundred years for there to be an observable variance in greenhouse gases. That's because mankind contributes less than 3% to greenhouse gas accumulation.

Stop the fear mongering.

Don't be silly. There is a scientific debate going on on the subject; there is a real problem to be tackled. Just what that problem is comprised of is open to debate; the fact that the problem exists is a fact. Acknowledging that a problem exists is not "fear mongering"; that's just name-calling.
That still does NOT mean they outweigh every year the effects of greenhouse gases pumped by manmade activities into the atmosphere. That is the point. Nor does it obviate the need not to add to the problem.
Of course it does. That's how scientists determined that global warming was happening in the first place. But it's no excuse for evading the problem, which was the point I made.
Actually, the climate change at that time was far more varied than you think. I'll be happy to dig out a full description of changes during that time, including negative ones.
You're not getting the point I made.
The point was, if you have a problem, you deal with it. And you don't make the problem worse.
Really? Please give me the exact scientific paper citations to back up that claim of yours. Because I don't buy that one at all.

Exactly how many household appliances have you got switched on including your computer and all the extra gadgets that's contributing to this "If you have a problem, you deal with it (which I get so far) And you don't make the problem worse (which I don't quite get).

Is that making iit better? :D

The point you are trying to make (Tim), is the error itself. A problem does not exist, climate change is a natural phenomena, with man's impact accounting for slightly over 1/4 of 1%.

That is why I say stop the fear mongering. Trumpeting over and over that the sky is falling, doesn't make it so. Constantly referencing an alleged consensus of scientists, when in fact none exists, does not prove your point.

Tim has mentioned the recent IPPC report, complied by hundreds of scientists, from all over the world, which recieved acceptance from the global community and has also provided numerous America scientific bodies who also support such a position. If you wish to argue against the statements within the report, or present a similar but opposing report from scientific bodies please now do so. Please also refer to scientific bodies or reports, not internet articels written by journalists.

Climate change is a natural occurance, no one said it wasn't. What is not natural is the rate at which the change is happening.

1. Greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, basically trap heat within the atmosphere, making it warmer.

Carbon dioxide.
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/4901/co2fz2.jpg

Methane.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7121/methanexs1.jpg

Nitrous oxide.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3...usoxidefa5.jpg


There are of course the natural effects (such as volcanoes, as mentioned) which one must consider.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/373...echangenb7.jpg

If you're asking my personal details, my house is wired for maximum energy saving. It's also renovated widely to save energy. All appliances in my house conform to the most recent standards for energy-saving. Fairly soon I will also have a solar-cell covered roof on the large roof of the ex-factory building I also own next to my house.
No, that's wrong. Ask the inhabitants of low-lying Pacific island nations about the rising sea levels owing to global warming; they will point out exactly what the problem is. Ask about increasing catastrophic long-duration droughts in Australia. Ask by how much average temperatures will increase in the southern USA and in southern Europe, and how much average rainfall will decrease. Ask about the spread of tropical diseases up north, in the USA and in Europe.
There is a very real problem going on; denying it doesn't cure it.
As for your claim about the proportion of global warming that is owing to manmade activities, I don't buy that one at all either, for good reasons. Do you have any scientific citation for your claim?
Nonsense. "Alleged"? Puh-leeze, I gave the exact citation, so you could actually look at it. Perhaps you would actually look at the evidence given here, which proved an actual scientific consensus, and if you wish to debate, give actual evidence in reply, instead of throwing around empty accusations like "fear-mongering".

You again miss the point. Nobody is saying global warming does not exist. That's your consensus in a nutshell. What is nowhere near consensus is WHY.
The IPCC Summary you keep referencing as proof is a flawed document. The summary does not reflect the actual report.
It is not nearly as easy to present the dissenting view as it is not as neatly packaged as the reader's digest version you submit as "proof", but you asked for it, so I will oblige.

Prepare for a lot of reading.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/.../reg15n2g.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4870
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Li...g_31Jan07.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL028492.shtml

That should hold you for a few minutes anyway, assuming you do bother to read any of it.

It is also important to note that the so-called “Skeptics” include Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard; Claude Allegre, one of the most decorated French geophysicists; Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia: Dr. Fred Singer; Professor Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Australia;

85 scientists and climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzeg Declaration which called drastic climate controls “ill-advised, lacking credible support from the underlying science;

17,000 scientists and leaders involved in climate study who signed a petition issued by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying there is no evidence green house gasses cause global warming;

and the 4,000 scientists and leaders from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal calling greenhouse global warming theories “highly uncertain scientific theories.”

There simply is no consensus, nor massive cause for alarm. You may be able to cram this down the throats of Joe Sixpack who gets his world view from "The Fair and Balanced Reporting" of Fox News, but people who actually analyze the data and think for themselves can't be so easily swayed.

BTW, I do appreciate that this discussion has remained civil throughout, and hope it continues to be so as I doubt it will be allowed to continue if it becomes too heated.

Wrong again. Go back and read just the OP; it certainly seems to deny any such thing happening.
Oh please. Either produce exact quotes and evidence, or stop with empty claims already.
I'm glad to see you producing some evidence, though I am quite amused to see the Cato Institute being implied to be an authority on climatology there. :D
Since I have been the one so far to produce any evidence at all, maybe you could just answer points directly instead of making unasked-for comments about what I may not read.
You claimed this before, it simply isn't true. Later when I have more time, I will be going right through what you've finally cited, but I will remind you of your claim before -- you claimed that the same scientists who had endorsed the report that I cited had disavowed it. You have produced so far zero but zero evidence for that claim.
Perhaps less emotional accusations of "fear mongering" would help that cause. Or comments about what I may not read. Cheers.

Whether there is a scientific consenus or not, is, to a large extent, irrelevant - and not a point I have argued. If the majority of the world though that it was flat it wouldn't make it true. Raise points about the evidence you disagree with.

Your first link, dated '92, says it feels the worst case scenrios are unlikely. It mentions that man made greenhouse gases account for a small percent of total greenhouse gases but says nothing on how changing this affects nature's balance. The last bit is about scientific consensus, which I've already addressed.

Your second link, from what I gather, is someone who supports global warming. He says that someone missed used his work, by edited out some lines on a graph, in an attempt to discredit it. He says sceptics are useful as they make people search for the answers to the questions and he feels that in time the questions will be answered.

Your third link, seems to suggest man contribution to CO2 is largely insignificant. I would disagree with this, seeing as in 650,000 years CO2 ppm never exceeded 300.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2007/02/4.gif

I don't buy that massive increase in natural. Furthermore, it argues that water vapour is more important but also fails to adress the effect the other greenhouse gases have on water vapour. The latter half talks about Kyoto Protocol not being the best way to tackle the problem, which doesn't mean there isn't one.

Your fourth link, written by a journalist with no argue of substance.

Your fifth link, argues that because CO2 is responsible for warming holding it steady will result in a drop in temperature. However, the point is that CO2 levels are not steady, and with China opening up a new coal plant everyday, or something ridiculous, there is no sign that it's going to be a problem. Also, it doesn't deny current warming, and how such current warming could result in the release of more CO2 from natural sources, such as the oceans. It also fails to mention any greenhouse gases other than CO2. I only read the summary and introduction, however.

Your sixth link, talks about thermohaline circulation, saying it feels it is unlikely that global warming (which it didn't deny) would be unlikely to result in th shutting down of the Gulf Stream - which would actually result in localised cooling for parts of Europe. The Gulf Stream has shut down before, when glaciers from north America melted and flooded the stream with massive amounts of freshwater, this resulted in a mini ice age for Europe. The concern this time round is with Greenland, and the effect it's glaciers melting could have on the stream. The research into this is as of yet inconclusive and it is only preposed as a possiblity.

Your seventh link, talks about sea levels. Given the industrial revolution has been for over 200 years I would have prefered to see sea levels of longer than just 100. However, it says that the sea levels have indeed been rising. Furthermore, it mentions nothing of what continual rises in temperature would do, particularly on the effects of land glaciers melting, or the density of water changing due to temperature change. Also, rising sea levels is just one possible effect of climate change.

EDIT:

In future could you please post specific things you disagree with and why you disagree with them. Posting a list of sites to read isn't really a debate as such, and is very timely to go through it all and pick out points that you are trying to present as your disagreement.

For the sake of this bit - lets assume the following.

1) Global Warming is real - undeniable - man is responsible.


Don't care if you think it is or not - for the next bit - you do.


Now lets consider somethings

1) Its estimated at the current rates or use, and growth in use - if this trend did not evern stop until the last drop of oil was out of the ground ... we have between 40 and 50 years left. The only thing that would probably be wrong with the estimation is that the growth in use is going to grow even faster as China, India, etc catch up with the West.

Good balanced reference - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...shortage_x.htm


2) Regardless of the exact time frame of the amount of oil left - its clear that we are not talking a long period of time. Being that when Americans panic - the world comes along fro the ride - when Prudhoe Bay goes belly up - oil is going to spike in a big way. Thats in the next few years.

Another reference - accounting for both 1 and 2. http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...on-prudhoe/254

3) No reference here - just common sense. Somewhere between now - and when we would run out of oil - oil will no longer be economically viable for the use as it is now. I would guess it to be somewhere around when we have about 20 years supply left.

Natural supply and demand is the second and obvious reason. (first is in #2) Demand will far exceed supply.

Oil prices will soar - and I really do believe - soar to heights we can not even imagine. You have many products that are dependent on oil as an ingredient - products that can absorb a much higher cost of oil than day to day use can. That is the third reason.

Governments will begin stockpilling it in amounts that dwarf what we see today. There is no military in the world that can take a chance with being in a war 40 years later and having nothing to fill the tanks of their fighters. Thats reason number four.

Reason number five - is completely artificial. That being short term investors competing with long term corporation investment. The short term being obviously the buy/sell now type - the long term looking at 50, 100, and even longer style of investments. As it becomes more and more of an expensive, very limited commodity - you are going to see more and more of it bought and stuck in private holding tanks - to sit - and wait. Doesnt cost that much money to dig a hole - throw some storage in - and put a parking lot on top of it.


... ok - so we got maybe 20-25 years of oil under 10 dollars US a gallon left. If we are lucky.


Ok - now lets take that info and think about it.

Just to throw out a common link - but good enough for here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

You can also just search on the net and find more references that back up this next part than you could ever read.


... so here it is.

Nothing that has been agreed to or proposed and is being seriously considered has any real effect on Greenhouse gases or otherwise.

The amount of effect that they have is completely offset by the fact that over 1/2 of the worlds emmissions come from exempt countries... and including countries like the US that are not on board with the latest things like Kyoto - thats nearly 75% of the worlds Greenhouse gases.


So - now lets throw in the last bit on this.

I have seen that for the low low cost of only 1% of the Worlds GDP - we can implement all these ideas and suggestions that will have very little effect overall on the issuue.

Thats it just 1 penny on the dollar. Not a bad price you have to admit.



That leaves us with two options as I see it.


A) Find someone that is going to fork over 450 Billion bucks so we can do a good deed - pat ourselves on the back - we saved the world... and then even pat ourselves in harder on the back because --- -see - nobody uses Oil anymore --- since its 59.99 a gallon at the local Esso (I figure that in 20 to 30 years Esso will be listing its prices in dollars :) )

or

B) Do nothing - and still run out of Oil - and still be forced into another fuel source. The do nothing plan effects nothing in terms of our Greenhouse gases we release - because nothing proposed, agreed to - or otherwise does anything like that anyway - and it has the one advantage of we do not need Santa to show up with 450 Billion bucks.



....... Personally - I will take plan B.


(oh - coal power plants.... as soon as many of the same environmental groups that are screaming about Global Warming stop doing everything in their power to prevent the construction of Nuclear Power Plants.... this will be a non issue and take care of itself)

.. and damnit - I was just looking for something else - completley unrelated - how the heck did I just send up writing a post for an hour here on this :(

Has anyone actually got any knowledge of what subject this is about?

Global warming is a natural process - All we are doing is accelerating it by a few hundred years... I agree that's wrong but there is so much hype over something that is going to happen anyway...

Chris

Chris, the main reason behind the hype, and the UN has already stated it, is to create a global carbon tax, to fund more bullshit by power elite. They feed off everyones normal and understandable fears and interested in wanting to take care of the planet.

These same people, want to TAX everyone in the world, and punish you for having more then two children, (part of a depopulation agenda by the UN), taxing the world will mostly burden third world countries and prevent them from raising up out of poverty. Name one place the UN has been, where it's actually gotten better? Anyone? They invent a problem, wait for you reaction, then create a solution (the Solution is always more government btw) And yes its natural, as temperatures have been raising on all the planets. And when they reverse, they'll be able to go, look it's working, we were right.

EVIL, hiding behind the guise of world peace and unity. I love it.