Good thing republicans laughed at Al Gore instead of doing positive things. humanity does not deserve a place in the universe.

george pauljohn

Good thing republicans laughed at Al Gore instead of doing positive things.

Yeah, had they jumped on his bandwagon, THEY would be making the millions he is trading "carbon credits".

The below is from NOAA and can be located here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html

What is the cause of glacial-interglacial cycles?

Variations in the Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth in each season (Figure 3). Interglacial periods, shown as the periods of higher temperature (shaded in yellow) in the Dome Fuji ice core from Antarctica, tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial-interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 1.8 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial-interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years. In the solar radiation time-series, cycles of this length (known as "eccentricity") are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years, (which are called "precession of the equinoxes.")

For all man claims to know, we really know very little about this piece of space flotsam called Earth. We've made a great deal of assumptions, but you know what they say about assuming. They DO know there is a great deal of gasses captured in that ice that melts by the way, and when it melts, guess what.... it gets released.

Just when we need a vibrant economy to survive economic collapse now this.

They DO know there is a great deal of gasses captured in that ice that melts by the way, and when it melts, guess what.... it gets released.

Not half as bad as the dissolved CO2 in the oceans. As oceans warm the dissolved gas will escape.

You can do this experiment at home. Get two bottles of soda and open them both to release the gas that's built up. Put one in the fridge and one at room temperature. Come back in a day. See which one is under more pressure.

Where do these anthropogenic climate change denying dummies above come from? Oh wait, the American heartland.

Uh oh..... the fossil fuel industry (led by the GOP) will now have to find a scientist and pay him to refute these findings. Romney.. looking for a job?? Here you go!

AB-1981

Where is anyone denying climate change. I entirely and wholeheartedly agree that we are experiencing climate change. I only question the theoretical causes being espoused by Al Gore and those of his ilk.

Please explain to me if climate change is in fact due to the human species and what they do/don't do on the surface of this planet, what was the causation before "man" walked the earth?

I will admit that I would like to see less pollution, but until we decrease the population of our species on the earth, humans will still breath and use resources. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

When are people going to understand that all this climate change is BS as far as controlling it is concerned. The world may be warming but these clowns in gov't only see $ to be made. They could care less about us they only see us as cash cows to reap the benefits. One world leader actually said the only way to cure global poverty is with a carbon tax. These people are parasites and will continue to suck us dry until we are dead. Yet paople still believe they have our best interests at heart, they don't. Resist their BS as much as possible, if not for yourselves but for your children and grandchildren.

But the USA has already reduced its output of CO2 quite a bit because of the recession and the switch to cheap natural gas to generate electricity. When the UN can convince China or India to even stabilize the rate of increase much less reduce it then maybe other countries will have a reason to listen.

When you have the very liberal eruopean countries telling the UN they are out of their mind at the last conference not much is going to happen. Since when does taking money from the first world countries to build power plants in third world countries so they stop burning the rain forest become a environmental issue. Whats next have to give them a house to connect the electrical service to also.

ItsAboutTime-3704531

You must be very jealous of Romney. You cash your welfare check while Romney receives more in dividends every month than you receive in a year. The intelligence of the man and his ability to make money must really annoy you.

Oh... would you care to mention the billions of STIMULUS dollars Obama provided to a Brazillian company to do deep water drilling for OIL off the Brazillian coast, and so that America would be a great customer to buy the oil we paid to drill for. Yeah, you gotta love that logic.

I see the UN has picked another unverifiable number out of their corrupt asses. As if anyone, except the terminally stupid leftwing environmental wackos, believe anything that eminates from that den of thieves and murderers. That useless collection of human waste should be disbanded and eliminated.

George....you sit on your butt and slam the repubs about global warming while typing on your computer which is connected to a server which is run by a company or two and all built from mining minerals.....AND support a clown who is the mother of all hypocrites regarding energy use. LMAO!

9mmdude,

There are climate scientists all over the world saying the same thing. Most of who could give a schittt less about anything Al Gore said or did.

It is amazing to see how directly correlated ignorance and righteousness are. Climate change deniers are the new breed of holocaust deniers: Abject, willful ignorance in the face of all available evidence to the contrary. So much for personal responsibility.

LMAO. Humans are so egocentric. Greenhouse gases have been many times higher than now. They would have to work for a thousand years to get them to any where near record.

What's Obama's answer to this? Let's build more roads for more cars. Should be building more buses and trains and restrict cars if all this political agenda science is actually true.

Oh, but if you build fewer cars and roads there are fewer jobs for Obama's union buddys. Can't have that can we? So, on with the hypocrisy.

"The three gases are closely linked to human activities such as fossil fuel use, deforestation and intensive agriculture."

So what's the immediate solution here? For every man, woman, and child to lock and load and at the count of three by the UN everyone on earth blows their brains out? Or how about another Jim Jones escapade on a world wide basis, overseen by the UN, of course. TO HELL WITH THE UN!!!!! GET AMERICA OUT OF THE UN NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks midnightgoober, your ignorance is exceeded only by anyone who agrees with you. The report mentioned above is co-authored by Richard Aronson who is probably more American than you. The good thing about science is that physical reality is always true, whether or not you choose to believe it. Thanks for playing!

The science behind global warming is very simple and has been known for over 100 years (Arrhenius first wrote of it in the 1890s). It makes no difference that warming occurred before, or there can be natural causes to it. Mankind is creating a forcing function that has to increase warming by the laws of nature.

There is no doubt that GHGs capture photons that otherwise would escape to space. That's why the moon goes to -200F at night and your backyard doesn't. More GHGs capture more heat. There is zero doubt about this.

Those who say "Al Gore is an idiot," or "this happense every 10,000 years," or "man is so egotistical; he could never impact the weather," or any of the other spoon-fed rightwing lies, is simply not intelligent. We as a country are not intelligent so long as we have a large body of ignorant people saying that the earth is 10,000 years old, or evolution is a myth, or increasing GHGs in the atmosphere is harmless.

We've got to quit this idea of "everyone's opinion matters" and recognize - some anti-science opinions are dangerous stupid.

Yeah? And I suppose that you believe that the climate has always remained a constant through the entire history of the earth until horrible mankind came along and then suddenly in the last few yrs. through his sheer amount of mite changed it all drastically? What a lemming you are. Stop pooting Tetrapooter, you're destroying the climate, while you are at it, do us all a favor and stop breathing also.

We've got to quit this idea of "everyone's opinion matters" and recognize - some anti-science opinions are dangerous stupid.

I don't think that's the idea that's the problem. The problem is the idea that reality is dictated by popular mandate. If the majority doesn't believe something exists, it must not exist.

so you dont deny the facts that neocoms is stating though right. ghgs trap heat, so the more there are the more heat that will be trapped, you always point to how little we know about the history of the earths climate as an argument, except, there are people that know a great deal about the earths climate history. they are called climatologists, they study ice samples and plant matter to show the amounts of ghgs present and an average temperature. you know those people with degrees in science and lifelong dedication to research arent as clueless as you claim. by the way your argument that we dont know the history of historical weather patterns doesnt make your theory correct either. yet as a loyal republican you assume that means your unscientific, unaccredited opinions must be true because god told you so in your dreams.

The earth is a generous host but if the parasite takes to much, she has her ways of exterminating the infestation. Getting closer and closer every year.

Side note;

I wonder if popping off a few hundred nukes in 40 years did any damage. That's around the number of nuke tests the Soviet Union and the US performed

pullmyfinger,

Obviously someone pulled your finger and you had a brain-fart.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Shows that we have far surpassed anything in at least 650,000 years, and obviously connected to our burning of fossil fuels. And I've read other studies going much further back with similar conclusions. As far back as the last mass extinction. Only good thing about having another mass extinction would be that it would probably wipe out all the dumfux like you guys.

The bigger denials are about the proposed solutions. Applying fiat currency concepts to "indulgences" is obviously flawed and none of the hippy power ideas will work-- just look at Germany for how this is working out in reality. http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/energy/

Guess the Climate Change Deniers will make a Federal Case stating that ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE was skewed in favor of Climate Warming!!!!!! In fact, they will still be screaming such when their fancy and expensive Seaside Villas are underwater.

Native Americans often gave a prayer to The Great Spirit and to Mother Nature. Their prayers say not to take more from the Lands than was necessary, not to taint the Waters of the Earth, and treat Mother Nature nicely and the Land, Wind, and Water will continue to Give. Or something like that.

Modern Man should take Note rather than calling these and others Savages.

XDm9mm, natural warming happens at much slower scales thousands to millions of years. In contrast, the present warming has happened almost instantaneously - on a scale of about a couple of hundred years or less. As such, your argument is entirely without merit. If you were wise, you'd pay attention to what noncoms has said above.

Sure, the population is a factor, but you can't use this excuse to deny the fact of human carbon emissions.

XDm9mm

Jealous of Romney? LMAO..Hardly. I don't invest in corporations, saddle them with large debts, export the jobs to other countries, get a tax credit for doing it, file bankruptcy and steal people's life savings to make myself rich. Even ROMNEY's peers call him a vulture capitalist liar who sand and tried everything he could (including flip flopping and lying) to try to win the Presidency.

I am not on public welfare. How laughable that you think people are if they don't like Romney. I make a very good living (that I earned through hard work) and I didn't have to destroy someone else in the process to do it either. I probably pay a higher % in taxes then you pay. Oh and just so you know, ROMNEYS Parents admitted to taking welfare.. hmmmm......

What stimulus dollars to Brazil? Can you show it to me? Show me the CONGRESSIONAL Approved BUDGET (article 1 section 8) in which dollars were given to Brazil. Amazing how you must forget that it's CONGRESS who spends, not the President.

P.S. While you are at it, please help me understand why the GOP gives BILLIONS (54 BILLION) to the fossil fuel corporations that are already making billons in record profits. Now, remember... Romney LOST the election.. .:) and he could get a job working for OIL CORPORATIONS to refute that global warming exists :).

Totally agree.

Yeah, the planet is going to melt tomorrow and the sky is falling. I wouldn't believe these lying sacks of sh!t if they got the Pope to agree with them. Just like Al Gore the global warming whore who profits from his greenhouse gases coming out of his ass and buying all these carbon credits and selling them on the open market like the fat lying terd he is. The UN wants the rich countries to pay bucks to the Third World toilets so they can pollute and we support them. Just like the welfare rats in the United States who voted for Odumbo so he can continue giving them free stuff.

"In 2010 the global coal trade rose by 13.4%, reaching 1.08 billion metric tons. In a new report, the World Resources Institute (WRI) estimates that nearly 1,200 new coal plants are at least in the planning stages worldwide. Though the projects are spread across the globe, more than 3/4 of the new plants are set to be built in India and China. If every one of those plants were to be built and activated, it would add 1.4 million MW of coal-fired electricity capacity to the global grid. Since coal is already the single biggest contributor to man-made global warming, an unchecked global coal building spree really would be game over for the climate—no matter what happens in the U.S."

John:
I encourage everyone I know to take their advice from cartoons! Brilliant! Thank the Gods for John C!

And yet, can anyone reasonable argue with the words expressed in the cartoon?

Stop the proliferation of CO2 and methane. Cut down all the trees and use them to cook all the cows.

I do like steak, over a campfire is a great way to cook it too.

More over though I do agree that we are at a crossroads and I think it is very much time regardless of political affiliation or anyone's thoughts on global warming and climate change that we do look for better ways to conserve and do a better job protecting our planet and resources. I really would like to see more positive traction made in this direction and see more people embrace some of these newer ideas and concepts. This can be a win win for us all and we shouldn't just be doing things like using solar or conserving resources because of global warming/climate change alone. Resources are limited (too many people), the climate is changing regardless of root cause and we can expect more dramatic changes in weather and overall climate, there is to much pollution regardless, and all of this can be solved or lessened if we start using more of these technologies now. And yes the more we use the more costs will come down. I don't buy into the far right or far left loonies that claim either solar is bad and we can pollute all we want because $$ is number one or the others that say we all need to eat grass only and live in tee-pees. We need to use common sense, apply the tech that we have, stop letting a select few dictate the course we take to only benefit them $$ wise, embrace science, and be more responsible for how we treat our planet. We have the ability and technology to do better and should. There is a balance and we need to find it and stop swerving all over the place.

It is time

Thats a pretty idea but here's how its working out in reality. http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/energy/

Pretty idea that we try to find a balance? Hey I know first hand we need a good base power source and that solar or wind won't be the end all be all. Need something that is constant but with solar and wind (specifically solar) you can help with peak loading and put some control back into the consumer's hands. We have technology available and break thru's are being made everyday and we need to be focusing on them. There is alot we can do that we don't. $$ is part of this but not the only factor here and a little $$ pain now is better than alot of $$ pain and more in the future. There are new ways to look at this and start building our future now. Yes there are realities to face but if we don't learn to overcome them or find ways to change them then what good are we doing ourselves? Just give up and say we can't?

Not with the bunch of zombies we have as Voters!

Sure you can.

American emissions have dropped dramatically over the past decade. Despite the fact that we have no carbon-trading scheme or carbon tax. The reason? Gas is more expensive, so people have been driving less and buying more fuel-efficient cars.

Financial pressure is VERY effective at managing health, whether you're talking about environmental health or personal health. If you charge more, people will drive less. So you can totally manage the health of the planet with the accountant's bottom line.

accountantdude,

Wish it were that simple. It isn't. The main reason emissions have dropped is because of government regulations. And that happened over the outcry and highly funded resistance put up by corporations worried about protecting their bottom line.

Yeah, I'm not really buying that.

Regulations to significantly curb greenhouse emissions have not been put into place. Every attempt to do so has been thwarted. Also, it seems strange to me for you to state "it's not that simple", before making a vague claim that "regulations" have been mostly been responsible for the decrease. If that were the case, why would there even be an argument for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme? Wouldn't that battle already have been won?

On the other hand, it is a well-established fact that Americans have been driving substantially less and that fuel economy has improved substantially over the past decade, with obvious ramifications for greenhouse emissions. In addition, widespread fracking has caused gas prices to plummet, making it more attractive as compared to much dirtier coal to generate power. Market forces are more powerful than the government could ever hope to be.

Accountantdude,

Simple minds seek simple answers. Can you imagine LA smog without govt. imposed vehicle emission standards? Have you seen photos of the Chinese skies? I recently visited one of the foreign megacities that have no emission restrictions. Cough, cough, cough is all I can say.

Daily demand (oil) in the United States rose to 20.5 million barrels a day—nearly 25 percent of the world total. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1811 So even though we "appear" to be driving less and the cars are getting more efficient, the problem grows. I do not accept that assertion.

Well established FACT that Americans have been driving substantially less? OK.

The number of vehicles on the roads has increased each year. The number of miles driven by drivers has steadily increased also. http://www.atlanta-insurance-claims-resource.com/traffic-accident-statistics.html

You probably voted Republican. They have the tendency to cherry pick the stats that suit their agenda.

On the bright side I think emissions have actually decreased here in America, thanks to Govt. regulations.

We're not discussing generic pollution, we're discussing a distinct problem with an identifiable cause: the rise in global emissions and America's own emissions as a part of that. I do not oppose environmental regulations as a matter of course, but I have not seen any specific regulations that could theoretically be responsible for the decline in gas emissions.

As for your accusations as to my voting and choice of statistics, I did not vote Republican, and you're referring to the gross miles driven by everyone, which will likely increase so long as our population does, and would have no bearing on my point at all (that pricing is affecting people's behavior). That's quite disingenuous of you. I was referring to the average, which has indeed declined since their peak: http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=443

Just like the Republicans you speak of, you choose the statistics that match your point. The demand for oil is certainly related to gasoline burned and emissions from that, but the relationship isn't direct enough that you can say higher demand equals higher emissions. Why didn't you choose one that said that emissions from vehicles on the road are are generating more greenhouse gases despite higher prices, which would be clear and direct evidence that prices haven't affected emissions? Maybe that chart doesn't exist?

Space Captain: Imagine what our air would look like now if our Automotive Companies has adopted a revised fuel system back in the late 50's. Tests showed that an average vehicle could get between 50 and 60 miles per gallon at highway speeds back then (by Ford, no less)!!! They didn't and one of the Oil Companies bought the patent and locked it away anticipating future gasoline usage.

Even today, we could reduce much of the gasoline usage by merely lowing the speed limits and driving a bit slower. But wait, has ANYONE really look at the New Car Ads? They all seem to stress faster and faster speeds while touting good(?) gas mileage!!! This is opposite of what we need to do.

Accountantdude,

No need to get soft skinned now. Since you didn't vote republican I'll lighten up some, haha.

The distinct problem you mentioned: an identifiable cause: the rise in global emissions and America's own emissions as a part of that.

I believe I mentioned a "bright side" to this issue being that America's emissions have actually been decreasing, followed by the qualifying statement that it was due to govt. regulations.

I have not seen any specific regulations that could theoretically be responsible for the decline in gas emissions.

I doubt that you will find any one specific regulation responsible. To do that would require too much data mining to be worth the effort just for the sake of an argument like ours. I do believe, however, if you visited large manufacturing and population areas of countries who have no emission controls in place you would give up your argument. Granted, higher gas prices cause less driving. Score one for the accountant's bottom line theory. But putting the emissions saved by that alone alongside the extremely heavy pollutions being produced by unregulated emissions in other countries makes that argument pale. It should be obvious, also, that if no outside force mandates cleaner emissions then the producers will go on their merry way building trucks, cars, and factories with no concern over environmental impact. According to your model it would be counterproductive to their bottom line to do so and so they don't. That, kind sir, is my main point. To do so would be an oxymoron.

But I will have to agree that your point has some validity, just not the major driving force you think it is.

Shutting down all coal powered plants here in america will create rolling blackouts and higher electrical bills.

Nobody, not even the really crazy moonbats, are proposing shutting down power plants without replacing them with something else. That's just silly.

The greenhouse gas emissions from burning candles instead of coal would be exactly the same. (It's particulate emissions that would go down if you replaced coal with paraffin wax candles, and those particulates don't cause global warming. They just kill people.)

Germany is leading the way with renewable energy, much of it solar. China is producing solar panels. We already know that the country that holds the power, holds the power! All of these new energy technologies create jobs: building and installing solar panels, designing and building energy-friendly homes, etc. Are we going to be buying these technologies and all their trappings from foreign countries, or are we going to finally get on the bus and do it here? We in WV are at the mercy of the coal mines. I wish our politicians would understand that coal is dying and we need to replace it with something else for jobs, as well as the environment. One of our local solar companies went to a coal county where miners had been laid off and trained them to install the panels at a local school; this is the kind of project I would like to see more of.

Sad thing is in some of the places where a few have a hold like this there won't be any change b/c they are going to put themselves first. That and for some reason some just don't want to make a meaningful change or spend a little more even if in the long run it costs less and has a greater benefit.

The technology part is what perplexes me though, the jobs we could create would be amazing. The long term benefit unmatched. And more than anything the chance for the US to once again be the leader in a new and emerging field and industry; hell alot of this knowledge and research came from us anyways, why not capitalize on it?? That's what get's me, some look and say doesn't work now, let them spend the money, ect? I say why? That is what you want? Where is that drive to find something new, be the first and the best that made us the greatest country on this planet? I know economics is important but a little long term thinking goes, well, a long ways and not letting other reasons and hot topic issues blind one even more so. It just puzzles me and if we could just scrape away the BS on either side and get to that common ground we could do so much and easily reignite that fire that drove us for so long. Its still burning, no doubt, just needs more to get it blazing again and the few that are controlling the feed need to be removed from their posts. I just hope we do it sooner than later before we no longer have the choice.

China is producing solar panels, but they're not using too many of them; their emissions have skyrocketed due to widespread use of coal-fired stations, and they're building plenty of nuclear reactors to meet future energy needs.

Future sources of power will have to be almost emissions-free and have a nearly inexhaustible supply of fuel. Wind, solar, and tidal are nice thoughts, but they're green pipe dreams; you can't power a nation without covering most of it with panels or windmills.

Nuclear, geothermal, and as-yet undiscovered reactor designs will be our salvation, if there is any to be had.

I agree that for base power solar, wind, and tidal won't do it. Of the three though solar is the most practical and seems to have the most realistic benefit and use. Yes we need a solid base power source and future reactor designs are the key, I'm all for it specifically LFTR's and even further out fusion power (PWR's also look like a good side source of power to and more over can help with trash problem). However, peak loading can be reduced with solar and in smaller applications when batteries catch up you can see more people dump grid all together. There are also advantages to point of use power and the fact that solar is emission free and puts some control in the end users hands, but it is not an end all be all and needs something else to compliment it. There are + and - to it all, though I think we can find a good balance to it. IMO I think our best bet and likely direction in the future, with some parts of this being sooner than later, will be an updated hybrid grid and power generation setup that utilizes both central and point of use power generation, trys as much as possible to get the benefits of both, and will be a combo of solar and new reactor designs, with a final smaller chunk of the mix being wind, tidal, hydro, PWR's like I listed above, maybe a few others, and maybe a few limited natural gases (the FF's would be there at first but all switch to NG and then slowly drop off in use from there). Just be a matter of will we embrace it and how many we will have to drag kicking and screaming along with us when we do.

The moonbats in germany are trying to do that. Read how well its working: http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/energy/

We'll switch to cleaner energy when something ACTUALLY better comes along. NatGas is the next step and there will be more steps in the future. When a GOOD next step comes along, there wont be any controversy. That's how you'll know its GOOD.

So don't even try anything then? Just switch to NG and when something comes along something will? Besides the fact that your moonbats remark strips some credibility and your repost of that website that has some valid points but seems to be more of a doom and gloom won't work more because of $$ reasons so use FF's and don't change a thing, how do you propose we get to that something else if we don't start developing and refining what we know now?? It's not perfect, yes, but just constantly playing a waiting game is not the answer. Doing something now is. Yes NG will help and buy us some time but that is not the lone answer and is just a rebranding of what we are doing now. NG is not a future long term answer no matter how hard some want it to be. We need to use NG in the short term but we also need to be laying the foundation for the long term and what Germany is doing will help. Again what do you want, to stand by and watch or get out there participate and be a leader?

You talk like tech doesnt advance without some govt policy telling people what to invent. No major transition was ever led by the govt. Its led by risk takers who convince people to try a better idea. If it is actually better, more people. At some point it becomes so obvious that politicians feel safe enough to vote for it. The german mess shows what happens when govt tries to force change before its ready. Further into those articles they talk about power fluxes toasting heavy machinery and poland putting in protections to keep german power out. And der Spiegel is a big investigative magazine there-- its just not some "website".

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I prefer when it doesn't and people take on the challenge themselves but seems that we are at a point where others are using their influence to ensure no one else joins the club. And don't get me wrong I agree that the Germans goals are ambitious and maybe a little overdone and certainly not without problems but my point is ok, lets figure out how to solve the problems. Someone has to do it. And some of the problems can't be solved until we face them head on. That and it seems that we have to push a little more than we should now anyways. My main point is we need some changes and the constant FF only is not the way. We are seeing difficulties and hard realities because we are at that threshold, but we just can't let those turn us away without first trying. And sorry about offending your magazine. I did take a quick look and that seemed to be the just of what they were saying. I will check it out further and hope that it is not all doom and gloom or biased, but I will say it is good to have people on both sides of the argument and come to conclusions about a subject.

Especially when CERTAIN Companies will not update their Plants with the newer SCRUBBERS! Or burn coal with less Sulfur content!!!

Solar and Wind also natural Gas could replace Coal

Oh not true at all. You need to educate yourself.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23803

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Building_Integration

And yet the United States' emissions have fallen significantly, while many of those nations that have done "more than nothing" have actually increased their emissions over the past decade.

Not that I'm defending the Republican culture of denying scientific concensus, but you should at least know that the facts undermine your ideology.

Don't overplay "science." Science only tells us what CAN be done. We still have to choose what SHOULD be done. The least corrupt way to "vote" on this is with your wallet-- one consumer at a time. That's how whale oil ended. They ran out of customers before they ran out of whales.

I DO, in fact, overplay "science", and will continue to do so. People are imperfect, irrational, and beholden to ideologies and corrupt groupthink. Science isn't perfect (since it's still done by us flawed, fleshy animals), but its empirical and has a much better track record than politics for solving problems.

Peanut - I know we are trading posts back and forth above but to echo SF science does give at least try to give us facts and ways to prove those facts or substantiate them but your argument about the whales is flawed. What if the demand drops but doesn't do so fast enough and in that case the whales ran out? Opps. Not apples to apples with the oil argument but moreover the market isn't perfect either and sometimes its to slow to react or react in away that is in the best interest in the big picture and has to have other corrections for those shortcomings but I agree don't meddle to much or you can have other bad side effects. All give and take.

Greg,

Somewhat to your point is this excellent speech by Bill Moyers in 2007. It is well worth reading by anyone really concerned about the situation we find ourselves in. It is titled "A Time for Anger, A Call to Action"

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0322-24.htm

This is the same Bill Moyers who started warning us of the extremely dangerous financial predicament we are now facing and laid the blame at the feet of the Bush administration. I think the "credit card" wars were top on his warning list. There were efforts to silence him after this, namely bogus attempts at arrests which he was intelligent enough to challenge face on and avoid.

Climate =/= seasonal weather.

You can't have a 30% increase in the warming effect of greenhouse gases and still have frost on the grass in November.

Yes you can. You can never point to a single event in a single place and refute or confirm global warming. It's a trend.

These statistics are garbage.

They are valid, but presented REALLY poorly. What's a 30% increase in warming effect? If in 1990 global temperature was increasing by 0.1 degrees per year, in 2011 it is increasing 0.13 degrees per year.

Will that make the winter go away?

If it gets warm enough the tropical regions will expand. But if you have frost on your grass now, it won't go away for you.

But they are still statistics, which may or may not be related to reality.

worn out-4024611

UN = Useless Neocons

It's all just a ruse to implement carbon taxes, take from everyone and give to a few.

Here's a hint. The term "Neocons" is used to identify CONSERVATIVES. I will submit that the UN is in no manner staffed by Conservatives. And please show me what conservative wants to raise taxes.

Maybe you should consider posting on the Elmo site....

XDm9mm, You seem like someone who enjoys going through the TSA patdowns.

Enjoy being a slave. Do you know how to get to the elmo site?

Industrial production doesn't necessarily rise or fall in proportion to the greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most important sources of emissions - driving, cattle farming, and power plants - don't necessarily correllate to production.

Our emissions per GDP are half what they were in the 70s. Our energy sources are naturally evolving towards lower-carbon fuels at the economically optimal rate. Having govt force faster conversion will just add unnecessary costs. When we find a viable solution, there wont be any controversy. We've got a 2 million year history of adapting to whatever comes along. Have a little faith in mankind.

Shhhhh..... You're NOT supposed to tell people that. Soylent Green anyone?

Uhhh.... We surpassed 7 billion several months ago. Where have YOU been?

Pure speculation. "Overpopulation" is a popular bugbear, but nobody has any clue what the true carrying capacity of the planet is, especially considering technology keeps increasing it.

The population was supposed to collapse at 4 billion. Damn technology keeps saving us. ;)

No alan, but some starry eyed people think we can just tap our heels together three time, wish real hard, and the rest of the civilized world will bow down to us and obey.

It's easy for you to talk... the atmosphere on your home planet, Bizarro World, isn't chemically the same as ours.

And you must be a complete egomaniac to think people will read the novels you post here, even if you do copy and paste them. 

Try an original thought, keep it short and to the point, and maybe someone will pay attention.

god...if you did not read the entire post, your attention span is insufficient to criticize the post of Flame, or the points he made. Guess you subscribe to the guy who invented the Internet and thinks he can just "buy his way" to compliance by purchasing Carbon Credits, right??? Al Gore and the UN are the very LAST sources anyone should use for FACTS regarding Global Warming...

forsize,

Methinks all scientists already have Al Gore and the UN as their last sources of information, yet they still say the same. But then, for the lay man, methinks Al Gore and the UN would be much better sources of information than Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc.

trythis, you're just not smart enough to understand what's happening to the world.

Personally, I don't care. You're part of a minority that's too small to matter.

So, on that note, gnash your teeth and cry me a river! ;-)

2. Cyclical Global warming has been recorded on this planet (with devastating effect) long before man was here

It is not the change itself that has never occurred in the history of the planet. It is the speed that change is occurring at.

so there is ZERO evidence that even IF we "stopped" polluting (see #1.) There is no way to globally "change" the weather.

Again, it is the speed at which the change is occurring. If we, as a species, stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate we currently do, we can at the very least slow that change down and be better able to adapt.

Now kids.. How does this "smart guy" know that 1/2 of the gasses he stated is obsorbed?.... It is easy to observe and measure the "mechonisms" of natural carbon uptake... Got it But how can you "measure" 1750 emissions AND that 1/2 that amount was "cleaned" by the earth AND that what remained in the atmosphere has a "partial contribution" to NOW?.....

The thing that sucks about putting all that CO2 into the oceans is it will come out of the oceans when they get warmer. I described an experiment you can do at home with soda to see this effect in post #1.4. The average ocean temperature is getting warmer over time. All that stuff that the Earth absorbed will come right back to us.

Space Captain, -god

I don't question "climate change". I know it's happening and has happened before and will happen again. I only question the current crop of theories about the cause.

So, to keep it short and sweet, and to not gnash my teeth, go to the link below. Oh, please note the .GOV address.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html

...we can at the very least slow that change down and be better able to adapt.

Can we really? Based on what evidence? Is this just wishful thinking Pragmatic?

The question is largely academic, since no one country, or even an organization of countries, can enforce carbon standards over all the industrialized nations of the world.

So we can either let the world heat up and just deal with it (which seems to be the current plan) or we can try to come up with technological counter-measures.

9mmdude,

Read your link. Nothing new there at all. We all know about those glacial/interglacial swings. If you read it well, you could see in the part about why the warming can be so abrupt is the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Notice the .gov on this one. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Shows the direct correspondence of our record levels of CO2 to our burning of fossil fuels.

Those who think human activity can never spoil the workings of nature are like those who would schittt in their own backyard until the workings of nature killed them with the stupid-disease. Cholera, I think they called it. All natural. The way things have worked on this planet since time began. I think the analogy of our polluting the atmosphere and the whole environment with the schitting in one's own back yard is very appropriate.

Technology has also sped up how fast we can ADAPT. Obviously no scientist or politician has the credibility to lead a WHOLE country to any of these solutions so we're back to individuals voting with their wallets and feet in a semi-free market. I'm still betting on people saving their own hides rather than relying on some govt program. People who rely on govt programs are called "the poor" and I've noticed that they're always to worst affected by ... well.... anything.

I wish you'd tell those corporate giants that rely on govt. programs that they are "poor".

Corporatoins are not people (SPOTUS is BS) and they didnt RELY on govt. They bought politicians as a hedge against failure and it worked perfectly FOR THEM.

Peanut is absolutely right. Corporations don't need the government to give them tax breaks or stifle competition, but if they can afford the lobbying it's certainly worth the investment.

Accountantdude,

I am assuming that is sarcasm. Why else would they spend so much money on lobbyists if it were not to give them tax breaks and stifle competition?

XDm9mm Oh please, you didn't study Global warming for twenty years. NASA stated natural warming was gradual and what they have been studying is the added warming due to man. They say it is due to burning fossil fuel. They have the credentials you don’t have. Check out their site. I'm not going to listening to a want a be expert. They know better than you.

Here is a video that basicaly shows that Man does more damage trying to "fix it" than focusing on better ways of using current sources... the video has a lot but just watch 15 minutes.. of it for the gist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoKRz5VcbI&feature=player_embedded

more "stuff" showing the wild swings of Artic ice and HCGW has little to do with it.

(Post credit AC Robertson) During Dec-Feb 2012 - the Northern hemisphere had the largest ice/snow coverage ever observed...

During Mar 2012 - The Arctic Sea Ice Coverage was the highest ever observed 16+million sqkm...

During Sept 2012 - The Arctic Sea Ice coverage was the lowest ever observed 3.75+million sqkm...

15 October 2012, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 5.18 million square kilometers (2.00 million square miles). This is 3.49 million square kilometers (1.35 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 mean for this time of year and 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the same date in 2007. Although it is still at record low levels, extent is climbing fast.

Reference - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ & http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

Actually, airplane contrails reflect light that otherwise reach the surface of the planet and heat it. Worldwide air traffic actually DECREASES warming more than its emissions add to it.

Is that why they now spread out across the skies interconnecting with one another to create a false cloud cover unlike they used to do 25 yrs ago? Whadup wit dat?

I don't know, but I do know that after all American air traffic stopped briefly after 9/11, there was a sudden and unexpected rise in temperatures over the whole country that receded almost immediately when flights continued.

Just goes to show how hard it is to really predict anything about the environment. It defies simple analysis.

A big chunk of the temp rise was caused by the Clean Air Act clearing particulates. ;)

Climate change is happening whether we acknowledge it or not. The smart folk who study this say we're doing it. If you don't like the ideas being proposed, come up with your own.

See, all this global warming energy conservation thing doesn't have to be something only for liberals. It's just that liberals propose big government solutions while conservatives just try to deny reality instead of coming up with small government/private market solutions.

And there are many aspects of this kind of thing that are conservative through and through. Develop technologies now while it is cheap to do so instead of later when it is more expensive. Solar panels on your roof make you personally responsible for your family's power and power usage. Conservation of resources is a wise thing to do when you own said resources. Etc.

There's no need to oppose something wholly because the other side says it. You can be logical and realistic, observe the world around you, and come up with ideas that suite your own set of values.

My idea is that we can do some things to slow emissions down a bit, but what new technologies are you talking about. We cannot realistically stop using coal and oil, but we might reduce consumption of them a tad. Natural gas is the next alternative despite the risks, real or imagined, of fracking. Nuclear is always an option if people can get over their fears of the remote chance of accidents.

Solar and wind power power have some limited application but will always require backup by the existing grids. These sources are also unreliable and would need massive subsidies. Hydrogen and geothermal are not in contention, and hydroelectric is pretty much tapped out.

Technology is getting cheaper. Those tech solutions will be cheaper to create in the future, not more expensive.

Doby you've done too many doobies....

Climate change has occurred long before man walked the planet and will continue long after man is just that much dust on the surface.

We, as in man, think we know a great deal about the world, and in our limited abilities, we do. However, as a meteorologist once noted when speaking about our climate and the world, he admitted our knowledge base is extremely limited considering the planets life. He graphically displayed this by noting one could draw a pencil line down the 50 yard line of a football field. That line represents our knowledge. The areas to the right and left, from the 50 yard line to the goal posts was the information we don't know and can't even begin to guess at, primarily because we don't know the questions to ask.

For all of man's knowledge and intelligence, we're really nothing more than another species surviving on the surface of this planet until we no longer exist like others before us.

Climate change has occurred long before man walked the planet and will continue long after man is just that much dust on the surface.

So what? As I see it we have two options at this point: We can establish that we as a species are the cause of this change and try to change our ways... OR we can be preparing for the major changes that the planet is going to throw at us. We are doing neither right now.

We are doing neither right now

So whose fault it that? Whatever the solution the piggy bank is broken and empty.

"Whatever the solution the piggy bank is broken and empty".

Oh no it's not, I can prove it. Obama is galavanting around the globe right now dropping millions of dollars like rose petals as he goes.

Motivation according to money and power isn't exempt from common sense at all. On the contrary, anybody who isn't motivated by money or power is showing a startling lack of common sense (or is already too rich or has too many responsibilities to care).

Might add that anyone motivated solely by money or power is showing a startling lack of spiritual maturity.

Anytime I see the word "greed" I know the writer or speaker is a liberal.

So what solutions and mitigating actions do we need to take nanzee, or do you just prefer to whine?

Fracking has been a blessing to the environment. The glut of gas, which has a fraction of the emissions of coal, can cut our emissions substantially.

Rex can tell you're a liberal because you're whining about greed, a perfectly normal and rational human motivation. I can tell you're a liberal because you complain about resource exploitation by reflex.

If Fracking is not done carefully it can leak into ground water. Hydro Fracking uses a lot of water and produces waste that is toxic. Ohio has two lawsuits because a Fracking well leaked into someone water supply. It is important to have this marketing closely monitored.

Cleveland State University came out with a windmill that does the job of four windmills. Solar panels are improving Tech. One size doesn't fit all.

So, besides pissing and moaning what are YOU doing to stop it? Don't tell me what OTHERS should do, tell me what YOU ARE DOING.

Talk is cheap, especially when you're spending other peoples money.

I've been not driving for the vast majority of my 28 years of life. I do not own a car, and take the train and bus to work. I use surge protectors in my home to keep energy use to an absolute minimum.

Conveniently, all my ways of saving energy and emissions also save me money. Greed and Green for me may be one and the same.

Any solution is only going to affect the human caused part and since no scientist can tell how much that is without mealy mouth stats that make everybody glaze over, we can never calculate the benefit as part of doing cost/benefit analysis. So much for the rational approach. And we sure dont have any "blind faith" leaders that everybody believes.

It's unfortunate that you apparently can't process statistics without your brain backfiring, but don't apply that trait to everyone else. For me statistical analysis actually makes a point MORE compelling, rather than turning the whole conversation into foggy gibberish.

Very smart people take this into account already.

Hey Gordon.... I think prag is saying your stupid in a round about, stab you in the back kind of way. Prag... you are full of it and you know it. I've seen some self proclaimed very smart people claim the solar activity has nothing to do with it.

Al Gore is a joke!!! Only the looniest of climate change loons subscribe to anything that clown utters.

The biggest barrier to people believing GW is the self-serving socialists that are doing all the doom and gloom. The messenger DOES matter. Credibility matters. Totally separate from the science.

AND the masks to go with them?

yea. you go ahead and invest heavily in that. Dont expect any bailout.