Is global warming a real threat or not?

I read State of Fear like I read the Da Vinci Code. It was pure fiction in every way.

That’s just my view.

We can ignore that we are killing our planet and argue about it all day, but in the end, it’s our children that will pay the price.

I think there are several ways for the end to really happen. Nuclear war, Biological war, chemical war,and the newist twisted warfare sound wave war fare, and fiber optic cloaking, a global pandemic that wipes out all life forms. Or a giant asteroid the size of texas plowing into earth (planet killer)
Or an alien invasion. or just loss of to many plant life on earth so we run out of oxygen. Or even the end from God almighty himself. So my point is why worry about it. Everyhting has a begining and also and end. the show must end sometime. Lifes to short to worry about it all. But i do agree with Jeremy that yes we should atleast prevent known issues and drop the threat by 1% . if 1 thing doesnt destroy mankind there is always infinite things that will.

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang,
But with a wimper.

My bets are on an alien invasion. Or the apocalypse. One in the same in a way.

Okey dokey, my question was if global warming is an unnatural trend, is it man-caused, is it just a normal natural cycle and some people are hyping it for their own purposes, are the computer models accurate?

Any INL scientists or local geologists or climatologists have opinions or facts?

See, I believed that ever since I first heard of global warming, and Crichton’s book points out many people do.

There’s a point where someone presents to the main character data contrary to global warming theories, with notations from scientific journals. The main character says something like ‘that study must’ve been funded by an energy company’ and the person presenting the material stops talking and packs up the materials.

The main character asks what the problem is, and the person makes the point that they are presenting scientifically published data from independent scientists that does not match common global warming perceptions, yet the main character is dismissing it with an emotional response.

That’s what I’m saying, I don’t know anymore. All the responses have been ’sure duh global warming is our fault’ but nobody points to data proving it. Nobody points to contrary data. Nobody analyzes one set of data or another to see why the storeis conflict.

But this book does, which is why I encourage you to read it. Maybe Crichton’s wrong, or maybe the public is wrong.

In the 1960s and the 1970s, global warming was not the fear du jour. Time Magazine was then reporting that scientists were predicting a coming ice age. Time Magazine wrote that it might be 10s of thousands of years away, or it might be 10s of years away.

So what happened to this scientifically predicted ice age? Who knows? Certainly not the scientists!

Perhaps this predicted ice age was inadvertently averted by we humans and our devil-may-care attitude toward pollution. Perhaps this predicted ice age is being held at bay, much like a vampire that is confronted with a crucifix, with our production of “greenhouse gases.” And, like the vampire when the crucifix is jolted from the hero’s hand and falls through a crack in the floor, the ice age will leap upon us when Kyoto is implemented fully.

Ice Age sources:
Time Magazine, 1963: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828031,00.html
Time Magazine, 1972: http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html

I believe the point 8B and Michael Crichton were making is that global climatology is more complex than we can currently grasp.

Everybody has data and everybody has opinions, but nobody has real answers. Crichton demonstrated numerous climate theories made over several of the last decades have proven incorrect.

Have we advanced so far that our collective egos won’t admit we still don’t grasp something as simple as the weather above us?

Thanks, Jeremy, for the compliment. I appreciate being recognized for excellence even when that excellence is on the negative end of the scale.

There is a alternative to my previous hypothesis but it seems so unbelievable that I hesitate to even mention it. I may even be labeled a heretic for writing it. Do you suppose that the scientists back in the 1960s and 1970s could have been wrong? (gasp! shudder! tremble! quake!) And if they were wrong about the ice age, do you suppose they could be wrong about global warming and/or its cause?

Yup! Scientists being wrong is just too hard to fathom! There has to be a more rational reason like the vampire analogy.

So, 8B, do you mean to say that your original reply to the topic was meant to dispell the belief that scientists can be wrong, rather than discredit Kyoto and propose a hypothesis that human pollution on Earth is fending off a second Ice Age?

If so, you really do need to work on your satire skills.

If not, then I will return to my original reply that your theory is utterly ridiculous.

Anyway, I don’t need a scientist to tell me the way the world is changing. An ice bridge used by seal hunters in Alaska for hundreds of years is almost gone, and in the last 50 years! The average temperature of the globe is up by one degree recently. Human action in the world is causing all of these things, even if there is a doubt as to how we are doing it, and I think it’s damned idiotic that we’re reducing the future of the Earth to silly, shallow political discourse like Al Gore’s movie.

Don’t get so offended, I never insulted you. I’m pointing out that your initial post was vague and your point was not made clear. So, I was asking for a clarification.

And saying your point is ridiculous is not insulting, it’s a fact.

Jeremy, I was not refering to comments about my point, but I think you know that. I don’t think that you are truly that obtuse.

Arguing points is what it’s all about. Say what you want to about my ideas.

If we really want to move the discussion away from global warming and into the realm of critiquing my writing skills, well, what can I say - such sleights-of-keyboard that distract from the discussion at hand tend to speak for themselves.

I think it’s clear that the warming is going on, just not so clear as so what the trends will be or how they relate to past trends. I will carve a space into my reading and take a look. Have you checked out the National Geographic? I can find the particulars, if you would like. They also have a special on it, I believe.
I just like their science.

Gore is a crusader and cannot be trusted. 20+ years ago, I could not finish his book, Earth in the Balance because it was full of nonsense. On the other hand, basing policy on a book of fiction - State of Fear - is unwise. I read it. Crichten makes a few good points, but so does James Lovelock in his new book Revenge of Gaia, which is very pessmistic - not only is there climate change but we are probably too late to stop it.

There are many uncertainties throughout the issues of climate change and ecology. The problem is, we have to live with uncertainty, and make decisions despite it. The data interpretations going back 650,000 years are a bit flaky and involve combining different sets of data and using complex statistical analyses. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

My bottom line: I think the earth is warming over the lats 100-200 years. What fraction of that warming is due to humans vs natural cycles, i don’t know. We better hope it is us, because if warming is dominated by natural cycles, our ability to do anything about it is nil.

The wise thing to do is to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can - use all the alternatives available - nuclear, low head hydro, wind, etc. We should also start preparing for the impact of climate change.

To Joe Vandal -
Like you, I’ve been trying to glean the truth from both sides of this controversial issue. I’ve come to the conclusion that we are in a period of warming that is natural and may not last. There seems to be a great deal of pressure being exerted to make us believe that man is bad for the earth - an almost vengeful view that seems to want to eliminate man or tear down the benefits of what he has achieved, as if beinging man back to pre-industrialized society is the cure, or worse, the elimination of man would be good for the environment. That seems to be at the heart of the issue for some anyway. But that aside, it does seem that we are in a warming trend. And it never hurts to be a conservationist, cutting back on electric use and sunday drives in the country, and recycling. And that’s what we’re already doing: alternative fuels and more efficient cars, wind power, solar power, so why the alarmist view? Why the rush to create punitive taxes that will definitely hurt the economy and citizens - especially at a time when we’re already borderline? Most of the cries for action seem to be coming from those with something to gain. Your money from taxes rather than from the benefits of everyone pitching in for a cleaner earth. Follow the money and you never need to second-guess your instincts about any issue.

I can appreciate Russ’ advice for us all to do our own part.

I cannot appreciate eclipsIt’s blustering bravado and bold challenges (which is then not followed up on).

I’ll take facts and logic over rhetoric, thanks.

I still don’t know what to think. I heard the UN is releasing a supposedly ‘definitive’ report on global warming this week.

Excellent question!

I believe “Guest” know’s what he’s talking about. How can we possibly think we can put a dent in this earth when it’s been here for millions of years and has warmed and cooled down naturally throughout history. But nooooo….it’s GOT to be US with our SUV’s and hairspray!

As George Orwell once wrote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” There is no greater hero in the revolution for climate change truth than Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He has truly demonstrated the power one honest individual can wield.

Last year Sen. Inhofe gave two explosive speeches on the floor of the Senate in which he attacked and exposed the unfounded claims and scare tactics being employed by the Global Warming crowd. The speeches were literally unprecedented in the decades-long climate change debate. And their effect was like a lightening bolt. Almost immediately some scientists began coming out of hiding to side with the Senator.

On December 6th, just as the Rockefeller/Snowe letter was being exposed across the Internet, Inhofe held a hearing on Capitol Hill exposing the “alarmist media.” Said Inhofe, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.” His attacks have already forced 60 Minutes, CNN and other major media to at least give lip service to the “skeptic” point of view. More importantly, the Senator’s efforts are putting the Global Warming crowd into near cardiac arrest.

There are lots of lies surrounding the Global Warming mantra. The biggest one claims there is “consensus” among scientists that human-caused global warming is a fact. There is no such consensus.
The global warming message is literally everywhere. It indoctrinates our children in the classroom. It flows from the advertising messages of corporations, in their corporate social responsible ad to sell their environmentally-responsible products (for which research and development was probably paid for with federal tax dollars). Huge numbers of Hollywood stars and international political leaders have endorsed the mantra of the church of global warming. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent to influence literally every corner of the earth to accept global warming as a fact.
When in fact it’s all propaganda that’s all about the all mighty dollar!!

Maybe this is one of those issues where the truth is somewhere in the middle. My own conviction tells me that one Chevy 350 or gas guzzling SUV won’t have much effect. On the other hand, billions of them surely will. You can talk about how the Earth has evolved for millions of years but constantly filling the atmosphere with burnt hydrocarbons and poisons has only happened recently.

If a person today does not think that our air and water quality are worse than a few generations ago I believe they are blind to the truth. Even if you don’t believe global warming is real and that man can affect the Earth it’s a selfish attitude to boast about wasting resources. If nothing else, try to help out our coming generations a little bit more. Dumping the problem on future generations seems to be the attitude with more than just the environment, like the way we have been running up the national deficit. Someday we’ll have to pay the piper.

I admit I don’t know the facts about volcanoes vs. millions of engines burning oil.

However, doesn’t the smog over our biggest automotive areas (namely Los Angeles) give us clues.

For those who don’t believe cars cause significant pollution, how do you explain that smog?

Meso: at least I’ve done some research on the subject. I don’t see ANYTHING of substance coming out of your mouth!

So eclipselt, please enlighten me with your wisdom. Since LA’s smog is a result of poor ventilation from being in a basin, and volcanoes are the real cause of air pollution, then wouldn’t LA have already been smoggy before people started driving cars there? I admit I haven’t done as much research as you so please tell me how to think.

Oh, I did see on the news today that scientists are in agreement that humans are causing many of the Earth’s climate changes. Should I believe that?

I did not try to quote you. Here is what you said: “Do your homework guest 3333. Volcanos put more poisoneous gases into the air then all the Chevy 350’s out there ever have”. You said it, not me.

And you didn’t answer the second part of the question. What about the news reports on global warming? You are obviously so smart, tell me what to believe.

Don’t call me lazy and I won’t call you an idiot.

Sorry for taking the low road Joe but I got a little defensive when someone accuses me of being lazy because nothing could be further from the truth. I guess when Eclipslt starts losing a debate they have to resort to name calling. Anything but the issue and the facts.

I understand that the reason this new report is news is because it is a consensus between most of the world’s scientists that humans are “definitely” responsible for global warming. The last time they discussed it and put out a public opinion was in 2001. At that time they only said that humans “may be” responsible.

That’s right meso. The news reports that came out today said that even if we changed our ways right now that parts of the environment are on the path to degradation and will stay that way for a long time.

As you read through the posts on this topic you can imagine how hard it will be to actually change some people’s thinking. They would rather deny there is a problem than to the hard work required to fix it. Sometimes I think that deep down inside they know what’s right, but their laziness causes them to deny the problem on the outside. Not acknowledging the problem means not having to deal with it.

Yeah Guest3333 — we disbelieve this hype about what causes Global Warming not based on the fact that the earth has been changing temp. constantly for millions of years, but because we are “lazy.” Ok. And just to make sure you are clear — when you say “They would rather deny there is a problem than to…” No one has denied there is a problem. The earth is warming. Many do not believe that it is caused by man — so get your points straight…

Look, here’s the way it is: The debate over global warming continues because there is a massive amount of information out there, some of which supports the case for global warming, some of which does not. Depending on which information you choose to pay attention to, you will either accept or deny the existence of global warming - that’s your right. There will never be a conclusion, because there is no human mind capable enough of handling all of the information, compiling it, and coming to a conclusion.

So, it comes down to what you believe. Do you believe that mankind is affecting the global environment or do you not?

So, make your decision, make it in an informed way, and take your beliefs to the voting booth.

Oh, and while you’re at it, stop calling each other lazy and stupid. Keep the lines of communication open.

i dont believe in global warming… the warming of the earth is just a cycle, soon it will be cooling again. It has been heating and cooling since the beginning of time. Before anyone makes their decision whether global warming is real or not, you should research both sides. Many people believe in it from tv, movies, and teachers, but on tv they never put the other side, the side that its not real and i think everybody should know both sides.

Steve Smede here from IF mag…

Sorry to distract from the central discussion, but I just have a quick message directed at “eclipseIt”:

I couldn’t help but notice your dramatic improvement in grammar, style and sentence fluency between posts 28 and 33. I went ahead and googled some key phrases from the latter. It appears that you are actually Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center in Warrenton, VA!… OR perhaps you just cut and pasted Mr. DeWeese’s comments from his bylined column at http://www.capmag.com.

It’s no big deal, eclipseIt–I forget to cite sources on occasion, too, and sometimes my own byline ends up placed on a page where it should not be. However, in your case it is a bit ironic that you had this to say in Comment 44:

“I’ve done MY research…you’d rather take the lazy way out like MOST people and believe everything you see on the news.”

Those are strong words for a person who plagiarizes from a national op-ed piece.

I do applaud the rest of you, however, for your well articulated points on both sides of this complex issue. Again, my apologies for the distraction.

Steve Smede, Editor
Idaho Falls Magazine
542-2254
steve@harrispublishing.com

It’s also interesting that Stevieboy comes in here to criticize a poster, yet I see he’s never made a comment regarding ANY of the issues on this site! Nor has he ever posted a topic himself. Hmmmm…now that IS interesting! Why not talk about some of the issues at hand Steve, instead of criticizing someones point of view and/or opinion?

I think that Steve was just pointing out that Eclipsit failed to quote his source. And, “As George Orwell once wrote…” doesn’t even come close to adequately covering the source of his material. Personally, I am grateful that he brought Eclipsit’s plagarism to my attention (I failed to catch it), as it further solidied my opinion of the information contained in Eclipsit’s comments.

Anyone ever consider the fact that Steve doesn’t comment on topics or post topics because he has a forum of his own to do so?

But, back to the topic: what are everyone’s thoughts on the report released Friday, Feb 2 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the panel was created by the United Nations in 1988)? (Note: this is the report I alluded to in comment #56) These are the main findings of the report (points below cut and pasted from this article by Seth Borenstein, AP science writer):
–Global warming is “very likely” caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That’s the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.
–But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control — something scientists say they hope can be done — the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.
–Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

So, if you still “don’t believe in” global warming, perhaps you should reevaluate your thought process. But, then again, they are only “more than 90% certain” that we (humans) are the cause of global warming, so there is a less than 10% chance that I am wrong.

Thanks Steve for pointing that out.

It is very relevant because I could receive a take-down notice from that website for that comment if it was misused or not cited properly. It is important to cite the source because it can be considered intellectual property and because it appears bad form to try making oneself sound smarter.

I don’t mind that Steve only commented that piece. Some only contribute jokes, and it all blends with the flavor. I appreciate any and all participation from the owners of other local forums, because I never get the time to participate on theirs’.

I believe there’s validity on both sides here. But I for one lean towards the minority on this issue. Sure we all need to do more to reduce the pollution we’re pumping into the atmosphere, but to actually think we’re going to ruin the earth because of it is proposterous. Anyone who’s gone to college and has taken any core courses, would have learned that the earths surface has changed dramatically over the years. Who did the people blame back when the ice age happened or when what is now south america broke away from africa? Bet there were some crazy discussions around the campfires when THAT was happening!
But isn’t it all the natural cycle of the earth? Glaciers melt, land masses dissapear, new land appears, what’s so new about that? Sure we’ve got a ton of pollution being pumped into the air, and I think we should definately try to minimize that, but stop and think of all the billions of dollars that are being made each day with the whole “global warming” issue. Whenever there is massive amounts of money to be made, people will go to any length to line their pockets to get a piece of the global warming pie.
I’m not saying that global warming isn’t happening, but like some of the others have said, it’s happened throughout history even before our factories and billions of vehicles started emitting carbon dioxide into the air.

There may be ways to control our pollution, but there is no way to control nature. All we can do is learn to adapt to it, like our ancestors have done before us. I’m with everyone that wants to help minimize all the pollution, but to think you can change the natural cycle of the earth, that’s just not going to happen.

Hey Chrisr671,

It appears to me that the people benefitting the most monetarily are the ones contributing to the status quo, i.e., the oil producing nations and the coal companies. If entrepreneurs can make a profit from the global warming issue by producing “green energy” then…more power to them.

It has been estimated that if we were to factor in the cost of keeping the oil spigot open in the Middle East with our military presence there, the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump would be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per gal. That’s equal to 1 trillion dollars a year we’re spending at the gas pump! We’re sending that incredible amount of wealth to folks who don’t give a rat’s ass for us or our way of life. I would sooner see that money go to developing alternate energy sources and lessening our harmful effect on the planet in the process.

If one were to think of this war on terror as WWIII then perhaps we need to institute a “Manhattan Project” similar to the one that helped end WWII. We spent $1.89 billion ($20B in today’s dollars) on that endeavor. Convening our best scientists and brightest minds on a project of that magnitude seems justified now if we are to ward off environmental calamities or avoid future wars that take the lives of our young men and women in quagmires like Iraq. Remember, that war has already cost us over $750 billion, to say nothing of the cost of the ruined lives involved.

This thread was intended to discuss global warming. It is hard to stay confined to just that when our addiction to petroleum/fossil fuels and the price we pay for same is such an important factor in that (global warming) theme.

So Chris, let me see if I have this right. You would rather send your dollars to the Middle East than see General Electric make a profit on electric cars; you would not use efficient light bulbs because the company that produces them is making a profit. Wow. It’s hard to argue with logic like that.

Logic is lost on meso from all his many posts this is obvious. How can anyone discount the grant money that gets thrown around for the newest alarmist fad. Meso this is how scientists make money hello??? … Meso anyone there???? If your a atmospheric/climatologist science type you want what??? A predictible income for as long as you can get it.
The United Nation members want nothing more then to bring about policies that will make the United States economy less efficient then it is because their Socialistic economies are stagnant at best and in most cases in decline. So why not if your in their shoes find ways to knock the legs out from underneath your largest competitor in an effort to give your own economy a competitve advantage.
That’s what is driving this whole issue, a bunch of money hungry scientists looking for anyway to stay attached to the government tit, and a bunch of failed economies that wish they could hold a candle to ours.

Wake up meso put down the koolaid, you will see life is much better.

I believe humankind DNA life will end by year 2500, year 3000 at latest , due to global warming.

we need to start planning for our end as a species, maybe build polar cities to house 100,000 possible survivors who can last 100,000 years underground and then resurface on Planet Earth> But basically, as we speak, it’s a done deal. Humankind is on its last legs, due to our stupidity plus our great IQ, plus our greed for convenience and speed.

So danny did man cause all the ice ages and warmings that have happened over the past millions of years?

‘our stupidity’ as you put it… the only stupidity I see is a quick posting with nothing to back it up.

OMG! Martians have destroyed their environment too!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

While I agree that regular heating and cooling cycles occur on our planet (and most likely on EVERY planet), I disagree that this time, it’s just natural. Plenty of evidence shows that humans are doing plenty to accelerate this climate change.

But that’s okay, just buy a hybrid car, right? Actually… check out this article LINK it shows that a Toyota Prius is actually WORSE for the environment than a GMC Hummer…

Whatever we think we are doing for the environment is still motivated by big business, so be careful when considering ‘alternative’ fuels, too. For example, ethanol production is barely a ‘break even’ environmental prospect, it isn’t the end all be all answer to our dependence on oil. But, ethanol production is being driven by government subsidies.

The only solution is to stop the massive deforestation of the whole planet(trees scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, and generate oxygen…) and reduce consumption (a concept completely foreign to us Americans…) Whether or not global warming is happening isn’t debatable, the only issue now is what to do about it…

Interesting to see ads on this site stating that Global Warming is a myth. conservativebookclub.com/Join/SingleBookJoin.asp?sour_cd=sb242az&prod_cd=c7020
Gotta love it!

Wow Gypsy! I usually agree wholehardely with much of what you say on this site, but this comment just made me do a double take! Let me get this straight: You think that part of the global warming going on is due to the fact that people are using heat in their homes and that is causing climate change? That just made me LOL. Tell me what does the SUN do each and every day? I guess that’s different though huh?

I personally belive that global warming is just another scare tatic being used by governments around the world in order to line their pockets with more money.

Even if global warming caused by humans were true, there’s is absolutely nothing we can do about it, so why worry? Sure we can all do our part to keep our enviroment clean and less polluted. I’m all for that. And all the deforestation that is happening around the globe, people don’t realize that there are actually more new tree’s being planted each and every day than whats being cut down. Granted, I don’t believe in cutting down our rainforests the way we are, but i don’t see an end to that anytime soon. Once again it’s big business and until we learn to become more of a paperless society, like was predicted 10 years ago, I don’t see an end to it.
I’m all for less pollution, but I don’t buy the politicians story’s about global warming. This world is a lot stronger than people think. It’s been around for millions of years and will be around for millions of years after we’re all gone.

I’ve heard a great many scientist say that even if global warming were caused by earths inhabitants, there would be no way for any of us to reverse the process, no matter what we did. You can’t change the course of nature no matter how hard you try. And anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.

I think this is a topic much like religion, whereas people are going to believe what they believe. And nobody is going to sway another person into changing their beliefs.

But don’t get me wrong Gypsy, I do enjoy and agree on many of your views! Keep up the great work!

Once again, just like all the talk with the war: Everybody is just “talking” and no action is being taken. This topic has been being discussed for the past 20+ years and we’re no closer to change than we were back then.

Suggestions?

Gypsy, I, too, agree with you sometimes, but um … you really need to study up on the science of climate change. If temperatures mixing caused global climate change, then wouldn’t the world be a steady 98.6 degrees right now? It doesn’t work that way. The earth is essentially a massive biosphere (actually, that’s EXACTLY what it is!) which regulates its own temperature very efficiently.

Most of the evidence I’ve seen seems to indicate that global climate change is natural.

Now that’s an interesting concept!

Jeremy -

you wrote -

you really need to study up on the science of climate change.

I write -

“um” (your word, I’ll use it because I think it sounds funny) - I HAVE studied up on it.

I have a family member who is a climactic scientist (on the east coast) - this guy has traveled the world, studied with the best of them, EVEN been on panels that were funded by Big Oil who asked him (and the other scientists) to “prove global warming is a farce”.

He couldn’t do it.

I’m not saying none have, but I AM saying most have “um” - NOT.

Yes, the earth WILL compensate for global warming. The question which should be important to living creatures like us is - “how will it do that - and what might change for us?”

Um.

Yeah. It’s like that.

Okay.

This is for all of those who either entirely “naysay” global warming, or for those who think it’s a “natural” phenomenon.

I have a uestion for yous all. I’ll let this thread go for a half dozen replies in hopes that @ least a couple of them will answer this question.

Based upon your answers, since I want to know what YOU personally beleive - I’ll give you my thoughts based upon what I personally believe.

Are you ready?

What is / are the reason/s you personally think important that we not worry about global warming (whether it’s human activity based and / or not)?

I hope that isn’t too incomprehensible of a question - to clarify, what I mean is - please offer reasons you have for not being concerned about global warming and why.

Thanks for your replies!

Mike -

My thinking on this is that EVERYBODY can do something.

Not all of us are going to be vegan, ride a bike to work, use one square of TP when we go to the potty (thanks for the idea Sheryl Crow), or have zero children (I DID manage that one) - but - everyone can do SOMETHING.

Awareness is key here - people who REFUSE to enlighten themsleves, who dig in their heels - they are the ones I’m going to say “I told you so” to, here in the not-too-distant future.

No, not everybody wants to or CAN be vegan, but everybody can either be vegan OR change their light bulbs, OR use canvas bags in stead of paper or plastic OR ride their bike to work, OR - you get the idea. If everybody does a few things that they can, the world WILL be a better place.

But the fact of the matter IS Gypsy:
People are NOT switching to a vegan lifestyle ( I personally dont blame them!), people WILL continue to use paper AND plastic in the grocery stores until the grocery stores themselves get rid of both options and give everyone a “canvas sack” as you put it, people WILL continue to have as many child as they like, especially here in Idaho & Utah. (after all this isn’t China!)
AND…people will not switch to the 7 dollar light bulbs until either the price comes down, or their old bulbs burn out and they stop offering the old 6pk of bulbs for a dollar.

Sure you have good ideas, but lets get real…they just aren’t realistic. Not to mention people (at least here in the US) will not give up their 200+ horsepowered gas guzzeling vehicles in order to “bicycle” to work. Especially since most people work more than a mile from home. Who wants to ride their bike to work each morning and arrive to the office all sweaty or wet if its raining. (That is the least realistic idea you have.) Certainly it’s more realistic in a big city, but not here in small town where everything is so spread out.

That pretty much shoots down every idea you had. Got any more for me to fire away at? Like somebody pointed out earlier: we’ve been talking about the whole “enviroment thing/global warming problem” for 20+ years now and nobody has done much of anything to solve it. Even the whole recylcing business is a bust. Most cities have stopped the whole recycling process because it costs too much.

I’m not saying people should “give up”, but people aren’t going to turn their lives upside down and be inconvienenced to save a few trees. Especially when there are more trees being planted each year, than what are being cut down.
But hey…thats just my 3 cents worth.

Okay guys.

I am not going to try to convince ANYBODY any further that altering your lifestyle a little bit can help conserve our resources, it can teach kids to be more responsible and thoughtful when they grow up, it can get everybody moving on a track to healing a sick planet.

Let’s all keep on messing in our own nest.

I’m finished discussing this topic on this forum. Let reality convince you guys in a few years when perhaps water is so darned rare in the heartland that carrots jump to 10.00 a bag.

THEN - when the truth really DOES get inconvenient, maybe then some people who don’t want to bother with a 7 dollar light bulb will indeed start seeing some of the light shedding.

Good night!

The problem with the environmental movement is that it has become to elitist. When Al Gore preaches constantly about global warming and conserving energy but then it comes out that his gas and power bill at his mansion is over $30,000 a year that says something. He made excuses that he buys wind and other renewable power sources and is planning on installing solar panels. The message I get from that is if you are rich and can afford it go ahead and waste electricity and blame all the problems on the poor who can’t afford the extra cost for alternative power sources. There is no way the kind of electricity use exhibited by Gore would be sustainable if everyone used that much energy, even if it were all alternative power sources. Most of the country would have to be covered by solar panels and windmills.
Gore and the rest of these celebrities need to get off their high horses and quit making excuses that it’s okay for me to do it I’m rich and start leading by example.
Oh I just remembered another example. John Travolta was going off recently about climate change while doing press around the world for his latest film. He talked about the need for the average American to make changes in the ways they consume power. How did he get around the world to talk about this important issue? He flew one of his FIVE private jets, and not little small ones either one is a 707. It was estimated that by doing this he produces about 800 tons of carbon emissions a year by himself, the average American produces about 7 tons. He to made excuses. Once again the rich and famous think that they are above the standards they hold other people to, and they wonder why we aren’t tripping all over our selves to follow their counsel.
Personally I do think we all need to make changes. Gypsy had some good suggestion of little things we can each do. You don’t have to do all of them but pick one small thing at a time, even slow change is better than no change. It is an issue that needs addressed but we need leaders who actually lead instead of shouting at us from atop their giant piles of money that we need to change so they won’t have to.

Does anybody know anything about the story of Gore purchasing carbon credits from a company that he supposedly is 51% owner of….so, he is paying himself to look good to the global warming crowd?

I’m certain that the NASA administrator would not want to see a reduction in the amount of money spent on his pet projects, i.e., manned flights to Mars and the moon. It seems that we could go a long way towards solving some vexing problems, not only in this country but the world at large, regarding our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and the related global warming issue if NASA weren’t siphoning off so many billions of taxpayers dollars for their worthless projects. Let’s clean up our messes on this planet before we try to further investigate uninhabitable barren rocks in our solar system. Who knows, we may become one of those barren planets ourselves if we don’t get a handle on global warming.

ooh_child,

Actually NASA’s yearly budget (15B) is closer to what we spend in Iraq in 2 months and yeah, I suppose 120B dollars–spent by 2020 (includes building a launch site on our moon) doesn’t sound like much, especially if you say it fast. We spent about 2 billion dollars on the Manhattan Project that developed the A-bomb (about 20B in todays dollars). Surely we could spend a like amount to develop alternate sources of energy that would free us from our addiction to fossil fuel and the enormous costs involved in keeping that Mid-East fuel spigot open. If that money were to come in lieu of a (pie in the sky) scheme to put a man on Mars then I say let’s do it. It all boils down to priorities I suppose and it seems to me that our most pressing priority is getting our kids the hell out of that bloody quagmire called Iraq. If that means pulling money from NASA, using energy efficient light bulbs or driving a Prius to work in order to resolve our energy crisis then so be it. It’s high time we made some sacrifices in the civilian sector to get our troops back home, to say nothing of saving our own planet from the global warming threat.

Hey Babs,

It’s the worlds leading climatologists who are telling us there’s a 90% chance that we are causing the global warming cycle by burning hydrocarbons. I don’t know where you come from but in the business world where I make my living, those odds constitute a slam dunk. But forget that…my point was that we need to bring our troops home, and the best way to insure that we don’t have to go to that part of the world to protect our strategic oil supplies is to ween ourselves of their oil. Did ya kinda miss my point?

If you don’t give a damn what we’re doing to our planet, at least think about our kids in Iraq who are getting slaughtered every day. Or think about the 7+ billion dollars a month it is costing us to keep them there. Factored into a gallon of gasoline that would make it’s real cost 15 bucks a gallon!

Apparently, Meso, you didn’t read the end of my post; I agree that reusing and reducing and recycling are great ideas and will continue to do so; I don’t agree that a full “90%” of all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made entity; watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” ; bad name, good facts from another “90%” of world scientists ha ha….this issue is far from settled; the world has gone through these cycles before and will continue to do so, no matter how much money Al Gore gives to “carbon credits” at companies he owns.

So now its our fault that George W lied to the world about Iran having WMD’s so we could occupy another country for their oil? Alrightythen!

I care about the enviroment as much as the next guy and do my part just like everyone else. But I refuse to be bamboozled by a government that has a long history of planting fear in the minds of its citizens all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Thanks for the support, Guest and Joe…it is nice to know I am not alone in wondering if “man-made global warming” isn’t just this year’s “new ice age” (as several posters have commented on) or bandwagon of choice..again, if people haven’t seen it, the “Great Global Warming Swindle” is definitely worth a watch..the IPCC is not in agreement on this issue, as some have suggested…Penn and Teller’s “bull$%&*” series also has a segment on global warming and other such issues bandied about by politicians that is absolutely hysterical….watch all the people line up to sign a petition banning the use of…”dihydrgen chloride”…..

Apparently, Meso doesn’t read whole comments; I don’t drive an SUV and, as I have already stated, I do recycle and reduce….good idea for the planet, NOT because I think it will counteract the natural phenomenom of global warming…….

No answer from meso about why it is okay for Gore to tell all us “little people” to shell out money for hybrid cars and solar panels, when he consumes energy to the tune of $30,000 a month just in energy use in his houses (plural). I don’t dislike Gore, but isn’t that a little hypocritical, meso? I think everyone needs to look into this for themselves and not just buy the party line because it is trendy right now to talk about “global warming”……..

ooh_child, sure: I(like Al Gore) am not a scientist; I can’t give an opinion about anything scientific that isn’t a distillation of what climate scientists have said. That is why I qualified it with an “if”. In the “Great Global Warming Swindle” several scientists present data suggesting that there is not a true unending period of warming occuring which will inevitably lead to the end of the world, but rather a cyclical geothermic phenomenom, related to the heat of the sun and the level of the oceans….that this same cycle has been repeated over the past billions of years (ie Medieval Warm Period, a period in the 40’s of warmer temps, the period before the last Polar Ice Age, etc…); the documentary is fascinating and gives a balanced view to scientists from all over the world and from all different disciplines…..lots of information backed up with hard science….

Before anyone attacks me, I am stating this is my opinion based on information I have reviewed; I am not a scientist!

If you would have gone over the complete article Babs mentions, you would have also seen that carbon dioxide is produced in much larger quantities by nature itself, than what we can produce! ie: volcanoes, decaying matter, etc. And much more than our SUV’s and factory’s produce.
Global warming is just the “story of the hour” (or decade if you will) in order for scientists, governments and “so called” non-profit organizations, to make huges sums of money and instill fear into the general public.
And, if you would have continued reading that documentary, you would have read that this warming and cooling of the earth has gone on since the beginning of time. Of course sea levels will rise and fall over time. People can’t be so naive as to think that our current sea level is supposed to remain constant throughout time! Seriously! Anyone who has read just a little bit of history will tell you that whole civilizations have been wiped out because of changes in the weather. And it wasn’t because of their SUV’s or even the dung from their donkeys decomposing and releasing carbon dioxide into the air!

People are so quick to believe the worse or better yet, an ex president that has no clue. This earth will continue on…CHANGING….just as it has since the beginning of time. And there is nothing we can do about it. Get over it, stop worrying so much, and live your lives!

This is just like the “religion” debate. You will believe what you want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to believe. And if a person feels strongly enough about a subject, nobody will ever change anothers mind, no matter how much propaganda….I mean “scientific studies” you put before them.

ooh_child, I get it now; I thought you had a legitimate question; I didn’t realize I had said ‘position of the sun’; if you re-read it, clearly what I meant was position of the ocean and the sun (understood, relative to each other…)….you are just trying to make me look silly….I didn’t catch the sarcasm the first time around;

anyway, you keep repeating “scientists” (plural) and then refering to one….are there others?

if you watch the entire documentary, instead of just googling it for negative reactions thereto, you will see what I am talking about….climatologists who have measured sunspots have found great variation in the sun’s temp over the millenia; that is what a significant number believe is behind the cyclical warming and cooling of the planets; moreover, and since you didn’t mention this and I am assuming you didn’t watch it, TGGWS also references the “science” relied upon by Gore, including some data which was read backwards!!!! oops!!!

So I guess we are all entitled to review the science and come to our own decisions, hey?

how about without the nastiness?

ooh_child, one more thing: I am not allowed, apparently, to reference what “source” you are using for your scientific beliefs (it got flagged and banned because it mentioned the chri—an word) but let me just ask, do you know what the John Ray Institute, the basis of your position on this issue, is? An “intelligent design” site? This is your source for science on global warming?

I’m new to IF, but am an energy industry professional with a lot of “stock” in this topic.

Quoting JoeSmith “This is just like the “religion” debate. You will believe what you want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to believe”

I respectfully disagree. The debate over global warming (GW) is inherently different than the religion debate, because there IS a right answer in the case of global warming. One day (perhaps sooner than we think), we WILL figure out without a doubt whether humankind did or didn’t tip the carbon scale. Threads like this, along with appropriately funded research are the only way to know for sure before it may be too late. Of course some of you might think there IS a right answer to religion, but the human race probably won’t figure that one out any time soon.

Now - as far as my views on GW are concerned - I believe in sustainability. Sure the Earth’s climate has ebbed and flowed over time, but I argue that none of those “natural” changes have been the result of human free will. Now, humans have come along, and for their own benefit, created an unsustainable pattern. We take carbon fuels out of the earth, burn them for energy, and put the carbon up in the atmosphere. The argument to the effect of “volcanoes or decaying matter pumps out a lot more” is bunk for this reason. We are unnaturally upsetting the BALANCE of carbon, tipping the scale between that which is below ground and that which is above. Humans have learned time after time that if we alter nature enough, she cuts us hard (recently, trying to control rivers/lakes during Katrina). Why should we expect there to be no repercussion to upsetting the carbon balance?

These are conclusions based on a belief in sustainability. Think of it as “the ultimate golden rule” between humans and our environment.

ooh child and everyone,

didn’t mean to post the same thing so many times; as you can see by the above, my posts got accidentally deleted so I kept resending, thinking I had used a word that was being filtered out or something…..

Babs, respectfully, there was no nastiness intended with my questions or responses. I’m still unclear why you think the relative position of the sun & ocean(s) is different.

I have a limited amount of time in my life & would rather not watch a documentary if the people involved were not clearly informed of the intent of the production. The producer of this film has been shown in the past to be less than truthful with his intentions to inform, that’s all.

As far as sources go, I read materials from all sides & spectrums. Since I am not a scientist either, I look to experts in their respective fields for facts. Fact: Wunsch was misled & quote-mined for his contribution to the production. Fact: Sir John Houghton is a respected professional in this particular area of science; an “expert” if you will. Fact: not all of the planets in our solar system are “warming & cooling.”

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

Yes, we can all “believe” whatever we want to believe, but the equal balance of this “Global Warming Swindle” show is far from established for my tastes.

I’m sorry if questions upset you, Babs. I intended no offense.

JimmyJam, thank you for you questions. I did take slight offense to your edited comment, but I believe it was withdrawn simply because it did not add value to the discussion.

An energy industry professional can actually be just about anyone that dedicates their vocation to the energy industry, whereas the energy industry is comprised of gas, coal, ethanol, uranium, wind, etc markets – as well as the researchers and investors in new markets such as geothermal. As Idaho grows, we have to import much of our power from other states, such as the state with the highest carbon output per capita in the world, Wyoming. Therefore, I don’t blame you for not knowing what an “energy industry professional” is, because Idaho has a lot fewer of them than surrounding regions. Suffice to say I am in the research category, and the federal gov’t pays most of my check.

How can I prove people are the cause of global warming? Well I am not professionally researching that topic, but here is my logic:
Are humans upsetting the balance of the earth’s carbon cycle by burning carbon-rich fuels, therefore outputting more CO2 than trees can suck in? Yes – I have seen measurements that prove this and if you like I will try to find them.
Where is this carbon going? To the upper atmosphere in the form of CO2 – research the structure of our atmosphere for proof here.
What is the effect of extra CO2 up there? The “greenhouse effect,” which used to be a good thing because it keeps us at a relatively constant temperature, is now keeping us too warm (i.e. “global warming”). Research the greenhouse effect for proof on how this works.

The 90 percent you are referring to comes from a worldwide panel of scientists that gathered at Paris in February (their exact words were “greater than 90%”). It is the nature of science to place such conservative numbers on analyses. When you do an experiment, you do it more than just once. You figure out how many times you have to do that experiment before you’ve exhausted all possible uncertainty. Well, in systems with a large amount of variables that are interdependent (such as the earth’s atmosphere), this number of experiments can be ridiculously huge – more than the most powerful computers can do in 100 years. But, there is hope, because if you start to see trends in your experiments, most scientists agree that you can stop a little early. Say, if I was planning on doing 1000 experiments, but every single one of the first 300 backed my hypothesis, it is extremely likely (if I did them in the right manner) that my hypothesis is correct. But you are right, not 100% likely. In this case, 90% likely, is enough to make some pretty sure assumptions and go on to the next experiment, which is “what do we do about it?”

This brings up a joke that engineering students learn in college: A mathematician and an engineer are both put in a room with the girl of their dreams. They are both told that they can move half the distance toward the lady, and then half the remaining distance, and so on. The mathematician, thinking that the remaining distance can never equal exactly zero throws his hands up in disgust and leaves. The engineer, however, does a calculation in his head… 12 feet, 6 feet, 3 feet, 1.5 feet, 0.75 feet, a few inches… and says “close enough for me!!”

The engineers of the world will be happy with the “greater than 90%” and try to figure out what to do about it, while the mathematicians will spend 50 more years trying to get it certain. Both tasks are important.

What am I going to do about it? You are incorrect in assuming I drive to work – I walk or bike. All the lighting in my home is compact fluorescent (they DO save energy AND money). My vehicle is both 4WD and gets 30mpg (a subaru). We have already proven that you can get a lot of energy without burning fossil fuels. In short, we can solve this problem if we all change just a little. There’s no silver bullet. If everyone tried to live closer to work, our town would thrive MORE because downtown would be a bustling place and 17th st would just be the road to Ammon instead of the road to Circuit City. If more of us demanded carbon-free power, our legislators would have to do something about it. USA has arrived as the greatest power on earth for two overlying reasons – oil as easy energy, and a national determination to be the best. The former is going away, so we have to make the latter prevail. We made it to the moon using a giant bottle rocket – don’t you think that if the nation (with the cooperation of the world) made a concerted effort at global warming we could solve it too? I have dedicated my life to solving this problem – it’s what I do for a living and even if they didn’t pay me it’s still what I’d be doing.

Just for the record, to no one in particular, I do think “global warming” is occuring; I don’t think it is man-made….that is a distinction, in this case, with a difference. Be careful in labelling people who don’t agree with you; some of us do believe in global warming, just not man-made. Like millions of others, I believe the best evidence we have supports the idea of a cyclical warming/cooling period.

Nobody said they didn’t believe global warming wasn’t occuring. I certainly didn’t. I just don’t think it’s happening because of man either. Sure there’s pollution and we can all do our part to lessen that, but we’ll never stop this planet from warming and cooling itself. And for people to think they can, well I’ll just keep my opinions to myself on that one.

As for digital, for you to expect everyone to move closer to their jobs to be able to walk or bike to work, well thats neither reasonable or feasible in most cases.
Number 1, most people don’t make the amount of money to allow them to choose exactly where they want to live.
Number 2, nobody’s job is secure these days. Nobodys. Do you actually expect people to move everytime they get a new job so they can walk or bike to work? I don’t think so.
Number 3, Idaho Falls (and Idaho in general) is not a pedestrian friendly city/state. There aren’t many sidewalks to use to get back and forth to work and it would just be downright dangerous.
Number 4, most people live more than a couple of miles from work, which wouldn’t make it ideal to walk or bike.
Number 5, who wants to walk or bike to work in the summer and be all sweaty by the time they got there? Certainly not me. And same goes for winter. Who is going to trudge a mile or more in the snow and or rain to go to work? Not me again.

So you see, your suggestions just aren’t realistic and I don’t see anybody giving up their vehicles to do such things anytime soon. Sure, everyone can do their part to cut back on polluting this planet. I do and I’m all for that. I just don’t think you’re going to be able to reverse, stop or even slow down global warming as its been happening since the beginning of time. But hey, good luck trying to solve that problem.

I’ll have to side with Jimmy on this one. You honestly expect people to ride their bikes 15 miles to work? I work out regularly and am in pretty decent shape and even I would be covered in sweat by the time I rode my bike 15 miles to work. I don’t know about you, but my dress code is business casual and that isn’t the most comfortable thing to wear riding a bike. Who wants to work 8 hours in sweaty smelly clothes? Ok, so you bring a change of clothes…..that still doesn’t help you from the wind, the rain, the snow, etc. He was right in saying its just not feasible. Plus, I dont see Idaho Falls building bike paths throughout the city within the next year or two. It’s taking them 8 months to lay down a 2 mile stretch of blacktop on Sunnyside!

I would think with you being a “energy industry professional”, and most likely having a decent education, you would know that our earth goes through this cycle of warming and cooling. I’d be interested to know just exactly what company you work for and what your role there is. You know, just to better help the people here understand where you’re coming from with your point of view. I mean an “energy industry professional” could be any number of things.

Regardless, I think we can all do our best to keep pollution down. But if you haven’t noticed, we’ve made great strides over the last couple of decades. I don’t know when the last time you’ve been to LA, but the smog there is nothing compared to what it was back in the early 80’s. I’d have to say I agree with those that say you’re not going to change mother nature. I don’t care how many light bulbs you change, or fossil fuels you stop burning. The earth has a cycle it goes through, and nothing we do is going to stop that. What we can stop though, is all the over-hyped drama regarding this subject. Lets all take care of the planet for the next generation, but lets be reasonable about it all. Asking a population that’s 75-80% overweight to ride their bikes to work each morning, just isn’t reasonable. Sure it would help everyone loose weight, but I just don’t see this as being their new weight lose regimen.

No Carson,that’s not what I said. Why don’t you go back and re-read it before putting words into my mouth. I said, none of those things are going to change MOTHER NATURES COURSE. It’s a cycle the earth goes through and has gone through for billions of years. So no, I don’t think WE are causing these changes. Now listen carefully….I’m not saying changes aren’t occuring…. THEY ARE. But such is life. This is what happens.
Are you a scientist Carson? I didn’t think so. So lets not start calling names ok? You have your opinion and I have mine.

AND…do YOU ride your bike to work?

With regards to my profession, I have an M.S. in high-power electrical engineering, and I now do research into the next generation of power distribution systems. I’d like to go back to school for physics and chemistry so I can do more sustainable energy research.

Now, if you disagree with the logic I posted in (131), please state why. Simple “warming and cooling” arguments do not cut it. The difference between, say, the mini-ice age of the 1500’s-1700’s versus the trend we’re looking at today: it’s going too fast. Scientists believe the earth has been warmer than today, but the amount we have warmed since about 1950 usually takes 100-500 years for natural earth cycles. I recommend this site for a lot of good science with zero bias: http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/index.htm

Riding bikes is only one of my suggestions. How about demanding that we cut oil usage? It is doable - anyone remember the last big demand for a rise in vehicle fuel efficiency standards? From 1978 to 1985 avg. fuel efficiency went up by 10mpg, and avg. bhp increased as well.

Of course efficiency can’t do it all. Some folks think ethanol could be an answer. Because ethanol works best at high compression ratios and has a higher octane rating than gasoline, you can get around 40mpg in a 250 hp engine for about $1000 more dollars than the equivalent gas engine. With economies of scale, it could be much cheaper than that very soon. But what isn’t cheap is the ethanol infrastructure, and making ethanol from corn is not very smart. Good thing a cellulose-based ethanol plant should be coming to Shelley in a few years which will make ethanol out of farm waste products.

And y’all, there’s a difference between debating and being downright negative. It is very difficult to display emotion on a forum, so please keep to the facts and keep quarreling to a minimum.

Funny how grown men bicker like kids on this site and the women have pretty mature conversations majority of the time. At least those who I figure to be male or female.

Anyway, I think we call can do something, no matter how big or small, to make the world better and safer for our grandchildren. I won’t expect anyone to do more or less than me as long as they do what they are capable of and can afford. Don’t judge me and I won’t judge you.

What’s the general opinion on purchasing carbon credits?

I think it’s a generally good idea to plant new forests.

Unfortunately it appears to be a sale of indulgences, and I doubt the amount of carbon those infant forests really makes a dent in our emissions.

What do you think about carbon credits?

(i think it’ll be the next poll topic)

Its amazing how, suddenly, all these people are riding their bikes to work when this topic heats up. I seriously doubt people are riding their bikes or walking to work as much as they claim they are.

Somebody noted earlier that this topic is just like the religion topic and I’d have to agree with that statement. Everybody has their own opinion but NOBODY knows for sure so why is their so much arguing going on? Everybody else thinks they have the answer or what THEY believe is what is right, when NONE of us really know for sure so lets stop bickering. The world isn’t coming to an end so lets get out there and enjoy what we have.

Ditto, Guest 2486, you said that perfectly…….

Hi Carson, I didn’t personally attack you or say you were lying about riding your bike; in fact, good for you! I believe we should all do our part to cut down on pollution; I actively recycle and try to reduce my use of natural resources in every way possible….

I do not believe that global warming is man-made; I do believe it is occuring as part of a normal atmospheric cycle, one which has been ongoing for probably millions of years.

So don’t take offense at everyone who doesn’t agree that global warming is man made; that is what makes this country great; we are all free to disagree with one another’s opinion, yet we are all entitled to have them……

have a great day!

Carson,
you won’t get edited just for disagreeing. But you will if you use foul language, put down other posters, etc. I’m not sure what you said that was edited so I can’t comment directly on your statement. Only that you’re free to disagree with anyone on this site. Trust me…I disagree with many of the posters here, but thats is the fun of it all. Having a different opinion than others is what make each one of us unique and different. So feel free to keep posting your thoughts and opinions. Just keep it clean and you should be ok.

I just reviewed the comments Carson and I did not see any putting down people like yours did. Case closed.

I liked this previous comment:

It is very difficult to display emotion on a forum, so please keep to the facts and keep quarreling to a minimum.

Last week’s poll question

“Do you think carbon offset credits have a substantial positive effect on CO2 emmissions?”

Resulted in:

60% No, absolutely not
21% Probably not
16% Probably
4% Yes, absolutely

=81% negative perception of carbon credits.

Why do you think that is?

You’re the boss, Joe. But I think I am being held to a different standard than some others. I’m not just talking about this thread. There are many other posters who mock and ridicule people and their posts aren’t touched. However, I do appreciate you reminding me to stick to the facts. I’ll try to do better.

“special code”, I LOVE it….let’s start an “assauge your guilt and use all the carbon you want: we will make it all better!” tree farm….tons of open space in Idaho…..

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Feelinlucky, awesome, I loved it….

Global Climate Change is probably a better title for what is happening as there are places getting warmer and places getting colder.

I have only lived in IF for 8 years but from having talked with those who grew up here, the climate in *this* area is different. Less water in the form of snow and rain, more heat in the summer, longer growing season.

I am actually more worried about Peak Oil, i.e. changing economy due to rising oil costs.

Changes we can make to become a more sustainable culture include things like planting a garden to feed ourselves, with heirloom varieties so we don’t depend on hybrid seed stock (seed saving). If you have a black thumb, support local growers. Become a Locavore. It’s ridiculous to be importing lamb from New Zealand for $6-10 a pound when we have perfectly good lamb grown here for far, far less (I pay about $3 a pound by buying from a local grower). It’s even more ridiculous to be importing too dang much from China in the way of food imports when it is clearly unsafe for us and our children. Buy Local, save oil and support our OWN economy. That’s a start towards reversing both Global Climate Change and problems relating to Peak Oil.

The light bulb issue comes up time and time again with regards to cost. Buy buying one florescent light bulb that lasts much, much longer than in incandescent and uses less power you are able over time to save money on the extra bulbs and power to buy another. After a while you come to the point where you are way ahead of the game cost wise. Take baby steps, buy one for the extra $5-8 and go from there. Isn’t that easy? Baby steps?

Sustainable Living is more of an answer for me so there is something left for future generations. This is a journey that we should start on rather than just reactive living to emotionally charged scientific arguments.

On buying locally, I just finished my weekly grocery shopping at the farmer’s market. I found hotdogs for the husband from Mackay and pasture raised organic Lamb Shanks from Soda Springs (they also have beef). My eggs, cucumbers, potatoes, tomatoes, beets and cheese came from Woods up in St. Anthony. I got radishes from Shelly. There was also local bread (I make my own from Wheat Montana wheat which is 123 miles away). I get my milk from Reeds which feeds a combination of grain and hay with no hormones, antibiotics, etc. I make my own butter from Reed’s cream (takes 10 minutes with my hand mixer). I didn’t buy fruit this week because I still have cherries from Magic Valley.

Frankly I’m finding buying local isn’t that difficult at all. My exceptions to the rule are Olive Oil, citrus, spices, coffee and chocolate.

I am using a regional approach to my buying. Idaho first, within 250 miles second. On spices, coffee and chocolate I try to buy fair trade and shade grown (grow as many herbs as I can too). As for Olive Oil, we produce Olive Oil in California but I am still searching for this and all I can find is imported. Any help with this greatly appreciated.

Buying locally and in season means that certain things are only short time harvests for my menu like berries and melons but I do put some up for the winter which makes them all that much more of a “treat” and gives me a greater appreciation of them. Believe me dehydrated watermelon in the winter is a serious taste explosion!

I really like the idea of using less transportation energy to get my food but more than that I like knowing that I’m supporting Idaho growers.

I both fear and relish the thought of a dwindling petroleum industry. I believe through innovation and research we can find alternatives to oil. It’s just a matter of doing it quick enough to forestall economic collapse.

The fresh water crisis is a crisis in name only due to gross wastage of water by many countries. With education we could cut our water consumption by 85% and still have enough to continue the cycle of our ecosystem and have fresh water. Again, this is fixable, but will it be in time?

20,000 leftover nuclear weapons are just too wierd to contemplate and I don’t think it’s a problem unless we get another idiot Texas cowboy elected.

Global deforestation is one of the worst issue we have facing us in our time. Gone is Gone. Extinct cannot come back. Trees that grew for centuries cannot be replaced. The damage to our planetary balance is so great at this point that the greenhouse effect might just kill us. We no longer have the trees to provide the delicate balance in our atmosphere. Trees BREATHE!!!! The yfilter our air. We have been destroying our filtration system and frankly if we don’t breathe, we die.

Worst of all, destroying the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that 70-80% of our oxygen is produced by Algae. Destroy the oceans and we are destroyed.

http://www.ecology.com/dr-jacks-natural-world/most-important-organism/index.html

We might try planting a tree, growing native plants that don’t require so much water, powering down on our energy needs and electing someone with a brain *g* But as the poster asked, destroying our Oceans will destroy us.

I was looking for this info a while back:

“Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wrote in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. [57] Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began.[58] Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific cooling period.[59]

[edit] Media
A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they “argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous”. Gore’s discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that “a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium.”[8] The article quotes both defenders and critics of the film; Gore responds that scientists may disagree with him on some details, “but we do agree on the fundamentals.”[8]

An April 19, 2007 article in Telegraph.co.uk reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is “inaccurate and politically motivated” and are “threatening a legal challenge over the Government’s decision to send it to every secondary school.” Parents claim that “the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002.”[60]

[edit] The Great Global Warming Swindle
Main article: The Great Global Warming Swindle
The controversial documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK on March 8, 2007, brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus regarding human-caused global warming. Among other claims, the film states that Gore has misrepresented the data in An Inconvenient Truth, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature preceded an increase in carbon dioxide in the ice core samples); this however was promptly disputed by other scientists.[61][62] Global warming skeptic Fred Singer wrote that the documentary is “devastating” to Gore’s movie: “…The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician.”[63]”

This is from Wikipedia, but the citations are all accurate…..

Just FYI!!!

I just want to throw in another wrench and/or stir the pot here:

This article was originally published on June 28, by Robert Tracinski

Titled: “The Seeds of the Global Warming Police State”

The article begins: “Czech President Vaclav Klaus, drawing on his memories of Soviet oppression, recently declared that the global warming hysteria had replaced Communism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity.”
The environmentalists continue to do their best to prove him right.
In making the parallel to Communism, President Klaus cited the use of environmentalism as a justification for global central planning. But it is not just the vast scale of the controls proposed by environmentalists that is so revealing; it is also the detail. There is no aspect of life too trivial or intimate to fall outside of this new ideological regimentation.”

The last paragraph reads:

“No, we haven’t arrived at a green dictatorship—we’re nowhere near it. But with all of the environmentalists’ talk about the long-term consequences of our actions decades or centuries from now, we should subject their agenda to the same scrutiny. What ideological direction are they taking us, what kind of political and economic system are they seeking to impose—and what will happen to our liberty and prosperity, the day after tomorrow?”

Is it generally agreed on both sides that Al Gore is probably hurting the global warming debate more than he is helping?

Whether you believe in it or not. I tried watching An Inconvenient Truth, but quit about halfway through. It was just too much obvious emotional propaganda.

New Analysis Counters Claims that Solar Activity is Linked to Global Warming

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/11/2449/

From the article:

“It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet’s climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun’s output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun’s output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.”

Personally, I don’t think Gore is a problem at all. I’ll speculate that the seemed hatred for Gore stems from the fact that he was Clinton’s VP. If you hate Clinton, I think the theory goes, then you have to hate Gore too.

I am, and I will.
Thank you.

Ooh Child,

I believe your quote that anything regarding global warming–manmade or natural cycle–is “firmly” settled is overly optimistic….here is a non-”progressive” look at the same data….note, this analysis goes back centuries, not just 25 years…….

Really, it would be nice if it were settled science; clearly it is not. As such, everyone is still left with their own informed opinions about manmade vs. natural/cyclical global warming.

I really would like to know why the scientists can’t agree (or won’t)? Just what is it that these supposed experts and professionals (on both sides) are doing that makes the science so inexact?

Of course, perhaps the science is more exact, we just don’t hear about it and this is what they want us to think….science in this area isn’t exact…but just do something we tell you to do anyway!?

We had this happen to us with the creation of the ceramic engine in the 1950s. This technology would have saved fuel immensely. The technology has been bought up and kept under wraps. It was never really heard from again. Fuel efficiency standards are being debated now in Congress like it’s some new fad.

My greatest fear is that we have the technologies available–from science–right now and we are not hearing about them and/or they are not allowed to be used. I am also concerned that we are not hearing the real truth from Gore or the other side about what we face. We see scare mongering on one side and supposed lies on the other side. It is so convoluted and seems intentional. Yes, intentional. The guys in the white jackets should all be able to agree on the majority of findings–using the scientific method–however, I think that the people paying the scientists bills and putting food on the scientists family table could be forcing skewed results. This forces some of us to be skeptical and others of us to be radical. Neither really solves the problem of what the appropriate direction this country needs to take. It seems either side is out to either keep the status quo and make money hand over fist or change our entire ideological way of thinking to form more political power (and wealth) at the expense of our existing institutions. I can see why some of these scientists turn mad!

Mike, I think it’s along the same lines as the so-called controversy over evolution, or descent w/ modification. The people who promote the ideas of Creationism or Intelligent Design don’t do any real science regarding their position; they would rather write books aimed at the general populace (& make scads of $) than actually submit their findings for peer review. Even though biological scientists agree that evolution is a fact, there are a lot of people who think it’s all one giant conspiracy to do away with God(s).

If you can convince enough people that there’s differing opinions on the subject, then they seem to think it bolsters their POV. They don’t seem to understand that just because there might be some “unknowns” in a certain theory, that doesn’t mean your theory is automatically right.

So, they try to convince enough people that global change isn’t caused by human activity in order to sell books & charge $ for speaking engagements. They’ll point to any other reason for the change that’s not in our control, but that doesn’t mean that humans aren’t contributing to the problem.

As has been pointed out before, it’s still in our best interests to cut down on carbon emissions ASAP. Lower personal costs, better air quality, reduction of Middle-East tensions, and investments in new technologies leading to economic growth are just some reasons I can think of off the top of my head. None of these have anything to do with Global Warming!

Right on! There are alot of technologies and patents sitting on a shelf of a corporate vault gathering dust.

Get over it already Boise! More people die each year than are born, so population has nothing to do with it. People used to claim 15-20 years ago that our planet is so overpopulated we would run out of natuaral resources. Well, here we are 20 years later and that hasn’t happened. If you’ve done any kind of traveling whatsoever, I’m talking real traveling, you would know that we’ve got so much empty space on this planet it’s not even funny. Stop beliveing everything you hear on tv, all the fear mongering and doomsayers, and get a mind of your own. This world has been here for billions of years, and will be hear for billions more. The world has constantly changed, gotten hotter, colder, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. It’s been going on forever. Don’t think the world is going to come to an end because a couple of scientists that are being paid from governments and big business tell you so. Wake up man! Geez….some of you really need to get over all this doom and gloom. The world changes…that’s life. Move on!

Populations rise and fall due to disease,famine, war, low fertility rates, etc. I think what Miagi is trying to point out is, population really has nothing to do with it. The world is plenty big enough for expansion of the human race.

Even Wikipedai admits that it is impossible to make anything close to a precise count of the worlds population. World census counts have never been more than just a rough estimate.
Like Mr Miagi, I have travelled extensivly around the world and it’s quite funny to me when I hear people say our world is over populated. It’s impossible and it’ll never happen.

Good points Miagi.
But dont you see meso, that’s a “choice” to live there. Just like it’s a “choice” for those millions of people to cram onto a little island called Manhattan. It’s a choice and a stupid one that people make everyday by wanting to live in an over populated place. It doesn’t mean the WORLD is over populated, it means people need to wake up and move.
I’ve never seen the appeal of living in a place such as New York City, Chicago, Toyko, etc. Anybody that spent anytime at all in these places know that there are people on top of people on top of people. You can’t walk 50 ft down the sidewalk in one of these cities without bumping into 70-80 people. Sure its crowded, but who’s fault is that? Its the people that choose to live there. I’ve lived in a number of big cities around world and it wasn’t by choice. I went where my job took me until I finally got fed up with that line of work and with the hectic lifestyle and moved out west here where you can actually hear yourself think.
Since I moved here 7 years ago, I’ve been amazed at how many people I’ve come across that are in their 40’s & 50s that have never been any further than Wyoming or any further west than California. There’s a whole world out there to see and experience but people are too afraid to venture out of their little “comfort zone” in order to experience it for themselves. They’d rather sit in their easy chairs and tell everyone else how much the world is falling apart, because that’s what they heard or saw on tv, when they really don’t have a clue.
Visit Austrailia or Japan or Europe and spend an hour watching the evening news in one of these countries. It’s completely opposite of our news here in the states. There isn’t all this doom and gloom and death and destruction and the world is coming to an end attitude like there is here in this country. The people in this country really have no idea how much the government and media here is brainwashing everyone into believing all this doom and gloom. And it’s all to keep the American public afraid and dependant on the government to consume and buy all this excess crap we really don’t need.

The business of “global warming” (and it IS a business) is a multi billion dollar a year business.
Wake up people and get a mind of your own. Our world is not coming to an end and we certainly are not the cause of global temp getting warmer.
Another thing, everyone complains about the enviroment, healthcare, crime, poverty, but nobody does anything about it. People think that if they throw a couple of bucks in the Red Cross bucket in front of WalMart each Christmas that their contributing and making a difference. Marsha Evans, top dog for the Red Cross is making 650 thousand dollars a year. And for what? To help run a charity? the Red Cross is a scam and is full of corruption. If you want to contribute to a cause, try the Salvation Army. The head of that charity makes 13,000 dollars a year plus free housing for managing a 2 billion dollar a year organization. The Red Cross under the “Liberty Fund” collected over 560 million dollars after 9/11. They only distributed about 150 million. And this type of corruption has happened over and over throughout history with the RedCross. From the San Fransicio earthquake in 89 to the Oklahoma City bombing. If you want to make a difference, stop contributing to this government front and find a smaller more trustworthy organization. Or better yet, volunteer once in awhile. Get out there and get your hands dirty, instead of just giving a few bucks.

And for crying out loud….stop believing everything you hear on the “boob tube”!

my work here is done.

Thanks Steve! I look forward to sending you my thoughts later on this evening.

For everyone else, take a moment to read this link and let it sink in. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

Yessir, that was a great link. Amazing how a 19 year old college student knows more about global warming than the best scientists in the world.

Hey Slim,

Could it be that Yessir is liberal? I thought that liberals didn’t practice ageism? Oh, well, I guess it is okay to discriminate based on age if you don’t like results. Good rebuttal to Yessir!

I agree. I know alot of really sharp young people. How refreshing that he took the time to compile this data that others (probably old fogeys) accumulated. lol

No, I’m a conservative. We are the ones who don’t practice ageism. Anyone with an agenda can easily compile a list of links to support that agenda. It doesn’t mean they’re right.

holy racism ‘ooh_child’!!!! yowza!!! I am black; don’t believe I have ever said “gubmit” but thanks for the “ebonics” lesson for me and my kind……

ouch!

…shouldn’t “real” science invite, even welcome, debate?

But what you fail to mention in your same article/advertisement for someone elses blog….is: in the paragraph beneath that one it also states, (and I quote) But mainstream scientists agree that the sun DOES have some influence on flucuations in the Earths temperature”. Correct answer!!Ding Ding Ding……what do we have for him Johnny!!??

It also notes in bold I might add….”Since 1985 that all possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming” to the earth. BUT…..their not telling you in this blog or study, that there are a half a dozen OTHER planets out there ALL experiencing this type of global change on their planets, extreme changes, and yet THOSE planets are not in our atmosphere as most of you may know.
Don’t these scientists realize that our earth revolves around the sun??? So how could ALL this solar activity miss earth only? Makes no sense.

So all you naysayers out there, how do you explain these changes going on to all these other planets of our solar system, when those planets are not affected by our carbon dioxide emissions? Hmmmm….makes ya wonder don’t it?

Really I would love for somebody to explain this one to me instead of just bashing my post or making a snide comment.

*giggles about gubmit*

Ebonics, eh? That’s just the way my Okie red-neck cousins talk, when they get all up in arms about their “latest conspiracy”, usually involving science they refuse to understand.

Me, when I want to know about, say, the solar system, I’ll look to someone who studies them for a profession.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

“Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called “cherry picking”; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that’s all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren’t the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you’d better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?”

The Bad Astronomer also points out the reasons why these observations aren’t necessarily tied to our Sun.

So, who are these people linking warming in our solar system to the Sun; are they also professional astronomers, or something else?

I agree 100% Joe; I just wish we could agree to disagree….and as long as we all agree that recycling, etc., is a good and positive thing to do, does it matter if we don’t buy into the whole Al Gore scenario??? If so, why does it matter????? Anyone??

I think your idea re: ’scientists by the numbers’ is a good one but inherently flawed because, in this day of internet and Google, any side of the debate can pad the numbers with “scientists” of any field with little or no valid credentials, publications, etc (reliance on the Christian “reconciling religion with science” website cited by one of the posters comes to mind)….without a standard definition of scientist, we will be back to square one……

I do like how you keep things civil on this board Joe…..keep up the good work and thanks for the forum…..

I believe the warming of all these planets, including ours, isn’t necessarily and/or completely solar related, but the fact that climate change on our planet and many others has been going on since the beginning of time has got to say something.
These changes going on throughout the planets of our solar system just goes to prove, the warming and cooling of our earth can’t possibly be man made, but a natural occurence that’s been going on for billions of years.

Of course I still agree that we can all do our part to keep this planet healthy so as to leave it in better shape for our children and our childrens children, etc. I’m all for helping to control the polluting of this planet and the slowing down of all the deforestation of our rain forests, etc. I believe we REALLY need to look into hemp as an alternative product for cutting down hundreds of acres of forest each day. There are so many uses for hemp and it’s just not be utilized the way it should be.

I’m with Babs here….we must just agree to disagree, and just like the religion topic, most of our personal beliefs on this issue will not be swayed.

It wasn’t racist, no one really, so your glee doesn’t apply to my use of “gubmit.” Glad I could lighten your day, though…

If I want to call my relatives rednecks, I guess I would know them better than you would.

I would like to have someone explain the logic of believing man couldn’t possibly be contributing to global warming, since the Earth has gone through warming periods in the past. Why does one automatically negate the other? Why can’t carbon emissions also contribute to warming? I’ve never understood the “either/or” false dichotomy set up by some detractors.

Guess we know now why ooohchild was banned from that other blog site. Ooohchild mentioned the other day that they just couldn’t understand why they were banned from this website, but if racist remarks like that are commonplace and in their everyday vocabulary, I can kinda understand now why they were banned.

Personally that kind of talk doesn’t bother me. I grew up with the “sticks and stones” philosophy, but it does bother some people. I think it’s just common courtesy to leave those types of racist remarks at home or between your own closenit group of friends. It’s just ashame that in this day and age, people still have feel the need to put others down in order to lift themselves up. Personally I think its a lack of self confidence in which one feels that its the only way they can express themselves. Its certainly not right to classify a whole race by trying to portray to this online community thats how all African Americans speak. It’s kinda sad that their family speaks like that too, but to each his own. I definately shows ones true lack of intelligence.

But then again, perhaps it was only meant to be a joke. If that was case, then it was simply in poor taste.

Back to the topic at hand….I agree with some of the others…..I agree to disagree with the doomsayers. I too believe global warming is a natrual occurence that is being blown out of proportion for monetary purposes.

As I said before Jeremiah, my comment wasn’t racist. If you refuse to deal with my point(s) & instead opt to try & paint me as racist, that could mean your argument may be pretty weak.

Care to answer my question about human activities & global warming? What’s the monetary gain, exactly?

What’s the monetary gain? Are you kidding me??? Do you honestly believe there’s no money being made with this whole global warming issue? WOW!