Global Warming Cont...

[arkansasbob]

When going out to any major metro area..you generally see a brownish haze over the city (smog)...something just doesn't look natural about it. Doesn't surprise me humans are causing global warming.

Who knows what causes global warming...
I think going green and being environmentally friendly is a good thing.

so humans must be causing global warming because smog doesn't look natural??? please explain the intermediate steps in reasoning that led you do that conclusion. smog is a local effect for which we know the cause. there are also many more types of pollution that can be even more harmful than smog and should certainly be reduced or eliminated. but focusing on a non-pollutant like co2 only takes the attention off of more important environmental issues.

global warming, even if it is caused by humans, will not be the end of the world. longer growing seasons, fewer deaths and illnesses resulting from cold weather, and more food for arctic wildlife are not bad things. the supposed ill effects of global warming are far from proven. it would take an aweful lot of ice melting to cause a significant rise in sea level. increased "storminess" is a heavily contentious idea even within the church of global warming. so it really makes no sense to make such a big deal about something that we probably can't change, and probably won't be all that bad anyway.

[qng001]

so humans must be causing global warming because smog doesn't look natural??? please explain the intermediate steps in reasoning that led you do that conclusion. smog is a local effect for which we know the cause. there are also many more types of pollution that can be even more harmful than smog and should certainly be reduced or eliminated. but focusing on a non-pollutant like co2 only takes the attention off of more important environmental issues.

global warming, even if it is caused by humans, will not be the end of the world. longer growing seasons, fewer deaths and illnesses resulting from cold weather, and more food for arctic wildlife are not bad things. the supposed ill effects of global warming are far from proven. it would take an aweful lot of ice melting to cause a significant rise in sea level. increased "storminess" is a heavily contentious idea even within the church of global warming. so it really makes no sense to make such a big deal about something that we probably can't change, and probably won't be all that bad anyway.

Thanks for over analyzing my post...I have no clue if globel warming is caused by man...maybe or mabye not. That is why I said "who knows what causes global warming". Could be a natural occurance...or it could be caused by ppl. But I think man can do better to help reduce pollution and conserve our natural resources. Why need to be wasteful and trash the earth? I love what God created.

[saltydawg]

the unproven concept is that man is causing it. sheesh, debate is much easier when one side does not continually forget what the point of contention is. as for the models, you are exactly right. and the range of predictions is so wide that no self-respecting scientist would ever advocate for their use as a basis for public policy.

p.s. i'm not a scientist, but i do play one on message boards...:icon_wink:

There is nothing unproven about Mankind burning fossil fuels and dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, after year. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

The range of predictions is not that wide and they point to a serious problem long-term.

[FishingBack]

If the earth were cooling at a rapid pace, I'd be far more scared.

[qng001]

There is nothing unproven about Mankind burning fossil fuels and dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, after year. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas.

Yeah, didn't you guys watch Captain Planet back in the days? i guess i'm the only one.

[DawgyNWindow]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0Swindle&hl=en

[johnnylightnin]

Yeah, didn't you guys watch Captain Planet back in the days? i guess i'm the only one.

"Gonna cut polution down to zero!"

[arkansasbob]

Thanks for over analyzing my post...I have no clue if globel warming is caused by man...maybe or mabye not. That is why I said "who knows what causes global warming". Could be a natural occurance...or it could be caused by ppl. But I think man can do better to help reduce pollution and conserve our natural resources. Why need to be wasteful and trash the earth? I love what God created.

this thread is not about being wasteful and trashing the earth. it's mainly about whether huge amounts of money should be spent to reduce co2 emissions. like you said, "who knows what causes global warming?" some people think they know, and they are trying to make us all pay for their fix -- i'm not buying it.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: 'Scientists argue that Gore's warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors'... Reporter William Broad filing the story, 'A CALL TO COOL THE HYPE'... Developing...

[TECH88]

this thread is not about being wasteful and trashing the earth. it's mainly about whether huge amounts of money should be spent to reduce co2 emissions. like you said, "who knows what causes global warming?" some people think they know, and they are trying to make us all pay for their fix -- i'm not buying it.

I think one has to consider global deforestation as a major contributor as well. We know that trees and other plant life consume CO2 in order to survive. Large tracts are being cleared every year in almost every country on earth. I have read where the tropical rain forests are decreasing at a rate of 1% every year and that's only going back 20 years. I know most of us won't be around in the next 40 or 50 years so there's probably nothing to worry about, however, our children will be on this earth. The question is do we want our generation to be remembered as the ones who sat idle? I know I don't.

[Dirtydawg]

I think one has to consider global deforestation as a major contributor as well. We know that trees and other plant life consume CO2 in order to survive. Large tracts are being cleared every year in almost every country on earth. I have read where the tropical rain forests are decreasing at a rate of 1% every year and that's only going back 20 years. I know most of us won't be around in the next 40 or 50 years so there's probably nothing to worry about, however, our children will be on this earth. The question is do we want our generation to be remembered as the ones who sat idle? I know I don't.

I tell you what. The deforestation issue is one that I really am concerned about especially when you think about what natural rememedies have yet to be discovered that could become extinct without our knowledge or the chance to put them into use-not to mention simply the aesthetic value of the forests.

[FishingBack]

Deforestation is a bad issue because it's mostly in poor countries we can't control, like the gorilla eating stuff. Stay out of the Congo AG!

[daybreaker2]

The British "documentary" that claimed to disprove global warming as manmade actually used faulty graphs and erroneous data INTENTIONALLY to prove they were right. Looks like theyre taking the Bill O'Reilly approach of "Say whatever you want now, because less people will see the retraction, thereby assuring you a large following despite being a total lie-spewing tool"

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2355956.ece

[arkansasbob]

I think one has to consider global deforestation as a major contributor as well. We know that trees and other plant life consume CO2 in order to survive. Large tracts are being cleared every year in almost every country on earth. I have read where the tropical rain forests are decreasing at a rate of 1% every year and that's only going back 20 years. I know most of us won't be around in the next 40 or 50 years so there's probably nothing to worry about, however, our children will be on this earth. The question is do we want our generation to be remembered as the ones who sat idle? I know I don't.

which uses more co2 -- an acre of old-growth forrest, or an acre of corn or wheat or grass, etc.?

[TECH88]

which uses more co2 -- an acre of old-growth forrest, or an acre of corn or wheat or grass, etc.?

I'm not a scientist by any stretch but I would think that trees CONSUME more CO2 because an acre of corn, wheat, hay, etc, is harvested every year.