These are the same guys that were telling us 30 years ago that we needed to cover the polar ice caps with soot in order to combat global cooling. Civilization was going to end in the upcoming ice age. Well, that didn't seem to happen, yet.

Bottom line is that these guys don't really know whether human activity is causing any warm-up of the environment or not. There's lots of speculation, but no one knows. As discussed above, there are a multitude of other factors including, sun heat cycles (very high right now by the way), orbital cycles, volcanic activity, etc, etc. Convergences in these cycles can cause a multitude of effects that we don't fully understand.

I don't believe we should be gratuitous in our approach to limiting what could possibly be some sort of harmful activity. But all this Chicken Little stuff is a little much. Until we have some hard knowledge about what's going on and what we can do, I think using common sense approaches that don't cripple us economically might be the way to go.

Al's got an axe to grind and that's fine. I guess he's all done inventing the internet so he had to look for something else to do.

 

What about Man-Bear-Pig?.
.
.
.

 

Almost exactly how I would have put it. Add to that that solar activity varies from year to year (and what accounts for almost all of the surface heat we have on the planet) and we have no accurate records of how that varied over the millenia.

A t-rex does not look like a cold weather beast to me. (yes I know am am oversimplifying this here) But if you find one in buried in North and South Dakota you either have to assume it was once really toasty up there to make it a hospitiable climate, or a T-Rex jogged up there on his summer vacation from say Texas and then had a heart attack. Now since we were not driving cars back then, there are other factor beside greenhouse gasses that contribute, and since man did not exist, it was not man making the temperature rise.

Does weather data show temps going up. I think they do. Could it be cause for concern. Sure. That does not mean if we end burning fossil fuels tomorrow will make it stop either.

Whether it contributes to glabal warming or not I am not sophisticated enought to say for sure one way or another. But I do wholeheartedly stand behind efforts to reduce pollution, reduce oil consumption, look at alternative energy all all other things that will have someone call you a tree hugger on this board. Why? Becuase the contrary arguments are stupid.

I have a brother in law who says if you can afford to drive an H2 you should. Thats a direct quote. If you can burn uneccesary fuel and waste it because you have the money, why not? He also is an idiot with that barely was able to make it out of high school.

Now you can try to dress up his argument but more eliquently but it boils down to the same thing, if you can afford to why not? That is based on a false assumption that there is no down side to consuming as much as you can. Of course there is a downside. Higher prices, less availible, more pollution, finite supply, etc. You can not deny pollution, you can not deny supply and demand.

I am for conservation of resources for just conservation sake. And nobody who knows me would tell you I am some giant leftist. There is a of course a line of diminishing returns, where cars that get 90 mpg and go from 0 - 60 in an hour becomes impractical and all of that is open to debate.


I guess the point is, I am not convinced that people are the cuase of global warming or that we could stop it if we wanted to. But I am all for measures to cut fuel use and curb emissions anyway because the end result is a good thing.

Oops....my soapbox just broke.

 

Antarctica is the fifth largest land continental mass. Larger than Europe or Austraila.

 

Damnit, didn't have time to check that before I posted last. Either way, Antarctica has land, the artic does not. Clarification noted.

Uh, ya sure, whatever. Thanks for spouting more republican misrepresentations. The environment is not a political issue. It affects everybody equally. Recognizing we can do it harm is partly about looking our for your fellow man...ya know, the stuff this country's moral core was supposedly built on?

Why do you think they tell people not to feed the animals in forests and national parks? Because the bears start expecting free food, and then someone gets mauled for being stupid. That's another very simple, visible example of how easy it is for people to affect the environment.

Another misrepresentation. I never once said the sky was falling, nor is Al's movie even remotely of that tone. He brings his argument for GW to the table and makes it as succinctly as he can with stats and pictures.

There's about zero production value in the flick, and it doesn't have crazy CGI and post production. That's what shitty movies like Day After Tomorrow are for. Al's movie is about 15 intellectual levels above that tripe. It's a glorified 2 hour talk with a powerpoint, and that's it. It's almost like sitting through a lecture in college.

You and I are in total and complete agreement on this. Other people are trying to make it sound like I'm a registered democrat or something for giving a crap about the envionment and talking about Gore's flick. I guess it's intellectually stimulating these days to go "Gore compliment + environment talk = commie". What a useless waste of brain cells. I'm of course not saying you said this vader1, but I'm starting to get that undertone from someone.

The contrary arguments for not conserving and being smart about it are indeed irrationally stupid. My parents told me to clean my plate at dinner time when I was a kid because I was fortunate, and also to share my toys with my friends. Why these tenets of society don't carry over into adulthood any longer is beyond me.

 

Ok, that's fine that some are on the fence as to whether we're causing or accelerating GW or not. But I can think of plenty of reasons to reduce or stop burning fossil fuels altogether. First, financially.. gas prices are ridiculously high now, heating our homes is costing more, heck, electricity bills are going up because they all rely on fossil fuels to generate. Fossil fuels are limited, eventually, we're going to run out of that liquid gold we call oil/fossil fuel, then what?
I can think of several reasons to conserve. It would also be a good idea to allocate some resources on researching alternative, renewable resources for energy not just for the environment but for financial reasons as well. Sustaining the human race is also a big reason. The mentality of wasting just because one can is retarded and short sighted, everyone loses on that front.

 

I moved into a new house and the whole place was full of cheap light bulbs. I spent $80 to put in compact flourescents that would not give me the energy payback anytime soon. Why? I just don't like the idea of using more than I need to. I just find it irresposible to use 4 times the electricity than I need to to light the house. It just seems "wasteful". Since the compact flourecents don't work outdoors in cold temps, I have a box of bulbs for the garage for ten years. I spent all kinds of extra dough for the lowest energy appliances I could find as well as heating and cooling. Yes there is a financial incentive in lower cost to operate but would have done it anyway. When is the last time someone said "Hey buy this one, its less efficient!"

I don't know why people don't get the concept of wasteful. Well actually I do. It is selfishness really. On a small unconcious scale perhaps, but still selfish.

Now I am not one who is unselfish enough to buy a Prius to save even more gas because I still have an idea of what fun to drive is, but I admire the folks who do even if some are smug about it. I know a rich former Republican elected official who bought a Prius. She could drive around in a big Benz because people expect her too, or she could sacrifice the luxury and and bling becuase she knows there is a consequence to her choice. Even if that consequence is infinitely small. Most people would say, "screw that, I got the money for the Hummer, I don't care how much it burns, BURN BABY!!! BURN !!!" I admire her social conscience over the the self interested guy. Its the differnce between the guy at the party who says "you take the last piece of pizza" or the guy who just stuffs his face without the thought to anyone else in the room.

I also absolutely fail to see why someone like her is vilified for it. She is not pushing it on anyone else and is actually helping everone else buy using less but some people would instantly lable her a pinko. I think it is a defense reaction to cover for the fact that if you vilify someone for conservation, then your own gluttony is somehow the ideal.

Everyone has their limits. I am not going to spend $20k to put solar panels on my house because they won't yield any energy. I think 30 mpg is pretty responsible if you can do it, but obviously I could pick a car that does far better. (hell, I get better milage with the top up but its summer) The point is I think everyone should at least give some considerate thought to what they use and how they could do use less in terms of energy.

Even if there is no such thing as global warming, if most resources are finite, I am not the guy who says "More for me please." I'd rather see how I can have he same lifestyle but use less. It is not that hard. I don't want a medal for it. What would be great is if evrybody just did a little bit. The results individually are nice, the results collectively are even better.

I have also never lived a lifestyle, except in college, where my family finances dictated I must save money on energy. My dad did real well. He just taught his kids that conservation was the right thing to do. Most parents teach their kids look out for number one, get yours, and screw everybody else. It translates to every part of their life. Its pathetic really.

 

Discovery Channel is showing a special on Global Warming Sunday night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globa...l?clik=www_wh_1

Good oppertunity to inform those opinions!!

 

Why again is it a bad thing that temperature of the earth is rising? (And I not at all convinced that increased CO2 levels are causing any such rise). Why is it bad that some species get extinct? If the dinosaurs hadn't died we wouldn't be around today. If the water level rises there will be more ocean, more room for fishies, more species of fishies!!!! So what if some animals die off? Other more adapted animals will evolve to take their place. This is the natural course of life. How conceited are we to think that we are doing something so radical that changes the way the earth works. We are nothing but another species living on a gigantic rock that was around for billions of years before us, and will be around for billions of years after. We are not altering how life on earth works, nor are we negativly impacting the future species of earth.

 

I think those two points you make by those statement argue against each other. . Species evolve, change, die off, and appear, that is true. But nearly all of that evolutionary process has been done in nature, not by man. If a species disappears because it can't survie in nature that is one thing, if you slash and burn its enviornment to develop it, that is another.

And yes you can negatively affect future species. We can create species with genetic manipulation perhaps. But say you kill off all breeds of dogs. You are not suddenly going to get a species of dog spring up out of a squirrel. You would have negatively how life on earth works and what future species are possible given each viable species gene pool.

Lastly, all species are part of a food chain. Kill off birds of prey and you get pant loads of rodents. But kill off all the rodents and the birds of prey might die from lack of food. Affecting one will always affect the other.

Its all linked together.