Don't reduce your energy consumption just to be praised and get attention from others (like on the south park global warming episode). It's true, I actually know people like that. Seriously though, just do it to save yourself money.

i think global warming is mostly hype. as it is part of the process of an ice age. the world gets really hot and then freezes over. its happened seven times. although we are speeding it up, there is not much we can do except ditch all of the modern technology (withing the course of 500 years) and even that would very little. we are making air pollution witch is only noticeably bad for valleys and big citys. The reason why alot of people are going with it is because it seems cheaper. (eg; a diesel truck can get 20 MPG whereas a gas truck with similar power or even less power gets about 7 MPG. but diesel is 5.50 a gallon and gas is 4.49 a gallon. with diesel you get 3.63 miles per dollar and with gas its 1.56 miles per dollar so in the end diesel is cheaper and will last longer. a diesel engine can last over 400,000 miles before breaking down and gas gets unstable after 100,000) so thats my take on it.

^^ It's not a myth it's peer reviewed research by Duke scientists.

 

 

 

EDIT: Here's the Duke paper. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf

 

 

 

And the Greenland ones...http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chyle ... rming.html

 

 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /1115356v1

 

 

 

Duke paper says between 10% and 30% impact of sun. IPCC says 20%. That leaves 80%. Yes, in the past the sun correlated higher with temperatures. This gives even more credence to man-made global warming, since it makes the recent lack of correlation more surprising.

 

 

 

Yes, there is debate as to exactly how climate change will occur. The models are complicated. There will be areas (such as the interior of greenland) that are colder. However, the fact remains that the global temperature is rising.

This is a true irony from the tree hugging evironmentalists. Most of them are liberals who have no respect for capitalism or companies whatsoever. They don't like recycling because it promotes the 'evils of capitalism.' The recycling business is one of the largest industries in the USA (only 3rd behind the steel industry.) Not only does it generate employment and give others access to cheaper goods, but recycling reduced our need for new resources (hint here). This includes the trees and plants needed for new paper products (napkins, paper towels, printer paper, cardboard, etc). This "evil industry" can save millions of acres of trees each year.

 

 

 

But the "tree huggers" do not endorse it; how iroic.

This is a true irony from the tree hugging evironmentalists. Most of them are liberals who have no respect for capitalism or companies whatsoever. They don't like recycling because it promotes the 'evils of capitalism.' The recycling business is one of the largest industries in the USA (only 3rd behind the steel industry.) Not only does it generate employment and give others access to cheaper goods, but recycling reduced our need for new resources (hint here). This includes the trees and plants needed for new paper products (napkins, paper towels, printer paper, cardboard, etc). This "evil industry" can save millions of acres of trees each year.

 

 

 

But the "tree huggers" do not endorse it; how iroic.

 

It generates employment because somebody has to kill all the [developmentally delayed]s who think recycling is bad!

Plants need CO2, but when theres to many Co2 than the trees can support.

 

Yes thats true, but Co2 is an igredient for the global warming just an igredient, theres a lot many factors but Co2 is the principal igredient.

 

Also ice reflects the sun, like theres a lil' warming up, the ice is melting, reflecting less sun, warming the earth and making the water up, also the ice we melting isnt on SEAS is on pure ground (artantica), and ice floats, when it melts it goes with the water.

 

Global warming is not true in this days BUT soon it will be true!

 

 

 

So...

 

Co2 is only a part of the warming,

 

Ice= good, Water= we alredy have to much water and we dont want more...

 

Plant= Our friends, but we killing our friends.

 

More ignorant people that thinks is not true= not cool people.

 

 

 

So if global warming is not true now it will be in the future? If global warming is true it should have been around way before humans. Humans are only adding to it by speeding it up.

global warming is happening now. all those "ingredients" you were talking about are here, tons of CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere everyday, and ice is melting faster and faster

This is a true irony from the tree hugging evironmentalists. Most of them are liberals who have no respect for capitalism or companies whatsoever. They don't like recycling because it promotes the 'evils of capitalism.' The recycling business is one of the largest industries in the USA (only 3rd behind the steel industry.) Not only does it generate employment and give others access to cheaper goods, but recycling reduced our need for new resources (hint here). This includes the trees and plants needed for new paper products (napkins, paper towels, printer paper, cardboard, etc). This "evil industry" can save millions of acres of trees each year.

 

 

 

But the "tree huggers" do not endorse it; how iroic.

 

 

 

Er, I've never heard of a single "tree hugger" who doesn't support recycling. So I don't know where you pulled that little factoid from. Regardless, although I imagine that you can find one or two groups of people who are against recycling, I strongly doubt that you can find a study or poll that finds that environmentalists as a whole are against recycling.

Alright, here's the situation as I understand it. In the past, the constant cycle of life has kept a concurrent cycle of climate ages, depending on the activity of life, which is reflected by the released greenhouse gas (methane and CO2, primarily). Ice ages are nothing new, and are, by our standards, few and far between. However, in recent years (late 1700s and up, roughly), human progression in technology has dramatically increased the activity of life, and also opened up some new means of producing greenhouse gas (coal, oil, etc.). This has been speeding up the process of the climate cycle, which we are seeing a small part of right now.

 

 

 

Before I go further, I'd like to clear something up. "Global Warming" isn't a really great term to describe this. What happens is the extra GHG (greenhouse gas) bumps up the overall planet temperature SLIGHTLY, which starts a chain reaction. The raised temperature causes the land-based ice to melt at a faster rate, which adds more extra water into the system, subsequently adding more energy. For a preview of what to expect if we don't keep this from happening, stretch the events of "Day After Tomorrow" over a reasonable time table.

 

 

 

Another thing to clear up is the difference between water-based ice and land-based ice. I'll demonstrate this with a little science experiment for you. Get a random cooki

 

e pan or something similar, 2 cups, a couple ice cubes, and something similar to a popsicle stick. Take one of the cups, and fill it up with water. Place an ice cube or 2 in the water. This represents water-based ice. When the ice cubes melt, the water level will remain the same as when you placed the cubes into the cup. Take the other cup, fill it, then place your popsicle stick on the top of it, flat end down. Place an ice cube on the stick. This represents land-based ice. Notice how the ice cube isn't in the water? This is because the "land" is holding it out of the water. When the ice cube melts, the water level in the cup will rise proportionally. If you were to supersize the experiment, the second cup would instead be an increased rate of extreme weather, as well as a rise in the ocean's level.

 

 

 

As for solutions, well, I think that enough has been said on conservation for right NOW, but a good point's been raised. What are we going to do about power, if oil and other resources of a similar nature are removed from the equation? As I've said in a previous thread about a related subject, I know of 2 VERY good ideas.

 

 

 

One involves solar. What the man who thought this up is wanting to do is to find a large area in some of the most miserable sections of the planet (such as deserts), and build a sort of plant. What this plant does, rather than using solar panels (might be integrated, depending on the type of money willing to be spent), it uses basic mirrors to redirect heat towards a pipe of water, heating it into steam, which turns a turbine for electricity. The larger the plant, the more electricity per square inch of space taken is made. It is estimated that if you could find a ~91 square mile area in a random section of the desert, and can build strong enough transmission lines (biggest problem with this), ONE plant can produce enough electricity to power the entire United States. My source is Newsweek, in the edition showcasing 1968 on the cover.

 

 

 

Another involves a form of recycling. This particular dude (who looks like the dude from MAD magazine, by the way ;) ) Figured out a way to convert practically anything you can produce short of nuclear waste into power and a substance which is somewhat similar to a glassy asphalt. The machine is roughly the size of a 2 car garage, and requires a little power to kickstart, but once it does, it produces WAY more energy than it takes. If the power grid this thing is hooked up to goes out, this will keep on trucking as long as you keep chucking in random crap. That's one of the things that I like about this. As long as you don't try dumping stuff from places like 3 Mile Island into it, this WILL eat it and crap out power. I'd imagine that you would work it in a similar fashion to a super-sized wood chipper. I'm a big fan of this, for one big reason. If we have this equipped on any space exploration craft, we don't need any fancy material to power the ship. All we'd need to do is to play janitor in a nearby asteroid field or a planetary ring. I'm having difficulty remembering which magazine I read this from, but I think it's a Scientific American issue. It would have this on the cover.

Some are now reversing thier stance on Climate Change.. :

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]The American Physical Society representing nearly 50,000 physicists has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming, according to an article in The Daily Tech. The leadership of the society had previously referred to global warming evidence as incontravertible.

 

 

 

What does this mean? It doesnt mean that the APS has abandoned its position on man made climate change. What they have done is perhaps more significant; they have opened the subject up for debate once again. And once the facts can be judged on their merits and not on who is submitting them.And the first shot across the bow is directed at the Nobel Prize winning group, the IPPC which one scientist discovered has been fudging its studies to hide the fact that increased C02 does not necessarily lead to increased temps:

 

 

 

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... _abou.html[/hide]

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/11/20/global_warming_and_climate_change.htm

Some are now reversing thier stance on Climate Change.. :

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]The American Physical Society representing nearly 50,000 physicists has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming, according to an article in The Daily Tech. The leadership of the society had previously referred to global warming evidence as incontravertible.

 

 

 

What does this mean? It doesnt mean that the APS has abandoned its position on man made climate change. What they have done is perhaps more significant; they have opened the subject up for debate once again. And once the facts can be judged on their merits and not on who is submitting them.And the first shot across the bow is directed at the Nobel Prize winning group, the IPPC which one scientist discovered has been fudging its studies to hide the fact that increased C02 does not necessarily lead to increased temps:

 

 

 

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... _abou.html[/hide]

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't read the fine print of the article.. You might want to check it again: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... nckton.cfm

 

 

 

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

 

 

 

If you wanted credibility for that article, it just flew out of the window at 200mp/h. An organization as old as APS will never allow itself to be publicly ridiculed by supporting ridiculous claims like "man-made carbon emissions don't count towards global warming"

Some are now reversing thier stance on Climate Change.. :

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=]The American Physical Society representing nearly 50,000 physicists has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming, according to an article in The Daily Tech. The leadership of the society had previously referred to global warming evidence as incontravertible.

 

 

 

What does this mean? It doesnt mean that the APS has abandoned its position on man made climate change. What they have done is perhaps more significant; they have opened the subject up for debate once again. And once the facts can be judged on their merits and not on who is submitting them.And the first shot across the bow is directed at the Nobel Prize winning group, the IPPC which one scientist discovered has been fudging its studies to hide the fact that increased C02 does not necessarily lead to increased temps:

 

 

 

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... _abou.html[/hide]

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't read the fine print of the article.. You might want to check it again:

 

 

 

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

 

 

 

If you wanted credibility for that article, it just flew out of the window at 200mp/h.

 

 

 

Well, scientists have lost their job for disagreeing with Global Warming.

 

 

 

I can't really feel sorry for these people who get fired from organizations for disagreeing with it.. Because as said above, it ridicules everyone associated with your name. The climate change models that show man-made carbon emissions are causing more and more increase in average temperature is proven beyond any doubt.

 

 

 

What hidden agenda do the biggest organizations, such as national governments, have to support it? Business is already limited in many aspects in the EU for example, and companies are only allowed to produce a certain amount of Co2, which limits the flow of money. Nobody benefits financially by supporting the fact that global warming is a real threat to the stability of every region of the world.

I can't really feel sorry for these people who get fired from organizations for disagreeing with it.. Because as said above, it ridicules everyone associated with your name. The climate change models that show man-made carbon emissions are causing more and more increase in average temperature is proven beyond any doubt.

 

 

 

What hidden agenda do the biggest organizations, such as national governments, have to support it? Business is already limited in many aspects in the EU for example, and companies are only allowed to produce a certain amount of Co2, which limits the flow of money. Nobody benefits financially by supporting the fact that global warming is a real threat to the stability of every region of the world.

 

 

 

Well, if they limit CO2 emissions in their country, they will look good in front of their people, most notably, eligable voters. Not only that, but eco-friendly products mostly have a higher cost than regular products, therefore there is a higher amount of tax money that you obtain from those type of products. Remember that tax is calculated with percent. In fact, the world leaders (this came from a scientist's testimony on a movie) have manipulated and twisted the main global warming theory that was made up by the original scientists.

 

 

 

Personally, I follow this:

 

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

 

 

 

I wouldn't go for the actual article on there and instead click on the references at the bottom. Since it's from Wikipedia, anyone can edit it after all.

 

 

 

P.S. The theory of global warming is wrong as the earth was warming up BEFORE factories and cars. Not only that, but the carbon dioxide levels rise a hundred or so years AFTER the earth warms up. Didn't anyone care to see the scale Al Gore was using in the movie? Doesn't anyone find that the least bit strange?

I can't really feel sorry for these people who get fired from organizations for disagreeing with it.. Because as said above, it ridicules everyone associated with your name. The climate change models that show man-made carbon emissions are causing more and more increase in average temperature is proven beyond any doubt.

 

 

 

What hidden agenda do the biggest organizations, such as national governments, have to support it? Business is already limited in many aspects in the EU for example, and companies are only allowed to produce a certain amount of Co2, which limits the flow of money. Nobody benefits financially by supporting the fact that global warming is a real threat to the stability of every region of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Climate models can't really *prove* anything. Can I prove the winner of the Super Bowl by simulating an entire season on madden?

I can't really feel sorry for these people who get fired from organizations for disagreeing with it.. Because as said above, it ridicules everyone associated with your name. The climate change models that show man-made carbon emissions are causing more and more increase in average temperature is proven beyond any doubt.

 

 

 

What hidden agenda do the biggest organizations, such as national governments, have to support it? Business is already limited in many aspects in the EU for example, and companies are only allowed to produce a certain amount of Co2, which limits the flow of money. Nobody benefits financially by supporting the fact that global warming is a real threat to the stability of every region of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Climate models can't really *prove* anything. Can I prove the winner of the Super Bowl by simulating an entire season on madden?

 

 

 

You can prove that Carbon Dioxide makes the world warmer. Get two empty bottles, fill one with normal air and put extra Carbon Dioxide in the other one. Put them both in front of a lamp. Wait an hour and the one with more Carbon Dioxide should be warmer.

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

 

 

 

The Madden comparison is a poor one. Most global climate models are definitely more sophisticated and can accurately recreate the temperature fluctuations of the past century.

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

 

 

 

Well if Carbon Dioxide does trap heat doesn't that mean global warming exists?

Yes but the question is to what degree?

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

 

 

 

Well if Carbon Dioxide does trap heat doesn't that mean global warming exists?

 

 

 

carbon dioxide does trap heat theres no debate about that, the real debate is whether if the man-made carbon dioxide is the main culprit for climate change or whether its just natural earth warming period

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

 

 

 

Well if Carbon Dioxide does trap heat doesn't that mean global warming exists?

 

 

 

carbon dioxide does trap heat theres no debate about that, the real debate is whether if the man-made carbon dioxide is the main culprit for climate change or whether its just natural earth warming period

 

 

 

Humans are dumping tonnes of it into the air and speeding it up.

I think that yes global warming is happening and yes we arent nessarily doing enough to stop it but i beleive that to stop it would be impossible. We could definetly do more to slow down the world from extinction but it has happened before hasn't it? Climate changes that is it's the cicle of life. The world changes i beleive we are just another age- like the dinosaurs they got wiped out. now it's our turn.Unless someone has proof that the entire world will disapear i think theyre will be another species that comes after the time we die. What we can do? i beleive nothing.

whether global warming is real or not, there should be no argument that every modernized country in the world should be looking for alternative and cleaner resources to make the world a better place for all in the present and for future generations