Is the US President wrong on Global Warming?

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:56 pm

rainbowsmiles wrote: And for the record, I believe that we are the problem! I do everything I possibly can not to contribute to global warming and I know of several others doing the same. I might not be able to reverse the effects but I can surely not contribute to the earths slow death!

Your post has really made me happy. I share your point 100%. My family is also trying in different ways to live low-carbon lives. Global Warming is real, man-made greenhouse gases are a significant contributing factor, which leads to the obvious statement "We are all part of the problem and all part of the solution".

What most people do not do in their daily lives is to connect what they do with Global Warming. It does matter what car we drive, it does matter if we install low-energy light bulbs etc. We need to get in touch with the planet and start to listen - the current message is that if we do not want to look after her, then she is happy to throw a fair few of us off to balance things out.

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:23 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: I've said it several times and I will say it again. The Earth has gone through many periods of global warming and cooling. I am not saying that auto emmisions and the industrial revolution (49%) responsible for increased CO2 content in the atmosphere is not a direct effect of man on the planet's atmosphere. Deforestation and desertification have also had an effect. The Earth's oceans are the primary uptakers of atmospheric CO2. To blame one country on an entire planet going through increased greenhouse gases is playing the "blame game".

rainbowsmiles wrote: I do believe some areas have more impact than others but the WORLD contributes to global warming. I think blaming Americans for the earths demise is a bit trite! Like I said before - Global Warming = Global Issue

A few posts talks about placing blame and playing the blame game. I am not saying that the US is to blame for carbon pollution throughout the world. Of cause the US is only responsible for its own emissions. And it is not fair to suggest that the US alone is responsible for turning around the planets fortunes. And this leads to the point, which I believe has been missed.

When the worlds leading nations wants things done, they tend to work together. We have the world bank, which is supported by the international community. We have the G8, which is there to resolve and foster economical issues and solution respectively. The most powerful nations hold each other to account through these arrangements and 'clubs' for the rich nations. It helps to ensure a balance and progress within a common agreed framework to avoid anyone gaining an unfair political or economical advantage.

Now, the Kyoto protocol was the first global attempt for the G8 and other nations to work together on Global Warming. Nearly a decade was spend haggling about the detail. And yes, it was not a perfect agreement, but it was the worlds first attempt to get on with the problem.

When GW Bush pulled the US out of the agreement, the agreement died or at best became a lot less effective. I know this is silly, but the rest of the world will use this as an excuse, because when the worlds superpower suddenly do not play by the rules, and want to gain what could be seen to be an unfair economical advantage, then international co-operation suffers or breaks down. Hence, despite Kyoto was implemented by a lot of nations, there have due to US withdrawal been no real attempt to improve on the protocol, let alone start to discuss what is going to replace it in 2012, because all effort has been on beating up the US President, to get him to commit and work with the rest of the world and to stop the US gaining an economic advantage by not participating on equal terms with the other G8 nations.

Hence, I do believe that the US is to blame for the death of the Kyoto protocol and that real effort and time have been diverted from actually getting on with the problem because (and I know this is petty and political game playing) of the reasons I have outlined above. Sad but true.

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:56 pm

Hence, I do believe that the US is to blame for the death of the Kyoto protocol and that real effort and time have been diverted from actually getting on with the problem because (and I know this is petty and political game playing) of the reasons I have outlined above. Sad but true

I had misunderstood before, sorry about that. I understand your point and I completely agree!

PurpleChicken · Post by **PurpleChicken** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:55 am

I would argue that it doesn't matter - we should still be striving for sustainability.

Personally, I don't believe that we have sufficient scientific evidence to say one way or another whether global warming is a reality. But why wait until we have the evidence?? By then it will be too late. If we change our habits now to become more sustainable and it turns out global warming is just 'weather', then what have we lost - nothing. If it turns out that global warming is global warming, and we have not acted, what have we lost - perhaps everything!

PurpleChicken · Post by **PurpleChicken** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:00 am

Sorry guys - new to this. Posted my reply based on the original message, not realising that the discussion had progressed a long way since then. Ooops.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:01 am

PurpleChicken wrote: I would argue that it doesn't matter - we should still be striving for sustainability.

Personally, I don't believe that we have sufficient scientific evidence to say one way or another whether global warming is a reality. But why wait until we have the evidence?? By then it will be too late. If we change our habits now to become more sustainable and it turns out global warming is just 'weather', then what have we lost - nothing. If it turns out that global warming is global warming, and we have not acted, what have we lost - perhaps everything!
Excellent logic! How are you leading the fight?

PurpleChicken · Post by **PurpleChicken** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:21 am

Small steps. If we all take small steps then together we can make a difference.

I do not profess to be leader nor an expert on the subject, but I do what I can - both at work and at home. My idealism of 'making a difference' lead me to work in the water industry, which gives me a great opportunity to influence water issues and hopefully make some headway in the journey.

Still can't live without my car though :driving: , so still a long way to go!!

rainbowsmiles · Post by **rainbowsmiles** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:43 am

I would argue that it doesn't matter - we should still be striving for sustainability.

Personally, I don't believe that we have sufficient scientific evidence to say one way or another whether global warming is a reality. But why wait until we have the evidence?? By then it will be too late. If we change our habits now to become more sustainable and it turns out global warming is just 'weather', then what have we lost - nothing. If it turns out that global warming is global warming, and we have not acted, what have we lost - perhaps everything!

Very good points! And it is nice to see that some of us in the world try our best to make a difference instead of throwing our hands up in the air and saying "global warming" doesn't exist or not contributing won't make a difference. I personally feel that is just a cop-out! Its easy to make changes and any step is a good step. Thanks for sharing purple chicken!

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:00 am

PurpleChicken wrote: I would argue that it doesn't matter - we should still be striving for sustainability.

Personally, I don't believe that we have sufficient scientific evidence to say one way or another whether global warming is a reality. But why wait until we have the evidence?? By then it will be too late. If we change our habits now to become more sustainable and it turns out global warming is just 'weather', then what have we lost - nothing. If it turns out that global warming is global warming, and we have not acted, what have we lost - perhaps everything!

It is okay. Your point is well made and absolutely correct. The argument has moved on. Global warming is happening, discussing if the scientific evidence is right or wrong really does not matter anymore. The evidence is there for everyone to see around the globe, and the questions is clearly: What are we going to do about it? And from an individual point of view answering: 'The government will have to deal with it' or 'This is not my problem' simply is not good enough.

And sustainability is indeed one way of making a difference and impact.

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:04 am

Accountable wrote: Excellent logic! How are you leading the fight?

We utilise 70% low-energy light-bulbs in our house, have got rid of a car (which also saved us a lot of money!), utilises public transport when possible, we had to replace a stove and replaced with an energy efficient model etc.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:52 am

FJBear wrote: We utilise 70% low-energy light-bulbs in our house, have got rid of a car (which also saved us a lot of money!), utilises public transport when possible, we had to replace a stove and replaced with an energy efficient model etc.
Bravo! :yh_clap

It matters not whether I agree with your stance. What matters is that you do something about a problem you perceive. Apathy kills! Your spirit and action are shining examples of what makes humanity great. I love it when people stand accountable.

Accountable

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:10 pm

From Dr. Hayden a Professor of Physics:

On Selling the US to the Lowest Bidder

The global warming party in Kyoto is over, but piper has yet to be paid. Get out your billfold. You may have the privilege of paying good money for bad science used for perverse political ends.

To understand what is really behind the Kyoto farce, let us apply the Kyoto logic to a thirteen-year-old boy. We will give him, by Kyoto's rules, 7% less food to eat. But this does not just mean that he will have to cut out a few candy bars, because we intend to be as devious as the negotiators at Kyoto. Our plan for this hapless youngster is to give him 7% less food when he is nineteen than he ate when he was ten. Obviously, this has far greater impact than the "7% reduction" would imply.

The treaty hammered out in Kyoto is every bit as underhanded as our treatment of the teenager. According to that treaty, the US is supposed to produce 7% less carbon dioxide eleven years into the future in 2008 than we did in 1990. In President Clinton's "global warming" address (10/22/97), he chose the most extreme of the options offered him by his chosen panel of supposed experts, namely that we would agree to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 1990 levels. Vice President Al Gore went to Kyoto and gave instructions to the negotiators to "be flexible," that is, to be more extreme than Clinton. Indeed, they were, for they sold the US to the lowest bidder.

Part of the treaty involves "trading of emissions, in the words of American negotiator Stuart Eizenstat. The US will be "allowed" to produce carbon dioxide (that is, to burn fuels), but so will Chad, Lybia, Angola, Bosnia, and Ethiopia, to name a few. Of course, they don't stand a chance to do so, because they have pretty primitive technology. So they will sell their rights to burn fuel to whoever needs them (guess who?). In other words, US citizens will be paying, through taxes, dictators in third-world countries for the privilege of heating their homes and putting gasoline into their family cars.

And what about the science? Isn't the world heating up? Aren't the oceans rising? Thermometers tend to be placed where people can read them. For this reason, they are near population centers. The thermometers near the largest population centers have shown the greatest rise in temperature, but the ones in smaller population centers show less temperature rise. A century's worth of data from ocean-going vessels (where meticulous records have been kept) show no rise in temperature during the last century. Satellites in orbit have monitored the earth's temperature throughout the globe for nineteen years and found no increase, but instead a small decrease in the earth's average temperature.

The earth may or may not be warming, but if it is, are humans responsible, or are we witnessing natural fluctuations of the kind that have gone on forever? The Doomsayers want us to believe that a warmer earth would be an unparalleled disaster, but the earth seems to have survived many past epochs when the earth was warmer than it now is. Most of the time, the earth has been locked in very inhospitable glacial periods.

The oceans have been rising for millennia since the time the woolly mammoths roamed the American continent during the last great ice age. Pull out a nickel. Before giving it to Angola, look to see how thick it is. That thickness is the amount by which the oceans rise every year, with or without fossil-burning treaties. This is the sea-rise the island nations, with their eyes on the US Treasury, have been screaming will inundate their homes. Five thousand years ago, the rise amounted to the thickness of five nickels per year. The rapid rise of the oceans then was caused by saber-tooth tigers playing with matches, one supposes.

"If all the ice in Antarctica melted," scream the Chicken Littles, "the sea-rise would be sixty feet!" And if my mother were a truck, she'd have wheels. When the temperature is 60 below zero, and the temperature rises by a couple of degrees, how much ice melts?

This science was simply ignored by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group mostly of social scientists with no expertise in meteorology, energy, chemistry, physics, infrared radiation, forestry, oceanography, or anything else to do with so- called global warming. The followers were all too willing to be bamboozled by fantasies from garbage-in, garbage-out computer programs.

Their agenda is social, not scientific. This is not a battle between Good Green Scientists and scientists who can't quite understand the issues. Nor is it a battle between public- spirited environmentalists and money-grubbing corporations, as it is frequently depicted on the evening news. To some extent a fight for control of US dollars is, this battle is ultimately between civilized society and misanthropes who think man is nothing but protein for mosquitoes and tigers.

Negotiations are one thing, but ratifying the treaty is another. The US is under no obligation until the fiasco is ratified by the US Senate. Don't let them do it.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:54 pm

February_Stormz wrote: I don't think President Bush can deny there is global warming now that there is proof from the space shuttle pics and the astronauts who were able to view it.

I recently read a statement made from one of the astronauts that the earths atmosphere looks like an egg shell on an egg shell. There is definite proof of damage to the earths atmosphere.

We have a freon and appliance removal business so I am well aware of the dangers to the ozone and global warming. It is against the law to vent freon and if caught is punishable by a large fine plus prison time. I still come across appliance lines that have been cut to drain freon because the owner doesn't want to pay added expenses for the proper removal. There are many rules and regulations that need to be strictly enforced to prevent venting.

I recently signed a petition to fight global warming. Maybe if we all take a stand against this issue in large numbers, maybe then, President Bush will become more serious.

Yeah. GOD Help America

actionfigurestepho · Post by **actionfigurestepho** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:27 am

Global warming has happened before on this planet, and it's going to happen again regardless of what we do. The Earth heats and cools...it's a cycle. Now I totally agree that putting chemicals into the air isn't helping the air quality. It causes acid rain and kills plants.

I don't think global warming itself is something we need to freak out about. It's a trend to get scared about natural cycles. What we DO need to do is to stop deforestation...when the planet heats up a little it can stimulate certain kinds of plant life, which produces oxygen, which repairs our ozone layer. Unfortunately we're knocking down trees left and right. This means that it's going to be harder for the Earth to cool back down!

Cutting down on emissions is great! We should do it! But even if we all rode bicycles and never used an aerosol can, the Earth would still heat up a little. It's nature. We're not going to stop it 100%. but that's OK. That's just my opinion on global warming. Sorry, but I'm science buff : )

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:35 am

I just heard some idiot on the radio say that Katrina is Bush's fault because he didn't sign the Kyoto agreement. What was that, a year ago? :wah: :-5

Majenta · Post by **Majenta** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:38 am

Catching up on this thread I've noticed there's been a lot of emphasis on natural cycles, therefore we shouldn't worry. I think that this is missing the point slightly; regardless of the main cause of global warming, the fact is that if it continues, half of Europe will be underwater, not to mention the increases in natural disasters that will ensue, as we have already begun to see. I don't really know that much about it but I do think that there should be a greater emphasis not only on cutting back emissions but on creating contingency plans for what the b*ggery we're going to do when all this s*** hits the fan.

actionfigurestepho · Post by **actionfigurestepho** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:50 am

Contingency plans are always a good idea, but I'm not quite convinced that the ice caps will melt just yet. But if they do, there's enough boring empty above sea level space in the midwest for everyone. Maybe Nebraska will finally become popular!

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:34 am

actionfigurestepho wrote:

I don't think global warming itself is something we need to freak out about. It's a trend to get scared about natural cycles. What we DO need to do is to stop deforestation...when the planet heats up a little it can stimulate certain kinds of plant life, which produces oxygen, which repairs our ozone layer. Unfortunately we're knocking down trees left and right. This means that it's going to be harder for the Earth to cool back down!

Hi,

We are not talking about the earth heating up a little. The earth has warmed 0.6 degrees in the last 50 years. This is way above any previous recorded geological changes. The earth has in the past heated up 4-5 degrees in about a 1000 years.

If we heat up 0.5 degrees in 50 years, you will quickly see that this the same as 12 degrees in 1000 years. However, when you then realise that scientists are looking at a temperature rise of 1.4-5.8 degrees in the next 100 years, then we are not talking about a gradual warming, but an acceleration, which is way beyond anything we have seen before.

So while you may not be able to se any real evidence, there is real people in real locations around the world, who is suffering because of this. And we need to talk about what we as individuals can do about it instead of discussing the science. The debate has moved on - we need to take urgent action!

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:38 am

actionfigurestepho wrote: Contingency plans are always a good idea, but I'm not quite convinced that the ice caps will melt just yet. But if they do, there's enough boring empty above sea level space in the midwest for everyone. Maybe Nebraska will finally become popular!

The ice caps are melting! US Nasa web-site has some amazing pictures of retreating ice and glaciers on Greenland.

Please do not be misunderstand the seriousnes of the situation because you are at the moment is sitting high and dry in Nebraska and are unable to see and feel any changes at this moment in time.

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:39 am

Accountable wrote: I just heard some idiot on the radio say that Katrina is Bush's fault because he didn't sign the Kyoto agreement. What was that, a year ago? :wah: :-5

That is clearly nonsense! However, hurricanes are getting bigger and stronger as the oceans are heating up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:59 am

FJBear wrote: [...]

So while you may not be able to se any real evidence, there is real people in real locations around the world, who is suffering because of this. And we need to talk about what we as individuals can do about it instead of discussing the science. The debate has moved on - we need to take urgent action!
The "science" argues that we're the ones that are causing this warming. If we are, we can do something about it; if not, we can't. I believe to "move on" is to choose one or the other.

Unless we have reason to base our actions on, we may as well have a Warming-Aid concert.

actionfigurestepho · Post by **actionfigurestepho** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:13 pm

Accountable wrote: The "science" argues that we're the ones that are causing this warming. If we are, we can do something about it; if not, we can't. I believe to "move on" is to choose one or the other.

Unless we have reason to base our actions on, we may as well have a Warming-Aid concert.

Thank you, Acc.

;)

FJBear · Post by **FJBear** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:15 pm

actionfigurestepho wrote: Thank you, Acc.

;)

Obviously I cannot agree with this point, though the concert idea is a good one - it will help raise awareness of the problem.

I think that we are missing the point again. We can simply not sit back and choose 'action' or 'ignore'. And here is why:

If the world is heating up quickly due to natural causes, then we as humans can help minimise the impact of this because we produce a serious amount of CO2, whcch is contributing to this 'natural' process. Hence, if we take action, we may at least minimise the impact of GW.

If the world is heating up quickly due to human activity, then we clearly are able to change the cause of GW by taking action and producing less CO2.

Either way, human action based around a reduction of CO2 will have a positive effect and, I believe, longer term help save the livelyhood of millions of people around the world. Hence, to ignore the problem is not on.

actionfigurestepho · Post by **actionfigurestepho** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:20 pm

I honestly love that this thread has more of a debate on it than the usually controversial threads, like abortion or gun control or *yawn* immigration. I think debating about science is just so much more intelligent and deserves a higher class of thinking than debating on politics.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:27 pm

actionfigurestepho wrote: I honestly love that this thread has more of a debate on it than the usually controversial threads, like abortion or gun control or *yawn* immigration. I think debating about science is just so much more intelligent and deserves a higher class of thinking than debating on politics.
:yh_worshp

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:00 am

actionfigurestepho wrote: I honestly love that this thread has more of a debate on it than the usually controversial threads, like abortion or gun control or *yawn* immigration. I think debating about science is just so much more intelligent and deserves a higher class of thinking than debating on politics.
Oh yeh?!? :yh_tongue

Bless yer heart.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:15 am

The problem is to many damn people on the planet. :-3 As we increase in numbers, the warming effect increases. Yes we can change it, will we I think not. :-6

My father told me this as a very young girl when I would ask him about climate, gases and the like. He said and I quote "When mother earth has had enough of human kinds behavior she will flick us off like flea's on a dog, and create a new enviornment all over again."

I find this to be true, and just a matter of time.:-5

PurpleChicken · Post by **PurpleChicken** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:26 am

CARLA wrote:

My father told me this as a very young girl when I would ask him about climate, gases and the like. He said and I quote "When mother earth has had enough of human kinds behavior she will flick us off like flea's on a dog, and create a new enviornment all over again."

Quite a sad analogy, but quite true. The earth only has a certain carrying capacity and we're exceeding it!! We using way more natural substances than the earth can regenerate in a year. It's an evolutionary cycle - species that exceed the carrying capacity of their environment go into decline. We simply can't go on as we are..

Something I find quite interesting is the ecological footprint concept. Seems to be a simple but effective tool for communicating the carrying capacity concept. There's lot of footprint calculators available on the web. A good one is.... (has a slight Aussie flavour though).

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/Eco-footprint/default.asp

(FYI - we would require 5 earths if everyone lived like me!!)

truthseeker2 · Post by **truthseeker2** » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:10 pm

All I can say is don't place any stock in the individuals who signed that petition. I was married to one of them. He turned out to be a sociopath. Yet, he holds an upstanding job in the scientific community. Additionally, he self-described his job as "tweaking air pollution numbers for big companies so that they wouldn't get in trouble with the feds." He was in the back pocket of the world's biggest corporate polluters.

Every time I see this petition on the web being touted as proof that climate change is not real, it makes me sick. Namely because what he was doing, so was everyone else in his field.

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:00 pm

CARLA;120856 wrote: The problem is to many damn people on the planet. :-3 As we increase in numbers, the warming effect increases. Yes we can change it, will we I think not.

Maybe you should do a bit more research on those ideas....? They are all completely wrong....... You have been brainwashed and misled.......

The ENTIRE human population on the earth, if given a 4 square foot place to stand or sit, would take up no more space than the city limits of Jacksonville Florida, or a similar sized city anywhere...... In the USA, only 6% of land is urbanised and used by humans...

If you go up in a plane and fly over the countries of the world, you will see an IMMENSE unused wild space that nobody lives in, it's incredible the amount of wild unused land still avaliable.... The only exception is islands like Britain and some others where it may feel crowded, but thats just because they live on a smallish island.... There are MASSIVE open areas of wild land all over the world, and people definately are NOT overpopulating the planet, even though some radical activists or they're ignorant followers may spew that nonsense...

It is not true....

And there is NO warming going on right now, or for some years now..... In fact the past years winters have been the worst in memory in many places in the world.... Look up those facts, they are there, true, and documented from news agencies all over the planet....

Take care... And fear not......

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:46 pm

posted by snidely whiplash

It is not true....

And there is NO warming going on right now, or for some years now..... In fact the past years winters have been the worst in memory in many places in the world.... Look up those facts, they are there, true, and documented from news agencies all over the planet....

Take care... And fear not.

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55406.html

Course it's all a big conspiracy, part of a cunning plan to clear access to the oil and mineral reserves under the ice and drown some of the excess population

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:53 pm

In the first paragraph it says, "but for the first time in human history". How do they know that? Did somebody find a petro glyph revealing the history of ice at the North Pole?

Another article I read went on about how the sea is warming but in the same article it said the winds had moved the ice and new ice is more shallow than the ice that was moved by the wind.

The climate seems to be warming but there is too much emotion in the argument to know if the science quoted is really science.

I’ve sailed the Arctic Sea and just like any other sea it makes you realize how small you are compared to the planet you inhabit and how powerless you are to do anything but watch and take what comes.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:38 am

Clint;901168 wrote: In the first paragraph it says, "but for the first time in human history". How do they know that? Did somebody find a petro glyph revealing the history of ice at the North Pole?

Another article I read went on about how the sea is warming but in the same article it said the winds had moved the ice and new ice is more shallow than the ice that was moved by the wind.

The climate seems to be warming but there is too much emotion in the argument to know if the science quoted is really science.

Iâ€™ve sailed the Arctic Sea and just like any other sea it makes you realize how small you are compared to the planet you inhabit and how powerless you are to do anything but watch and take what comes.

Not seems to be actually is.

We know in the past there have been radical changes in weather patterns for various reasons. This may be part of such a change but the question is have the activities of mankind affected a change. On balance the evidence says. it's not just the effects of the industrial age but also centuries of deforestation in europe, china, the middle east a bit in North America and now in south america.

There is little doubt the earth is heating up and the weather patterns are changing. On balance mankind seems to be making things worse. How long do you want to wait for definite If you wait for final definite proof before you do something?

looking at some of the counter arguments it's a bit like the captain of the titanic denying there is any ice about while the owners insist the rumours of ice is a conspiracy to slow down the ship and disrupt the business of the ship. meanwg=hile the passengers are getting emotional and wiondering about the intelligence of those in charge.

it does no harm to take it seriously. It does irreparable harm to pretend it's not happening.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:12 am

Clint;901168 wrote: In the first paragraph it says, "but for the first time in human history". How do they know that? Did somebody find a petro glyph revealing the history of ice at the North Pole?
No, somebody found an ice core from which the history of the cryosphere was inferred accurately enough to know that the north pole has not be ice free during historical times.

Clint;901168 wrote: The climate seems to be warming but there is too much emotion in the argument to know if the science quoted is really science.
It's emotional because fossil fuel money is denying the science, and they have a large proportion of the press at a time when we need to be taking action.

But if you restrict your reading to science, there is simply no controversy. (see Oreskes, Science 2004)

Clint;901168 wrote: I’ve sailed the Arctic Sea and just like any other sea it makes you realize how small you are compared to the planet you inhabit and how powerless you are to do anything but watch and take what comes.
Human activity has caused this warming. We are no more helpless to halt it than start it. Although there is a lot of inertia in the system, so even stopping greenhouse emissions completely would result in another 50 years of warming before it turns around.