NO MORE Climate malarkey! I am fed up with this snake-oil drummed-up Climate Change Crap

Those are good questions to ask, and these seem like mostly reasonable answers. I don't think credits or taxation will work, either, unfortunately. Alternative energy, while good, seems like a worn-out fantasy, especially on the large scale it would take to make enough of a difference.

As for #7, if it gets to that point, it will be much too late. It's far off, of course (hopefully), but this is the reason why people are pushing to make something happen while we can.

excellent good wrote:

My point was not that we are close to deadly levels. It was that a substance capable of killing an organism can do damage even in small concentrations. It is a pollutant. We are not plants. (I assume you didn't mean an industrial plant...)

About the crisis, yes, the media and politicians are the cause of that talk. I said no scientists use the word. I don't believe anyone is just looking for control over another part of the economy for the hell of it. You don't think this regulation will be watched closely enough to avoid an abuse of power?

Streamlining the EPA would be a start.

The question is: watched by whom? Abuse of power is on a larger scale than you believe. Abuse of power is not deliberate, it's sinister and not noticeable until you've already suffered the consequences. Assuming no one will be able to abuse power is a gross exaggeration.

In about 30 years I'll be around to see this bogus theory die. That's what I like about global warming. As time goes by, people will start to realize that nothing's happening, then they will fall away from this warming crap. The debate will be prolonged and expanded as long as possible, but I don't care what you scare mongerers say, I'm just going to wait until the world was supposed to end and then laugh in your face as you frantically search for another disaster.

You're right. I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to say is that those who "fear" government abuse of power in instances of environmental regulation are as much alarmists as those calling climate change a crisis.

People on both sides make this into a black and white issue while it is really outside the realm of politics. It is based entirely in science.

Everything in the U.S. is placed into big/small government and people argue their way depending on that position. But there are issues that don't fall onto either side of the aisle.

I'll let the cat out of the bag here -- I'm not American. But I study American politics and this is a global issue. If you really want to talk about the political factor here, you have to stop thinking of it as an American issue.

Aerosols are small solid or liquid particles suspended in the air and can cause a cooling effect, either by directly scattering incoming light (like smoke does) or by causing cloud formation, which will also cause incoming light from the sun to be reflected away from the planet. The magnitude of both of these effects is much smaller than the magnitude of the warming effects. The error bars are very large for several reasons, one of the main ones being that the properties (makeup, size, concentration in the air) of aerosols vary widely depending on where you are and what season it is. A lot of work is currently being done on aerosols, but it is going to take a while to get all of the data.

CFCs are not aerosols. The heat-trapping ability of CFCs, CO2, and other greenhouse gases is well know.

You really should read the IPCC report. There are sections designed for the general public, and there is a section detailing the confidence in the various predications.

I think the country should have a popular vote. Majority decides. Then we can stop having these dumb arguments.

Too bad we're not a democracy...

Some of what you posted did try and refute a warming trend.

Simply put, research will not be able to prove cause and effect, due to all the varaibles. You will always have facts that support a contrary opinion. Sometimes its much simpler than that. To deny or even to ignore the exploration of the effects(even negative) that the human population is having on the Earths climate is absurd.

temp is obviously only one facet of climate. Regional climate changes are happening- fact. Specific climates are affected by water manipulation, deforrestaion etc. - Fact

Those are fair and honest answers, but they also indicate that there's not enough information available for the government to be making laws that could seriously disrupt the economy. However, I must point out that the current warming trend began in the 1600's. 150 years before the industrial revolution and 300 years before industrialization went global.

NOXSOX wrote:

Some of what you posted did try and refute a warming trend.

...

temp is obviously only one facet of climate. Regional climate changes are happening- fact. Specific climates are affected by water manipulation, deforrestaion etc. - Fact

I read through my posts and I couldn't find anything where I even implied that there isn't a warming trend. So in case it's not clear, I think the world is warming. It has been for about 400 years.

I also never said the climate isn't changing, it's changing over the whole planet. But tell me how trading carbon credits will stop poor farmers from cutting down trees in Brazil or Chinese dictators from building the Three Gorges Dam.

By the way, congrats on the 13:54, much faster than I ever was.

democracy rules wrote:

I think the country should have a popular vote. Majority decides. Then we can stop having these dumb arguments.

terrible ideas. there are many cliche examples of when the majority would have voted for awful things.

How do we increase the number of Pirates? That's what we really need to do. Didn't anybody read the graph?

excellent good wrote:

Alternative energy, while good, seems like a worn-out fantasy, especially on the large scale it would take to make enough of a difference.

The climate change debate is obfuscating the real issue which is energy security. There won't be enough energy to go round if China and the developing world continue to move people into the middle class in their hundreds of millions. China alone is adding 1000 cars to the road every day. World oil production has peaked, people working in the oil industry don't deny this.

America needs to invest heavily in alternative energy to make it work for reasons of security, never mind about the climate change crap.

Edumacator - Not trolling at all - I read enough to know what this Global Warming "Crisis" is a hoax - wait 5 years - and another "crisis" will be occurring

you are the cutest wrote:

democracy rules wrote:

I think the country should have a popular vote. Majority decides. Then we can stop having these dumb arguments.

terrible ideas. there are many cliche examples of when the majority would have voted for awful things.

OK, we will let you decide on this one then.

Barnacle Billy wrote:

Edumacator - Not trolling at all - I read enough to know what this Global Warming "Crisis" is a hoax - wait 5 years - and another "crisis" will be occurring

oh wow, you "read enough" from right wing blogs and those that have a vested interest in killing any global warming legislation, and voila! ...you now know 100% that global warming is a "hoax." How convincing !

I'm not sold either way on the whole climate change issue, but I really don't think its relevant to the argument about finding alternative energy. Never mind the environment conservation, saving whales, etc. I like a nice tree here and there, maybe a cute animal, but I'm not about to force people to change their lives to save plants and animals when we still have HUMAN BEINGS dying of malnutrition. The real reason we need to get off our oil addiction is strictly an economic concern. As of right now, oil is the cheapest source of energy. But that fact is deceiving, because some alternative energies are only behind because of scale. When companies have no incentive to invest in their alternative energy, since there is no guaranteed demand, efficiency will not match oil for a long time. At the same time, however, other countries are delving into alternative energies and current trends suggest energy will be the key resource of the future. When China and India reach critical mass, when Eastern Europe catches up, when the population hits 9 billion, everyone is going to be asking for gigawatts. If the US can provide that, we will remain the world's foremost super power. Otherwise, we will fade into 4th or 5th place.

On top of that, alternative energy could lead to a significant turnaround in south Africa. Power to pump water, run refrigerators, and build houses could save millions of lives. We would also be cutting off the Mideast from its oil profits, and forcing those countries to develop better education systems to compete on the global scene.

Everybody is so convincing on this thread. I am getting confused.

BOOM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=all