# Global Warming



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

I'm curious what people think of these ads that down play global warming. 

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/...s/cei/Global_Warming_Energy-high.wmv/play.asx
and
http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/...cei/Global_Warming_Glaciers-high.wmv/play.asx

I'm wondering if anyone thinks they have validity or if these ads work for them. 

The ads are airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006.


----------



## hortonvm (Feb 15, 2006)

*No surprise here*

"With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI's prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. " from www.exxonsecrets.org
So far, this institute has received $1,735,000 in funding since 1998 from ExxonMobil. 
Also, their director of Global Warming and International Environmental policy isn't even a scientist, he's an economist. In fact, out of ten Staff member's bio's I read, I could only find one scientist among them (I think he's a scientist, it didn't actually say.) There are something like twenty staffers. Someone else can feel free to look at their web site and correct me. (www.cei.org)

So, I don't find it curious that a bunch of economists 
funded by big oil companies like exxon who don't care about pollution in the least ( to be fair, some oil companies like BP do invest in alternative technologies and are cleaning up their act as much as profit allows) are funding a smear campaign against global warming. Do the ads have validity? Not really. Anyone who took a college level into Biology course should be able to see through them, and increasingly those with even a high school into Biology course. Will these ads work for them? I imagine they will. Nothing the American public likes more than having complex problems dumbed down for them with the result that they don't have to think about the consequences of their actions.


----------



## hortonvm (Feb 15, 2006)

*correction*

that should read "intro Biology" not "into"


----------



## mescalimick (Oct 15, 2003)

It's great. About time someone put up a differing opinion. Because, that's about the extent of "Global Warming" science- opinion. My roomate has wholehearted bought in to the movement. I've read through almost every Sierra Club and E-Magazine he's got and the extent of propaganda is amazing. The lack of real science is saddening. 

It doesn't seem much different than the religious right. Folks beleive what ever they want to believe, whether it's in the Bible or Koran, or some soft science University study. 

And lastly, how does being skeptical of the results from poor scientific process, lacking or limited evidence, and overreaching conclusions make me personally want to destroy the environment, because that's what you were gonna say...wasn't it?


----------



## routter (Mar 10, 2004)

Alright, once again, as a conservative in a sea of lib's here I'm taking the bait on a troll....I do not neccessarily disagree with the fact that global temps have been on the rise for a coupla' decades. I do, however, disagree with the notion that there is some sort of scientific consensus as to the cause of this warming.

The Earth has cyclically heated and cooled for billions of years. Sometimes we're hotter because the sun's burning more brightly. Sometimes we're cooler becaue of increased aerial particulate matter due to meteoric strikes. Sometimes we're hotter because of increased atmospheric CO2. But what many people don't understand is that sometimes the Earth COOLS due to increased CO2 levels. Refer here for some data:


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

Check out "about us," looks like a bunch of scientists on staff to me.

I know, on this site, my views are seen as ignorant, dilluded and subject to corporate manipulation. However, this is just not the case. For every paper one can present supporting human-driven global warming I can find another refuting the case. I have degrees in mathmatics and psychology. I look at my world through analytical eyes with a nod to man's penchant to revel in the extreme. We like sensationalism. We have egos. We like top think that human-triggered global warming caused Katrina and that it was only the tip of the iceberg. And, I'm sure I'll hear it for this one, liberal guilt combined with these tendencies make for an easy acceptance of man's role in this so-called pending apocalypse.

I don't portend that I'll change anyone's mind on this specific issue. But I would like to think that maybe I can persuade some out there to look at this issue as the complex one that it is. Our climate is driven by so many variables that is is almost impossible to control for only one. The Earth has a turbulant history of swift temperature change and all I am saying is that I am not convinced that the current "we did it" hypothesis has been sufficiently proven.


----------



## sward (Dec 14, 2003)

learn to swim.


----------



## cecil (May 30, 2005)

One of the first eco-systems to be effected by Global Warming is the grasslands of WY and CO. The result is drought. Since 1990 the average temperture of earth has increased by 1 degree. Not a big deal right...the average global temp. only dropped 6 degrees during the last ice-age 12K years ago. That 1 degree increase has led to some pretty dry conditions in CO the past 15 years. If this global warming continues (regardless of cause) I bet CO won't have skiing in 50 years. 

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, this is a real problem that will affect everyone. Alaska is starting to look pretty good.


----------



## miker (Jan 26, 2006)

*global warming*

If global warming is happening and the glaciers are melting that means that there will be more water, more storms, right? How does that pertain to a CO drought? 
The fact is that temps are rising, and the CO2 levels are going up at an alarming rate. We should not have to be scared of drought or flooding to change our consumerism. It is not just CO2 that is the problem when we burn fossil fuels. The other crap is bad or worse Sulfers carbon monoxide and particulates in the air. Not to mention our current war campaign for oil rights. Come on guys we should know that the common american will only change there ways by being scared to do it. Until we directly feel the effects of the increased level of CO2, most will never change their ways.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

'Nuff respect, Routter.

The issue here is that we can't truly say with any authority that humans are or are not contributing to global warming. Anything claiming otherwise is pure religion. When I was in elementary school, we were told there was another ice age on the way. This was grounded in info from major univerisities and the USGS, long before anyone was talking about a greeenhouse effect. Now who's to say that the Earth isn't still coming out of an ice age and this is natural warming? You cannot PROVE anything EITHER way on this one.

That does not mean that we should not be cautious, though. Living greener is good for a whole lot of things and other people. So if we aren't contributing the current temperature changes, it still makes a lot of sense to be greener than we are. But let's be honest in the discourse in getting there.

Also, regarding the water out here, there is a significant body of thought that attributes the current water shortages to the possibility that the Compact was negotiated based on a 100 year average flow study that happened during an unusually wet period. In other words, it means that the reason there is not enough water in the Colroado to meet everyone's agreed rights is because everyone mistakenly thought that there was a lot more water in the river on average than there really is historically.


----------



## tellutwurp (Jul 8, 2005)

I wouldn't discredit the the actual finding cited, as I don't think they would run false propaganda, but I am skeptical that it discredits global warming, you can't extrapolate a singular into a universal so maybe one glacier is growing whilst many others are shrinking.

I would suggest we all go read reports on both sides of the fence rather than taking someone else interpretation. 

also, there is an Economic side to every environmental issue, and the solutions are often Economic ones, so I wouldn't doubt the involvement of Economists.


----------



## jonny water (Oct 28, 2003)

Own up to the fact that we are killing our own Earth. Routter....you seem to be somewhat of a role-model on this site. Stand for something that will allow the next generations to ski and paddle like you love to do.

Gasses like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide does cool the Earth. It's because we are blocking out the sun's rays. But it insulates the Earth causing the atmosphere to heat up. Scientists have recently learned that the earth can be cooled by these gases and are estimating that since we have not accounted for other effects like this that instead of seeing temps increase by 3-4 degrees in the next century, it may be much higher(18 C). Once the temps begin to increase and places like the rain forests begin to dry up, wildfires will be more prominent and the burning will produce more CO2 and the effects will compound. We need to do something immediately. This is no joke and we can't sit around trying to decide what paper presents the best arguements. It is a fact that the Earth is heating and burning oil is contributing to this problem. Sell your gas-chugging vehicles, move closer to you job, ride a bike, but we have to get away from burning oil. We need to look to electric powered cars and riding mass transits that use electricity or something that has reduced emissions.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

sward said:


> learn to swim.


Mom's gonna fix it all soon
Mom's coming round to put it back the way it oughta be.


----------



## tboner (Oct 13, 2003)

don't just call me negative... try and read between the lines...


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

You're wading knee deep and going in,
and you may never come back again.
This bog is thick and easy to get lost in 
cause you're a stupid, belligerent fucker.


----------



## kayakArkansas (May 14, 2004)

ahhhh.....it sucks you down.....


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Fluctuations in the Earth's mean temperature are usually measured in geological time, not decades. Is it a coincidence that this corresponds with the industrial age? 

Like Bob Dylan said: you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. If you wait for concrete evidence to convince you **** sapiens are causing this trend then it may well be too late.

Use your head.


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

Well, some threads become a good discussion and others just become the internet equivalent of yelling. Oh, well. 

I'm a bit surprised to see so many people question whether global warming is occuring and whether humans are causing it. While there were questions about this 5-10 years ago, it's pretty clear now that the industrial age is causing global warming. The info put out by anti-global warming people are distorted. The question now is more how bad will global warming be? 

Here are some good sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30614FE395F0C728CDDAB0894DD404482
Darn, I don't think those links are publicly available. Well, any credible source will have similar info. Didn't TIme magazine have some articles on this? 

Frankly, I'm appalled by those commercials that suggest doubling the atmospheric content of CO2 is fine. The debate should be more on what are reasonable steps to take rather than should we ignore it. We don't have to make big life style changes now. I'm afraid if we ignore it, big life style changes will be forced on us eventually. 

If commercials like that have an impact on our society, it doesn't speak well for our society.


----------



## Rushis Right (Jan 3, 2006)

You know what I think. Come on the NY Times? You gotta have better sources than that.


----------



## hortonvm (Feb 15, 2006)

Okay, fair enough. Some people have suggested that there is no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. While I take that with a grain of salt, I'll reluctantly agree to that point. There is no complete scientific consensus on that point, though an increasing number of reputable scientists (including the National Academy of Sciencences) concede that human activity contributes in large part to global warming. I too look at the world through analytical eyes, and the data (which I don't find to be the result of "poor scientific process") that I've examined, combined with extrapolation on three scientific givens has convinced me of the plausibility of anthropogenic global warming. These three givens are, first, the fact that CO2, Methane, and water (as well as other gases) create a greenhouse effect that traps sloar radiation, potentially heating up the planet. Secondly, that atmospheric concentrations of this gas have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, and thirdly, that this coincides with a rise in mean global temperature (NOT on a climate model, in actual data). To provide an analogy, Macroevolution is essentially unprovable, but is an extrapolation of scientifically provable microevolutionary theory, and provides a largely coherent means of explaining the mechanism by which life on this planet changes with regard to species. If anyone wants to have a dialogue about human causes of global warming, that's fine, but I'd rather do something else than waste my life on a forum. Plus, I think it's somewhat irrelevent to the post at hand. What this ad is doing is attempting to contradict scientific fact, namely, that excessive Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. In fact, since they call carbon dioxide "life", it would seem that burning more fossil fuels would be beneficial to this planet. They aren't going so far as to deny human involvment in global warming, only a key scientific fact, the greenhouse effect. I think this reflects the oil sponsorship of this particular think tank. In short, I think this is BS propaganda designed to cut off any real dialogue about an important issue.
Coincidentally, I'm neither conservative nor liberal.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Nice Tool references.


----------



## richterHUS (Jun 16, 2005)

I have to say I'm glad to see that there are some differing opinions on this topic as that is what helps us understand more about something. As global warming and its effects are far from solid empirical proofs I think it is important to continue to discuss. Doomsday predictions like the recent Al Gore articles really accomplish nothing except disseminate false information. However, to ignore the the issue is equally irresponsible. 
I do find it amusing that some people claim to be able to predict the weather outcomes secondary to global warming when we have enough trouble predicting the correct weather for the rest of the week. Scientists can't even agree whether there actually is an overall increase in temperatures. Signs of increase may just be due to the centralization of humans as more and more people move out of rural areas and into the cities, a trend which has been well studied.
I believe Router made the most correct point in saying that a temperature increase in the last decade or even in the last century is miniscule in comparison to the age of the earth. Flucuations have occurred since the formation of earth (the ice age for example) and it is impossible to say that any temp change is not just another global fluctuation, even if the timing is correct with the age of industrialization.
Since there are many points to be made I would like to make one that has not been discussed. No matter out belief in global warming or not, it is unethical for us to demand that other less-developed countries be held to pollution reductions that countries like the US and Europe embrace. It costs industry billions of dollars to conform to these standards and in a country where the economy does not have the monetary luxuries we have it stifles and restricts their ability to grow, particularly since the answer for much of our non-pollution tactics is to move it off-shore, an arrangement that benefits for parties economically. It's not right to say, we got our and now you can't have yours, in the sense that we polluted and grew but now won't allow others to do the same. We in essence promote world poverty. Discuss.


----------



## Steve Kahn (Apr 17, 2004)

*warming*

routter - 

one could certainly be manipulated by the corporate world, but not know it, even with degrees in the sciences.

others posting above are correct, IMO - by stating that proving any of this is a tough challenge (either way), and following the logic that you can't prove it, so it isn't worth the effort is NOT valid. 

i do disagree with your contention that the scientific community has not come to concencus on this issue. I have found in my experience that when talking to the actual scientists who work on this issue, they are very much in agreement that what we are currently seeing is most likely a man made phenomena that will have and IS having significant impacts on life here on earth. i suggest that you enroll in some graduate courses at CSM - i think they have one called "environmental global change" from the engineering department. 

i also disagree with the idea of moving to electric cars, as we currently generate some 70% of electricity from burning coal, and the corresponding emissions of CO2. not to mention the waste of transfering the electricity and inescapable inefficiency. 

finally, i think it is weird that you want to convince people of your thinking, basically that it is a complex problem and you are not convinced (argument already stated above). i think that if you become more educated on the science, you will become convinced. 

also, it is offensive to me that you use the term "liberal guilt" - as a reason why people think this is man made. perhaps your "conservative inner voice" tells you that it is too complex, so why deal? this is so not a partisan issue. drought and rapid global change will affect everyone the same. it is really sad that the pro-corporate right wingers have shunned this topic as false, without an understanding of the facts, and re-evaluating as new evidence is uncovered. this issue is really too big to be labeled as left or right. wake up. 

i think that stiff and johny water have the right ideas.


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

How long do you think it took cavemen to realize shitting upstream was a bad idea? They didn't wait until the invention of the microscope. Is global warming a good time to utilize "reasonable doubt" or "innocent until proven guilty?" Depends on who you ask.

So... In the last 13,000 years, has there been one instance where mankind has decreased it's use of natural resources? Probably not. I think it is inevitable that we will plunder our planet until there is nothing left. I think some people have come to terms with that and are racing to get their chunk. Others think technology will come to the rescue. Most of the world's population believes they get to go somewhere else when they die so who really needs the Earth.

People are generally idiots. The only thing that will slow it down is a good old fashioned plague.

-d


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

Mom please flush it all away. 
I wanna see it go right in and down. 
Watch you flush it all awaaaaaaaaay.



Livingston said:


> The only thing that will slow it down is a good old fashioned plague.
> -d


True. If we are the cause of it, driving a Pirus isn't going to fix it. Getting industry to get behind developing a car that runs on hydrogen will. And the only thing that will do that is if gas costs $25 per gallon or if Mom flushes it all away first.


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

A Bumper sticker I saw at a bar near a gold mine in CO, the kind of mine where they move mountains and leach the gold out over acres of big plastic sheets.

"EARTH FIRST... WE'LL MINE THE OTHERS LATER"

-d


----------



## cecil (May 30, 2005)

I second the Tool references...great song.


----------



## jonny water (Oct 28, 2003)

Electric cars are not the answer? Well at least it's a push in the right direction. But for the record, you don't plug a hybrid into the wall. It charges its battery as the wheels turn. Oil is still burned but as the engine runs on gas or coasts, it charges the battery.

Also, with developing hydrogen power, check this out. I already posted it once before, but if you missed it....

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128967/water_as_fuel/

Check this as well...long videos but short download time.
Click on the right picture.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

I don't know what the implications are of splitting water into HHO gas but if the water is not recoverable, at least we can limit how high the seas will rise after global warming takes over (this was a joke).


----------



## routter (Mar 10, 2004)

Okey-dokey. I see plenty of the same points being made here that I've heard over and over, none of which are too convincing. My brief rebuttal, unreferenced or footnoted as this seems to be SOP here:

1. I'm hyper-informed on the subject. Ask people who know me, I have plenty of time on my hands to spend on this stuff.

2. Correlation does not imply causation. This is the most basic tenent of science. (for you, BSOE)

3. Temp changes don't always occur in a geological timeframe. There have been many proven short wave heating and cooling cycles.

4. There are plenty of studies out there agreeing w/ man's influence on warming that also hypothesize a significant cooling of the earth fast on the heels of said warmng. This, they surmise,is due to the added water vapor in the atmosphere causing increased solar reflection. Some believe this to have happened fairly frequentlty in the past.

5. Neccessity is the mother of all invention.


Basically, all I am saying is that because the Big 3 and the Times ram something down one's throat daily, that does not a consensus make. It also does not mean that dissenting research is baseless, as many assert. This, as has been stated, is a very complex issue and continued research on BOTH sides is still needed. If you want to live green- than thank you. Overconsumtion is not a noble pursuit. However, I'm not losing any sleep tonight because my truck gets 20 mpg.


----------



## rhm (May 16, 2006)

switching to hydrogen powered cars will not really help that much. the cars don't make any emissions, but the way that we produce hydrogen does. hydrogen and oxygen are produced from the electrolysis of water. you get two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, but you are burning elecrticity to make it. thus you get the emissions at the power plant. the only way to get "clean" hydrogen with this method is to only use elecrticity produced from wind or solar power. the same for totally electric powered cars. the production of the electricity is still dirty. what we really need are fuel cell powered cars where hydrogen and oxygen are produced without electrolysis.


----------



## richterHUS (Jun 16, 2005)

Something that I find interesting when people discuss the alternatives to oil consumptionis the discussion of alternative energy possibilities. Hydrogen power as an alternative to oil based energy production is the most talked about idea I seem to hear when discussing this topic. It's as if we have to come to a consensus of the most probable replacement. We don't have to decide that. Some people don't like to admit it, but alternative energy production will be the most lucrative invention since the automobile. And when there is money involved, there is incentive to find the answer. I know, I've heard all the conspiracy theories about big oil buying out ideas and all that but that's as ludicrous as saying that horse traders tried to buy out Ford's idea for the automobile to save their industry. The discussion today is nothing new. There has always been and will always be a heated discussion about what will cause the fall of man. But...we have and will always find an alternative. The future may look doomed from the path we are on only becuase we can't see far enough ahead to the fork in the road.


----------



## kayakArkansas (May 14, 2004)

Great song....great band....great discussion....sorry I have nothing productive to add, however, it definitely gives a gent something to ponder.......although....I am very surprised to see a debate of this magnitude going on in a paddling forum during the spring runoff....what with all those beautiful looking flows on the Ark that I am unable to enjoy for ANOTHER MONTH  

--Zach W


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Here here for the plague idea. Bring on the bird flu. With our incredibly exercised immune systems, only boaters will be left. Then the discussion will center on which dead neighbor's car are we going to drive after the last dead neighbor's car runs out of gas a la The Omega Man. After that we'll build a new civilization based on river travel and riverside bike paths.

Chuck Heston may be a lunatic now, but he sure was damn good back in the day. 

Correlation's a damn good place to start. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you only need to sequence so many genes before you can conclude it is indeed a duck.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

I pulled hydrogen out of my ass. I know nothing about alternative energy. And, yes, small efforts now like driving a Prius sure don't hurt. But if it is true that we are changing the climate then getting 60 mpg instead of 20 mpg isn't going to reverse it. It is going to take a complete switch to a different source of energy. And trying to convince people that we are causing global warming isn't going to do that. The vast majority of people outside of forums like this wouldn't care even if there was definitive proof. They won't care till it hits them in the wallet. 

So what will cause a change? If alternative energy will be the most lucrative invention since the automobile as Richter said, why hasn't there been more progress? Personally I think the incentive isn't there yet but is getting close (thus the small strides like hybrid vehicles... theres a market developing for them now.) And when true money is to be made, technology will, once again, come to the rescue. Until then, the Prius just doesn't cut it as a shuttle rig. (But buying one surely helps send the message to the corporations that we'll give you our money if you come up with the solution. )


----------



## Bryan Houle (Nov 5, 2003)

yes, there's a global warming trend.

yes, man has contributed.

but to what extent is simply not known and is still under major debate among scientists. we are talking about an extremely complex system here of which we are still gathering data. more research is still needed to understand the effects of water vapor, for example, which actually is the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect, more so than CO2.

and regarding alternative energy sources, don't think that these will solve all our current problems without creating new ones. basic scientific principles tell us that there's no such thing as free energy (2nd law of thermo) so there will always be waste. we're all familiar with the undesireable effects of nuclear waste, but what about ethanol? we already have a growing aggricultural problem with fertilizers and pesticides. and even if we do invent a totally electric car, realize that about 70% of the energy that went into making the electricity needed to power this car was lost in the form of heat at the power plant.


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

Hmmm. I'm surprised so many people still think there is a question on whether humans are causing serious global warming. That's worthwhile info. I guess the mountain of data and model analysis doesn't produce a smoking gun people can relate to. 

Does this convince people better than Al Gore? 


> Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative
> 
> Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."
> 
> "For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."


On what to do, I see several approaches:
1) Encourage more fuel efficient cars and houses. 
2) Create a carbon market where people buy the right to put CO2 in the air. Start with a cheap price, but increase it gradually over 10-20 years. One easy thing to do is pump the CO2 that a coal plant produces back into the ground. This isn't that expensive and there are enough depleted oil reservoirs to make this possible. It may increase electricity costs 10%.
3) Pursue nuclear energy more. New designs show ways of making conventional fission safe and reasonably priced. And we can put as much money as the Japanese and Europeans are spending to develop new hydrogen fusion, which is totally safe and produces nearly no radioactive waste.
4) More ethanol & wind as previous posters said

I'm sure there are other reasonable things that can be done. 

By the way, I work in the oil industry. 
.


----------



## festivus (Apr 22, 2006)

Reverse global warming with clean and renewable energy.... hydroelectric!


----------



## Withdrawn 1 (Mar 13, 2004)

Caspian said:


> 'Nuff respect, Routter.
> 
> Also, regarding the water out here, there is a significant body of thought that attributes the current water shortages to the possibility that the Compact was negotiated based on a 100 year average flow study that happened during an unusually wet period. In other words, it means that the reason there is not enough water in the Colroado to meet everyone's agreed rights is because everyone mistakenly thought that there was a lot more water in the river on average than there really is historically.



The book _Cadillac Desert_ was required reading for a class I had at Western State (Gunnison - 1993). According to the book (pp. 128-129), it states, "1905, 1906 and 1907 were some of the wettest years in the Colorado Basin's history." In 1907, according to the book, "the river sent a record twenty-five million acre-feet - eight quadrillion gallons - to the gulf."

Keep in mind, folks, that the Colorado River Storage Compact (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) hasn't been adjusted much since it was first enacted to accomodate the energy usage we see today. Hydroelectricity was introduced before the age of internet, not to mention the growing number of baby boomers moving from colder climates to places like AZ to take up golfing.


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

To you on the Right of this issue I say. Common Sense the first casualty of Partisain Politics. To you on the left. Just becuse you produce a small percentage less of co2 emmisions does not make you part of the solution. Same argument diffrent people 0 accomplished. sj

yakgirl. The 1927 colorado river compact has not been adjusted flow wise leaving about a 3mil af sortage anually. this has not been a real issue due to lack of storage capacity. sj


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

*solution*

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48223

I think this guy has it figured out.


----------



## mike a (Dec 16, 2003)

Those who think that our climate does not change on its own natural cycles are wrong. In medieval times, there was a cooling trend that killed by the tens of thousands in Europe. Our best guess is that the Maya civilization was destroyed by a drought that coincided with their downfall. These trends lasted only decades, and were not the result of the industrial revolution. We will never know just how many examples of this there are throughout history. If our earth is warming up, we are far from proving that humans have any role to play. Look at the ozone layer. After the big stink made, we figured out that the hole was a natual fluctuation and that our impact was negligible. I'm with Routter, I think that human ego leads us to believe that we have a larger impact than we really do. The earth will go on being the earth long after we have vanquished, and we can't do much about the bigger picture. At the end of the day, humans will have been but a pimple on an elephant's ass. 

And for those who think that there is a scientific consensus, read here about the upcoming mini ice age that is forcasted:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
Believe me, National Geographic is not a consevative institution. 

None of this changes the fact that we need to be good guests of our planet. But not for our planet's sake, for ours. Our need for a healthy, clean environment is tantamount to our healthy existence. Our natural areas provide experiences for those willing to partake that cannot be replaced or substituted. And, on a more practical note, they provide the ecosystems on which human populations depend. 

So can we render a small portion of the earth uninhabitable? Absolutely. Can we change the climate of earth? Very doubtful.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

mike a said:


> And for those who think that there is a scientific consensus, read here about the upcoming mini ice age that is forcasted:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
> Believe me, National Geographic is not a consevative institution.


Uhm...did you actually read that link of yours? It's about global warming shutting down the gulf stream. It certainly doesn't refute the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth as a whole is getting warmer, but rather points out new evidence of one of the more catastrophic effects of that warming.


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

Just a couple of thoughts...I'm no scientiest.

I think its dangerous to dry to compartmentalize these issues(Mike a).

Nor can our observations be mutualy exclusive. ie...The local environment is effected by climate change. Drought, pine beatle, massive fires. The effects dont end at the county or state line. Throw in the concepts of choas theory.

I agree, the earth has and always will go through warming and cooling cycles and to my knowledge nobody refutes that. We are just helping those swings be more severe. 

As far as ego, maybe its ego telling us that we are so great and smart that we couldnt possibly be doing any harm.

Just my 2


----------



## iripmore (May 24, 2006)

*weeewwww*

thank you guys, I was so worried I was entering a world of frustration with this post... but you have all impressed me beyond words just how independently you are all capable of thinking. if you all get a chance read a book or two by a guy named Kary B. Mullis or how ever you spell it (sorry I spell like a 12 year old). He won the Nobel Prize and is brilliant but very controversial, but only because he goes above the normal acceptance in the world of science. I worked for the German cancer research institute for a while and I finally got out of it because when politics start effecting peoples lives, I can no longer sleep at night with my self. the same goes across the boards for who is going to get the next big government grant, they are ruthless and will lie to the end if they think they will get away with it... and why not, how many have been caught, that one guy, whos name we already forgot, in Singapore for saying he cloned things he didnt. furthermore, just look at the fossilized evidence at the poles of tropical plants and sea shells... this is not naturally a polar caped planet... now dont get me wrong, I like clear air and hate litter but I also know that the idea that we as humans are capable of throwing the largest known buffer in the universe (our atmosphere) is a bit over blown!


----------



## Jobu (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm more worried about the cover-ups of alternative energy sources by oil cartel. Magnetic engines, hydrogen powered engines, cold fusion, etc.... The earth is ready to change, and will as it always does. Look at the past, Ice age, polor shifting, widespread disease etc.. but we need to change with it.

The technology is there! It's just being repressed by certain groups. Patterns are being bought up and burried. 

As far as global warming its to hard to say. The facts, like in all things these days are jaded by different sides of the argument. 70% of Statistics are made up on the spot. So whose to say what is true and what is not. But one thing is without doubt, the earth is changing. But that is nothing new. 

In my opinion, yes I think things are getting dryer and warming a bit in the USA.


----------



## iripmore (May 24, 2006)

well you can look at the over seas differences, in Germany they have fields of little yellow flowers that they make diesel with and its cheaper over there, substantially, than petrol.... they also have the high performance diesel cars, i.e.: Audi a8 4.2 td, which I can say from experience is a phenomenal automobile!!! Yet whats wrong with us... we have hardly any diesel cars except the late 80s early 90s Mercedes Junkers, and its more expensive than petrol, why cant we grow flowers and make some fuel???? Is it that freaking hard or crazy of an idea, but only if we have the performance )


----------

