quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
I haven't seen any difinitive evidence for man-made global warming, just conjecture.

This is because your head is buried in the sand Popeye, and you refuse to go to your public library and start educating yourself. Instead you just keep repeating this broken record about it all being natural variation. There is plenty of "difinitive" evidence in those journals I pointed you to.

So of all the fields of science in which peer review gives rival scientists the chance to trounce a fellow researcher (with whom he is competing for grants by the way, as you ironically mention) for getting something wrong, climatology is the one in which there is this rock-solid conspiracy in which all of them consistently back up each other's fabricated data. Tell me more (no, please don't).

What is your friend's specialty in biochemistry? Strange that he's hurting so much for grant money, unless his niche is far afield from genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
One thing I don't understand is the absolute evangelical zeal that people who are "believers" in global warming have against "non-believers." It's their way or the highway!

quote:


You know, you'd be doing yourselves a favor if you divorced yourselves from the "U.N."
For me and a lot of other people, just mentioning the "U.N." ends the debate.
Look at that fiasco they came up with called "Kyoto."
(I'll see your two polution "credits" and raise you two polution "credits.")
And, they *still* can't find $22-$24 B that's "missing" in the "Oil for Food" scheme!
You're really not doing your "side" any favors by associating yourselves with the "U.N."

quote:


I think part of the problem is that many people have trouble conceptualizing long term trends of 100,000 years or so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
The relatively high carbon dioxide level is no big deal. Nature has provided efficient mechanisms to reduce that level given time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
LOL. Yeah, it's called extinction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091600607.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: ocilla



For Christ's sake, change your incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent, air seal and insulate your home and you will have made huge strides!


Just a couple little things to consider when looking at these suggestions.

1. Incandecent to Flourecent bulbs will change the energy consumption and help reduce the air polution however the trade off is that the costs of land disposal for the florecent bulbs is significantly higher.

2. Sealing houses as air tight as we have has been one of the big factors in Toxic Mold, Radon, and other indoor air polutants.

I'm not suggesting not making the trades at this point just pointing out that often the solutions we get early on in the process have unexpected results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graethen

doesn't it bother anyone that this "global warming" malarkie is based on consincises and NOT scientific reasearch??? get a grip...So-called "Global-Warming" is the religion of the future...no fact...no statistics merely feel good ideals that cannot be proven and are usually disproved by most and I stress MOST of the scientific community...in truth the worlds climate has actually heated up by a poultry 0.03% celcieous in the last 100 years...that would be the equivilant of a match being lite in a room that is freezing....it is insignificient...take your BS elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
 
There is only one way to restore natural balances at least partially: by reduction of the human population by birth control. Women should not have children before the age of 25. Exponentially increasing taxes should be put on second and further children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: beautifultrouble
Offering tax incentives for couples or individuals that voluntarily get themselves 'fixed' would probably be the best way to handle tax issues as taxing people for having more than one child is again....a violation of civil liberties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
One thing I don't understand is the absolute evangelical zeal that people who are "believers" in global warming have against "non-believers." It's their way or the highway!

Consider the possibility that that emotion you are detecting is exasperation from those of us in the scientific community who have known how solid this consensus has been for years now (the IPCC was *very* late on the draw waiting till the past year to come out with that report). It is pretty hard to sit still and listen to large segments of the public either knowingly or ignorantly denying what is known. And worse yet, propagating the same tired red herring "rebuttals" to misinform others.

quote:


You know, you'd be doing yourselves a favor if you divorced yourselves from the "U.N."
For me and a lot of other people, just mentioning the "U.N." ends the debate.
Look at that fiasco they came up with called "Kyoto."
(I'll see your two polution "credits" and raise you two polution "credits.")
And, they *still* can't find $22-$24 B that's "missing" in the "Oil for Food" scheme!
You're really not doing your "side" any favors by associating yourselves with the "U.N."

Speaking of zeal. UN, UN, UN. Your fear and insecurity regarding anything originating from outside of our borders is palpable (how'd that work out with Iraq, by the way?). The UN is a huge organization which, like any its size, has its serious problems. But before you use these unrelated issues as an excuse to stick your head further underground, the IPCC report was just the latest large consenus body of scientists to come out with these statements to educate the public. Every major scientific organization in the U.S. - the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, ... * - agree with the IPCC's statement. WE are driving this.

* for the full list of the scientific organizations who are in on this conspiracy to make America communist, pry your Suburban away from your cold dead hands, and recruit your daughters into lesbian satanists, see:

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

quote:


I think part of the problem is that many people have trouble conceptualizing long term trends of 100,000 years or so.

LOL. I'll give you credit for chutzpah. The scientists involved have no trouble dealing with that time scale, or any others that arise. It's the anti-science crowd, the creationists and the climate change deniers, who stumble so badly on it.