Global Warming!

[Mehrdad14]

What do you think about global warming, and what the governments are doing to prevent it?

Personaly I "KNOW" that the governments are not going to spend that much money and time into these because all they care about is power, and money. So even though harper (canadian PM) says that hes going to at least slow global warming, he is just BSing and BSing...because they havent even done anything yet....

so I am wondering what you think about this major effect around the world?

//sorry for grammer...

[JakeHero]

We'd consider lowering gas-emit if the problem of thousands of people dying from cold was not apparent.

But I don't like emotional arguments so I'll give another reason.

The reason we(US) do not do much about this problem is because any bill passed by the UN would have us forgo some form of autonomy. In a democracy the people decide, not a foreign assembly. Not only that, but if we give our sovereign system the finger the overall people would suffer economy due to the loss of industry. What's the point of saving the world one way if you're going to doom yourself the other? Another problem is the fact other countries still pollute even more so than we do, and yet we catch all the flak.

[Brick-top]

Dear god not another one.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/2/07 04:49 PM, BanditByte wrote: The reason we(US) do not do much about this problem is because any bill passed by the UN would have us forgo some form of autonomy. In a democracy the people decide, not a foreign assembly.

It's a pain when you have to follow a few rules, instead of making them eh!

Not only that, but if we give our sovereign system the finger the overall people would suffer economy due to the loss of industry.

Myth-BUSTED!

What's the point of saving the world one way if you're going to doom yourself the other?

You're saying we're doomed either way, so who gives a shit right?!

Another problem is the fact other countries still pollute even more so than we do, and yet we catch all the flak.

Care to name them?

[Draconias]

At 2/4/07 10:05 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 2/2/07 04:49 PM, BanditByte wrote: The reason we(US) do not do much about this problem is because any bill passed by the UN would have us forgo some form of autonomy. In a democracy the people decide, not a foreign assembly.

It's a pain when you have to follow a few rules, instead of making them eh!

Yeah, and the Confederates showed how pissy Americans can get if you try to force rules on them that they don't like.

Not only that, but if we give our sovereign system the finger the overall people would suffer economy due to the loss of industry.

Myth-BUSTED!

Many "environmentalists" suggest solutions that don't solve the problem and work well to totall cripple our civilization. Near all are completely unreasonable and foolish because they ignore the real workings of our civilization. They are all going at the problem the wrong way, with the belief that No Humans = Good, but that's wrong.

What's needed is counter-acting effects, not just a reduction of our current effect. Leaving the forests how they are won't stop warming; but planting more forests will. That's the kind of logic and solutions we need.

What's the point of saving the world one way if you're going to doom yourself the other?

You're saying we're doomed either way, so who gives a shit right?!

The choice is suffering for us and our near descendents, or potential suffering for our long-distance descendents. Which would you choose? I know what I would.

Another problem is the fact other countries still pollute even more so than we do, and yet we catch all the flak.

Care to name them?

China. India. The "Third World" makes a nice clump. Those are the countries who are undergoing rapid industrialization and should be the real concern. The 500+ Chinese coal power plants currently planned for construction in the next 3 years will create more pollution in their lifetime than America has created in all of its history.

[GoryBlizzard]

What's really sad is that there are a lot of people in the world who still believe global warming is an elaborate hoax meant to scare us all, and that nothing should be done to address it. Every time I come across a person like that, I just want to rip their heads open. I've already seen climate change happening (as I'm sure most others have), and it's inevitably going to get much worse unless we take quick action.

[dELtaluca]

At 2/4/07 12:09 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: What's really sad is that there are a lot of people in the world who still believe global warming is an elaborate hoax meant to scare us all, and that nothing should be done to address it.

its not a question of whether theres such a thing as global warming, or indeed whether its happening or not, we only recently came out of an ice age, and the earth is still warming up before it begins to cool into the next ice age, inevitably, no matter what we do, the earth is still going to warm up, the only matter at hand, is to what extent is human influence, speeding up, or exxagerating the warming.

[Bolo]

I hate it when ignorant people claim Global Warming is a hoax.

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/4/07 11:32 AM, Draconias wrote: China. India. The "Third World" makes a nice clump. Those are the countries who are undergoing rapid industrialization and should be the real concern. The 500+ Chinese coal power plants currently planned for construction in the next 3 years will create more pollution in their lifetime than America has created in all of its history.

China and India have about 4 times the population, but yet produce about 1 quarter the greenhouse gases that America does. That means each American is equivalent to about 16 asians in terms of harmful emissions. American cars are not even upto Chinese pollution standards, and can't be sold there without modification. Those planned Chinese coal power plants you mention have the very lastest in carbon filtration systems, so they won't be anywhere near as bad as those "America has created in all of its history" as you suggest.

These countries ARE industrializing, but they're also doing so with 21st century technology. They ARE infact creating more jobs by developping improved systems, and America should learn by their example before ALL countries start banning American automobiles, and the like, due to US intransigence.

[JoS]

Global warming is just part of natural fluxuations in the earths temperature.

Linky

[JudgeDredd]

At 2/5/07 12:25 AM, JoS wrote: Global warming is just part of natural fluxuations in the earths temperature.

Linky

You linked to an article that's dated "Monday, Jun. 24, 1974" entitled "Another Ice Age?"

Your intention was 2 maek teh funney right?

[HogWashSoup]

i think global warming is good. i hate the cold.

if global warming happens then where i live will feel like the tropics.

come on global warming.

[GRAFITTi]

At 2/2/07 04:24 PM, Mehrdad14 wrote: What do you think about global warming, and what the governments are doing to prevent it?

Global warming is becoming a problem... with all of the pollution in the air.

Carbon monoxide is terrible.

Personaly I "KNOW" that the governments are not going to spend that much money and time into these because all they care about is power, and money.

If your governments are not doing anything about it, then maybe you should.

So even though harper (canadian PM) says that hes going to at least slow global warming, he is just BSing and BSing...because they havent even done anything yet....
The United States are more vunerable to face a source of pollution.

The only asset Canadian PM's care about are the Polar bears that drown, under thick ice.

so I am wondering what you think about this major effect around the world?

I think. Geological/Weather trends such as this usually take millennia, not less than 100 years.

What would Al Gore say about this?

[major-shake]

actually being an apprentice diesel mechanic i know that the government is doing things to help the environment for instance when a delivery truck goes through the inner city it actually cleans the air, no this is not a typo, the air that comes out is cleaner than the air that goes in. However that is just about all that i know that they are doing

[xboxbob11]

At 2/5/07 01:02 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: i think global warming is good. i hate the cold.

if global warming happens then where i live will feel like the tropics.

come on global warming.

Global warming has positive and negative side effects. How it affects you feels more like a matter of opinion rather than scientific knowledge.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/07 12:18 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: China and India have about 4 times the population, but yet produce about 1 quarter the greenhouse gases that America does. That means each American is equivalent to about 16 asians in terms of harmful emissions. American cars are not even upto Chinese pollution standards, and can't be sold there without modification. Those planned Chinese coal power plants you mention have the very lastest in carbon filtration systems, so they won't be anywhere near as bad as those "America has created in all of its history" as you suggest.

But they will surpass the US in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009, only 2 years away.

Also have you ever thought that the environmental standards by the Chinese authorities are more about protectionism than protecting the environment?

These countries ARE industrializing, but they're also doing so with 21st century technology. They ARE infact creating more jobs by developping improved systems, and America should learn by their example before ALL countries start banning American automobiles, and the like, due to US intransigence.

Have you ever been over there or are you getting all of this out of a magazine?

Smart, real smart solution there. There is expense in retooling industry, and not only monetary but human. What you're talking about will take food off blue collar tables as well as take health insurance away from working class families.

Silly environmentalists with their religious zealotry...

[Togukawa]

At 2/5/07 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/5/07 12:18 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: China and India have about 4 times the population, but yet produce about 1 quarter the greenhouse gases that America does. That means each American is equivalent to about 16 asians in terms of harmful emissions. American cars are not even upto Chinese pollution standards, and can't be sold there without modification. Those planned Chinese coal power plants you mention have the very lastest in carbon filtration systems, so they won't be anywhere near as bad as those "America has created in all of its history" as you suggest.

But they will surpass the US in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009, only 2 years away.

The difference is that China has ratified Kyoto, and the US hasn't.

Also have you ever thought that the environmental standards by the Chinese authorities are more about protectionism than protecting the environment?

What does the reasoning matter, in the end it's their environmental effect that counts. Russia ratified it because of the emission trading, completely selfish too. But in the end, they ARE reducing emissions. As opposed to the US. They reasons for not ratifying are equally selfish, because it's bad for the economy (though that's debatable). But in the end, they AREN'T reducing emissions and refuse to do so.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/314 3798.stm
(Don't whine about it being BBC, they state their own sources)

[TheMason]

At 2/5/07 09:55 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/5/07 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: But they will surpass the US in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009, only 2 years away.

The difference is that China has ratified Kyoto, and the US hasn't.

So? The fact that the US has not signed Kyoto is not the reason the protocol will fail. Furthermore, the environment does not care that the US hasn't signed Kyoto...it does not make Chinese emissions less toxic and damaging than US emissions...they aren't somehow better. Kyoto is a flawed treaty that its own designers have ensured will fail.

Also this is from the source you cite at the end of this post:

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.

China gets a pass in the treaty...they get the good PR in the international community without having to do anything...but pollute.

Also have you ever thought that the environmental standards by the Chinese authorities are more about protectionism than protecting the environment?

What does the reasoning matter, in the end it's their environmental effect that counts. Russia ratified it because of the emission trading, completely selfish too. But in the end, they ARE reducing emissions.

But Ford can easily meet Chinese emissions standards so they are not THAT much higher than US standards. But the fact remains that they, not the US, will be the world's largest polluter in two years...but Kyoto does not address their pollution. The scorn is all placed on the US.

(Don't whine about it being BBC, they state their own sources)

Have I ever whined about something being from the BBC as if they are not a valid source of journalism? I may disagree with the conclusions from time to time, but I don't discredit them.

[Togukawa]

At 2/5/07 10:46 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/5/07 09:55 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 2/5/07 09:40 AM, TheMason wrote: But they will surpass the US in greenhouse gas emissions by 2009, only 2 years away.

The difference is that China has ratified Kyoto, and the US hasn't.

So? The fact that the US has not signed Kyoto is not the reason the protocol will fail. Furthermore, the environment does not care that the US hasn't signed Kyoto...it does not make Chinese emissions less toxic and damaging than US emissions...they aren't somehow better. Kyoto is a flawed treaty that its own designers have ensured will fail.

I agree that Kyoto is flawed, it doesn't go far enough, it's not like reducing emissions by a couple of percents is going to make any impact on the environment. But it's a symbolic statement that we have to do something about the emissions. China is willing to aknowledge that something needs to be done, whereas the US doesn't. And the US is still the largest producer, soon to be second largest. Not that that is a bad thing, it's obvious that the most productive nations are also most productive in emissions. But there's still a big difference in mindset between the two nations.

Also this is from the source you cite at the end of this post:

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.

China gets a pass in the treaty...they get the good PR in the international community without having to do anything...but pollute.

Not yet required indeed. But they ratified it, so they'll be required to stay under a certain limit. But indeed, they got lucky in the treaty. In any case, Russia too ratified it.

Also have you ever thought that the environmental standards by the Chinese authorities are more about protectionism than protecting the environment?

What does the reasoning matter, in the end it's their environmental effect that counts. Russia ratified it because of the emission trading, completely selfish too. But in the end, they ARE reducing emissions.

But Ford can easily meet Chinese emissions standards so they are not THAT much higher than US standards. But the fact remains that they, not the US, will be the world's largest polluter in two years...but Kyoto does not address their pollution. The scorn is all placed on the US.

Well if Ford meet the Chinese emission standards, what's the problem then? Not much of protectionism if the standards are so easily met :)

And well, Kyoto is basically not much more than a symbolic gesture. It isn't going to accomplish anything. But the US doesn't even want to do the bare minimum, and hence is scorned for it. Besides, the US still is the largest polluter for now. China pollutes like hell, but at least has a policy that they will attempt to take emissions into account. The US has a policy of "everything must make way for our economy".

(Don't whine about it being BBC, they state their own sources)

Have I ever whined about something being from the BBC as if they are not a valid source of journalism? I may disagree with the conclusions from time to time, but I don't discredit them.

Hehe, it wasn't geared to you, the people whom it applies to know who they are :)

[TheMason]

At 2/4/07 12:09 PM, GoryBlizzard wrote: What's really sad is that there are a lot of people in the world who still believe global warming is an elaborate hoax meant to scare us all, and that nothing should be done to address it. Every time I come across a person like that, I just want to rip their heads open. I've already seen climate change happening (as I'm sure most others have), and it's inevitably going to get much worse unless we take quick action.

At 2/4/07 12:38 PM, Bolo wrote: I hate it when ignorant people claim Global Warming is a hoax.

I normally do not like USA Today, but this article is interesting and here's some quotes:
"History shows that science is a field in which it can be difficult to achieve consensus — even when the question at hand has no public-policy implications. When the question gets tangled up with politics, economics, and lifestyles, the ranks of the unconvinced can thin far more grudgingly."

"Not all remaining skeptics fit neatly into one pigeonhole. They do agree that the climate has warmed and that humans have pumped more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. But some hold that the climate is too complex to reliably forecast its future trends. Other suggest that natural fluctuations in climate remain the main drivers of warming. Still others say that, on balance, warming will be good for humanity."

"Some who look at the climate issue through the lens of geological time hold that warming's impact on society pales in comparison with the sudden, natural swings in climate that can occur. The triggers are unknown, [emphasis mine] and society is woefully unprepared for them, says Australian researcher Robert Carter, one of the testifiers before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday. The global-warming debate, he argued, is a distraction that keeps people from focusing on what he sees as this greater threat."

"The University of Oklahoma's David Deming went further, arguing for a form of geo-engineering to forestall the next ice age. In a phone interview, Dr. Deming said too little is known about how the climate system works to overhaul economies in an effort to affect it. [emphasis mine] He cites the mechanisms that cause ice ages as an example. And he points to work by Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who has suggested an unusual cosmic source for cooling cycles that occur roughly every 100,000 years"

Source

These are not "ignorant" people, do you still want to rip their heads open? I mean good lord, you guys get defensive like we're attacking your religion! Look at what Robert Lindzen wrote in 2001 about coverage of the National Academy of Sciences report on global warming for that year [all bold emphasis mine]:

"Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

"As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

"As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

"Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds)."

Source

More from Lindzen:

"As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself.

"In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being of no interest to the readership. I then submitted the paper to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was accepted after review, rereviewed, and reaccepted--an unusual procedure to say the least. In the meantime, the paper was attacked in Science before it had even been published. The paper circulated for about six months as samizdat. It was delivered at a Humboldt conference at M.I.T. and reprinted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine."

Source

This is what is dangerous about enviromentalists is that they want to fundamentally change our society, based upon science that is not conclusive and some very smart and talented scientists remain skeptical of it. And yet their view is suppressed by government and scientific elitists.

[TheMason]

At 2/5/07 11:16 AM, Togukawa wrote: I agree that Kyoto is flawed, it doesn't go far enough, it's not like reducing emissions by a couple of percents is going to make any impact on the environment. But it's a symbolic statement that we have to do something about the emissions.

I'm not really concerned with symbolic gestures, especially when the symbolic gesture will hurt people.

:: Not yet required indeed. But they ratified it, so they'll be required to stay under a certain limit. But indeed, they got lucky in the treaty. In any case, Russia too ratified it.

Doesn't really matter about Russia, they've really messed up the environment in ways the US couldn't dream of.

But the fact remains that in two years (perhaps sooner) China will be the number one polluter...and that is just the beginning.

Well if Ford meet the Chinese emission standards, what's the problem then? Not much of protectionism if the standards are so easily met :)

Okay I'm tired so I'm not presenting myself as well as normal! :)

The question is whether the restrictions are applied the same on domestic autos as it is on imports. Also they are not that much better than California standards (which becomes de facto the national standard).

And well, Kyoto is basically not much more than a symbolic gesture. It isn't going to accomplish anything. But the US doesn't even want to do the bare minimum, and hence is scorned for it. Besides, the US still is the largest polluter for now. China pollutes like hell, but at least has a policy that they will attempt to take emissions into account. The US has a policy of "everything must make way for our economy".

China has the same policy about their economy.

Besides there is still debate in the US as to how much this will help global warming. Also look at my previous posts...I have my doubts on how much climate change is the result of human industry. So why should I be forced to live under the Kyoto protocol?

[Togukawa]

At 2/5/07 01:28 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/5/07 11:16 AM, Togukawa wrote: I agree that Kyoto is flawed, it doesn't go far enough, it's not like reducing emissions by a couple of percents is going to make any impact on the environment. But it's a symbolic statement that we have to do something about the emissions.

I'm not really concerned with symbolic gestures, especially when the symbolic gesture will hurt people.

Well, not doing anything might hurt people too, in the long run.

Doesn't really matter about Russia, they've really messed up the environment in ways the US couldn't dream of.

Oh really? Are you refering to Tsjernobyl?

But the fact remains that in two years (perhaps sooner) China will be the number one polluter...and that is just the beginning.

Well I think it's only normal, when housing 12% of the global population as opposed to 5%, it's only normal that you produce a more. Pro capita the US polutes a hell of a lot more.

Well if Ford meet the Chinese emission standards, what's the problem then? Not much of protectionism if the standards are so easily met :)

Okay I'm tired so I'm not presenting myself as well as normal! :)

The question is whether the restrictions are applied the same on domestic autos as it is on imports. Also they are not that much better than California standards (which becomes de facto the national standard).

Well yes I assume they are, unless you have evidence to the contrary? And I checked your link, the emission standards are about 5% lower than the US ones. Guess what the Kyoto protocol required? Though of course Kyoto applies to a bit more than just cars.

And well, Kyoto is basically not much more than a symbolic gesture. It isn't going to accomplish anything. But the US doesn't even want to do the bare minimum, and hence is scorned for it. Besides, the US still is the largest polluter for now. China pollutes like hell, but at least has a policy that they will attempt to take emissions into account. The US has a policy of "everything must make way for our economy".

China has the same policy about their economy.

But as opposed to the US, still able to hold some pretenses of caring for the environment :)

Besides there is still debate in the US as to how much this will help global warming. Also look at my previous posts...I have my doubts on how much climate change is the result of human industry. So why should I be forced to live under the Kyoto protocol?

It's not up to you, it's up to the government :) I hope that it will be the knowledgable folk that will make the correct decisions. We'll see.

[JoS]

At 2/5/07 12:32 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 2/5/07 12:25 AM, JoS wrote: Global warming is just part of natural fluxuations in the earths temperature.

Linky

You linked to an article that's dated "Monday, Jun. 24, 1974" entitled "Another Ice Age?"

Your intention was 2 maek teh funney right?

The same scientists telling us the earth is getting hotter because of human activity told us its getting colder because of human activity and we had an ice age coming because of it. Those same scientists were wrong then, why should we believe them now? They were just as sure back then as they are now.

[Togukawa]

At 2/5/07 02:05 PM, JoS wrote:
The same scientists telling us the earth is getting hotter because of human activity told us its getting colder because of human activity and we had an ice age coming because of it. Those same scientists were wrong then, why should we believe them now? They were just as sure back then as they are now.

After all, there has been no scientific progress in the past 33 years whatsoever. They still use the same tools and are indeed just as sure now as they were back then.

[lolmaster]

global warming just plain sucks.
We have to prevent it at all costs.

[JoS]

At 2/5/07 02:09 PM, Togukawa wrote: After all, there has been no scientific progress in the past 33 years whatsoever. They still use the same tools and are indeed just as sure now as they were back then.

And in the next 33 years they will again be saying they are wrong.

[TheMason]

Man a triple post here...but at least its spread out over a decent time frame!

But I've come across an article written by environmentalists that I would like to excerpt and comment on. The article can be found
One of the credos of journalism is to seek balance in a story, to cover "both sides." But reporters' dogged tendency to do so on the issue of a human role in global warming has had a detrimental impact on the public's understanding of the subject, say many scientists who criticize media coverage of climate change.

They claim that in this case, giving equal weight to the opposition – the few remaining skeptics with questionable credibility – skews the accuracy of the story by ignoring the broad scientific consensus around a human link.

So a person who is PhD climatologist who is a professor at MIT has questionable credibility? Who was educated at Harvard? Give me a break!

This is simply not science. Science is having your work examined and very often criticizied and corrected by your peers. Consensus is actually a sign of bad science.

"Fortunately, however, news coverage is improving, said Jim White, a geologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies the role of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, and the causes of abrupt climate change. ...

"In just the last year White said he has noticed a significant shift in media coverage of the subject.

"The reporting is better because I don't see the 'other side' anymore."

So basically the environmentalists do not want real peer review that is supposed to be critical and analyze the weaknesses of a given theory or hypothesis. This goes against science...and I'm to take them seriously? If Global Warming was as concrete and sound as they claim, why the fear of analysis?

White also said Hurricane Katrina has been a major influence on the press's new focus. While it's impossible to say conclusively that global warming is to blame for Katrina's strength, White said, the storm was nonetheless a huge catalyst for a growing press interest in warming and rising seas and their effects.

So there it is laid bare. It is not about presenting the truth, but presenting a lie to motivate people. Who cares that more humid air (a by-product of global warming) produces less (and less powerful) storms. It motivates the base! What's a little white lie when it motivates people? Yeah, I'm a fool for being skeptical!

He also recognizes that the public is better able to grasp something concrete than the uncertainty inherent in the science around climate change. Especially with regard to predicting what may lay ahead, White said, "It's very difficult to portray the needed nuances in future climate." Yet it is a crucial task for journalists.

"To expect climate to behave in steady, predictable ways is nuts," White said. "That doesn't mean we lack predictability -- preferred states -- but the jet stream can change, and it does…the climate comfort zone is going to be invaded."

So okay White says right here that the science isn't concrete...haven't I been saying that on these boards? This is in an environmentalist's own words! What they want is to debate amongst themselves and issue edicts for the rest of us to live by. I object to that. Educate us, not pontificate solutions based upon science that you (the scientists) know to be less than solid and sound!

Pollution and increased emissions leads to health problems and produces a lowered standard of living. Being good stewards of the planet also has an economic benefit...God I wish Ford would bring back the diesel Escort that got 50mpg! Use those types of arguments that can find resonance...not inflated fear mongering and emotional "evidence" and dire warnings of calamity...

[TheMason]

I had some trouble posting with the link to the story I cited above. Got the problem fixed so without further ado here's the link to the story I cited above...

http://www.pagetwister.com/generic/templates/
cej_news_wide.cfm?id=598&secver=sec1name&pid=
33&sid=2259

[JoS]

The Canadian House of commons (our equivalent of Congress) committee on the environment has actually banned anyone from presenting evidence infront of them that global warming is not the result of human activity.

[Togukawa]

TheMason, I agree with that 100%.

Caring about the environment and reducing emissions because of fear mongering is not the right reason. But at least now something is getting done. The economic benefits have always been there, but people have just kept going and poluting more and more. At least now there's some attention for the problem.