Petroleum age is just beginning

[gflores]

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

thanks you... i was looking for these links for a long time. i saw a special from john stossel (the guy from 20/20) about this issue and i found it intriguing...

daniel... people are in better health now for many different types of reasons such as advancements in medicine, etc. pollution IS a problem and it is simply careless to just disregard it. must we wait until the environment is beginning to become a waste? with the population growing, many more cars will be in use, more factories, more pollution... you can go ahead and buy an excursion and waste your money with incessant gas refills... alone.

edit: forgot some things.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What will be interesting is when in the relatively near future China consumes more oil than the US. Gonna happen. Then watch the price of oil.

We need to spend on alternative energy what is being spent on Iraq. We would get a much better pay off.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

That is the big question, if the current situation is synthetic.

 

[Jmman]

They signed the petition against the Kyoto treaty because in their opinion the science behind global warming is pure junk......

 

[RDWYTruckDriver]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

From link:

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe,'" said Mr. Seitz. "The petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

From link:

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe,'" said Mr. Seitz. "The petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."

They(the scientists) signed a Petition against the Kyoto Accord. Mr. Seitz attributes that to what you posted, however, how does he know this? Are their other possible reasons they may be against Kyoto? Yes, there are many reasons. He has simply put words in the mouth of those opposed to Kyoto and thus his statement if false.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

From link:

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe,'" said Mr. Seitz. "The petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."

They(the scientists) signed a Petition against the Kyoto Accord. Mr. Seitz attributes that to what you posted, however, how does he know this? Are their other possible reasons they may be against Kyoto? Yes, there are many reasons. He has simply put words in the mouth of those opposed to Kyoto and thus his statement if false.

Maybe you need to read what they each individually signed and affirmed.......

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "










Seems pretty clear to me. ........ Text

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jmman
OK, so you don't to believe the 15,000 scientists who signed the petition against global warming?........petition


Or how about the Harvard scientists who reported that the Earth went through a period much hotter than today in the middle ages......Harvard

1) That was a petition against the Kyoto Accord, not Global Warming/Climate Change.

2) So what. That would have been through natural causes, if the current situation is synthetic, then there is a big problem.

From link:

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe,'" said Mr. Seitz. "The petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."

They(the scientists) signed a Petition against the Kyoto Accord. Mr. Seitz attributes that to what you posted, however, how does he know this? Are their other possible reasons they may be against Kyoto? Yes, there are many reasons. He has simply put words in the mouth of those opposed to Kyoto and thus his statement if false.

Maybe you need to read what they each individually signed and affirmed.......

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "










Seems pretty clear to me. ........ Text

I stand corrected then.

 

[sandorski]

As for Global Climate Change/Warming and whether human activity affects it, try these links:

EPA

A large pdf report from the EPA

"Concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) extracted
from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica have
typically ranged from near 190 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the
warmer ?interglacial? periods like the present one that
began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not
rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution.
By 1958, when systematic atmospheric measurements
began, they had reached 315 ppmv, and they are currently
~370 ppmv and rising at a rate of 1.5 ppmv per year
(slightly higher than the rate during the early years of the
43-year record). Human activities are responsible for the
increase. The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has
released roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as would
be required to account for the observed increase."

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm kinda skeptical. Not that I care about Petroleum per se, but with advances in hybrid and soon Hydrogen based automobiles, I suspect that our reliance on petroleum, at least for motor fuel, is going to shrink by a LOT in the next 50 years.


Jason

 

[Orsorum]

Has anyone ever actually read any recent research on climate forcing and attribution? Because I don't think you're going to find any research that actually establishes causation, only coincidental facts.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Who knows what our ancestors
will use it for in 500 years - they probably won't have any trees for them to swing back up into.

I suspect that our ancestors won't use any more oil 500 years from now than they do today
Our descendants, on the other hand....

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
What will be interesting is when in the relatively near future China consumes more oil than the US. Gonna happen. Then watch the price of oil.

We need to spend on alternative energy what is being spent on Iraq. We would get a much better pay off.

While I agree that we need to get more alternative fuel stuff going on (and companies are doing just that; check out Toyota and Honda, as well as GM and Ford. Work's going! I also think Iraq is important for many reasons. First, the Iraqi people deserve to know Freedom. All human beings do. Second, governments like Iraq's need to take a look and realize that their days are numbered. Their brutality should NOT be tolerated.

Jason

 

[Fencer128]

Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

Actually read about the effectiveness of the clear air act, we are polluting less today, while producing more energy.

Name anyone who has an effective model for the effects of CO2. Yes we should continue to strive to pollute less, but GW seems at the very least quite uncertain.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

Actually read about the effectiveness of the clear air act, we are polluting less today, while producing more energy.

Name anyone who has an effective model for the effects of CO2. Yes we should continue to strive to pollute less, but GW seems at the very least quite uncertain.

Power plants may be polluting less, but vehicle emissions are the biggest sources of CO2.

There are no "effective" models, but there are historical CO2 increase events(volcanic eruptions mostly) and Historical events which are likely the result(crop failures, the Black Plague), these certainly are not "proof", however, they are indications of what may happen. We know for a fact(as I stated before), that CO2 levels have never been close to what they are now. We also know that the CO2 levels are rising each year.

What has to happen before we act? 50,000 dying from a heatwave? How about the US(Canada as well) becoming a major Importer of grains due to extensive crop failures?

Err on the side of caution, not the pocketbook.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

Actually read about the effectiveness of the clear air act, we are polluting less today, while producing more energy.

Name anyone who has an effective model for the effects of CO2. Yes we should continue to strive to pollute less, but GW seems at the very least quite uncertain.

Power plants may be polluting less, but vehicle emissions are the biggest sources of CO2.

There are no "effective" models, but there are historical CO2 increase events(volcanic eruptions mostly) and Historical events which are likely the result(crop failures, the Black Plague), these certainly are not "proof", however, they are indications of what may happen. We know for a fact(as I stated before), that CO2 levels have never been close to what they are now. We also know that the CO2 levels are rising each year.

What has to happen before we act? 50,000 dying from a heatwave? How about the US(Canada as well) becoming a major Importer of grains due to extensive crop failures?

Err on the side of caution, not the pocketbook.

Actually cars are significnatly cleaner than they were 30 years ago as well.
And it also appears volcanos are completely beyond our control and spew a significant amount of pollution into the air. For this reason, our footprint on the earth is unknown. We know the earth has been colder and we know it has been warmer and all this before our industrial revolution.

As i said before, we need to continue to strive to continue polluting less. If you want less CO2 pollution, we need more nuke plants. The technology exists to greatly reduce pollution, without solar and wind(those can make good suppliments, but poor primarys). The sky does not falling and we are polluting less.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

Actually read about the effectiveness of the clear air act, we are polluting less today, while producing more energy.

Name anyone who has an effective model for the effects of CO2. Yes we should continue to strive to pollute less, but GW seems at the very least quite uncertain.

Power plants may be polluting less, but vehicle emissions are the biggest sources of CO2.

There are no "effective" models, but there are historical CO2 increase events(volcanic eruptions mostly) and Historical events which are likely the result(crop failures, the Black Plague), these certainly are not "proof", however, they are indications of what may happen. We know for a fact(as I stated before), that CO2 levels have never been close to what they are now. We also know that the CO2 levels are rising each year.

What has to happen before we act? 50,000 dying from a heatwave? How about the US(Canada as well) becoming a major Importer of grains due to extensive crop failures?

Err on the side of caution, not the pocketbook.

Actually cars are significnatly cleaner than they were 30 years ago as well.
And it also appears volcanos are completely beyond our control and spew a significant amount of pollution into the air. For this reason, our footprint on the earth is unknown. We know the earth has been colder and we know it has been warmer and all this before our industrial revolution.

As i said before, we need to continue to strive to continue polluting less. If you want less CO2 pollution, we need more nuke plants. The technology exists to greatly reduce pollution, without solar and wind(those can make good suppliments, but poor primarys). The sky does not falling and we are polluting less.

You are completely missing the point as to why "cleaner" makes no difference. Yes, cars too are "cleaner", but they are much more numerous as well. It doesn't matter how "clean" the outputs are(barring no CO2 emmission) if the total outputs output greater volume.

Read the links, our "footprint" is clearly known.

Yes, we know the Earth has been cooler and warmer, the historical record shows that with increased Natural CO2 and other GH gas emmission dramatic changes in climate(cooling/warming) also occurs. Yes, volcanoes are beyond our control and they do spew "significant" amounts of pollution, however, they don't spew as much as Human activity has. Our CO2 emmissions are like many volcanoes erupting at once, only constantly.

I agree, nuclear power could help a lot, but we *are not* polluting less, we are polluting more.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Why do people find caution so hard to swallow?

There is a divide in the scientific cmmunity as to the nature and existance of GW. There is not anywhere near a catogorical decision either way. The only question you have to ask yourself is IF this is happening - what should we be doing about it? (weigh up the risks).

Andy

I don't understand this either. Some people outright deny anything is happening(weather is just following it's usual cycles) yet for the last decade weather patterns seem to be quite abnormal, others seem convinced that Global Warming will usher in a better global climate citing a return to Pre-Flood(from Creation Theorists) conditions, and others not wanting to do anything unless they are 100% convinced that things will happen even, it seems, if millions will die before they'll believe it.

Actually it is fairly easy to understand. Within the scientific community there exists a vast opinion on GW. These opinions range from GW is nothing, to GW will be the end of humanity. There is no doubt that we are having an effect on earth, but the degree is greatly debated.

Meanwhile we continue to take rational steps to clean our environment and industry. If you listened to greens you would think we are polluting more than ever, but that is just not the case.

We are, polluting worse than ever. Not necesssarily because we are increasing what we exhaust(although that is true), but in large part due to the fact that what we put in the air just adds to what we put in many years ago. My 2nd link provides info on the "life" of certain GW pollutants. CO2 takes >100 years, other pollutants last for decades, while certain others only take days to be removed from the atmosphere.

Also, I think there may be(you vs Environmentalists/scientists) different terms of "more". Certainly many sources of pollution have decreased their individual outputs, however the total output continues to rise due to increased sources of pollution(more cars, more factories, more people using aerosols, etc).

Also check the quote of the link I posted, we have already increased CO2 levels far beyond anything verified through history. We really have no idea what will transpire, for the environment has never had this much CO2 to cope with. Even if Kyoto was followed to the letter and successfully implemented in time, what the future holds is really a big unknown, we may be doomed already(not to sound overly dramatic). There is no need to study any further, even with action we're going to find out what extended periods of unnatural levels of GH gases is going to do, it seems foolish to keep adding to it, especially if it turns out the Warming is accumulative(1 years warming, adds to the next, and next, etc) .

Actually read about the effectiveness of the clear air act, we are polluting less today, while producing more energy.

Name anyone who has an effective model for the effects of CO2. Yes we should continue to strive to pollute less, but GW seems at the very least quite uncertain.

Power plants may be polluting less, but vehicle emissions are the biggest sources of CO2.

There are no "effective" models, but there are historical CO2 increase events(volcanic eruptions mostly) and Historical events which are likely the result(crop failures, the Black Plague), these certainly are not "proof", however, they are indications of what may happen. We know for a fact(as I stated before), that CO2 levels have never been close to what they are now. We also know that the CO2 levels are rising each year.

What has to happen before we act? 50,000 dying from a heatwave? How about the US(Canada as well) becoming a major Importer of grains due to extensive crop failures?

Err on the side of caution, not the pocketbook.

Actually cars are significnatly cleaner than they were 30 years ago as well.
And it also appears volcanos are completely beyond our control and spew a significant amount of pollution into the air. For this reason, our footprint on the earth is unknown. We know the earth has been colder and we know it has been warmer and all this before our industrial revolution.

As i said before, we need to continue to strive to continue polluting less. If you want less CO2 pollution, we need more nuke plants. The technology exists to greatly reduce pollution, without solar and wind(those can make good suppliments, but poor primarys). The sky does not falling and we are polluting less.

You are completely missing the point as to why "cleaner" makes no difference. Yes, cars too are "cleaner", but they are much more numerous as well. It doesn't matter how "clean" the outputs are(barring no CO2 emmission) if the total outputs output greater volume.

Read the links, our "footprint" is clearly known.

Yes, we know the Earth has been cooler and warmer, the historical record shows that with increased Natural CO2 and other GH gas emmission dramatic changes in climate(cooling/warming) also occurs. Yes, volcanoes are beyond our control and they do spew "significant" amounts of pollution, however, they don't spew as much as Human activity has. Our CO2 emmissions are like many volcanoes erupting at once, only constantly.

I agree, nuclear power could help a lot, but we *are not* polluting less, we are polluting more.

Well according to our EPA, our air and water is cleaner than it has been.