People have been murdering each other for 1000s of years now too, why is it a problem now? Because God gave us a couple of tablets with a few 'thou shalts' on them? Yeah, that's right. If HE didn't like what we are doing to his earth, our earth, then surely he'd send an "ammendment" to the tablets right? LOL Better get the ark ready! Or let's just wait for Him to let us know when we've overdone it. Maybe some televangelist will let us know. Until then, keep the profits coming! Live for today baby!
I recommend this article and it's embedded links highly: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ Also, take a look at some of the embedded links that I gave in this thread, but read the one above first: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51810&highlight=GW nitro
Many believe there could be a tipping point beyond which our plants aint gonna cut it to maintain the state we've grown up in--the runaway to a new equlibrium. Of course there's nothing like that on Venus, and thanks to it's runaway there aint gonna be. Do we panic? No. Is prudence in order? Yes. Yes, it's good (for us) Earth has this particular equlibrium, thanks to a particular mix of molecules in an atmosphere receiving solar energy. I don't get your point. No one is saying, to my knowledge, that all warming will end, or should end, so who cares about the assertion that we need some warmth? Everyone knows that. Nature doesn't care. This planet can be any temperature. As for uncertainty about how much we've warmed--shrug. How much has stock X risen in value? From what date? What time? Over what time period? Which answer is significant for our purposes? Etc.
Whoa, that was an interesting thread mostly because I had never previously made the connection between what you call 'evangelicals' and their lack of regard for the environment. That was pretty freaky to me, but now an epiphany. The 'church-going public' that I am used to, I really think, would be JUST AS LIKELY to recycle, march on Earth Day, car pool, ask their political representative to sign Kyoto, etc. etc. A very interesting connection there that never even occured to me before. LOL. Their conclusion is tree-huggers must be pagans, so we won't participate. Too funny.
Do you not recall the Reagan years, when James Watt said flattening our forests is ok, because we're just making a runway for God?
You quoted the link I gave, and then say I say something about "evangelicals." I don't make any such connection - read the threa again and stick to the posts I make, which are mostly links to professionals in the field trying to come to grips with one of the most pressing emergencies of our time. All of my links are on the science. I have no interest if this group or that group embraces that science to further their own agenda. I leave that interest to others on this site that spend 24 hours a day posting and worrying and debating it. nitro
Oh man, I'm just shaking my head here. No, I hadn't heard that one. 20 years ago I wasn't nearly as interested in current issues. That's just too much.
NO, NO, NO. I know it wasn't YOU PERSONALLY that said that. It was probably Zed10. Really sorry there. I read the rest about GW, that you offered, but the thread in general left me with that other revelation also that sort of hit me bigger, that's all. Where I am we probably call them a 'church-goer', that's all, and AGAIN, I know that had nothing to do with your purpose of posting the thread in the first place. So, yes, for the record, any posts of yours that I have read have always been 'on the science' without ever a slight to either side. peace.
IT would be better if you stuck to the science rather than political statements like, " Mother nature is trying to compensate on the opposite side of the hemisphere to your profit-driven pollution, for chrissakes and that's a good thing?" If you wish to discuss the science and one of my points that the GW rush to judgement is ignoring other factors, such as soot, and trying only to limit CO2 as I think you are suggesting. My point is not that I favor pollution as you suggest but rather that if we wish to reduce the human caused portion of GW that we need to better understand the science. That science as I read it tells me we are ignoring other siginificant factors such as soot and methane. So,if the crowd that I think you have joined has its way, we may control CO2 but not realize the reduction in GW that is desired since we ignored the other human caused significant factorrs. The differential in ice sheets in Antartica points out that we do not understand the effects of GW as on one side of the continent the ice shrinks while on the other it grows. In addition the dry valleys get colder in direct conflict with the predicted effects of the GW models. So, I ask you, should we only focus on CO2 and ignore the other factors and feel good or tackle the entire complex problem? DS
Absolutely. Either way. Let's do it. It doesn't matter if CO2 is one part or all of the problem. Who cares. There's something more urgent going on here. Man, I remember running around all day in the sun in the 1970s. And by golly, it seemed to take all day to get a sunburn. Now you better bring a stopwatch with you! Where I am, there are days when they say you better not go outside because of the poor air quality. I never heard that 25 years ago. Why ignore this huge problem? So c'mon, even if we know some of problem, and every other country sees it, let's get on it. You have to start somewhere. Maybe we don't have all the resources to fix the land, sea and air all at once. Why sit on our hands and just think about it? Oh I know. Fox "News" has everyone thinking that some 2nd world asian nation will get the economic upper hand. I see.