Let's Be Sensible Please

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

i feel i am more qualified than u.i have a BSc in biology environmental science, u? what are your qualifications? what have u read that goes against the CONSENSUS of ALL reputable scientists on this matter? news reports? half of all news reports on this issue over the last 10 yrs sow doubt about global warming and its being man-made. yet ZERO of all peer-reviewed science articles cast any doubt. think u have been played by groups who have it in their best interest to confuse people like u?i bet u also denied that cigarettes can cause cancer back in your day too, eh? or u believed the white house when they said there was no health danger from the crumbling buildings in 9/11?why believe people who dedicate their lives to these issues, when u can sleep at night believing elected officials who have no qualifications on the matter?

LOL Like I said, "We all know what your grasping at". I knew this BS was coming. He wanted someone to ask him so he could throw that out there. LOL Good gawd almighty, where does all this BS come from?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

why believe people who dedicate their lives to these issues, when u can sleep at night believing elected officials who have no qualifications on the matter?

What/who do you think Al Gore is? It is EXACTLY those people (yourself included) I do not want making decisions for me. Hubris driven, short sighted, chicken little, Elected officials, governmental agencies, United Nations, and elitist pseudo intellectuals who think they know what is right for the rest of us. Look in the mirror - you have met your enemy and he is yourself.

[All_In 0]

Ooooohhh.... a BSc... Wow. An expert in our Midst. With just two more credits you could have gotten your choice of free floor mats, extra crispy, or a Minor in Forestry.News Flash - if there was a CONSENSUS then there would be no debate. What do you think, that those of us on the other side do not have to drink the same water of breathe the same air that you do? Get over yourself. Some of us are pretty smart too and have INFORMED opinions that actually lead us to DIFFERENT conclusions. ..and yes I have an advanced degree from a (non-Canadian) University. Wanna know my IQ too (I'll bet it is higher than yours)?

never said i was an expert, but it's normal for people like u to try and confuse the issue with personal attacks. nothing new.the only 'debate' is with simple minded people who refuse to listen to the experts. like i have said before, very funny.it's obvious that people here are denying this because it would mean they would have to make difficult decisions, and maybe realize they are partly to blame. i'll leave now, the personal attacks are so transparent. not worth my time.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

never said i was an expert, but it's normal for people like u to try and confuse the issue with personal attacks. nothing new.the only 'debate' is with simple minded people who refuse to listen to the experts. like i have said before, very funny.it's obvious that people here are denying this because it would mean they would have to make difficult decisions, and maybe realize they are partly to blame. i'll leave now, the personal attacks are so transparent. not worth my time.

LOLReally, they're "personal attacks" when others post against you, but "expert opinion" when you post against others.Nice.

[Zeatrix 0]

You know, all of you who don't believe in all of this have gotten one thing right. The earth will survive. Man will probably survive. The earth will not explode just because it gets a little hotter. Every human on earth won't die if the temperature rises. But there might be grave consequnces because of our actions.So why should we care? I've even seen some comments from people saying: Why should I care? I won't be alive anyways...Are we really this shortsighted? Are we, as humans, really that egoistic? To me, that is the worst kind of attitude one can have. What about our children, what about their children? Are we that egoistic that we don't care about them at all? This is a moral issue, what kind of world do we want to leave behind when we pass away?No one can refute that man is responsible for rapidly increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, no less than people can deny that smoking is hazardous. If you donät believe in the scientists, believe in logic as so many of you have told me to. If we pump oil from the ground and burn it in the atmosphere we will increase the levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not hazardous in itself, but other substances that are produced when refining and burning oil are, but that's another subject. This is undisputable fact.More carbon dioxide will result in a warmer climate, since carbon dioxide helps prevent some of the suns energy to escape into space. This is also undisputable fact. We are allready seeing rapid (rapid in the sense that it is increasing much faster then the temperature has every increased before in a natural way) increases in temperature.Now here is where the catch is, here comes the point where we can start to disagree. We can't be sure what this temperature increase will lead to. Period. Scientists have only made very komplex estimates, and these estimates are the best thing we can look at for a glimpse of the future, but it is far from certain in any way. Should we still just disgregard the whole issue? In my opinion no! What we are doing is changing the balance of nature. Changing the balance in an ecosystem (such as the earth) can have serious consequences as seen numerous times in nature.I AM using my head. I'm looking at what we are doing and the only conclusion I can draw is that we are doing the wrong things.I won't lay down and give up, I will try to educate people in this matter until the problem (that I believe exist) has been solved.Besides, oil is a finite resource, we will run out of it sooner or later. Why not start using other sources of energy today, we will have to anyways one day.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...Are we, as humans, really that egoistic? ...

I have said this before, but Human Ego/Hubris is EXACTLY what is leading to the (your) Chicken Little reaction. Every generation in recorded history has felt that they are the last generation of civilization as we (they) know it, that the good old days end as a result of their actions. Guess what... they've all been wrong.And, in my opinion, so are you.What really cracks me up is ignoring "real" issues and instead focusing on political issues like "Global Warming".People want to get torqued up over "potential" issues while real things continue to affect the environment and its inhabitants - issues that are not disputable and have no (or little) political agenda.Just a couple of years ago the SARS hysteria was reaching a crescendo. There were more threads on the Internet about SARS ("My friend just returned from Asia and I am afraid to let him come over because of SARS") than "Should I fold preflop?"The "book" on SARS?Total Worldwide number of cases of SARS = 8096 with 774 deaths27 TOTAL cases in the US with 0 deaths.The WHO hasn't updated their "Guidance on SARS" in TWO YEARS.Compare this to Malaria:An estimated 700,000-2.7 million persons die of malaria each year, 75% of them African children. 1,337 cases of malaria, including 8 deaths, were reported for 2002 in the United States, even though malaria has been eradicated in this country since the early 1950's Of the 1,337 malaria cases reported for 2002 in the United States, all but five were imported, i.e., acquired in malaria-endemic countriesBird Flu (Bird fly, flies flew?)ZERO human to human transmissions - but mass media hysteria, at least until the next "Outbreak" of shark attacks, "SUV Kills Pedestrian", or whatever this year's "Big Story" is going to be. But here in North America Millions have been infected with West Nile Virus - hundreds of deaths. Entire bird populations are being erased (seen any crows lately in Michigan?), some extinctions are expected - Condors and Eagles have been found dead from WNV. But try and get any real figures or estimated impacts to the environment from this KNOWN pandemic.Keep getting your panties bunched over an unknown, unproven, potential threat while Rome burns.

[akoff 0]

"Keep getting your panties bunched over an unknown, unproven, potential threat while Rome burns."Hey now, don't go trying to keep a level head when Al Gore... AKA Mr Enviroment has gotten all these well educated, pied piper following kids into a full blown panic!Just think he could have been the Presdient...and you all think Bush is bad (which he is)...good old Al would have made him look like George freakin Washington!Just wait and see what Hillary comes up with, good Lord i may try to meltdown the ice caps if that evil, two faced man in an ugly womans body wins. I bet Bill looks better in a skirt then she does.

[Zeatrix 0]

I have said this before, but Human Ego/Hubris is EXACTLY what is leading to the (your) Chicken Little reaction. Every generation in recorded history has felt that they are the last generation of civilization as we (they) know it, that the good old days end as a result of their actions. Guess what... they've all been wrong.And, in my opinion, so are you.What really cracks me up is ignoring "real" issues and instead focusing on political issues like "Global Warming"....Keep getting your panties bunched over an unknown, unproven, potential threat while Rome burns.

How in the world is it egoistic to try to prevent global warming from causing trouble for future generations? By chance I saw this article that points out a problem that we can see today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6412351.stm so you see, rome is burning, and the CO2 emitted is melting the Peruan glaciers. Do I live in Peru? No. Am I affected by it? No. Do I care about it? Yes. Thinking: Who cares about Peru? THAT'S egoistic.And who says global warming is a political issue? It isn't political at all! Not the least. What is political about it? It's an environmental issue. We all live in this world regardless of who we vote for, so there is nothing political about it.I do agree with you though that some issues get more attention than they deserve. Bird flu wasn't a real issue, malaria is a BIG problem. Global Warming isn't the one and only problem mankind faces, there are lots and lots of problems, like malaria, like aids and like cancer. This still doesn't mean we should ignore one to combat the other. However, we don't know what kind of spread bird flu would have gotten if it wasn't for the actions that were taken to prevent the spread. Quarantining people with the flu and incinerating millions of potentially sick birds may have helped, we just won't know. That's why we need to take preventive action now against global warming. Besides, as I've allready pointed out; relying on fossil fuels is stupid in the long run anyways, so what's so bad about solving THAT problem before it's too late. We shouldn't panic, and we aren't (despite what you think), but work towards solving the problem. I'd rather solve a nonexistant problem then let a real problem build up.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

By chance I ran over this article that points out a problem that we can see today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6412351.stm so you see, rome is burning, and the CO2 emitted is melting the Peruan glaciers. Do I live in Peru? No. Am I affected by it? No. Do I care about it? Yes.

You made an assumptive (presumptive) jump to a conclusion that is not supported by facts.I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to find it.

[akoff 0]

The only logical conclusion here is due to the fact we have a had couple year history of the average temp being .45 degrees higher then the 400 year average that somebody seems quite certain is accurate...so...that would be the reason a gazillion square acres of ice has metled down to a small hockey rink.Yep Rome is burning, this planet has never had droughts, ice ages, cycles or warm bodies of water in the tropics before this generation.You should ask for a refund from your university for BS degree....no wait your Bull sh!t degree is working out well.

[Zeatrix 0]

You made an assumptive (presumptive) jump to a conclusion that is not supported by facts.I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to find it.

I was just trying to make a funny comment to your figurative remark. You pick on the small things and ignore the big issue. From the article: "The models, based on moderate rises in temperature, predict annual water availability will increase slightly as more of the glaciers melt, but that there will be a dramatic decline after 2050 and possibly as early as 2030."It is a fact that the earths temperature is rising beacuse of human emitted CO2 (http://www.ipcc.ch). See the connection? How's that for an excersise.

[Zeatrix 0]

The only logical conclusion here is due to the fact we have a had couple year history of the average temp being .45 degrees higher then the 400 year average that somebody seems quite certain is accurate...so...that would be the reason a gazillion square acres of ice has metled down to a small hockey rink.Yep Rome is burning, this planet has never had droughts, ice ages, cycles or warm bodies of water in the tropics before this generation.You should ask for a refund from your university for BS degree....no wait your Bull sh!t degree is working out well.

Considering how much you are mocking me you should spend more time fully understanding the situation before shooting it down. "Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century." <- quote (do you understand what that means?)While 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit can't seem like much to you, you fail to see that this is on average. Look the word up. It still means that the region we're talking about (Peru) can experience a higher average rise than the global average. More heat means less ice. Is that so hard to understand? To finish you off here is some other cool facts:"Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The globalatmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural rangeover the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxideconcentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than ithas been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppmper year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrialperiod results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smallercontribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC(23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per yearin 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-usechange are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, althoughthese estimates have a large uncertainty."(http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) <- you can read it all thereBut I guess thousands of scientist from all over the world know less than you about this.My point is, you don't have ANY facts to back up your claims. You have just heard some oil company sponsored PR guy say "global warming is a hoax" and you swollow it, bate, hook and sinker just because it's easier for you to ignore it then.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

My point is, you don't have ANY facts to back up your claims. You have just heard some oil company sponsored PR guy say "global warming is a hoax" and you swollow it, bate, hook and sinker just because it's easier for you to ignore it then.

Yeah. We're just stoopid that way. You need to make the tough decisions for us, because you're obviously more informed than us. I'll let the "Oil Company Sponsored PR guy" know next time he drops by in his Black Helicopter that you're making the decisions for me. Obviously "Big Bad Corporations" (especially if they are from the US) have the market cornered on agendas that destroy the environment, world economies, mankind, and the Planet. Because it is obviously easy for them to perpetuate a Vast Conspiracy of brainwashing otherwise intelligent people like myself. You're WAY smarter.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

If you do insist on Wikipedia as your primary source, then at least present even their attempt at the discussion of the Controversy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversyYes, some Scientists Oppose the "Consensus"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien...rming_consensusEven on Wikipedia there are 109 pages of Skepticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Glob...arming_skepticsThe Canadian National Post has published a series of 14 articles regarding "scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science" (Which I find hilarious as a statement!!! What I find increasingly chilling is their insistence in using the term "The Deniers" in an attempt to link anyone with the gall to disagree with the "Consensus" to the Deniers of the Holocaust)http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...3d-f181196a6d71The National Resources Stewardship Project has some interesting facts:http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.htmlSource Watch also has some good information:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...change_sceptics...so please quit acting like there is some sort of Fact Based Consensus Conclusion regarding Global Warming as a result of Human CO2 emission and other activity and to believe otherwise is just Big Oil sponsored stoopidity.

[Zeatrix 0]

Yeah. We're just stoopid that way. You need to make the tough decisions for us, because you're obviously more informed than us. I'll let the "Oil Company Sponsored PR guy" know next time he drops by in his Black Helicopter that you're making the decisions for me. Obviously "Big Bad Corporations" (especially if they are from the US) have the market cornered on agendas that destroy the environment, world economies, mankind, and the Planet. Because it is obviously easy for them to perpetuate a Vast Conspiracy of brainwashing otherwise intelligent people like myself. You're WAY smarter.

Now I understand where your doubts come from. You think I'm attacking america and that I think american corporations are the worst. Well, you can relax, this isn't an issue of one country beeing the bad guy, or a group of companies beeing the bad guys. This is a global problem. Sure there are american companies that pollute a lot, but they usually do it within the law. There are lots of european companies as bad if not worse than american as well as companies in asia and other parts of the world. This isn't some holy quest to weaken the US, this is about making positive changes so that everyone can gain, poor as well as rich.Can't you look beyond the "us againt them" retoric and see the common good behind this?And yes, I have read most of the articles you link to. I perticularly like this quote taken from your first link: "Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists in climate-related fields (see scientific opinion on climate change), the controversy focuses on the causes of recent warming, likelihood and magnitude of future warming, and what actions, if any, should be taken in response."Don't you see that it is exactly what I have been saying all along? Nice to see you support me though.Here is another quote from the second article you link to:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear."This is also in line with what I have said.Finally, the first link I clicked on the third link you gave me produced this priceless quote:"The Institute (Heartland Institute) is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which asserts that global warming is a myth. The Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Walter F. Buchholtz, a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil and Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors Corporation." Thanks for your support...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Even when the Media attempt to appear unbiased, they just cannot seem to help themselves. I find this more terrifying than the potential "Global Warming Crisis".For example, in the Canadian National Post articles I reference above there is this excerpt:"Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over."...and then of course the "Journalist" continues to keep pushing the "Denier Theme"

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Can't you look beyond the "us againt them" retoric and see the common good behind this?And yes, I have read most of the articles you link to. I perticularly like this quote taken from your first link: "Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists in climate-related fields (see scientific opinion on climate change), the controversy focuses on the causes of recent warming, likelihood and magnitude of future warming, and what actions, if any, should be taken in response."Don't you see that it is exactly what I have been saying all along? Nice to see you support me though.Here is another quote from the second article you link to:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear."This is also in line with what I have said.Finally, the first link I clicked on the third link you gave me produced this priceless quote:"The Institute (Heartland Institute) is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which asserts that global warming is a myth. The Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Walter F. Buchholtz, a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil and Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors Corporation." Thanks for your support...

Glad to be of service!!!At least they list their Board and therefore let you make (jump immediately to) a conclusion about their potential Bias. Your so called "Scientists", media, and Politicians refuse to even acknowledge their Leftist bias and desire to make decisions as an elitist "consensus" for the rest of us.I never said that Wikipedia was balanced or even a good source for information (I actually think it is a joke to use it as a reference, but you seemed to want to use it as a primary source), just that even it did have some data and links that contradict the conclusion that there is some sort of "Consensus"

[Zeatrix 0]

Glad to be of service!!!At least they list their Board and therefore let you make (jump immediately to) a conclusion about their potential Bias. Your so called "Scientists", media, and Politicians refuse to even acknowledge their Leftist bias and desire to make decisions as an elitist "consensus" for the rest of us.I never said that Wikipedia was balanced or even a good source for information (I actually think it is a joke to use it as a reference, but you seemed to want to use it as a primary source), just that even it did have some data and links that contradict the conclusion that there is some sort of "Consensus"

I agree that wikipedia isn't the best source. Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread:

I do agree that Wikipedia isn't the best reference. But it is a decent reference and the strength lies in that it is easily accesible for everyone. You have quoted three articles by title and one sentenace which makes it hard for someone else to easily read the whole article, that's why I link to Wikipedia, 'cause anyone can read what's on there and the contents are a good sumation of current knowledge.

Also, you get links to more credible references.

[All_In 0]

Now I understand where your doubts come from. You think I'm attacking america and that I think american corporations are the worst. Well, you can relax, this isn't an issue of one country beeing the bad guy, or a group of companies beeing the bad guys. This is a global problem. Sure there are american companies that pollute a lot, but they usually do it within the law. There are lots of european companies as bad if not worse than american as well as companies in asia and other parts of the world. This isn't some holy quest to weaken the US, this is about making positive changes so that everyone can gain, poor as well as rich.Can't you look beyond the "us againt them" retoric and see the common good behind this?And yes, I have read most of the articles you link to. I perticularly like this quote taken from your first link: "Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists in climate-related fields (see scientific opinion on climate change), the controversy focuses on the causes of recent warming, likelihood and magnitude of future warming, and what actions, if any, should be taken in response."Don't you see that it is exactly what I have been saying all along? Nice to see you support me though.Here is another quote from the second article you link to:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear."This is also in line with what I have said.Finally, the first link I clicked on the third link you gave me produced this priceless quote:"The Institute (Heartland Institute) is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which asserts that global warming is a myth. The Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Walter F. Buchholtz, a lobbyist for Exxon Mobil and Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors Corporation." Thanks for your support...

excellent!

[akoff 0]

"I agree that wikipedia isn't the best source. Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread"Blah, blah, blah....you sound like my wife!

[Zeatrix 0]

"I agree that wikipedia isn't the best source. Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread"Blah, blah, blah....you sound like my wife!

You must live a very fulfilling life if you recent your wife that much...

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

You must live a very fulfilling life if you recent your wife that much...

The word is resent not recent. Two totally different dictions. Then again, you are Swedish so it's understandable. The Swedes were put on earth so that the Pollocks would have someone to tell jokes about.

[scgolfer 0]

I am a global warming nubee, though a college graduate (since it appears to have an opinion you must be educated) but I have come across several things researching that I have not seen justified by the so called "experts".1. Why most of the current warming, that has gone up a 1 degree farenheit in the last 100 years, happened in the first half of the century, when I would suppose that we could agree, less man made CO2 was being made (less fossil fuels being burned before 1950?) And why during the cooling of the 1940's thru 1970's, CO2 levels went up, but temperatures did not?When looking at this man made cause of warming we have to be looking at things very closely during the VERY few years that humans have actually significantly contributed to any CO2 increase right?30 years (1940's thru 1970's) of 60 or so where CO2 increases and temperatures not rising would seem to be very significant. 2. When looking at the Vostik ice core graphs that show temperature and CO2."The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years."It would seem if this were the case the oceans ability to take CO2 in during cooler times and belching of CO2 during times of warming would explain this much better than something that states CO2 causes temperature rises when it would appear that actually the opposite occurs temperatures rise then CO2 rises.3. Lastly it would appear to me that CO2 produced by man is so insignificant that it would be hard to prove that it effects the overall climate, more than any natural cycles, which are also accepted as fact."Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.""Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).""In the final analysis of the AGW conjecture, proponents model their chosen phenomena on the margins and without justification. They admit the overwhelming greenhouse gas is water vapor, probably 30 to 50 times more important than CO2. They admit the CO2 attributed to man is minuscule, about 6 to 7 PgC/yr (calculated) into an atmospheric reservoir variously estimated between 720 and 760 PgC. That’s around 1% of 2.5%, or 0.025% of GHG.""They estimate the uptake of CO2 by the ocean from 92 to 107 PgC/yr, an error of about ±7 PgC/yr, approximately equal to the anthropogenic total. They estimate the outgassing of CO2 from 90 to 103 PgC/yr, an error of roughly another ±7 PgC/yr. Without putting too fine a point on the method, and in consideration of the range of values by other, undiscovered authorities and the sources and methods employed by any of them, the net difference between uptake and outgassing estimates is about 3PgC/yr, ±14 PgC/yr. Nonetheless, the climatologist use a figure of 2 PgC/yr as their estimate of the oceanic uptake of the manmade CO2 of 7 PgC/yr. Regardless, they then proclaim that CO2 persists in the atmosphere of 50 to 500 years."Lastly I would tend to believe the following quote that would essentially stop the Global Warming at some point, once the increased temperatures make the oceans temperatures rise (which I also realize takes a long time), water vapor would increase."Water vapor is not only dominant among the greenhouse gases, it, like CO2, increases with increasing temperatures. Increase in water vapor should bring increases in cloud cover, decreasing solar radiation, and shutting down the warming effect." I also have an opinion to those who say this is not a political issue. Any time there is decent at a political level its political, because when it is political money soon follows. I also hear constantly why would a scientist try to prove something that isn't quite true? Well until recently climate research was a small portion of funded science. Now it is a multi-billion $$ industry, which employs tens of thousands of people. If the science didn't produce exciting, dramatic theories and instead produced "current global warming is a natural cycle" how many of those tens of thousands would have jobs or grants to fund their research? That makes it sound a lot like the scientists are being paid to produce certain stats or results, just like the scientists that are paid by oil companies, right?There is also a consequence of changing our behaviors due to a global warming theory that may not be as conclusive as 100%. It effects millions and millions of people, from developing countries not being able to develope because of not being able to have electricity made by oil, coal, or gas and not being able to afford much more expensive alternatives. It effects developed countries by cutting economies by forcing more expensive alternative fuels, which are eventually paid for by consumers. We can certainly argue world politics that would or would not solve those problems, but I dont think you can argue that there are not negative consequences that come with the changes proposed.This issue is not one that can be dealt without complete confidence (even the UN's report only states 90%). I agree with a previous poster who stated in poker terms we dont even have close to enough hands or information to overcome "natural variance."I apologize if I didnt portray my opinions in a correct internet fashion, but I tried to show 3 common sense questions to the man made global warming crowd, which I havent come across the answers.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The word is resent not recent. Two totally different dictions. Then again, you are Swedish so it's understandable. The Swedes were put on earth so that the Pollocks would have someone to tell jokes about.

This is pretty uncalled for. While often condescending and (in my opinion) just plain wrong - Zeatrix has been reasonably intelligent and "adult" in his interaction. American arrogance in rarely learning a second language makes us appear even more ignorant when we criticize someone for a phonetic spelling error. Living in our single language glass house, we shouldn't be throwing stones at someone whom I suspect has more language capability that 90% of the posters on this Forum.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

In general, what scares me is the elitist crowd wanting to make policy decisions based on questionable science. For example, a simple search shows various policy proposals (including Califorina legislation) regarding Lawn Mower Restrictions. Each has its own special "Facts" that accuse lawn mowers of being a major contributor to the "World's Pollution Problem"A sampling of claims (many suspiciously similar, but increasingly dire) that you can find in various articles, newspapers, and other very "official" looking sources:- A Swedish study conducted in 2001 concluded, “Air pollution from cutting grass for an hour with a gasoline powered lawn mower is about the same as that from a 100-mile automobile ride.” Meanwhile, the 54 million Americans mowing their lawns each weekend with gas-powered mowers may be contributing as much as five percent of the nation’s air pollution,- Each weekend, about 54 million Americans mow their lawns with gas-powered mowers. By doing so they consume 800 million gallons of gas per year and produce tons of air pollutants- In only one hour of use, a gas-powered lawn mower can create the same amount of pollution as a car driven for 340 miles!- Lawn care accounts for five percent of the nation's air pollution. A conventional mower produces as much pollution in one hour as 43 late model cars or driving 340 miles, say industry experts.- Did you know the average lawn mower emits as much smog-forming pollution as eight new cars traveling at 55 miles per hour?- American lawnmowers are responsible for over 50% of the World’s Green House Gas emissions.- I recently discovered, to my horror, that a typical gas powered lawnmower produces as much pollution in 7 hours of operation as a modern car does in a 100,000 miles of driving! Another way of looking at this is that the two-stroke gasoline lawnmower that is ubiquitous in the suburbs of North America, pollutes as much in one hour as 40 late model cars running for the same amount of time!- 2006 lawn mower engines contribute 93 times more smog-forming emissions than 2006 carsMany of these claims do not even pass the laugh test, but are actually driving the EXACT SAME sorts of debate we are having here regarding "Global Warming"I see the "Swedish Study" from 2001 cited as a source many times - and it seems to be often misquoted, exaggerated, or simply presented with artistic license. If people are going to push public policy decisions on one relatively small seeming issue (Gas Powered Lawn Mowers) based on very questionable "facts", thenimagine my reluctance to trust the public and policy makers responses to the already questionable Global Warming pseudo-science. Furthermore, I'd trust the "Global Warming Scientists" more if they would limit themselves to a presentation of their "Facts" rather than jumping STRAIGHT TO conclusions and policy suggestions.