Let's Be Sensible Please

[All_In 0]

Climate experts note risk of delays May 04, 2007 04:30 AMAndrew C. RevkinNew York TimesThe world needs to switch substantially from today's main energy sources within a few decades to limit centuries of rising temperatures and seas driven by the buildup of heat-trapping emissions in the air, the top body studying climate change has concluded.In an all-night session capping four days of talks in Bangkok, Thailand, economists, scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries agreed early today on the last sections of a report outlining ways to limit such emissions, led by carbon dioxide, an unavoidable by-product of burning coal and oil.The final report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said prompt slowing of emissions could set the stage later in the century for stabilization of the concentration of carbon dioxide, which, at 380 parts per million now, has risen more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution and could easily double from the pre-industrial level within decades.The report – which awaited only formal adoption today – concluded that significant progress toward that goal could be made in the next 25 years with known technologies and policy shifts."We can no longer make the excuse that we need to wait for more science, or the excuse that we need to wait for more technologies and policy knowledge," said Adil Najam, an author of one chapter and an associate professor of international negotiation at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. "To me the big message is that we now have both and we do not need to wait any longer.''The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 per cent since 1970 and could rise an additional 90 per cent by 2030 if nothing is done.Carbon dioxide is particularly important not only because so much is produced each year – about 25 billion tonnes – but because much of it persists in the atmosphere, building like unpaid credit card debt.To stop the rise, experts said, countries need to expand adoption of existing policies that cut emissions – like a fuel tax or the binding limits set by the Kyoto Protocol – while also increasing research seeking new energy options.This work would include pushing for advances in solar and nuclear power.http://www.thestar.com/News/article/210331

[DoinSublime 0]

Ok kids, I'm gonna sum it up for you with this quote:"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."- George Carlin

[akoff 0]

LOL good luck Z

[All_In 0]

Ok kids, I'm gonna sum it up for you with this quote:...- George Carlin

that's the problem with so many of u.taking advice on science from a comedian. lol.

[DoinSublime 0]

that's the problem with so many of u.taking advice on science from a comedian. lol.

Good Luck worrying yourself to sleep.

[Zeatrix 0]

...The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!...- George Carlin

George cracks me up and makes me think at the same time. I'm sure he's a very intelligent person. I wish a guy like that would decide that leading a country is a good way to spend his short time on earth. He gets it. I've said it before (can't remember if it's in this thread) but the earth surely will survive. I don't think anyone that seriously knows what global warming is about thinks the earth will be destroyed by our actions. Maybe a sufficient amount of nukes could destroy the earth, but that's about it.Carlin is also right that we are doing this for ourselves. We are saving us from ourselves. The earth will survive, mankind might not survive as well though. If we continue burning fossil fuel less of the earth will be habitable. Some parts, like Scandinavia (yay!) will actually become more pleasant with less winter and more summer and better ability to grow food. But Scandinavia is just one positive side effect stacked against a huge number of bad. What we will destroy is for ourselves and for many animal species and plants. So once and for all, here is my short guide to global warming:1. The planet will survive2. Mankind will survive3. Most animal species will survive4. Most plant species will survive5. The climate will change in a way that makes the earth less habitable for the humans, animals and plants that inhabit it today.6. Reducing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere will make the effects of point 5 less severe for animals (incl humans) and plants.So the next time you leave your house, turn off the light. The next time you buy food buy the food that has the least effect on the environment. The next time you buy a car, buy a car that use less gas. It's really that simple! It's just small small changes that has virtually no effect on your standard of living, why the **** not do it?

[scgolfer 0]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/german...,481684,00.html

[akoff 0]

LOL...here we again. The floor is yours Mr. Zgreat link SC

[Zeatrix 0]

I wonder why only links that support your view is "great" when other links that don't are crap? I think your bias is clouding your judgement.I didn't think the link was crap, but it did contain some errors, at least if you consider the scientists that contribute to the IPCC to be experts on the subject.Among other things it plays on the global cooling that was popular in the press during the a couple of centuries ago. Then, like now, what was portrayed in the press didn't really fit with what the scientific expertise thought. The press had alarming accounts of a new ice age coming when science thought nothing like it. I've read that there was one scientific report published that did suggest that a new ice age was coming, but the author of that paper later claimed he had found faults in his work and that the new data did not support his original conclusions. He made a mistake and later corrected him, that's how science work (some people seem to miss this). Global dimming was the cause of the temperature drops and it largely concealed the effects of increased greenhouse gases.Another point the article brings up is that Europe flourished during the "medieval warm period" (MWP). This to some extent is true, but the MWP was not a global event, it was mostly located to Europe. Also, other factors than temperature can be attributed to the rise in standards. If you think heat is so good for economy and life, then why is Africa and Asia so poor in contrast to Europe and North America? Another popular example is the growing of wine grapes in Britain. Research shows that the peak of this wine production was after the MWP ended.The article does put light on one important part, what exactly global warming will lead to is unknown and we can never be 100% sure. But I have chosen to trust what the international scientists who are experts in the field predict over what lone guys like Olaf Stampf think will happen. I just find them much more credible.And no, Mr off, I won't give up, too many people have a false view of what global warming means. I'm doing my part by trying to put facts back in the debate.

[akoff 0]

If you think heat is so good for economy and life, then why is Africa and Asia so poor in contrast to Europe and North America?

Lack of schools, public health, leadership, resources, education....are a few to mix in. Your random acts of genocide, civil war for the last several generations, lack of capital for investment to help solve the starvation issues, war lords and governments that make the civilized worlds biggest scandals look like a girl scout fight....the fact that the climate is now averaging 120 degrees every day instead of 118 in the summer time....not that big of deal.I think we should blame the UK for not leaving a stable environment when they pulled out of Africa 100 years ago or when ever the hell is was...Asia...no idea Japan is ok, China is growing at record speeds...I have two little investments there...LOL hope it continues.

[Zeatrix 0]

Lack of schools, public health, leadership, resources, education....are a few to mix in. Your random acts of genocide, civil war for the last several generations, lack of capital for investment to help solve the starvation issues, war lords and governments that make the civilized worlds biggest scandals look like a girl scout fight....the fact that the climate is now averaging 120 degrees every day instead of 118 in the summer time....not that big of deal.I think we should blame the UK for not leaving a stable environment when they pulled out of Africa 100 years ago or when ever the hell is was...Asia...no idea Japan is ok, China is growing at record speeds...I have two little investments there...LOL hope it continues.

Exactly, see, you are getting the point for once Saying Europe did so well because of a warmer climate is as ludicrous as saying Africa and some parts of Asia is doing so bad because of heat.

[scgolfer 0]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

[nutzbuster 7]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

Nice find SC.Calm and reason was the way to deal with this issue all along. Still is.peace!

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

What? You mean the sky isn't falling? Now what?

[chrozzo 19]

What? You mean the sky isn't falling? Now what?

wtf am i gonna do with all this bottled water?

[Zeatrix 0]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

Damn, some guys now don't believe in global warming, I was wrong all along! And when Marc Morano says it it HAS to be true, he's got such a great record of being unbiased. Seriously, are you guys still falling for these ludicrous doubt campaigns. When not even George Bush or ExxonMobil are still denying the facts I think the case is a done deal. But that's right, someone wrote an article that says global warming isn't real, so that MUST be the case.

[scgolfer 0]

Once again, hardly anyone is claiming global warming isnt, real. Every thread you and Allin say that scientists all agree, and you want us to post real articles where actual scientists disagree so I do that. These scientists were actually on the other side and changed their minds now that there is more information coming out. And several of them are actually saying a bunch of th hype is for "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" and very little actual real science is behind it. But now i guess your rules have changed again and "real" scientists aren't experts?

[nutzbuster 7]

Once again, hardly anyone is claiming global warming isnt, real. Every thread you and Allin say that scientists all agree, and you want us to post real articles where actual scientists disagree so I do that. These scientists were actually on the other side and changed their minds now that there is more information coming out. And several of them are actually saying a bunch of th hype is for "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" and very little actual real science is behind it. But now i guess your rules have changed again and "real" scientists aren't experts?

Exactly. Calm and reason folks. No one is denying that the earth has indeed warmed a bit, but who, what, how much, and why are ALL still questions that need to be answered with hard facts and research.But the alarmists want us to all stop doing everything the way we've always done things immediately! The problem is adoping a crisis/panic approach to the problem is impossible and reckless at this point. How can you rationally prepare for something when a hardcore identifiable cause has yet to be established?, or, in the grand scheme of things, is just barely beginning? The extremists mindset borders on those folks in San Diego who were convinced that the Hale Bob comet was a mother ship coming to carry them away. We all know how well that went. An uneducated and abrupt knee jerk reaction at this point would cost Billions of dollars and potentially adversely effect the world economically. And I'm not advocating abandoning better ways to do things. Some changes need to happen anyway (i.e. less dependence of foreign oil, etc.) and moves are underway to achieve these goals. There are many great minds out there as we speack coming up with fantastic solutions and new energy options. But those will only thrive when they become economically feasible and profitable. Until that day we have to calmly continue to gather data on the situation. Change takes time and costs TONS of money. The good news is we have time. The one aspect of this issue that makes me crazy are those folks screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING NOW AND WE HAVE TO ACT IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE YESTERDAY!". Wrong.Relax and do the proper research. There is a lot of money and greed behind both sides of this issue. Lets take the time to ferret out all of the REAL facts before we jump off a cliff.

[All_In 0]

Exactly. Calm and reason folks. No one is denying that the earth has indeed warmed a bit, but who, what, how much, and why are ALL still questions that need to be answered with hard facts and research.But the alarmists want us to all stop doing everything the way we've always done things immediately! The problem is adoping a crisis/panic approach to the problem is impossible and reckless at this point. How can you rationally prepare for something when a hardcore identifiable cause has yet to be established?, or, in the grand scheme of things, is just barely beginning? The extremists mindset borders on those folks in San Diego who were convinced that the Hale Bob comet was a mother ship coming to carry them away. We all know how well that went. An uneducated and abrupt knee jerk reaction at this point would cost Billions of dollars and potentially adversely effect the world economically. And I'm not advocating abandoning better ways to do things. Some changes need to happen anyway (i.e. less dependence of foreign oil, etc.) and moves are underway to achieve these goals. There are many great minds out there as we speack coming up with fantastic solutions and new energy options. But those will only thrive when they become economically feasible and profitable. Until that day we have to calmly continue to gather data on the situation. Change takes time and costs TONS of money. The good news is we have time. The one aspect of this issue that makes me crazy are those folks screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING NOW AND WE HAVE TO ACT IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE YESTERDAY!". Wrong.Relax and do the proper research. There is a lot of money and greed behind both sides of this issue. Lets take the time to ferret out all of the REAL facts before we jump off a cliff.

i have not been saying that we need to 'stop doing everything the way we've always done things immediately'. little things done by a large number of people can have a major impact.change CAN take time, and CAN cost a lot of $$. studies have shown that inaction on this issue WILL cost a lot more to the global economy. people tend not to worry about things until it is right there, staring them in the face. that is the hurdle.as for the 'real' facts, the EXPERTS who spend their lives studying these issues, and the world's leading authority on the subject (UN group of scientists) say that it is 90% probable that global warming has been influenced by man. who/what group can u come up with that would have the expertise to override these people?comparing this to the heaven's gate cult (i think that was their name) is quite a stretch, no?

[All_In 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm<<The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean carbon "sink" - or reservoir - means that atmospheric CO2 levels may be higher in future than predicted.>><<The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Science.>><<This effect had been predicted by climate scientists, and is taken into account - to some extent - by climate models. But it appears to be happening 40 years ahead of schedule.>><<"Ever since observations started in 1981, we see that the sinks have not increased [in their absorption of CO2]," Corinne LeQuere told the BBC's Science in Action programme."They have remained the same as they were 24 years ago even though the emissions have risen by 40%." The cause of the decline in the Southern Ocean sink, the researchers explain, is a rise in windiness since 1958.This increase in Southern Ocean winds has been attributed to two factors.The first is the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere, which changes the temperature of this region.The second is recent climate change, which warms the tropics more than the Southern Ocean.Both these processes change atmospheric circulation over the Southern Ocean, resulting in stronger winds. >><<As CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, it makes them more acidic, harming populations of marine organisms such as coral. The latest study suggests that phenomenon will only get worse over the century."The problem is that the extra CO2 from human emissions stays in the surface ocean and does not get removed to deep waters," said Dr Le Quere."So the problem gets worse, because the biological organisms affected by ocean acidification live, of course, at the surface where there is sunlight.">>

[Zeatrix 0]

Once again, hardly anyone is claiming global warming isnt, real. Every thread you and Allin say that scientists all agree, and you want us to post real articles where actual scientists disagree so I do that. These scientists were actually on the other side and changed their minds now that there is more information coming out. And several of them are actually saying a bunch of th hype is for "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" and very little actual real science is behind it. But now i guess your rules have changed again and "real" scientists aren't experts?

Ok, I agree, my bad. I was a little hasty with my response. Personally I'm getting fed up with people that look for any evidence not to take any action and I let that taint my response, for that, I'm sorry. I still however strongly believe that fossil fuel burning is the culprit. It just make much more logical sense than that it will have no effect at all, at least to me. We're talking billions of metric tons of gases added to the atmosphere and I think it'd be naive to think that has no effect at all, even without all the research that backs it up. The money issue really is at the center point, both sides claim the other side is in it for the money. All I know is that if you want to make serious money in this world, being an academic scientist is NOT the way to go.

Exactly. Calm and reason folks. No one is denying that the earth has indeed warmed a bit, but who, what, how much, and why are ALL still questions that need to be answered with hard facts and research.But the alarmists want us to all stop doing everything the way we've always done things immediately! The problem is adoping a crisis/panic approach to the problem is impossible and reckless at this point. How can you rationally prepare for something when a hardcore identifiable cause has yet to be established?, or, in the grand scheme of things, is just barely beginning? The extremists mindset borders on those folks in San Diego who were convinced that the Hale Bob comet was a mother ship coming to carry them away. We all know how well that went. An uneducated and abrupt knee jerk reaction at this point would cost Billions of dollars and potentially adversely effect the world economically. And I'm not advocating abandoning better ways to do things. Some changes need to happen anyway (i.e. less dependence of foreign oil, etc.) and moves are underway to achieve these goals. There are many great minds out there as we speack coming up with fantastic solutions and new energy options. But those will only thrive when they become economically feasible and profitable. Until that day we have to calmly continue to gather data on the situation. Change takes time and costs TONS of money. The good news is we have time. The one aspect of this issue that makes me crazy are those folks screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING NOW AND WE HAVE TO ACT IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE YESTERDAY!". Wrong.Relax and do the proper research. There is a lot of money and greed behind both sides of this issue. Lets take the time to ferret out all of the REAL facts before we jump off a cliff.

"Relax and do the proper research." That is exactly what I feel I have done. I have not just watched An Inconvenient Truth and then just decided, global warming is real. I've spent hundreds of ours pouring through both sides arguments and counter arguments and what I have always found, with very few exceptions, is that the vast majority of scientist tend to agree that the recent increases of temperature is human related. I've put a lot of thought into this and the most logical conclusion that I can draw is that adding more CO2 can't be that good. The exact effects of it I'm not as sure about, but that it has an effect is what I believe."How can you rationally prepare for something when a hardcore identifiable cause has yet to be established?" So why isn't the huge increase in CO2 a "hardcore identifiable cause", when you've got thousands of scientist saying that with even the most conservative estimations CO2 will have an impact. Just read any of the IPCC's recent reports. Have you realized that no scientist that don't think CO2 is the main cause have published an article that outlines ANOTHER reason that explains the phenomenon? All they say is "natural variation" and never express exactly what this natural variation is. The few that has (sun spots comes to mind) have shown to contain grave errors that makes them worthless.You also make it sound like people that "believes" in global warming think that we are all going to die. Well, then I might be the exception to the rule. I'm very confident that mankind will survive, actually, I feel the mankind in North America and Europe and other rich parts of the world are going to do well. What I am worried about is that people that are having a though time today are going to get it tougher. Did you know that 25,000 people die of starvation EVERY day. Did you know a child dies of starvation every 5 SECONDS! Do you seriously believe the people that live in the areas where this is a real problem will have an easier time surviving in a warmer climate? I don't think so. A couple of years ago there was a heat wave in central Europe and people were dying in heaps and this was in countries with relatively high standards of life. Put things in perspective and maybe you'll realize why this is a problem. Or maybe you just think it is none of your business...

[Janfor99 0]

Well this idiot is driving an SUV and comes from a state that has a higher GNP than your whole (edited ) country. When you quit living in our shadows like snot nosed little children, then you can come to the table and talk with the grownups. Until then keep your opinion amongst yourselves during recess and don't try to equate yourself with your betters.Oh and turn off your light bulbs and sit in the dark, I will be needing the extra energy for my 3rd house. BTW, when the world does get destroyed, will the good earth conscience people die last? My next house is on a hill about 500 feet above the valley floor, I guess I'll get about a week extra time than the poor slobs on the bottom.Global warming is not a threat, it's a cult.

OMG...BG you make me laugh. Easily the funniest poster on FCP...you nutzo right wing nutzo. hee hee . :)Okay, these wikidebateaments are funny. I've skimmed through this threat and will add my 2 cents:I was skeptical. However, the melting permafrost has me very concerned and I'm no longer skeptical.Oh and for the record, not an atheist, believe in God, just haven't narrowed it down as to which God yet. (Does that still count?) And, FWIW.....BS in Biology.

[SCYUKON 0]

I have been and am still on the fence (gathering info). Today I had a link passed on to me about a controversial show which aired in the UK last month calling the global warming side "Swindlers".At any rate, one interesting perspective which I had not considered before is the impact of the activists on hindering the development of third world countries (if this can be believed). The two other interesting things which I had not heard before was that the CO2 levels lag the warming, not lead it (according to this show of course), and that the real culprit is the Sun (again according to this show).At any rate, it is a 73 minute documentary but I found it extremely interesting.To anyone who is still also gathering info before forming their stance, here is the link:http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=...annel=301783405EnjoyD

[Zeatrix 0]

The mockumentary "The Global Warming Swindle" has really done A LOT of damage. Many people now believe that it's sunspots that are responsible for the changing temperature or that volcanoes are the biggest contributor to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Both these assumptions are plain wrong. And yes, I will provide references. A really good summary of which "facts" are actually myth were presented in Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest newspaper a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately it was in Swedish and I don't have the patience to translate it. But here are some other references:A group of American climate scientists have started a website called RealClimate. They have some very interesting articles published, among them, a review of the documentary you refer to. They also have a link to another article which clearly explains why volcanoes being responsible for all the extra CO2 is not true.Also, and the most disturbing part, is that one of the scientists featured in the mockumentary, Carl Wunsch, claims that he was mislead by the producers. His story is also available at RealClimate.Now there are some things that global warming critics say that does make sense, for example, we can't really be absolutely sure what increasing temperatures will lead to. The simulations that scientist run just aren't that accurate, they aren't perfect. What we can be sure about though is the fact that mankind is responsible for adding billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and this has lead to increasing average temperatures. We are very sure that the results will be significant alterations to nature, but to exactly what extent is unsure.Hope this cleared some of your questions.

[SCYUKON 0]

Hope this cleared some of your questions.

Well not really, but thanks for the extra links. I checked out the one site which reviewed the film and I cannot seem to follow their logic that if the CO2 rise and fall is trailing the temperature rise and fall by 800 years, then that is not big deal. I know if I piss my wife off, she yells at me, not the other way around (although she does yell at me for no reason sometimes, so perhaps this is a bad example). At any rate, are those graphs false maybe? Or is there not thought to be a cause-effect relationship, they are just coicidental?And can you give me any background on the Greenpeace co-founder who quit the cause and is wspeaking out against the climate protesters? What happened to this dude? Did he get bought out or what?Any ways, thanks for helping me continue to learn about this issue.D