Global Warming

[palerider]

SO what again? did i somehwere state that we could change the climate cycle? NO

You said:

"IT will continue, as we continue to "CONTRIBUTE" to the cycle....."

The fact is that it will continue whether we contribute or not. It will continue because it is the natural cycle and there isn't a whit of evidence to support any statement that we are contributing at all. The exits from previous ice ages have been more rapid than the exit from this one. If you want to use the existing evidence to make an argument, then you must argue that we are keeping the earth unnaturally cool as that is all that can be derived from the exits from previous ice ages.

I was Un-aware that the dinasours were Industrialized!!!! Man can you provide us with the data from that period!!! id sure like to see what type of Pollution they were causing!!!!! They had CARS TOO! WOW................what a childish attempt at comparisons

Again, you entirely miss the point. The warm/cold temperature cycles happened when the dinosaurs were around (without our help) and actually happened more quickly.

And I have already provided you with at least two graphs that show the temperature cycles for the past 500 million years. Sorry you were unable to look at them and understand that you were seeing the evidence you keep asking for.

I never said it was possible to stop global warming? again you infer something i never said .....all i said is we MAY be able to Slow the accelleration ....but it wouldnt show for several generations if we tried............do you read before you writ?

How can we slow down a natural global temperature cycle? We can't slow down a hurricaine, or even a summer breeze. Do you think that reducing CO2 emissions will do it? Every scrap of evidence we have clearly shows that rising CO2 levels follow rising temperatures. Rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

you and you damned Inferrances....I CLEARLY stated that Global warming has ALWAYS been here and will always be here read again

Not true at all. When the earth is decending into an ice age, the earth is no longer warming, the earth is cooling. Warm/cool/warm/cool/warm/cool. Cyclical. Neither warming nor cooling have always been here thus the term cyclical.

again pal your issue is with the scientists not myself.Ask them wht they believe what they do? Im not a scientist.I never stated I had any answers or proof .someone asked me where i stood in the wole argument?.....or more importantly where was my argument I dont have an argument............I posted what I know and what has been stated on the subject..........ask the scientists why they feel the way they do I cant speak for them nor will I

Actually, if you are going to parrot information then the issue is with you. If you don't understand the information, then it would be best to try and understand it before you parrot it or not speak on the subject at all.

If you are asked where you stand, and you don't even understand the information that you are about to parrot, why give a position and make it clear that you are just saying what someone told you to say?

[Rokerijdude11]

You said:

"IT will continue, as we continue to "CONTRIBUTE" to the cycle....."
the accellerataion will continue....As i stated Global warming was here before us and will remain after us


The fact is that it will continue whether we contribute or not.

yes of course it will..... its a naturally occurring cycle, i already stated that It will continue because it is the natural cycle and there isn't a whit of evidence to support any statement that we are contributing at all.

youll have to tell the scientists then that theyre wrong ok



The exits from previous ice ages have been more rapid than the exit from this one. If you want to use the existing evidence to make an argument,

how many times do i have to state im not interested in an argument for you to get it?

then you must argue that we are keeping the earth unnaturally cool as that is all that can be derived from the exits from previous ice ages.

again im not interested in arguing anything ......thats your game

Again, you entirely miss the point. The warm/cold temperature cycles happened when the dinosaurs were around (without our help) and actually happened more quickly.
No i didnt miss anything


And I have already provided you with at least two graphs that show the temperature cycles for the past 500 million years. Sorry you were unable to look at them and understand that you were seeing the evidence you keep asking for.


I havent asked for any evidence? your mistaken Im not arguing or claiming anything simply stating my opinions?


How can we slow down a natural global temperature cycle? We can't slow down a hurricaine, or even a summer breeze. Do you think that reducing CO2 emissions will do it? Every scrap of evidence we have clearly shows that rising CO2 levels follow rising temperatures. Rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

again argue this with the scientists who have concurred on the subject i am not interested in debating the issue Im not a scientist........according to many of them we can Possibly slow down or reverse whats happening......I believe them they are scientist your just some guy on a website?

Not true at all. When the earth is decending into an ice age, the earth is no longer warming, the earth is cooling. Warm/cool/warm/cool/warm/cool. Cyclical. Neither warming nor cooling have always been here thus the term cyclical.
perhaps you should again take this up with the scientists? Im again Not arguing or debating anything i was asked my opinion i stated it period


Actually, if you are going to parrot information then the issue is with you. If you don't understand the information, then it would be best to try and understand it before you parrot it or not speak on the subject at all.


I havent parroted anything i have stated my opinion
If you are asked where you stand, and you don't even understand the information that you are about to parrot, why give a position and make it clear that you are just saying what someone told you to say?
Nobody told me to say anything?
these are my opinions I could Give a FOCK wht you think of them? again your just some guy on the web????

[palerider]

Nobody told me to say anything?
these are my opinions I could Give a FOCK wht you think of them? again your just some guy on the web????


Opinions that you can't substantiate or even effectively argue are worthless. Why bother expressing them?

[Rokerijdude11]

probaly because someone asked?

get a clue

[mr universe]

"The hydrologic cycle is the cycle of water. Evaporation, followed by precipitation which in turn either evaporates again, or seeps into the earth and become ground water. Most groundwater either finds its way back into streams, rivers and oceans or is transpired back into the atmosphere via plants.

With regards to energy and phase changes, there is not always an energy release. The more proper question would address the utilization of energy during phase changes since energy release, or energy absorption all depends upon which phase the water begins in and which phase it is moving to. "





Hahaahhaah,

are you kidding me...

there is ALWAYS an energy release.

it takes energy to ghange phases.

i know the terms, i was asking you to see what you know, and you know little

I've debated this for too long beneath my level of understanding, I do not have the energy to try to explain simple freshman year earth sciences. These are key components to air parcels and the way they interact with the oceans and land. If you don't have any understanding of a subject, you should probably not try, because of how stupid you appear to be.

this subject has experts, and unlike the politics boards of the Internet, you can be dead wrong about your statements, your opinions hold no weight against plain hard mathmatics. after all, math is the basis of all sciences, and math is recognized all over the world as no where near a pseudo science.

would you consider mathematics a pseudoscience?

save a minute and don't bother to respond

[palerider]

there is ALWAYS an energy release.

And when it is released, where is it released to, and where is it released from? When there is a release of energy at one point, there is always a gain at another point. Most of the energy budget, as it applies to the atmosphere is in the form of latent heat and there is no such thing as an energy release that doesn't result in a gain in some other part of the atmosphere.

i know the terms, i was asking you to see what you know, and you know little

There is a large difference between knowing the terms and knowing what they mean. I note that you shied entirely away from the responses to your silly questions about greenhouse gases, atmospheric winds, and carbon sinks. One of us knows little, but it isn't me.


... If you don't have any understanding of a subject, you should probably not try, because of how stupid you appear to be.

Name calling in lieu of actual debate. I wondered how long it would take you and now I know.

this subject has experts, and unlike the politics boards of the Internet, you can be dead wrong about your statements, your opinions hold no weight against plain hard mathmatics. after all, math is the basis of all sciences, and math is recognized all over the world as no where near a pseudo science.

Yes it does have experts; on both sides of the argument and the ones on the AGW side of the argument routinely ignore science that is in direct opposition to their findings and they continue to make predictions based on terribly flawed computer models. The actual scientists are simply gathering information and trying to learn enough to actually understand how the components that make up the global climate interact with each other. The pseudoscientists, on the other hand, are using very selective bits and pieces of information to try and paint a picture of man's responsibilty for a naturally occuring cycle. It is clear which category you favor.

would you consider mathematics a pseudoscience?

No I wouldn't. And oddly enough, mathematics has been used more than once to expose the statistical fraud of the pseudoscientists who are promoting AGW theory. But then math is not the "science" in question here is it?

save a minute and don't bother to respond

Apparently that woud be so that you don't have to answer the rebuttals to the little questions that you raise. You have already dodged 2/3 of the issues you raised.

[r0beph]

I think one problem people always overlook is the combined effect of human involved atmospheric heating AND the natural temperature flux. These arguments are always asserting and either / or reference, only rarely taking both occurrences into equal consideration. This isn't really a subject matter I'm on top of, so I'm going to refrain here.

[palerider]

I think one problem people always overlook is the combined effect of human involved atmospheric heating AND the natural temperature flux. These arguments are always asserting and either / or reference, only rarely taking both occurrences into equal consideration. This isn't really a subject matter I'm on top of, so I'm going to refrain here.


THe real question is whether or not man has enough of an influence to justify making changes in the way we live that would seriously damage our economy. I mean, if man is having a 1.8% influence on the climate, that hardly justifys doing anything at all more than directing research into technology that will allow us to live more comfortably in the long summer that is coming.

[invest07]

Maybe one of you AlGorian disciples can explain to me why the Sunshine State is getting colder while the rest of the world is predicted to fry.
Citrus is an important ag crop and also very sensitive to cold weather. The fruit is damaged at 32 degrees F and trees are damaged at 29 degrees F. So the ideal climate for commercial citrus production would be one in which there was virtually no chance of freezing winter weather.
In 1890, there were commercial citrus groves throughout all of FL and coastal GA and SC. By 1960 the northernmost line of citrus was Macintosh, FL. By 1980 the line was Leesburg, FL. Today the line is Kissimmee, FL. The line has moved over 250 miles south since 1890 due to a gradual progression of colder winters.
Source: Florida Citrus Mutual
So all of you that bow down and worship at the altar of GW, come on down. If it gets to hot for you in NY or CHItown, come to Fla. Look me up and we will sip a Corona in front of the fireplace and watch the Gators win yet another national title. But be sure and bring a coat.

[Rokerijdude11]

I have a new nickname for you



"Rhetoric Man"

[invest07]

If you want to truly understand exactly what GW is all about, check out this site:
carbontax.org
The hysteria created by Gore and Co. is really about paving the way for a world-wide carbon tax, collected by the UN and paid by industrial nations (translation: you and me)
They know that climate is highly cycilical and they have 5-10 years to get their precious carbon tax passed, so the hysteria must be whipped to a frenzy before the climate begins to again cool. Once the tax is in place, it will be necessary to maintain the tax, even when temps cool, to "make sure GW doesn't reoccur".
I don't see this as science. It is strictly political. And coming from the same crowd that gave you such notable policies as confiscatory taxation, socialized medicine, social "security" which is actually insecurity, abortion on demand, public schools as social experiments, condoms in public schools, PC,
confiscation of firearms and legislation from the judicial bench.

[vyo476]

Oh no! Condoms in public schools! Le gasp...maybe teenagers will stop having babies because they're using contraceptives rather than having unprotected sex.

Sorry, buddy. Mass culture is here to stay and kids are going to be trying things - better to educate them and give them the tools to keep from increasing our already overly large population than to stick our heads in the sand and preach "good values" at a generation that doesn't give a **** except in the literal sense.

As for socialized medicine, well...I'm still a fan personally but I can see why others, who wouldn't benefit from it as much, would disapprove. Perhaps if we had decent people in charge of it Social Security would be in better shape - as in people that would keep the government from raiding its coffers every time they need some extra coin for something else.

You want to attack global warming as a purely political maneuver, go ahead, but don't attack political maneuvers that have supporters while you're at it - it causes us to relate GW with the issues we already support, while you're trying to prove that there is not good reason to support Gore and the GW crowd. See what I mean?

[Dagoth]

I agree with you in every sense if I were a bit smarter that is how I would have put it word for word~

[Fonz]

If you want to truly understand exactly what GW is all about, check out this site:
carbontax.org
The hysteria created by Gore and Co. is really about paving the way for a world-wide carbon tax, collected by the UN and paid by industrial nations (translation: you and me)
They know that climate is highly cycilical and they have 5-10 years to get their precious carbon tax passed, so the hysteria must be whipped to a frenzy before the climate begins to again cool. Once the tax is in place, it will be necessary to maintain the tax, even when temps cool, to "make sure GW doesn't reoccur".
I don't see this as science. It is strictly political. And coming from the same crowd that gave you such notable policies as confiscatory taxation, socialized medicine, social "security" which is actually insecurity, abortion on demand, public schools as social experiments, condoms in public schools, PC,
confiscation of firearms and legislation from the judicial bench.

wow...talk about a Conspiracy Theorist.

Send this man a Tin Foil hat.

[USMC the Almighty]

wow...talk about a Conspiracy Theorist.

Send this man a Tin Foil hat.

Yeah, that is a little Rokerjdude of him. The global warming hysteria is exacerbated, at least in part, because people feel the need to cling to some doom stories (see Mad Cow Disease, West Nile, Y2K, SARS, cancer from 3 Mile Island, Bird Flu...).

It's simply a case of a few scientists predicting that the climate is undergoing dramatic changes (we've seen this play out before, haven't we?) and that we need to take drastic steps right the ship. This apocalyptic scenario is characteristically followed up by thousands of left-wing joiners clinging to it, thinking that they can actually make a difference.

The only way to make any sort of difference on a global scale is to return to pre-1800 population levels. Have fun with that...

[Fred]

Yeah, that is a little Rokerjdude of him. The global warming hysteria is exacerbated, at least in part, because people feel the need to cling to some doom stories (see Mad Cow Disease, West Nile, Y2K, SARS, cancer from 3 Mile Island, Bird Flu...).

It's simply a case of a few scientists predicting that the climate is undergoing dramatic changes (we've seen this play out before, haven't we?) and that we need to take drastic steps right the ship. This apocalyptic scenario is characteristically followed up by thousands of left-wing joiners clinging to it, thinking that they can actually make a difference.

The only way to make any sort of difference on a global scale is to return to pre-1800 population levels. Have fun with that...
your not really this stupid are you? i thought that gay cowboy was the dumbest one in this thread till you stuck your dick in your mouth

[Cheshire Cat]

your not really this stupid are you? i thought that gay cowboy was the dumbest one in this thread till you stuck your dick in your mouth

And if you think man can do anything to affect global temperatures you are a dumb-ass hick victim of the media. Have a budweiser with the crap they feed you.

[Fred]

what the hell is global temprature speak down will you i only made it through the 4th grade................it was long and hard on this black woman

[USMC the Almighty]

what the hell is global temprature speak down will you i only made it through the 4th grade................it was long and hard on this black woman

You've got to go...

[Fred]

gotta go, gotta go, gotta go, right now

[USMC the Almighty]

MODS -- let's take out the trash...

[Abraxis Axis]

Massive melt in Antarctica, says Nasa

May 16 2007 at 10:09AM

In 2005, west Antarctica experienced the worst ice melt ever recorded during three decades of observation using satellites, Nasa scientists said.

The findings were released on Tuesday by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, which co-operates with environmental researchers at the University of Colorado in measuring and interpreting the satellite data.

The team measured snowfall accumulation and melt in Antarctica and Greenland from July 1999 to July 2005.

The South Pole melt occurred 900 kilometres inland, at high latitudes only 500 kilometres from the South Pole and at elevations of 2 000 metres, where "melt had been considered unlikely," the scientists said.

Air temperatures were abnormally high, reaching five degrees Celsius at one point and remaining above the melting point for a week.

"Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite analysis," said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado.

"Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an impact on larger-scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were severe or sustained over time."

The 2005 melt was intense enough to create an extensive ice layer when water refroze after the melt. However, the melt was not prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea.

However, large amounts of polar melt could cause ice sheets to slide into the ocean, raising global sea levels. The water flowing from the melt could also raise levels.

This year's round of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offered the most dire evidence to date that global warming has occurred due to man-made greenhouse emissions.

In three reports released this year, thousands of scientists agreed that temperatures will continue to rise this century, and if left unchecked, could have disastrous impact on parts of the world population. - Sapa-DPA

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&am...95056729C854935

[palerider]

This year's round of reports by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offered the most dire evidence to date that global warming has occurred due to man-made greenhouse emissions.

Actually, they reduced the "direness" of their reports this year and trimmed back their "estimates" because it was blatantly obvious that the datat from thier simulations was not matching observed data. And there isn't a shred of rock solid proof that any warming is due to anthropogenic causes.

I fail to see why the panic over arctic ice melting. The ice has melted back from most of the northern hemisphere. Since it has melted back approximately 3,700 miles since we began exiting the present ice age, what exactly is it about some additional melting that you find so alarming?

[Abraxis Axis]

May 16 2007 at 10:09AM

ask nasa

[palerider]

May 16 2007 at 10:09AM

ask nasa

I am asking you. NASA didn't come here speaking as if they understood the subject. You did. Now you have been asked a question by way of rebuttal. Can you answer or not?

By the way, you have misquoted Jefferson in your sig line.

[mr universe]

wow palerider never addressed his deficiencies in this subject. I left for a week to give you time to prove that you can learn, but it's pretty obvious that a doushebag has no ability to comprehend things that are out of his sphere.

[palerider]

wow palerider never addressed his deficiencies in this subject. I left for a week to give you time to prove that you can learn, but it's pretty obvious that a doushebag has no ability to comprehend things that are out of his sphere.

Insult and name calling in lieu of actual argument? This is your response to having your pissy little arguments put down? Typical.

[Abraxis Axis]

I am asking you. NASA didn't come here speaking as if they understood the subject. You did. Now you have been asked a question by way of rebuttal. Can you answer or not?

By the way, you have misquoted Jefferson in your sig line.

i posted an article about what NASA said it was pertinent to the conversation. Its theyre words I only conveyed them to you all. I really dont know what they are talking about?
seemed global warming related to me. and it was from NASA?

[Abraxis Axis]

Insult and name calling in lieu of actual argument? This is your response to having your pissy little arguments put down? Typical.

you seem to have some anger problems?

oh i see ,mis-quoted would you care to correct the quote for us?

seems that everywhere i have looked the quote is correct

[palerider]

i posted an article about what NASA said it was pertinent to the conversation. Its theyre words I only conveyed them to you all. I really dont know what they are talking about?
seemed global warming related to me. and it was from NASA?

So you are just parroting what you were told? I see.

you seem to have some anger problems?

oh i see ,mis-quoted would you care to correct the quote for us?

seems that everywhere i have looked the quote is correct

No anger here. It is you who seems to have the problems roker. To the extent that you find it necessary to invent new personalities in an attempt to recover some form of credibility.

ALso, I retract my statement that you misquoted Jefferson. Upon review of the letter from Jefferson to William Smith, I see that he did indeed say that it was a natural manure. What do you know roker, you get to be right.

[Abraxis Axis]

No its not called parroting friend its called contributing to the conversation of global warming. That is what you all WERE talking about, until you went on a tangent about my supposedly incorrect quote?

[Abraxis Axis]

No anger here. It is you who seems to have the problems roker. To the extent that you find it necessary to invent new personalities in an attempt to recover some form of credibility.


you mean this Guy?

Rokerijdude11
Banned

[9sublime]

or this guy

Rokerijdude12
Banned

[palerider]

No its not called parroting friend its called contributing to the conversation of global warming. That is what you all WERE talking about, until you went on a tangent about my supposedly incorrect quote?


No. It is called parrotting. Parrots simply repeat sounds they hear with no understanding of what those words mean.

[Abraxis Axis]

ok sure

[palerider]

ok sure

Hey, you answer just like roker. Are you parrotting for him also?

[Abraxis Axis]

I dont Know?



Am I ?

[palerider]

I dont Know? Am I ?

Of course you are roker. Hiding behind the skirts of another name because you lack enough self control to even have a moderately civilized discussion with people that you will never meet.

[ArmChair General]

Of course you are roker. Hiding behind the skirts of another name because you lack enough self control to even have a moderately civilized discussion with people that you will never meet.

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle Pot.

PaleRider the Hypocrite.

[vyo476]

I dont Know?

You even have question marks in odd places like Roker.

[palerider]

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle Pot.

PaleRider the Hypocrite.

And you believe I use which other name?

And I still await any evidence from you of hypocricy on my part? Can you deliver or not?

[Equityshiz]

you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it traps heat. that's global warming. the more you put up there the more heat it traps. simple enough

[palerider]

you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it traps heat. that's global warming. the more you put up there the more heat it traps. simple enough

The problem with that line of logic is that it ignores all of the evidence we have ever gathered from ice cores. The evidence shows that rising CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures by 5 or 6 hundred years indicating that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause.

[ArmChair General]

And you believe I use which other name?

And I still await any evidence from you of hypocricy on my part? Can you deliver or not?

"you lack enough self control to even have a moderately civilized discussion with people that you will never meet."

[palerider]

"you lack enough self control to even have a moderately civilized discussion with people that you will never meet."

I have never been banned from anywhere because I lack the control to have a civilized discussion. Those who have been banned have crossed a line of civility.

In fact, I can provide examples of you behaving more badly than I. Your habit of jumping into a conversation that you have nothing to add to but insult and then leaving, for example is beneath anything that I do. I remember once you butted in to say nothing more than I made you puke which is also far beneath me.

[Abraxis Axis]

I have never been banned from anywhere because I lack the control to have a civilized discussion.

sure How do we know that?

because you say so?


Hardly enough to prove anything I say you have been banned before elsewhere

Of course I cant prove it any more than you can prove its never happened?

[9sublime]

Roker, you might as well contact admin and ask nicely for your old account back, as it doesn't look like your going to stop making fake ones.

[palerider]

Roker, you might as well contact admin and ask nicely for your old account back, as it doesn't look like your going to stop making fake ones.

Which one?

[Abraxis Axis]

Rokerijdude11 has been banned.

[Rokerijdude11]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Is the hydrological cycle (evaporation and precipitation) changing?

Overall, land precipitation for the globe has increased by ~2% since 1900, however, precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. Instrumental records show that there has been a general increase in precipitation of about 0.5-1.0%/decade over land in northern mid-high latitudes, except in parts of eastern Russia. However, a decrease of about -0.3%/decade in precipitation has occurred during the 20th century over land in sub-tropical latitudes, though this trend has weakened in recent decades. Due to the difficulty in measuring precipitation, it has been important to constrain these observations by analyzing other related variables. The measured changes in precipitation are consistent with observed changes in streamflow, lake levels, and soil moisture (where data are available and have been analyzed).

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker, you might as well contact admin and ask nicely for your old account back, as it doesn't look like your going to stop making fake ones.

why would i do that when i am me?

[Koios]

Guys, get back on track.. you know the drill... Roker was given his account back since he promised to behave. Now please do so and you guys try not to provoke him either.

[USMC the Almighty]

you release CO2 into the atmosphere, it traps heat. that's global warming. the more you put up there the more heat it traps. simple enough

The problem with that line of logic is that it ignores all of the evidence we have ever gathered from ice cores. The evidence shows that rising CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures by 5 or 6 hundred years indicating that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming, not the cause.

Right, but the statistics I've seen suggest something closer to an 800 year lag, but that's not really important.

The fact of the matter is that CO2 does not affect temperature. Sunspots affect the temperature and the temperature affects the C02 levels.

[palerider]

Right, but the statistics I've seen suggest something closer to an 800 year lag, but that's not really important.

The fact of the matter is that CO2 does not affect temperature. Sunspots affect the temperature and the temperature affects the C02 levels.

Another thing that the hand wringing hysterics don't address is the fact that there has been three times as much greenhouse gass in the atmosphere as would be required to cause the current greenhouse effect since we began to exit the ice age we are presently exiting. There has never been a need for manmade greenhouse gas to increase the potential for greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already completely opaque in the relevant absorption bands . That is, there is already a "competition" between overabundant greehnouse gass molecules to reflect the available outbound infrared radiation (greenhouse effect) . For this reason alone, the hysterics generated by climate models that predict catastrophic global climate change are laughable. The models have been programmed only with positive feedbacks. That is, they predict even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber availability while real world potential actually works with negative feedback. You get progressively less warming per cc of greenhouse gas by adding more of them because there is simply not enough radiation from the sun to go around.

[Chip]

Whether the planet is warming or cooling in the process of our polluting it unto its demise is, of course, irrelevant.

What is important is to take the divertive focus off of the temperature and place it squarely where it belongs: on the damage we most certainly know we are causing.

[palerider]

Whether the planet is warming or cooling in the process of our polluting it unto its demise is, of course, irrelevant.

What is important is to take the divertive focus off of the temperature and place it squarely where it belongs: on the damage we most certainly know we are causing.


Hooray!!! Someone gets it. The earth has warmed and cooled over and over before we appeared on the scene. Glass bottles, heavy liquids, and plastic, however, didn't come along until we did.

I am all for cleaning up to the degree that we can do it without costing too many people thier jobs (which is a great deal of cleaning up), and fining people who pollute illegally very heavily for their first offense and prison for the second.

As to the warming, it has happened over and over and will continue to do so. We can look at the repeating pattern in history and have a pretty good idea what the future is going to look like climate wise. If money is to be spent on climate change, that money should be spent on the development of technology that will make our lives easier and more comfortable in the long summmer ahead.

[Chip]

I am all for cleaning up to the degree that we can do it without costing too many people thier jobs (which is a great deal of cleaning up)
I agree.

Cleaning up after ourselves and preventing ourselves from re-polluting shouldn't cost too many people their jobs -- hell, it shouldn't cost anyone their job.

But it should cost taxpayers some money ... and it should cost corporate owners some of their obscene profits and without owners converting their employees into compensative sacrificial lambs.

After all, the profit motive caused owners and government leaders to turn a blind eye to the damage they knew they were doing, so it is those who were so blindly seduced who should pay the price.

Still, I can't help but feel sorry even for those more rightly responsible -- after all, the seductions of the Money System are nearly impossible to resist.

Nevertheless, someone has to foot the bill for cleaning up this mess, and taxpayers and corporate owners (along with politicians who should be impeached!) are the rightly guilty ones in this situation, and they should be the ones to pay appropriately, without one single job lost.