What Are We To Do Now?

[the Ogre]

The solution lies somewhere in the private market place to produce vehicles that can meet peoples needs and be efficient. The government should not be trying to solve anything. Most of the time when the government tries to solve something, they only exacerbate the problem. If someone could produce a 300+ hp v8 that gets 30 or 40mpg, they would make bill gates look like a panhandler.

Frank,

I agree with most of what you are saying and will have to think about some of the rest. I think the problem comes Adam Smith and getting what we want. The investors in the car companies often have interests in Oil or are Oil Related companies. It is not in the interest of these investors to produce something that might in the long run hurt them. If fuel efficient cars will hurt their overall profits why would they allow companies to even invest in researching these types of vehicles.

I think the current system needs a careful relook, but who has the real courage? I do not think the car companies do. Big Oil is not interested and in fact might be combative. So then do we trust a mercurial market or biased government?

[Palerider]

Folks, that man is causing GW is a myth! Stop drinking the kool aid! Read Junkscience.com if you want the real stories, not the ones that the far left media and Uncle Algore prattle on about.

This had absolutely nothing to do with 'saving the earth'. It has everything to do with destroying western culture, mainly the US, because the libs are control freaks that want everyone else to do what they feel (yes FEEL) is right...They failed to have us fall to the Soviets and the utopia that is communism, so they have moved to propagandizing the youth with this piffle that we bad Americans are making the Earth to warm up. Cows make more methane than anything else, and it is far worse the CO2.

The sun makes the earth warm, not cars.

We are here to take care of the earth to the best of our ability, but that doesn't mean we have to go 'Amish' in order to do so. And whether some of you agree or not, it doesn't matter to me, but if the US falls, so will the rest of the civilized world. You can take that to the bank. As 'chic' as it is to be anti-American, ask those countries in Europe that give us the most grief if they really want us to be as soft as they are, if they really want us to destroy our economy for some wooded owl. They know better than to agree with that. What with Russia starting up again, China will be a problem soon enough, they don't want us to fail now.

Uncle Al Gore..........LOL!!!!!!!...lets not forget....the world will end in 7 more yrs according to Uncle Al.......LOL!!!!!

[the Ogre]

Sorry to bug ya six, but would you say the number of cows is the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia and the rest of the world is normal? I donno, but I somehow think that we humans have artificially supported the planetary bovine pop. If you think we are supposed to have that many cows and that there have always been that many, okay then. What about the pigs? Don't they stink as much as the cows and are we supposed to have that many of them.

Don't get me wrong. I love a good cow. I like bacon even more. I also like the red kool-aid and the green jello. It just seems that if it is gassy cows that are ruining the environment, and we are the ones who want all the cows around in the first place, then we should be doing something to control the pollution caused by the cows we like so much (you're not using a Gateway are you?).

[FrankJL]

I don't see why though an automaker would intentionally try to inhibit development of more fuel efficient vehicles, that are also practical and affordable. Even the usable hybrids right now are way over priced. If an automaker could create a practical hybrid they could take such a large share of the market that it just doesn't make sense for them to not go for it. Especially US automakers, who are greatly lagging behind foreign competitors in terms of sales, quality, and durability of their vehicles. Also our automakers have huge union pension problems that German, Japanese, and Korean automakers don't have to deal with, but that I whole different topic that could span several pages.

So then do we trust a mercurial market or biased government?

Markets are always going to be mercurial, especially on high end goods that are in such a competitive market. In relation to trusting markets over government, I will take markets every time. I'm a firm believer in the laissez-fair economic theories of Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. In case you couldn't tell my icon

[the Ogre]

I'm a firm believer in the laissez-fair economic theories of Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. In case you couldn't tell my icon

I worked too long for AMEX to have this kind of trust. I don't trust AMEX, nor any large company to actually do what is right except what is right for themselves.

Regarding the pension problems you mention, the Asian countries have an unfair advantage. When Korea and Japan adopted European style retirement programs, they nationalized every private retirement plan thus freeing up capital. There we go for laissez-fair economics.

[CrimsonKairos]

I say to each their own.

Something that might make sense is to put a chip in every car that records how long it is on the roads, etc... and using that data you could then apportion "road use taxes" to reflect who is using the roads more or less.

But then again, that would call for the birth of another ungainly government agency to implement and supervise such a plan, the construction and installation of tons of "road meters" or the launch of new "monitoring" satellites, more govt. employees to staff this monstrous agency, more tax dollars going to maintain said agency than is being pulled in via the new "road tax," etc...

The answer is rarely ever more taxes, or new taxes, or bigger government.

[sixpacktr]

I say to each their own.

Something that might make sense is to put a chip in every car that records how long it is on the roads, etc... and using that data you could then apportion "road use taxes" to reflect who is using the roads more or less.

But then again, that would call for the birth of another ungainly government agency to implement and supervise such a plan, the construction and installation of tons of "road meters" or the launch of new "monitoring" satellites, more govt. employees to staff this monstrous agency, more tax dollars going to maintain said agency than is being pulled in via the new "road tax," etc...

The answer is rarely ever more taxes, or new taxes, or bigger government.

Hey CK,

I have been reading Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, and BY was talking about this type of crud 160 years ago! He said that the answer isn't for Congress to make more and more laws, but to enforce the ones that are already on the books. Just think! 160 years of a bunch of bloodsuckers (for the most part) making more and more laws to constrain our freedoms and choices. Gun laws upon gun laws that restrict that right to bear arms. Taxes upon taxes made by people that can't handle their own finances, much less someone else's...

[sixpacktr]

Another article on the hoax that is GW...

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.

Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.

Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.

The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."

WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.

The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.

The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.

In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.

"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

[the Ogre]

Six,

I take it then you think we should do nothing to improve environmental conditions. There is really nothing wrong is there? Everything is just fine and nothing is wrong.

[gabelpa]

so what you are saying is that cars and factories don't pollute six? They do no harm to the Earth Heavenly Father gave us? Smog is no problem at all we should just let our kiddies still breathe it? Or are you going to tell me dead fish and animals caused by pollution is no concern of ours? I tell you what Six would you be happy living right on the edge of a freeway, right next door to a coal power station? you go and do that then tell me that we should do nothing and that what we are doing to the Earth is good.

Tell me you are happy that our UK supermarkets (stores) can no longer guarantee that US cereal crops are GM free? what shocks me is that a huge number of Americans don't seem to know what a GM crop is at least here people protest against them. Then we have the wonders of something like Dasani very popular bottled water in the States do you know its just filtered tap water? It lasted about a month here with loads of jokes before it was discovered it was heavily contaminated with mercury the stuff out of our taps was actually better for us.

-Charley

[sixpacktr]

Here is another blurb on just what we are doing to ourselves because we 'just gotta do something!'

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Done Deal?

Many media outlets — such as the recent Newsweek magazine cover story — portray man-made global warming as fact and those who deny it as conspirators. But skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown.

A new study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz contends that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the United Nations' recent climate study claims. Schwarz's work will be published in The Journal of Geophysical Eesearch.

The study is just one of several peer-reviewed scientific studies challenging global warming alarmism:

The Belgian Weather Institute concludes that carbon dioxide does not have a decisive role in global warming.

A study by two Chinese scientists says CO2's role in warming is "vastly exaggerated."

Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.

The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use

Gabelpa,

You are taking my OP and my subsequent articles in the wrong way. I never said we shouldn't take care of the earth. That is the problem with the enviromentalist wackos: if you challenge them, you are 'anti-clean air' or 'anti-clean water' etc. I am a huge CONSERVATIONIST. We have a duty to take care of the earth. It is ours to take care of.

However, the GW hoax is a bunch of horse hockey. It has never been true, and it never will be. It is aimed at destroying western civilization, particularly the US economy. Cars are much cleaner than ever before. So are coal plants and other methods of energy generation. Did you notice that it is being found the biofuels actually contribute MORE carbon gases than fossil fuels! Have you heard THAT on the news?! No, you haven't. You won't hear any of those that are saying that the data is flawed on perky little Katie Curic's socialist comments on the nightly news either, because that doesn't fit the pattern of alarmism...

What I am getting at is that for us puny humans to think we are so powerful we can ruin this creation of God's is arrogance. Quit drinking the kool aid and think! Uncle Algore is wrong on this, and he is poisoning the minds of our youth thru his pack of lies film. He knows that thinking adults will see thru his lies and half truths immediately, but his 'documentary' is req'd viewing in schools now. Brainwash the kids. That is the way to change...

[CrimsonKairos]

I agree, six.

Stuff like Al Gore's shockumentary film is a pile of hooey.

The Lord gave us this earth to use and be masters over.

He gave us coal, oil, natural gas, etc... for our benefit.

Sure we can use it cleaner, but there's no need to say the sky--along with the ozone--is falling!

[Gwen]

i agree with six and ck on this one. for me it is very frustrating to see how this media teaching could hurt our community. our town is supported by several big plants. then the kids come home from school talking about global warming and pics of big industrial plants with thick black smoke comming out of the stacks. they leave our children with the impression that all industrial facilicites are bad. i don't argue that there was a time when all were doing some not so good things (which no one knew at the time what the impact would be; when you know better you do better) and there are some that still need a lot of improvement. but for the most part (in this area anyway) these big businesses do more to help our environment than to hurt. i know i've mentioned this before about the paper plant that my husband works. my husband worked with the environmental and now works on looking for new equipment that will help them make their product better and cleaner. that is all he does, he and a whole group of ppl. they monotor what is comming out of the stacks and what is going into the river. most of what comes out of their smoke stack is steam, it's that simple, you can't cook something at extreamly high temps without making steam and having to release it some way. they monitor the river temps and oxygen levels several times a day. not because of what they are doing but because of the natural summer conditions around here the river will at times naturally on it's own be depleated of oxygen and fish will start to die. so they spend extra time and money to adjust the temp of any cleaned water they are putting back into the river so that it will cool the river down, they have a boat and ppl trained to go up and down the river when it gets to low on oxygen and actually replace that oxygen. the river is vital to their business, they want a healthy river. the river is just a start, they do so much for the forests as well. many of these big industries love the environment, they know without a healthy earth they will be out of business, and they work to keep it clean and healthy. but you don't hear about that on the news. that's not taught in the schools. instead they leave the impression that daddy works for a company that is killing the polar bears and polluting our water; not once do they teach the kids the truth about the companies that support and sustain their family and their community. it's sad when the schools paint a picture that puts fathers (or mothers) down in the eyes of their children cause they work for the "bad guy".

for the record i have no problem with the schools teaching about individual responsibility, recycling, conserving water, conserving electricity, etc. i have no problem with them teaching the facts about environmental cycles, or what happens when you throw something in the garbage. i think it's important to teach those things. but to teach that ppl are the plage of the earth, that all big companies are bad, that we are the reason the earth changes, that we are destrying it... one it's conceited to think that we are that important in the grand scheme of the universe but two how does it help our kids for them to be thinking that they are to blame and the earth would be better if we (ppl) were not here. it amazes me how one statment can show such conceit and lack of self worth all at the same time. have we truely lost sight of the middle ground? what we do is important, we have a stewardship and responsibility to the portion of the earth we have and the earth will do what it's going to do.

[CrimsonKairos]

Well said, well said.

[drjme]

Interesting video thats been around for a while, if it hasn't already been posted:

the great global warming swindle

but Hey, these guys have probably been paid off by the oil companies?

Choose:Al Gore & politicians? or scientists opinions?

[tiancum]

A funny side note about global warming.

The sensors/thermometers that had been in place all over the world since the mid 1900's were all read at regular intervals.

In the '90s there was a big jump in the global warming index.

Why? Because The soviet Union had split up, and no one was taking readings in from their sensors that were placed in Northern Russia, Siberia, etc. (no money, political upheaval...and the rest, they couldn't even pay their military and gov, workers)

Losing the data from these sensors, which always lowered the average temperature of the planet, caused the average temperature index to rise. At least on paper.

OOPS!

[Doctor Steuss]

Hmmmm...

Let's take a look at the "few" people that don't think it's a "hoax" (according to the ole IPCC report)...

11,885 individual scientists listed by name

52 Nobel Laureates,

63 National Medal of Science recipients,

195 members of the National Academies,

and all of the following scientific societies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academié des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

* American Geophysical Union (AGU)

* American Institute of Physics (AIP)

* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

* American Meteorological Society (AMS)

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

And on the other side of the isle we have a lot of people that aren't climate scientists and one of the major players who actually is a climate scientist is receiving his funding from Exxon.

Gosh-darn hoaxes!

[Elphaba]

Hmmmm...

Let's take a look at the "few" people that don't think it's a "hoax" (according to the ole IPCC report)...

11,885 individual scientists listed by name

52 Nobel Laureates,

63 National Medal of Science recipients,

195 members of the National Academies,

and all of the following scientific societies:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academié des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

* American Geophysical Union (AGU)

* American Institute of Physics (AIP)

* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

* American Meteorological Society (AMS)

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

And on the other side of the isle we have a lot of people that aren't climate scientists and one of the major players who actually is a climate scientist is receiving his funding from Exxon.

Gosh-darn hoaxes!

I choose my causes carefully, and Global Warming hasn't been one of them. But I have say Doc, . Very impressive.

It is so nice to have obvious intelligence from both sides of an issue.

Elphaba

[Gabelma]

ok sorry if I misunderstood you Six - I understood your premise was Global Warming and then you were asking what should we do now? - my response was the idea that actually Global Warming is not a very big deal, and does not change the fact that our governments and many big businesses do behave badly, and that whilst I am not expecting change to happen that doesn't mean it shouldn't. I personally believe so many are for and against Global Warming that one can say it MIGHT happen, I think its a brilliant government and big business idea - lets use an airy fairy idea that will only happen many years in the future. That way we can ignore the problems at hand, and still get voted in.

What concerns me deeply is the fact that our socities are increasingly looking for ways to make life more conveient. People are becoming less capable of looking after themselves, how many people my generation can't sew, can only bake from packets, heck I know kids in priamry schools (elementary school) today who don't know beef comes from a cow or that bread contains wheat. The looks I get when I suggest walking 3 miles to a bus stop are unreal wonder how many of those people could walk 800 miles with an ox cart. Its not good to assume that all with always be peachy. The Lord has allowed great civilisations to be documented and their fall to be shown, archaeology indicates many ended through natural disasters, my personal is belief that the wealthy probably saved themselves at the expense of the people lower in society, however the lower down in society you go the more skills you find and the more resourceful the people. Therefore the civilisations could not rebuild. We see similar things happen again, and again in the BOM.

Concerning Biofuel - it is far from the only option - what about using used Chip Fat (vegatable oil), you can use it ina diesel oil in the sumemr without any major adjustments, you do need some for winter usage in most places. Its better for your engine, recycled and these days diesel engines are pretty good, Volvo and Honda have made some very quiet ones. One reason to start changing is the fact that fossil fuels are finite, they simply won't be here.

-Charley

[sixpacktr]

Gabelma,

I agree with you that we are becoming so 'soft' anymore, that everything has to be convenient, that we are raising a generation of thumbsurfers that can't cook, clean or take care of themselves, but they can reach level 235 on the latest video game, and send 14 text messages/min!

My wife is not of this country, and she is constantly amazed at just how lazy as a people we are. 'Home cooked' meals doesn't mean what it did when I was a kid (admittedly a while ago, but still!). My mom would cut up the chicken, peel the vegies, dice, cook, whatever them, and take 2-3 hours making a meal that we would devour in 10 mins. And I know that a lot of it has to do with more women/mothers working outside of the home and that we put our kids in 17 different activities after school so that they don't have to miss out (Satan's plan, in my opinion, working perfectly BTW. Families can't eat together or spend any time together because everyone is torn in 10 different directions all of the time...), so women can't take that type of time anymore. But 'home cooking' comes in a Stouffer's box or in a Tyson bag and all you had to do was nuke it!

"Gee mom, you really know how punch those buttons!"

I miss my mom's cooking. And yes, this has nothing to do with GW...

[CrimsonKairos]

Stu, I have to say that a list of names doesn't convince me that humans are causing GW.

Data convinces me, and what data there is right now is hardly compelling. To me.

Imagine the controversy around Galileo's "heliocentricity" concept. I can just hear Galileo's friend saying, "The thousands of spiritual leaders within the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Pope--who is the Vicar of Christ--all agree that the sun revolves around the earth!"

Popularity is hardly a basis for Truth.

[Doctor Steuss]

I choose my causes carefully, and Global Warming hasn't been one of them. But I have say Doc, . Very impressive.

It is so nice to have obvious intelligence from both sides of an issue.

Elphaba

Tarski (the physicist/doctorate/professor from “The Board That Shall Not Be Named”) is actually the one that hooked up all that info. I don’t want to take credit for his brilliance. I’m really quite substandard when it comes to intelligence.

But, as far as “causes” go, I understand where you’re coming from. Once you cut through the hype, I just don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our stewardship is a precious thing.

Now if only I could stop being a hypocrite and trade in my PT Cruiser for a Mo-ped.

[Doctor Steuss]

Stu, I have to say that a list of names doesn't convince me that humans are causing GW.

Data convinces me, and what data there is right now is hardly compelling. To me.

Imagine the controversy around Galileo's "heliocentricity" concept. I can just hear Galileo's friend saying, "The thousands of spiritual leaders within the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Pope--who is the Vicar of Christ--all agree that the sun revolves around the earth!"

Popularity is hardly a basis for Truth.

Wanna fight?

Kidding.

I don't think there are many scientists that currently hold the position that we are “causing” it. Most see us as contributing to it though (albeit a rather minimal contribution). In the end, I suppose we're doing more by creating "heat islands" than by emitting gases (it was hard to type that last line with a straight face... why must I be so immature?).

Regardless, we are hurting our Mother, and seem to need some kind of a kick in the rear to stop (and by "we" I am most certainly including myself).

[gabelpa]

Why bother with a moped when you can get yourself a 750CC cruiser motorcycle. Perfect for single and 2 person riding, enough power to get you to the freeway, and excellent gas mileage. Heck, a 600CC will do that, with just a little less oomph, and a cleaner engine.

Personally, the whole problem with Carbon is there is pretty much a finite ammount of it on the planet. When the Dinosaurs went kaput, and the swamps decayed and turned into what we have today as Natural Gas, Crude Oil, etc. the carbon that made up all that got locked away, reducing the carbon available. I'm not a palentological climatist so I can't comment on what Earth was like way back when, with all that carbon floating around, but if we keep pumping Carbon back into the Atmosphere, we're going to find out.

Check out this alternative fuel car, The Air Car. It's a car that gets it's power from compressed air, and a fuel-powered compressor. If the fuel portion of the engine is run off sugar cane ethanol, vegetable oil, etc, then we've got a car that is carbon-neutral to drive.

[Elphaba]

Tarski (the physicist/doctorate/professor from “The Board That Shall Not Be Named”) is actually the one that hooked up all that info. I don’t want to take credit for his brilliance. I’m really quite substandard when it comes to intelligence.

Brilliant. The man is brilliant. I love his posts on any board.

But, as far as “causes” go, I understand where you’re coming from. Once you cut through the hype, I just don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our stewardship is a precious thing.

I hope you didn't think I meant I was against what you called "our stewardship." That's not what I meant.

When I have a "cause" I am very passionate about it. I don't understand GW well enough to have that passion.

I do understand the Iraq war and the Bush administration well enough to not only be passionate about it, but also to be outraged about it.

So, I would never open my mouth as if I'm some sort of expert on GW, even though I do believe it is a serious issue. Does that make sense?

Elphaba