I didn't say the sun doesn't effect temperature. I said the content of the atmosphere is the main contributing factor to global climate. Of course the sun plays a role (i'm surprised that you thought i would imply anything else). But given that on a balmy summers night the temp may drop to 12 degrees on earth and to -400 on mercury, A planet without an atmosphere, and on Venus the surface temperature is essentially isothermal (the same during the day as it is at night at 480C) and is a planet with an atmosphere consisting almost entirely of Co2 demonstrates that there is more to climate than the distance to the sun and that the atmosphere, especially the Co2 content of the atmosphere, Is a huge factor. Studying the atmospheric content of Venus and mercury should bring you to only one conclusion. That conclusion should be "Co2 is heavily responsible for climate and distance to the sun is only one factor" - Do you not agree? And do you not agree that if Co2 content has increased by 30% since industrialization after being pretty much the same for millenia that humans are responsible for that increase? And if we are responsible for increasing atmospheric Co2 content by 30% do you not agree that we are at least contributing to climate change? Seriously, Does none of this make sense? Does this conclusion not entirely hold water? Does it not entirely stand up to scrutiny? I made the case that the evidence is compelling and it would at best be foolhardy to dismiss it as a conspiracy. it's strange that a lot of people talk about "compelling cases on both sides" and so far the only case, compelling or otherwise, has been in the support of the idea that climate change is a fact and we are causing it.
You have to make the case, Not just point to a list and proclaim "look how many people agree with me". If i find a list with one more scientists signature than you would it mean i won the appeal to authority battle and that all of the people on your list are wrong? Go away, Do some reading and come back when you can discuss this like an adult. You have to make the case.
The only thing that concerns me about so-called human caused global warming are the fools who believe it and are willing to take us back to the stone age and their vision of utopia. It's just another religion. Except that there are facts to disprove it.
Good luck with your search, no honest scientist believes this stuff, except for brainwashers and their victims. If you exclude government-funded "science", the consensus is obvious. Stop the BS. Rethorics and propaganda have nothing to do with science.
amen brother. Whenever I hear the "go green" I think of all the money being made by people who push this global warming theory. I love my gas guzzling vehicle.
Quite the opposite. We want a future where we use only sustainable clean fuels. We want electricity produced by nuclear plants and cars that run on hydrogen. Do you think we can burn oil forever? because if we can't this nightmare stone-age Utopia which you speak of is inevitable anyway, So stop burying your head in the sand and get on board the 21st century train. it's going to be a blast.
in all honesty i agree with you stox about what your goal is, alternative fuels. it would benefit everybody, but it will be hard for it to happen initially. we need to open up the market place and let the innovators work, another point we might differ on.
I think the free market would be the best place to bring in new technologies. the trouble is not many companies are going to be willing to invest in alternative fuels while there are still people who are ignorant to the facts. I mean, You only have to look at this thread to see how ill-educated people are regarding this subject. We have some people so ill-educated that the only case they can present is to list a few other people who agree with them and someone else whose justification for disbelieving climate change is because they love their "gas guzzling" car. I wouldn't trust these people with a wooden spoon, let alone the success of a multi-billion dollar investment in new technology. The key to this is education. Smarten people up regarding the issue and they will be inclined to buy alternative fueled cars. But as it is they are just predictable consumers, They stick to what they know and to hell with the consequences.
well then our ways of going about the alternative are different, I don't believe in fear-mongering. I think most anybody would believe an alternative is needed considering oil prices and nobody wants to increase supply or become more independent over here. Right now there are a surplus that believe in manmade global warming, ball is in your court. the few that don't only get more agitated when its shoved down our throat with the phony "go green" stuff. i'm all about protecting the environment and respecting nature, we can achieve that through a free-market i believe.
He's educated by the state, go easy on him. He has much potential. Then governments need to be pressured on opening up alternatives, not to curb oil consumption. This is the sort of fanaticism I warn about. It's hard to make ideological headway if you're insulting and condescending. Your sales technique needs a lot of work. Companies will invest where it is profitable. That means low or no regulation, no tax advantages for traditional fossil fuels, and a free market to conduct commerce. Companies will not invest if it is unprofitable to do so, and right now it is still unprofitable, because the global warming zealots get caught up in (1) using or waiting for the government (2) promoting science to the common idiot, not realizing that price and style talks (3) getting caught up in doomsday scenarios. Get active, and start promoting a message people can get enthusiastic about. Fear is a horrible long term motivator.
Nobody is going to invest in alternative fuels because, like predictable consumers, most people aren't going to buy them. They will stick to what they know. They need to be given a reason to buy them, And that reason can only come from education regarding the consequences of burning oil. Yeah, probably, Whatever. either way, We need sustainable clean fuels. if the government can make it easier for this to become a reality then of course they should do what they can. But the hurdle is still getting ill-educated petrol heads to buy something that makes no noise and produces no smoke.
Not for everyone. A lot of people, think that Euope will be partiulary bad hit, but in a different way. The UK is warmed by the Gulf Stream which is a current/ wind from the Caribeen. There seems evidence to suggest that this is moving, to hit GReenland instead of the UK. A system called Rapid Watch has been installed Time will tell. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/20/climatechange.meteorology The UK weather is so shit, that many people believe this. I ain't so concerned with the warming, as with flooding, but it is crossing my mind to buy a remote farm, in another country, just in case. A few biomethane converters, a bit of solar, a few guns, just in case.....
Weather patterns have never been stable expect for the last 40 years. In years prior to the 1900,s the weather could bring snow drifts twenty feet high in the winter to searing heat of over 100 degrees during the summer. The ice age could occur at any given time. Deep freeze is never spoken of by Al Gore and his crony tree huggers but it should be spoken of. I am all for not polluting but the green house affect is blown way out of proportion. Don't litter and recycle but lets keep it real.
Homebiz, I am not sure why you say Gore and Co. (I guess I'm a crony tree hugger) don't speak of a deep freeze, since this is precisely one of the effects discussed by Gore, and many others, in discussions of climate change's impact on the Gulf stream. (If you've not seen his film, for example, he goes into this in detail). Gore notwithstanding, the notion that this is somehow merely a propagandist's tool is ludicrous, in my opinion. Here, specifically on the paradoxical cooling effect of the Gulf stream-dampening: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/01/science.climatechange I quote this excerpt as merely one example (and please note that this is by no means a propagandist's tool - one source saying, for one, that nothing can be done about the Gulf stream trend). See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/20/climatechange.meteorology Again, from only one perspective, from the "real world." in my former world as a chef, I have very much seen the impact of climate change - changes in viticulture and fisheries have been real, and dramatic. Beyond climate change, let's just talk industrial runoff and all its effects - I mentioned a couple of weeks ago the devastating impact of biotoxins on Orca populations in the Pacific Northwest. We prohibit "harassment" of all kinds, to include pursuit (and obviously hunting), but allow industrial and agricultural effluents to proceed at a level that is ruining that ecosystem, with one of the casualties being precipitous drops in the Orca population; and at some point, it will be irrevocable. Growing up, as a kid, I dove the Channel Islands off the cost of Southern California. I watched, over my first two decades, spiny lobster and abalone populations approach zero. The "unregulated market" took a big crap on a tremendously important ecosystem - a rare confluence of warm Mexican and cold Alaskan currents, producing an incredible array of species not seen anywhere else in the world; as well, a major migration route for bird and aquatic species (the magnificent California grey whale, for one - and I was blessed to be underwater watching a pod of mothers and their young swim by within 10' or so). We need to stop being such idiots, thinking only of today. I honestly think the whole notion of "the earth is yours, fill it, and subdue it" puts our mind off on the wrong foot. I prefer to say, "the earth sustains us - walk lightly, very lightly."
Personally, I don't care whether global warming is real or not. Either way, I think we can all agree that we should become less dependant on oil. We could certainly benefit from using other energy sources to fuel our cars and cool our houses. Americans based on history are not always reluctant too change. In fact, there have been plenty of times where we have been asked to make sacrifices and we've done it. I think we've already approached that, but now technology needs to kick it into high gear and our government really needs to make a push towards making some national changes. If places like Argentina can make energy changes, we certainly can.