Call it personal observation. I am in no way an 'expert'. But to me mankind thinking they can influence the enviroment on a grand scale is just a little bit arrogant.

But lets make an example. A deadly typhoon is bearing down on Venezuala, what can mankind do to stop it?

A blizzard paralyzes the north east of the united stats, what can mankind do to stop it?

A volcano in the tropics erupts and spews billions of metric tons of ash and steam into the atmosphere. In fact it spews forth more pollutants in one day than the entire industrialized globe has done in its entire lifetime. what can mankind do to stop it?

Will do for Skybirds sake. Somehow I think Skybird does not think highly of Al Gore either and it raises the old hackels just reading his name.

And yet we have managed to over-fish most of the oceans, extincted countless species, and are stripping most of the worlds forests for fuel.

There are almost 7 billion people on this planet, each one wanting food, fuel and a place to live. We are cutting down the co2 absorbers in massive numbers and dumping tremendous amounts of carbon into the environment (by burning fuel such as wood, coal, oil, etc). Frankly I think its equally arrogant to claim we are not having an effect.

Also just cause we can't control the weather, doesn't mean we don't effect it.

In 2007 the estimated amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by humans was around 10 billion tons globally. So unless you are talking a super eruption, like if Yellowstone park errupted, we are out producing your average volcano. Especially when you consider that most of the stuff spewed out by a volcano comes back to the earth pretty rapidly, where as carbon does not (it has to be absorbed by plants mostly)

Frankly I don't think many scientists think very highly of him either. He is seriously muddying the waters by politicizing the issue. This isn't a political issue, its a scientific one. If we are significantly responsible for what is happening, we better think about trying to fix it before it fixes us.

That is such queer a "logic" that I refuse to adress it. In fact I feel sorry for me that I even have to take note of this nonsens-argument.

Get serious.

If you dont think this is a political issue I just dont know what to say.

Oh hell, I agree with you 100%. Al is a lousy poster child for this issue. So, back to the post you have there with SW and the population. I will repeat again, I do think man does contribute to climate change. To what extent I do not believe we can measure, however, the landscape is getting raped as well as the oceans and what lies beneath as you pointed out. I think this will be our undoing before any type of climate change does.

It is not a political issue but has been made a political issue and a pawn for those seeking political leverage or clout. Plus, it is a convienent way to introduce more taxes.

No that won't kill us, but it may push an already unbalanced system over the edge. The proverbial straw on the camel's back.

What sudden increase? I remember claims after Katrina that hurricanes would become far more numerous but that hasn't happened at all.

The intensity and number of severe storms has been increasing over the globe. You can also have high and low periods between years, which is why one looks more long term to avoid statistical flukes. Anyhow here is some data.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24452

If that data is true, the number of category 4&5 hurricanes has more then doubled in the last 30 years. I would call that a sudden increase myself.

AVG said pretty much what I would have said.

Unfortunately by having been turned into a political entity, with each side of the political spectrum lining up behind a certain side (and all those milking each side for their own gain), it has become a political quagmire, where it is not about fact or science any more, its about your ideology. The debate is taking place in the general public on ideological terms, not factual or scientific.

This is why when I get involved in environmental debates, the first thing I'll do is try to shred to pieces all the ideological crap clogging up the issue, so that it can be looked at with out all the attached rubbish. The political stuff is irrelevant and a distraction.

Yes. And your little research = what I said, what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts". You don't know if man is impacting the global environment. But you can choose to think so, if you wish. Like I said, I am not convinced one way or the other.

No, not at all. But it does define the limits of what I believe :)

Hey, how do you we don't do that now? But in a humble state of secretness? :03:



That's right, there were no major storms of any consequence this year. I guess that's just outlier data, we better get ready for 10 class 5's next year.

Oh hell, FEMA and I will be very very busy then.

I know this is going to irritate GW supporters - but lets be real.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that "fact" that over the last 600 years there has been what appears to be a "global average" increase of temperature. However, this "fact" is based off of things like Ice Core and "third party" indicators (called proxies) - such as tree rings. Now if I am going to stipulate that - whats the problem? Global Warming must be true, right? Well not exactly.

There is a wonderful piece of wisdom that bears directly to this....

"Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure!"

The data used to create this fact is accurate - but those presenting the arguement do so in a way to make the figures match their intended goal. Why use the figure of 600 years? Global Warming advocates in the science realm are using one of the oldest tricks in the books to push this. How you ask? Simple - instead of going back 600 years - use those same methods of gathering data to go back 200 years more - for a total of 800 years. What then? Wonder of wonders, we find that the earth was warmer 800 years ago than it is today. This is what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period" in environmental studies, and is a big problem for GW advocates.

Selective use of the start date on any set of data is one of the oldest tricks to used to get the outcome you want. Is the earth warming? Sure it is. But its doing so well within what we can already tell are its normal margins and tolerances. This "our impact is the straw that MIGHT break the camels back" is fearmongering - and is being used to create onerous, intrusive and destructive regulations and laws upon nations because others don't approve of what we do.

There are so many proofs AGAINST global warming being a man made phenomenon, its unreal. However, as a scientist, many cannot put forth that proof in "respectable" journals for the reasons we see in these emails - to go against the "consensus" - regardless of fact, is to be outcast. What is sad is that many people are defending these actions, as well as ignoring the reality that the evidence shows, because once again, it conflicts with their attempts to control others.