I have a good background in geology and I know that the box in the bottom left of the
pic is nothing short of ridiculous!
The sun irradiates at a near constant level, what ever happens on earth, and volcanoes erupt regardless of how much the sun irradiates.


However, back on topic:

I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon.

However, I think we should act as if it where by cutting CO2 emissions etc.
Why?
Well:

1) I could be wrong.
Many people with my level of intelligence and knowledge about the subject think I am wrong
and many more people with better knowledge and intelligence than me think I am wrong.
Until the case is closed, I could be wrong.

2)a If I am wrong and we don't act, then we potentially have a lot to lose.
2)b If I am right and we do act, then we won't lose as much.

3) Scenario 2b is preferable to 2a
So, even tho I don't think global warming is significantly a man made phenomenon; the
rational course of action is to act as if it where.

I am in your boat for the moment.

Hope you let me stay. :yep:

The U.N. is calling for more propaganda from the media, in order to push the American people toward acceptance of the alarmist view and higher energy taxes and the increased foreign aid that would result. It just so happens this would also result in more money flowing into the coffers of the U.N. at a time when the world body has already been found guilty of exaggerating the AIDS problem to generate more funds for itself.
Its answer ― and this is actually spelled out in the report ― is that too much "editorial balance" in the media has prevented "informed debate" about the need for "urgent action" in the form of higher taxes on energy.


http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/0...ent/index.html

What do you think is meant by too much 'editorial balance'?

Sorry--I think Cliff needs to back to school. His quotes are seperated which means they could easily be taken from completely different parts of "the report" (as he endlessly refers to it). Give me a lengthy report, allow me the freedom to hand-pick half sentence bits and I could also make it say whatever I wanted it to.

I don't disagree with the debate regarding global warming. Still, I am firmly in agreement with Letum's post. Cliff is just as much a sensaltionalist as anyone on the extreme left.

Not trying to be nasty. I just have enough experience with "reports" to know how easy it is to misreport them...

The funny thing is, I'm for cleaner methods of energy and manufacturing processes where we can get it. I hope for more companies/organizations to do more research into this area. But I'm not for the draconian "kyoto" solutions. Which of course are an extreme answer for an undefined problem/question. And if this is really thought out, those extreme "solutions" would cause alot more problems than what they claim they'll fix. Just out of curiousity, were the both of you saying the same thing about "let's do something just in case" in regards to the WMD in Iraq? Although WMD was only a part of why we're in Iraq, the voices that call for "let's do something just in case of global warming" demanded absolute and total proof of Saddam's WMD programs before the USA could take action. Which there was more proof of Saddam having WMD then there is proof of man-made global warming. Just ask the Kurds and the Iranians. I don't want to go off topic, but I'm curious.

So while we pursue cleaner methods of manufacture, energy, travel, etc. it will be a gradual process. I'm very glad that most people are not demanding this type of radical and unecessary change. And we probably will not eliminate the burning of fossil fuels for a long time to come. And when you look at the UN, and certain global climate agreements, with it's punitive aspects, controls, and exemptions for some, one has to ponder the agenda. When one see's that the true water carriers of that movement do not practice what they preach...one has to wonder what are their motivations. And sometimes, you just have to look at the world around you and observe.

Most Americans yawn at man-made global warming. This piece is interesting...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010913

It has been 40 years since the first Earth Day and their reports of "impending" doom to go with it. Looks like the public ain't all that gullible anymore.

Then I assume you don't accept any analysis of any report regardless of the source.

:lol: Nothing written by lawyers especially!!!

More "CONVENIENTLY" because that's not a 2000-2010 forecast/history graph.

Temperatures are up, that's a fact. The scientists are saying it, the government is saying it, but you're not saying it.

Why the denial? Can't we both take responsibility for what we've partially caused?

No, and I don't wear a anti-venom mask in case I am attacked by giant spiders "just in case".

Risk asessment is about assesing risk from informed, transparant, inderpendant and
respected sources with acsess to primary information.

In the Iraq/WMD case, there where no sources that fitted all the criteria.

In the case of GL there are groups on both sides of the fence with that criteria

Not the issue. And you're not exactly reporting what I'm saying accurately. The fact is, history has seen such warming and cooling trends before. Many of them in fact. Even before mass manufacturing was here, and automobiles have been driving around on roads.

But not with 6 billion people on the planet, which i have come to believe is the true source of human caused global warming.

Sure there was. And there was many intelligence agencies around the world that were saying Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program among others. There was more consensus on that, than mankind is causing his own demise by driving automobiles. And there was some proof as there was at least some dead Iranian and Kurdish bodies to prove that there was one type of WMD that Saddam used. Therefore it's kind of weird that the voices that are saying "let's do something just in case of global warming" were calling for total proof of Saddam's weapons programs, and are currently rapping the American and British govt's for not having it before invading. It's inconsistent, and quite hypocritical. But at any rate, it's of no issue. National governments, including the USA do not seem like they are going to take the draconian "kyoto"" route. It looks like we're not going to "do something just in case". Kyoto is dead.

Are you suggesting a China like "one child" policy?? With 6 Billion people, we still account for a very small C02 percentage in total. And why were we seeing hotter temperatures in the early 1930's than now?