Global Warming, The offical global warming thread Options

Ok as usual I will hold back at first to try and not taint the topic with any percieved biased notions and wait for others to add their opinions. The intention of this topic is to discuss the reality of gloabal warming, what people are doing to cause it (if we even are), and what can be done about it, if anything. Global warming is a highly debatable topic all opinions welcome just remember to keep it cool because it may contribute to global warming if you don't.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)



Ok that was cheesy

One medium-sized volcanic eruption dwarfs the entire pollutant output of human civilization since its beginning! Does anyone remember Mt. Pinatubo? This was a tiny pimple compared to the enormous volume of deadly gas, ash, and other unwholesome things lurking in the earth just itching to burst forth.

Increase in global temperatures will help many places like the American Southwest, Libya (they recently found the fossil remnant of Lake Tritoneus there), and oddly even the Antarctic. As ambient temperatures rise, snow-melts will provide water for places that have not seen much of it in the last ten thousand years, and oceans will evaporate to produce more water overall.

None of this will happen soon, and none of it can be stopped by any of the proposed methods of activism. No matter what you do personally, even if you had every citizen of your country pitching-in, the needs of civilization take precedence and will always demand a high output with proportionate levels of ruin in its wake. They will not stop destroying the rainforests, making plastic doodads, burning coal, or anything else no matter how eco-friendly you behave. The very best you can hope to gain from this hysteria is to create a minor voting bloc toward which political factions can cater.

Remember when they told us all we were going to die from skin cancer because our hairsprays wafted all the way to the poles? That was BS then, it is BS now, and it is going to BS in the future. This Global Warming mess is just another form of the same idiotic hysteria.

What do people like Al Gore and the supporters of the Kyoto protocols get from creating this public disturbance? One thing Al Gore gets is millions of dollars from his investments in eco-friendly energy and products that he has already secured. Tell me truthfully, if you invested 2 million in something and expected to profit 20 million, wouldn't you want to make the issue sound important too?

I suspect that the real reason we are fed this nonsense about the human toll on global temperature is what was once known as "The Third World." Eventually the Third World became "developing nations," and now they've developed enough to have a few factories. The problem is that their factories can hardly compete with the USA and its top-rated industrial allies. The other nations have agreed to slow down a bit and allow the Third World to gain an inch, but the USA has refused. Hey, we've got a 300 billion dollar "war" to pay for, and we can't afford to lose money so some dirty 3rd-world gangsters can get an edge in making tools and weapons.

The West has always favord a competitive society where the guy on top gets to keep his advantage... giving up that advantage for the sake of international teamwork is a step toward Communism. They couldn't make us Red, so now they want us to be Green. It's the same strategy in a different package.

One medium-sized volcanic eruption dwarfs the entire pollutant output of human civilization since its beginning! Does anyone remember Mt. Pinatubo?

I'm glad you brought that up. Taking astronomy last semester we calculated how much stuff is in our atmosphere and compared it to how much stuff we've put into it. We've added approximately 0.001% CO2. At the rate which we produce green houses it would take us some 250,000 years to really put in a substantial amount of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere, at least from what I learned via my college class. What do professors know anyways? A single large volcano has the ability to permamently alter Earth's atmosphere and possibly devistate our "civilization" in one erruption. Super volcanos can be planet killers.

Increase in global temperatures will help many places like the American Southwest, Libya (they recently found the fossil remnant of Lake Tritoneus there), and oddly even the Antarctic. As ambient temperatures rise, snow-melts will provide water for places that have not seen much of it in the last ten thousand years, and oceans will evaporate to produce more water overall.

I don't know about that. Its predicted that within about 50 years gloabal sea level will rise by 30 feet. That puts pretty much puts a large chunk of Earth's populous at risk. Of course we could never really know how much time it will take to melt the ice caps. The impact on the Earth's ecology couldn't be constructive though. More water in the oceans means more powerful hurricanes and other weather conditions. And beside the south west is hot enough already. Man I'm in Northern Colorado about 1200 miles north from Phoenix. Its in the 90s right now. I couldn't imagine living in the southwest in say July if it were even just 3 degrees hotter. These places that are hotter might benefit if they gain access to ground what but in the really hot regions rain just evaporates before it hits the ground.

Remember when they told us all we were going to die from skin cancer because our hairsprays wafted all the way to the poles? That was BS then, it is BS now, and it is going to BS in the future. This Global Warming mess is just another form of the same idiotic hysteria.

It was arosal cans in general. Not just hair spray. The scare was that it took a smaller amount of the chemicals released from these cans to destroy the Ozone than anything else. I agree through - total bs.

What do people like Al Gore and the supporters of the Kyoto protocols get from creating this public disturbance? One thing Al Gore gets is millions of dollars from his investments in eco-friendly energy and products that he has already secured. Tell me truthfully, if you invested 2 million in something and expected to profit 20 million, wouldn't you want to make the issue sound important too?

Follow the money! Sure Green means business but new business is also good for the economy. Being a capitalist myself I'll allow it. The only thing that pisses me off is the hype. I think its false advertisement too. The green inovations we create will only enable more people to pollute. Now I don't don't know but I'd like to know the total impact on the enviroment generated from a single wind generator. Multiply that by the amount needed to really be a viable source of energy and I wonder if its really worth it.

I suspect that the real reason we are fed this nonsense about the human toll on global temperature is what was once known as "The Third World." Eventually the Third World became "developing nations," and now they've developed enough to have a few factories. The problem is that their factories can hardly compete with the USA and its top-rated industrial allies. The other nations have agreed to slow down a bit and allow the Third World to gain an inch, but the USA has refused. Hey, we've got a 300 billion dollar "war" to pay for, and we can't afford to lose money so some dirty 3rd-world gangsters can get an edge in making tools and weapons.

Yeah why educated terrorists when you can blow them up?

The West has always favord a competitive society where the guy on top gets to keep his advantage... giving up that advantage for the sake of international teamwork is a step toward Communism. They couldn't make us Red, so now they want us to be Green. It's the same strategy in a different package.

Cut out Hilary and all the socialism, is green really that bad?

You scare me guys... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cry.gif)

Aren't you a little too ignorrant? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/oops.gif) Yeah, a medium-sized volcanic erruption could change our planet, but c'mon don't let this happen, we also have the power to alter things, so why not to kill ourselves before that volcano?

Yes Al Gore is after the money, but how can you ignore all the disturbing signs and facts?

You think red and green are the same? Maybe, but I live in a post-communist country and I really know how bad all the red stuff was, I can see a difference between red and green, but this could be my fault.

Top rated industrial facilities in the US... he-he... have you read any economic analysis in the last years? It seems, that all the top rated stuff can't save an economy...

Oh sh*t, why am I wasting my time here? I'll go plant some trees before I get some really bad (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sculacciata.gif).

Sorry for the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)

My aunt's flowers bloomed about 3 weeks before they usually do. Yet on average this winter has been on the coldest in years. (at least in my location). One scientist says the ice caps will melt in 150 years another says it'll happen in 10000 years. And yet on discovery and those other intellectual channels say the Earth is most likely ended it's temperate period and entering a global heat wave where it will eventually cool back down into another ice age. All this is just part of a grand climatic cycle that we really have little control over. Who's really right anyways.

I will state the obvious though. When it comes to the destruction of the environment, global warming or not, people have been by far the most devistating to this planet that we know of. The problem, imo, is human growth. We've all probably heard the idea that the planet can only maintain 8 billion people. My uncle, in a similar discussion, bet that 30 years ago some scientist figured only 6 billion. Again who's really right? Regardless as long as humanity continues to grow it will consume more and more resources. And the real problem is not developed countries but under-developed countries that are just starting to grow into real industrial powers. Especially countries like China, India, Indonesia and Mylasia. Nearly half the world's population is in that region of the planet. We might point to technological innovations to stem the problem. And sure we could build dams construct tidal harnesses on the ocean's shoes, take advantage of wind, solar and geo thermal energy. But at what cost to the environment? Not just the damage a single dam can have on an area's ecology, but the actualy cost on the environment to build the stuff in the first place. We might be building re-newable energy resources that in the long run might be beneficial but building a wind farm might actually require more resources to build than say a natural gas plant. There's the trade off.

While I don't think we've put enough green house gasses into the atmosphere to really contribute to global warming; gloabal warming is also increased by a thing called albedo. Its basically how much energy the Earth reflects back into space. Lower albedo means more heat is warming the surface and high albedo visa versa. High albido is caused by reflective surfaces such as sand and ice. The one thing I've seen over and over is that the Earth is warming up. Really there just might not be anything we can do about it. And the warming the Earth is the smaller the ice caps are and lower the Earth's albedo. So obviously as the Earth's ice caps melt the Earth will warm up. Now if we really did add a significant amount of green house gasses we'd really be screwing ourselves because the gasses would act like a blanket. But again if the figure of 0.001% is even close then that is not a significant amount. What we don't know is the over all impact the de-forrestation will have on global warming. Obviously it will ruin the ecology of many regions, but as these places become more sandy that might actually increase the planets albedo, possibly slowing down how fast the Earth warms up - no way am I trying to justfy stripping these places just point out how little we really know about global warming. Yet there is no way we could really know for certain. One thing is for certain we can at least slow global warming. The question is are we willing to pay for it.

This post has been edited by Acid09: Jun 25 2007, 06:55 PM

I'm bored of the environment.
All I hear is 'save the environment' these days.
I'd prefer to hear 'save the people' but that doesn't happen too often.
It's like we're coming up with these huge campaigns like the Kyoto agreement to sustain an environment that will nevertheless be destroyed due to human consumption anyway. All those 'human rights' campaigns I've signed up with keep sending me random emails about the environment too. Is it compulsory to be passionate about both because I don't think I am.
What should our priorities be in this day and age? I respect nature, but I respect the value of life more. We've got so many ongoing conflicts for example, Sri Lanka (the Buddhist government vs. the Hindu Tamil Tigers), the endless Israel/Palestine, North Ireland, Sudan, Iraq...and more (I should watch the news more). I just think as a global community we should be putting more effort to saving lives than trying to stop the slow process of the Earth warming up.

Despite the the fact that there are many valid theses for whether or not Global warming is true, one thing is true that underlies all notions of right or wrong concerning the political view of this issue: The Earth may choose to react as she sees fit. The Earth may choose to accept volcanoes as a catalyst for degeneration of the climate as we know it, or not. She may also choose to drown an entire island solely on a whim. The earth may choose as well to view, treat, and react to human activities with greater admonition than the natural reactions of a Volcano in our upper atmosphere.

I Suggest we count our blessings that the Earth is this patient with us at all.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, we are made from the same material as the stars themselves. To imply that they have no effect on our existence is a lie" - Unknown Quote.

But, for those more scientific minded, let´s put it this way: We live in the lower atmosphere, and interact mostly within it´s domain and mostly alter that particular layer of atmosphere. Volcanoes (as we can see, I like quoting the first argument) interact mostly with the middle and upper atmospheres. Although both realms of interaction change all levels, humans and natural disasters tend to have a general domain seperated from one another when it comes to the consequences. Quite frankly, it´s not the warming or atmosphere or trees that I am worried about, it´s mainly the smog, water, and soil quality that I worry about. I mean, that´s the world I live in, not one where I worry about temperature as a whole! Altering the rate of change of the earth´s temperature seems to be rather unrealistic, being that the earth is...well...so BIG. But, we CAN change our immediate environment for the better, and synergistically yeild a better overall global environment.

Or, if this thesis is still invalid/frowned upon... Try this one

Remember people, we each are building blocks to a larger structure of the world community. It just takes one bad brick to make it all crumble. This is why we must work with ourselves and our problems in the immediate time and area first to take care of the whole of unity for the future.

This post has been edited by Xenomancer: Jul 1 2007, 05:04 PM

I'm bored of the environment.
All I hear is 'save the environment' these days.
I'd prefer to hear 'save the people' but that doesn't happen too often.

... we should be putting more effort to saving lives than trying to stop the slow process of the Earth warming up.

and what is all this 'save the environment about'?

not about saving people? not about saving our selves? not about saving this big globe of dirt for the next generation?

and what is all this 'save the environment about'?

not about saving people? not about saving our selves? not about saving this big globe of dirt for the next generation?

Yes, it's saving dirt.

And currently this globe of dirt isn't going anywhere.

I don't think we should completely stop our efforts at 'saving the earth'.

I just think we should put more effort into more imminent issues.

More imminent issues. Right. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I think the place that allows us to have life in the first place would be an issue of major importance.
At least to me, since I tend to value what I have...

Violations of human rights.
Children starving.
Inequality between genders.
War.
More War.
Religious Intolerance.
Diseases.
...Thats totally general, but I would classify them as 'imminent'...

Poverty isn't a natural disaster. I believe it's fixable.

I think preventable death happening every minute is much more imminent than 'colder winters'

All I'm saying is that without our environment we wouldn't have human rights to be violated, children to be starved, inequality between genders, religious intolerance or war. So maybe we should focus on all of them, rather than saying the environment should be left for waste, because thats pretty stupid if you ask me.
And we've got a lot more crap to worry about than just "colder winters".

This post has been edited by Gregathol: Jul 4 2007, 08:41 PM

If you look above I said that we should still put effort into the environment.

I just think more effort should be put into preventable death since the environment isn't going to disappear in the next minute-it's a slower process.

I've never said to completely disregard any efforts..

I just think more effort should be put into preventable death since the environment isn't going to disappear in the next minute-it's a slower process.

I would argue we are putting more effort into these issues. Its just what we are doing isn't working and the global warming affects are comming faster than we are dealing with them.

Even if global warming peaks in the next 50 years and average temp rises high enough that the ice caps totally melt - its not the end of the world. There will still be starving children, wars, assholes, bird flue and bums on street corners with signs saying the end is nigh.

Its just I'm into ecocentric environmentalism. Basically that means I look at the well being of the Earth's ecology as a whole. I don't value specific animals over others nor do I think humans should be more important than this experiment called life. If one day a scientist proved that if humans remained on Earth we would kill all life I would say exteriminate humans then. I think life as a whole on this planet is more important then just this one species we value because we're so smart and build cool things and eat out at fast food joints and drink beer.

What I do believe is that over population of our species will ultimately radically alter the planet's ecology. I do not think humanity is currently capable of ending all life on Earth. Even all the nuclear bombs and bio-chemical weapons wouldn't destroy all the simplist forms of life. I do think we can ruin many currently existing and scientifically valuble ecosystems and that by doing so we're going to make life for us as a species harder. The reason I don't think "save the starving child" issue as important as global warming is because I think those starving children are part of the problem. I'm not saying I don't sympathize with those people who are less fortunate then myself by the reality is that inorder to feed them as well as your average American you'd have to probably double the amount of resources already being consumed. The consumption of resources is why global warming is such a big issue. The Earth warming up is not why global wamring is such a big deal. Thats most likely going to happen weather we want it to or not and again its not likely going to be the end of the world. Global warming s such a big deal because it touches on all aspects of environmentalism in general. And if we can find inovative ways to produce renewable resources and not rely on tearing down the rain forrest and strip mining oil fields then we'll have the capability to develope 3rd world nations, help them establish governments with some respect for human rights and finally save the whales. But if all we do is fight eachother and drag our feet on this global warming issue we're going to hit a point where there are too many people and too few resources and the end result will be a truely global war over the remaining pittens we've already eaten up. By then we simply not have enough resources to support "civilization" at all and that could be the end of man as a "civilized" being. That and man I tell you 1.3 billion China men seem pretty intimidating to me if thats what it came down to.

*annoyed* Um... you can blame teh son fer globe-ile-izational heat stroking...


NASA has confirmed that Mars is warming up at the exact same rate over the years as Earth.

DAAAAAAAMMMMNNN!!!! Those are some mighty powerful gasses that cars, manufacturing plants, and forest clearing have caused if they can reach all the way out into space!

CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/922.gif)

I'm changing my opinion about global warming-I still stick with the fact is really is 'just the world warming up' because it is and I still think that there should be more effort into protecting human rights but after watching an incredibly informative episode of Oprah, I have decided that global warming is a more imminent issue than first suggested.
For example, did you know Polar Bears are drowning cause they have so much distance to swim cause the ice keeps melting.
They are so goddamn adorable, it was really sad to watch.
That and also there's towns in Alaska built on the foundation of sand and ice and the ice is melting and the towns are literally washing away.
And there were heaps of graphs on like how the temperature's have been the hottest this year and there's more stronger natural disasters, it seems quite worse than I imagined. It also might explain even though our country has always been a drought country, we're in one of the longest droughts ever cause the temperatures drying up the land more quickly, it might also explain the stronger storms.
Oh also childhood memory, we were talking about the difference between 'possible' and 'certain' in maths and some people said it was 'certain' than the sun would come up the next morning and I said it was 'certain' that the ice would melt and we would all drown to death and my teacher told me off. =[
I've never denied that global warming exists, but I had no idea it had such a strong impact right now.
That being said, I blame the US more than good ol' Aus. Cause they're responsible for the most CO2 emissions than like everyone. It's strange how everything can easily be blamed onto the US..
But then again Oprah is American and that episode was pretty good. Now I think Oprah can be a tad insensitive and isn't as great as everyone thinks she is, but I must admit, she's done a lot of good.

Read my post. It's not CO2 emmissions. It's not forest clearing. The sun is heating us up along with all the other planets in the solar system.

I also read a few articles that there has also been a small shift in the earth's wobble since the tsuami that hit the Philipines a couple of years back. This slight shift has exasperated the warming in some parts of the world, but interestingly, however, new icebergs are starting to form in other parts of the planet. New "hotspots" have formed along with new "coldspots." The ice may be melting in one area, but it's piling up in another.

Man f%*! the polar bears. People like Oprah have it ass backwards in my opinion. The only reason I won't rip on her further is because she is at least getting people concerned about environmentalism. The ecosystems in which animals live are far more important than specific animals. Something like every minute a piece of the rain forrest the size of a football field gets mowed down. This is resulting not only in the endangerment of thousands of species (even though many of which arn't as cute and cuddley as kittens, but its wrecking our environment). Soil compositions are changing so that nothing can grow on the land that has been cleared. It takes thousands of years to replenish the land to the point where it can sustain rainforrest ecosystems. But saving the rain forrest is only part of the issue. Really I think humanity won't die off if there are no rainforrest. We'll just be inconvienced. But we will miss the opportunity to discover study species that could have scientific value to us.

The sun is heating us up and some species who can't adapt will die off. I know it sounds cruel but life seems to be very good at demonstrating what we concieve of as cruel and inhumane. Fact is some animals are dammed to spend the rest of their days in zoos where kids feed them pop corn and peanuts. It aint pretty and there sure as hell is no dignity in dying off like that. If we cannot prevent the earth from heating up there is nothing we can do except look on and feel sympathy and imagine in horror our own fate. One that may be comming about faster than we're willing to admit. What we can do is work to stabilize the ecology in the areas that need it and prevent the extinction of many many other animals. Critters that may seem unimportant to the greater existance of our grander race, but may have some use is science and understanding nature.

Global warming is a lie perpetuated by environmentalist (and politicans... and green business) to try and scare people into feeling more conserned about the global ecosystem and ultimately civilization as we know it and kick a few votes their way or make us spend another dollar. What it really boils down to is how much we are willing to spend and commit to maintaining the environment. We could in theory create enough solar reflectors to deflect much of the sun's heat back into space. We could find new ways of disposing garbage and reducing pollution, not just smog but trash. We could find ways to feed all the starving children in africa and not consume excessive amounts of resources to do it. The problem is nobody wants to pay for it. Right now most people are content to feel pacified by their swamp coolers shoving bon bons down their throats while watching American Idol. Too few people care and the one's who have money aren't trying very hard to contribute their resources. Unless people really start to take enviromentalism seriously life is going to get harder and it will change radically and probably cause us a lot of problems.

Corporations are not evil. The people who run many of them are.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)

I agree 100%. Global warming is a lie, but other ecologies DO need our attention. For example, there are some unique animals in South America that are dwindling in their populations due to a special plant (dammit I forget the name) that ONLY grows in virgin forests. Insects feed off the nectar from the flowers from this plant and in turn are eaten by rodents and birds, which then feed larger animals up the food chain. The larger animals can compensate by consuming a different food, but some of these insects only feed on this plant, and if the plant dies out, then a whole chunk of wildlife will die off due to the resulting chain reaction.

This is but a single example of several areas that really do need our attention, but currently is left alone to pursue irrelevent issues. It's the same as what Child Protective Services sometimes does by taking a child from a loving family to make it look like they are doing their job because it's often hard to find the truly abused children (because they are hidden and the children are afraid to talk). Politicians and environmentalists want to look like they are doing their jobs (and snag extra votes) by embellishing some issues while ignoring others.

Cut out Hilary and all the socialism, is green really that bad?

Green inevitably creates socialism until one begins to discuss the viability of green anarchy or even primitivism. The current green movement is rive with draconian rules and regulations which only serve to cause a nation's citizenry to become complacent with governmental control. I can find not other reason for it, other than the obvious monetary interests of major investors/bankers/policy makers. For example, within a few years it will be illegal for a person living in certain parts of California to use a standard light bulb. Special energy savers must be used. Surly the legislatures are not so blind as to believe that a few light bulbs are going to "save the rain forest." Of course, people will become accustom to their government telling them what they can and can not use in their homes. There is also the matter of the energy saver light-bulb companies which will, by the way, reap huge fiscal rewards for the new policy. The energy saver light-bulbs hurt the poor class as well since most of the poorer households use cheap light bulbs that are often made by foreign companies who will not be able to pass the strict new regulations. A quick scan of any of the major news wires such as the AP will reveal a plethora of control grid style laws which are either in effect, about to be in effect, or are currently being discussed which are all tied to the green movement.

The laws usually break down, as above, into three main goals or effects as I have seen them.

1. They further control the populace and condition them into believing that being told how to live you life is acceptable (read Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al. for arguments as to why that is not acceptable.)

2. They disparage the poor class and often the middle class as well as small businesses.

3. There always seems to be someone who stands to gain a ton of money in the green movement. I am not talking about making a salary from doing your job (for example, working for greenpeace and earning wages) but rather some elitist who stands to gain millions.

There is also the issue of whether or not the green movement, so long as it is tied to governments and crony corporations, will succeed. The answer is no. First, most communist and socialist (with the exception of many Latin American states) nations are and have historically always been at the forefront of pollution and green-house gas emission. Secondly, socialism and communism fail to allow new and successful sources of energy from being developed. An example of this would be bio-diesel (turning what are generally food crops and turning them into sources of fuel) which is currently the alternative to gasoline. The product is an utter failure as it needs around 80% of the energy it outputs just the keep the machines running. This means horrible devastation to eco-systems to make room for a failed fuel. In a free market this product would simply go under for being inefficient and unrealistic and a new, more productive, product would come along to fill its place. That is not happening now because bio-diesel is subsidized by the American government (et al.).

YOU the people will tell YOUR governmental masters to fix YOUR problems. The government will then tell YOU what to do, because they know YOU best. YOU will sit and take it like a good little slave in the name of peace, security, clean living, or whatever other crap excuse for an Orwellian nightmare of Utopia YOU can think of. Then YOUR problems will not get fixed because YOUR government is in bed with crony corporations who will get away with doing whatever they want because YOU have to have your fucking big macs and designer jeans (which are often made in slave-labor camps off the coast of China on U.S. owned soil by the way). YOUR great-grandchildren will have to clean up the mess of tyranny and oppression that YOU left behind for giving up YOUR freedom in the name of "terrorism," "communism," "a clean environment," or whatever else YOUR Orwellian government can feed into YOUR television controlled and comatose brains.

Something is happening with the earth. The ice caps are melting at a faster and faster pace. There are no longer glaciers in glacier national park, the last one melted about two years ago. Mt. Kilimanjaro is no longer capped with snow. Are we to blame? Is the earth just going through a normal cycle we don't recognize? Is the sun heating up for some reason?

I haven't a clue but I think it is obvious something is going on. It is already 105 with the heat index where I live and if it gets even one degree hotter I am going to snap and kill someone.

I don't think environmentalism is all that bad per say. What is the use in being wasteful? Besides green is often cheaper. I added more insulation in my attic and changed to florescent bulbs in my house. Not because I think it will help global warming but because I am a cheap bastard and would like to lower my power bill.

If you really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions then ban paper recycling. They have already proved that paper takes over a 1000 years to decompose in landfills. So the CO2 is locked in the ground. Less recycled paper in the market means more trees must be cut and replanted. Young trees grow faster than older trees absorbing CO2 at a faster rate out of the atmosphere. To speed the cooling process we should burn more coal. More sulfides in the atmosphere will increase our albedo and cool the planet. Of course with more SOX comes acid rain but you can't have everything. Less activism can actually save the earth.

BTW, I also wanted to point out the fallacy of the volcano myth. Conservative talk guys love to point out the shear massive CO2 ejection from volcanoes and laugh and say we have no effect. It is more complex than that. Yes volcanoes put out lots of CO2. CO2 is an IR active gas and has an effect upon global warming. BUT, volcanoes also put out a lot of sulphides which I explained has a cooling effect. Also they put out a LOT of ash which increases the albedo many times more than sulphides. Remember the ice age that killed off the dinosaurs that was caused by the massive amount of dust created from the meteor? Same concept, bottom line volcanoes balance itself out with respect to global warming.

I applaud Gore for bringing the issue to the common man but lets face it, he knows nothing about atmospheric chemistry. The current green focus solely on CO2 is stupid because it is far more complex than that. There are thousands of IR active gases, but yes CO2 is the largest but only concentrating on that is not going to help.

You are right about the volcano myth as far as contributing to globlal warming. Volcanic eruptions can have an over all cooling affect on the world. If yellow stone erupted the problem it would cause is not global warming, but global cooling. The point of the volcano analogy is to point out that a single volcano can expel more CO2 in one eruption than mankind has in its entire existence. That is the only point. However I will add that there are also various geothermal vents that constantly expel CO2, which I shohuld have added to the list of causes for global warming. Some scientist believe that such vents exist in far greater numbers on Venus and that is at least partially why that planet has such a run away green house affect. The Earth is naturally adding more CO2 to its atmosphere through such vents. It is possible that our world is slowly catching up to Venus and that, while today it just means its going to get a little hotter, within the next few million years our world could appear much as Venus does today.

On the "green movement" - Obviously if some 19 year old from Texas can see the flaws in this so called movement then all hope is not lost. There are those who are not going to be pacified and just bend over to take it in the ass. Sure the government is being pocketed by big businesses - what else is new? You think Al Gore is an idiot? He's a business man - and a successful one at that. America is based on a capitalist economy. The point is to get rich fast and make shit loads of money. If the deception and corruption offends people then they should protest like good patriots should. Eventually enough people will get pissed off and force the government to change its laws to fit the views of the people - hence why some drugs are legal and some are not.

Yet environmentalism on a global scale is important for the Earth and ourselves. Of course there are those who don't give two shits about ecology and are greedy enough to take advantage and make tons of money. But don't under estimate the desire for freedom in Americans. Just because there are "socialist" reforms under way doesn't mean people will just tolerate it forever. If the people are made upset long enough they will act and the government will be forced to submit. I know it might seem like green is taking over but really its just evolving, imho. Every thesis meets its antithesis and the two enter mortal combat to create a new synthethis and our teleological existance continues as such.

This post has been edited by Acid09: Jul 20 2007, 05:04 PM

Global warming is currently happening, at a very slow pace. 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, possibly on track for 2 in the next 100 years.

Reason (because I voted other): has mostly to do with the sun, it has been more active and warmer of late, but it may also have to do with slight change in our orbit, that are thought to happen every once in a while. But, it is a cyclical event.

Can we do anything about it? Sure, but to what end?

If we really want to fix global warming and cool down the earth I will go in order of biggest bang for the buck.

Create Massive new Deserts, this will reflect more of the suns rays back into space, deserts are Gaia’s way of cooling us.

We can dye the surface of the oceans white.

We give everyone on the planet enough sheets of white Styrofoam to cover 200 acres of the planet and mandate they do so or die. This will have the biggest effect in that most people will dump them into the ocean, and the reflection of the sun plus the shading of the oceans will probably put us into an ice age. Not to mention the environmental disasters to follow.


And last but not least, we nuke the crap out of the planet, producing a nuclear winter.

All of these things can be done in 2 years or less if there is government backing, and we would see results in lower temperatures based on placement on the list, the longest being 5 years because we did not create big enough deserts.

However, I would like someone to explain to me the problem with the earth being five degrees warmer? This being the highest reputable scientists have said we would go in the next 100 years based on estimates of historical data.

Remember that ocean currents would change and start a cooling trend if there is too much ice melt off…this would be terrible for North Western Europe, but I may be able to take a nice swim in San Francisco Bay without body parts disappearing.

And last but not least, we nuke the crap out of the planet, producing a nuclear winter.

Yeah I mean weren't nagasaki and hiroshima really that bad after they got hit? nah man the rest of what you said I think is plausible. but nuking the shit out of the planet would not only irradiate the atmosphere and cause a similar after math as in Japan but a nuclear winter, imo, is worse than a gradually warmer earth.

The problem with the rise in temp is that the projected 5 degrees is really just an average of a global scale. Basically what it means is that places that are hot already will get hotter and places that are cool will slightly warm up. Canada really might not be such a bad place to live in 50 years. However a 5 degree change means the earth is warm enough that the ice caps would melt. Now we're talking trillions of tons of ice being converted to water and added to the oceans. If we were to melt the ice caps entirely we could expect a rise in sea level anywhere from 100 to 150 feet. K about 75% of the earth's population lives on a coast. Just about every major city in the world - Tokyo, mexico city, Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, LA, Sandiego and so on. A gradual change means we'd at least have the time to move out of these places or at least adapt. However pretty much every island would disappear. Seas would produce more violent storms. Flooding more common. The change in atmosphere would produce a strong el nino affect, that influences much of the rainfall in the western hemisphere. Thunder storms would also have more power, more tornados too.

One thing is pretty clear - global warming is not the end of the world and humanity will likely survive. I'm convinced the only things that will ever be our undoing is either ourselves or the sun itself.

Ok, assume global warming is happening and we are contributing to it by about ten percent, I might give twenty percent. If we stopped all use of fossil fuels and solar power tomorrow (solar is capturing the suns energy, thus creating heat) we would not do anything but slow it down. What is more is if we cleaned all the “green house gases” out of the atmosphere, we would heat up much faster…all the “crap” in the air provides a filter.

Now, assuming there is nothing we can do but react, true impact?

San Francisco would not be as affected as many other cities, lots of hills there and very fast increase in elevation….5 feet (estimates with the 5 degree increase, I’m American so I am talking Fahrenheit not Celsius) won’t do much except cover areas that have been created with artificial land fill…and San Jose would be screwed.

Other location, not so sure (I was born and mostly raised in SF). But lets say we loose one percent of the all ocean coasts.

Ok, what else would happen??? El nino, doubtful, the increase of fresh water is probably going to change the ocean currents to a more north south making cooling more effective. More rain would also do the same.

But the truth is we have no idea what would happen with the weather. Climatologists have no clue, there are too many variables and they are all seeing their computer models fail year after year. Not that the models ever where that good to begin with. There is a great scene in the movie “The Weather Man” where a meteorologist tells Nicholas Cage’s character “Nobody knows, it’s all wind”.

Now, if this happens, then Canada and Russia would have much larger arable land, and I mean a lot more. So we would all be well fed.

I am not saying don’t go green or energy efficient and figure out ways to get off of fossil fuels. But global warming is not the reason. The reasons are too numerous to count, personal independence is top on my list.

However it is not the end of the world, we have faced this before, we will again. Better now then 200 years ago. The worlds climate has changed a lot over thousands of years, but slowly and in ways we do not know at this point. We do not have an accurate baseline for what is the “normal” temperature of the planet. We know that somewhere between 1250 and 1650 AD or CE and 1850 we had “the little ice age” now we might still be coming out of that or we might be in a warming trend. The sun activity is certainly high.

Side note, all my ideas in the previous post would work, but they would all do more harm then good in my opinion.

Honestly, I am more concerned with the Jellyfish population explosion then global warming. Some have tied the two together, but that is questionable at best.

The other fun one, is going to be new tropical diseases affecting middle America. Trees dyeing, bugs over populating….the water line is not really my concern or any of the rest of it. My concern is what are we going to do about it?

Starting to build highways and power plants and lines on higher ground would be a start. Clearing federal land for construction would be another plan. Building new cities on current federal land with adequate water supplies and such.

One big problem we are going to have in 100 years, unless we have a lot more rain and reservoirs is going to be water supply. The US population will probably be about 500,000,000 or more. China and India will both be nearing 3 billion a pop.

However new technologies are currently showing a lot of promise in this area. But I would like plan B to be considered today. However, politicians don’t really want to solve anything, they want to show that they are doing something about it, not solving anything, hell that would mean they could not milk it for another twenty years.

We have a huge number of issues in the world today, global warming is perhaps the most manageable of these with long range planning.

The Netherlands and Venice are screwed though!!!

I think it is great there is a lighting rod topic on the ecology, but lets look at the political pattern.

Previous Rally Cry of environmentalists? “Save the Whales!” current status, Finland and Japan will probably get full Whaling rights in the next five years or sooner, they currently only have experimental or scientific permits, and they are studying the most efficient way to kill and bring whales to market. The Kyoto protocol has done more to further this agenda then any other type of campaigning.

Remember global politics is a giant shell game. The current US administration does not know how to articulate itself out of a wet paper bag. Much less, manage marketing during global politics. So, we sacrifice the Whales to the green movement gods, what next?

Remember it is whatever is Sexy, and right now the Humpback Whale is not sexy, Hybrid cars are, because we each can do little and make a big difference, and we like to feel warm and fuzzy.

In my Teens I was a Greeny, the reality of the politics involved Vs. making a real difference changed all that.

This post has been edited by paxx: Nov 8 2007, 02:25 AM

Ok, assume global warming is happening and we are contributing to it by about ten percent, I might give twenty percent. If we stopped all use of fossil fuels and solar power tomorrow (solar is capturing the suns energy, thus creating heat) we would not do anything but slow it down. What is more is if we cleaned all the “green house gases” out of the atmosphere, we would heat up much faster…all the “crap” in the air provides a filter.

Green house gasses are like a blanket that both traps heat and reflects heat from the sun. The problem is tha the next major heat source for the earth is the earth itself. Of course if you take away all the gasses then we have no ozone (another green house gas). That'd mean nothing or very little survives for very long. So the gasses are a two edged sword.

San Francisco would not be as affected as many other cities, lots of hills there and very fast increase in elevation….5 feet (estimates with the 5 degree increase, I’m American so I am talking Fahrenheit not Celsius) won’t do much except cover areas that have been created with artificial land fill…and San Jose would be screwed.

We're not even sure how much sea levels will rise. The only things we are sure of is that glaciers around the world are dying up and that sea levels are rising. Say tommarow the average temp was 5 degrees warmer. Now we're talking about heating glaciers in more remote locations - antartica, green land. Its the ice on these land masses that COULD dramatically rise sea levels. If you think about the ice thats already in the water will not increase the levels at all. Its the stuff on land that is a problem. A big enough glacier can cause a substantial rise. Enough glaciers means global flooding.

Its still not the end of the world humanity will just get a little wet. And as you pointed out the theory does go that if you melt enough ice in the oceans you cause an over all cooling affect that ultimately causes the world to cool down, even enter an ice age. In fact we have pretty good evidence that the earth does this on its own through climatic cycles. So it is possible that this is all natural.

But the truth is we have no idea what would happen with the weather. Climatologists have no clue, there are too many variables and they are all seeing their computer models fail year after year. Not that the models ever where that good to begin with. There is a great scene in the movie “The Weather Man” where a meteorologist tells Nicholas Cage’s character “Nobody knows, it’s all wind”.

If they can't accurately predict the wealther next week I agree. We shouldn't just assume because some scientist points to the severity of a hurrican as evidence of global warming that that's really true.

Now, if this happens, then Canada and Russia would have much larger arable land, and I mean a lot more. So we would all be well fed.

You mean the Canadians and Russians? Besides developers would probably just put a lot of real estate up to deal with the inflow of people who had to evacuate coastal regions. Sarcasm aside its possible.

I am not saying don’t go green or energy efficient and figure out ways to get off of fossil fuels. But global warming is not the reason. The reasons are too numerous to count, personal independence is top on my list.

No arguement here. In one of my early posts I discussed how mankind would have to produce a reddiculously vast amount of gasses over thousands of years to compete with a single good sized volcano. But you gotta admit, adding to the problem doesn't help.

Honestly, I am more concerned with the Jellyfish population explosion then global warming. Some have tied the two together, but that is questionable at best.

I don't go near the ocean so it doesn't bother me any.

The other fun one, is going to be new tropical diseases affecting middle America. Trees dyeing, bugs over populating….the water line is not really my concern or any of the rest of it. My concern is what are we going to do about it?

We're gonna buy Al Gore's book and feel all nice and "green" inside.

The Netherlands and Venice are screwed though!!!

nah there was a commercial that said you could save Holland with the point of finger. So they're cool.

Remember global politics is a giant shell game. The current US administration does not know how to articulate itself out of a wet paper bag. Much less, manage marketing during global politics. So, we sacrifice the Whales to the green movement gods, what next?

I got an idea! Lets invade Iran!! :rolleye: No screw that lets do a real 180 and confuse the hell out of the world - lets invade Canada!!! The world would never suspect that. Then we could have all the new farm lands for ourselves. Muuaaahhh..... All part of a secret plot to take over the world... one country at a time.

Remember it is whatever is Sexy, and right now the Humpback Whale is not sexy, Hybrid cars are, because we each can do little and make a big difference, and we like to feel warm and fuzzy.

The victoria secret models or pretty sexy to me. They make me feel warm and fuzzy too.

There are approximately 5.148 x 10^12 (5,148,000,000,000 - or 5 trillion one hundren and forty-eight billion) megatons of gasses on our atmophere. According to the IEA (source of information) in 2003 alone the total amount of CO2 that is estimated to have been emitted by human activities was 25,575.99 million megatons the equavilent or .0049% of the earth's atmosphere - much of which is absorbed by the earth). In reality only about 20% of those emmitions do not get absorbed back into the earth (the oceans and forrests especially act like CO2 scrubbers). So if we take 5.148 x 10^12 and divide it by 20% of 25,575.99 million we get 9,992.27. That means it would take just over 9,992 years to fill the earth's atmosphere with CO2 given our relately current rate of production. Just to alter the earths compostion by one percent would take decades - assuming emmition trends stay stable. If they significantly increase over the comming years then "facts" and figures change as well.

One thing is for certain we do know that in earth's past hotter climate periods were marked by an increase in CO2. Also while we can estimate that it would take a long time to really alter the earth's atmosphere, we do not know how much, or how little, greenhouse gasses it takes to significantly alter the earth's temperature. Most scientists agree that altering the atmosphere is much harder simply because of the sheer size of it (trillions of megatons - one megaton is one million metric tons), yet it only takes a few degrees change globally to mess with the earth's weather patterns.

There are approximately 5.148 x 10^12 (5,148,000,000,000 - or 5 trillion one hundren and forty-eight billion) megatons of gasses on our atmophere. According to the IEA (source of information) in 2003 alone the total amount of CO2 that is estimated to have been emitted by human activities was 25,575.99 million megatons the equavilent or .0049% of the earth's atmosphere - much of which is absorbed by the earth). In reality only about 20% of those emmitions do not get absorbed back into the earth (the oceans and forrests especially act like CO2 scrubbers). So if we take 5.148 x 10^12 and divide it by 20% of 25,575.99 million we get 9,992.27. That means it would take just over 9,992 years to fill the earth's atmosphere with CO2 given our relately current rate of production. Just to alter the earths compostion by one percent would take decades - assuming emmition trends stay stable. If they significantly increase over the comming years then "facts" and figures change as well.
One thing is for certain we do know that in earth's past hotter climate periods were marked by an increase in CO2. Also while we can estimate that it would take a long time to really alter the earth's atmosphere, we do not know how much, or how little, greenhouse gasses it takes to significantly alter the earth's temperature. Most scientists agree that altering the atmosphere is much harder simply because of the sheer size of it (trillions of megatons - one megaton is one million metric tons), yet it only takes a few degrees change globally to mess with the earth's weather patterns.

All these figures look very impressive indeed, Acid09~~ and it may have convinced a few of us that humans really haven't done very much to contribute to the onset of Global Warming.
However, I will not be convinced~~ *gently stabs you when you least expect it~*

Now, even tho the earth has been undergoing drastic climate changes during the 4.5billion years or so of its existence.... As soon as the modern homo sapiens appeared around about 120,000years ago... the speed at which these climatic changes have occurred is absolutely shocking~~
Ever since the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have dramatically increased. C02 went up by about 30% and methane went up by approx. 150% (tho CO2 has the most severe effects of the two).
This is a ridiculous increase compared to the roughly stable levels of these gases during the last 650,000yrs or so~~
You're saying that most of the increased CO2 is being reabsorbed back to the earth, so how come the global temperature is still rising overall?
This could be due to deforestation, but it could just be that even the slightest imbalance of atmospheric gases is offsetting the equilibrium and harmony of our global climate.
Also, there is a chain reaction with global warming. As the temperature rises and more freshwater is being dumped into the North Atlantic Ocean via the melting of the ice-bergs, the currents of this ocean is altered and its effects could be disastrous.
from a National Geographic report(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0627_050627_oceancurrent.html) we know that the North Atlantic Ocean acts like a conveyor belt to move the warm surface waters to the Arctic, release the heat into atmosphere and make those waters denser. It also moves this denser water southwards and into the deep ocean nearer the equator.
This helps "moderate wintertime temperatures in the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere". This means that we don't want it to over-heat with the shut-off of the natural currents that the North Atlantic produces.

Even though the effects of Global Warming may seem insignificant now.... as the "imbalance" becomes greater and greater... eventually a chain effect/reaction will take place, the "system" of the earth will malfunction and eventually....it will bring about a major global disaster.

I know that this will probably not happen any time soon... but for those that give a damn about our future generations.... then do your part to drive less, save energy, protect the organisms and plants........ OR........ never get pregnant again~~ *cough* lol

But seriously, Global Warming IS a very serious and real issue of the modern era. I believe, however, that it is an issue we just can't solve or do much about.... Because ppl are too selfish and altruism is practically extinct. Also, we'd choose convenience over anything else....so telling us to trash our Ferrari or Porsche (or more practically, our Toyota) is not very different to giving us a death-sentence~.
It would be a miracle for the earth to "recover" under these polluting pressures.... So I guess.....
ENJOY LIFE WHILE YOU CAN!!

*goes back to my work...... mixing in Occult studies.... busies myself..... hopes to meet VagrantD and Acid09 someday........sigh~~~^^~~blush~~*

This post has been edited by Esoterigma: Jun 3 2008, 02:20 AM

Now, even tho the earth has been undergoing drastic climate changes during the 4.5billion years or so of its existence.... As soon as the modern homo sapiens appeared around about 120,000years ago... the speed at which these climatic changes have occurred is absolutely shocking~~
Ever since the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have dramatically increased. C02 went up by about 30% and methane went up by approx. 150% (tho CO2 has the most severe effects of the two).

Some anthropologists theorize that past ice ages are actually the reason modern man kind evolved. Ever sense homoerectus (the first human species to leave africa that we know of) people have been forced to leave their habitates because of climate change. And actually 120,000 year ago does coincide quite nicely to the last major ice age. One thing you need to remember at the emitions of CO2 is that at any moment a volcano can errupt and emit far more gasses than we have in our entire existance. A super volcano could actually mean the end of most life on this planet.

In one sense you're right though. Those gasses have gone up considerably. But most those gasses are absorbed by the vegitation on the planet. And most of those gasses don't reach the upper atmosphere. That is where the Ozone layer is and beleive it or not Ozone is a green house gas. In fact if there were no green house gasses Earth would be a snow ball with no liquid surface water.

The main problems gasses like CO2 cause - that we are sure of - is acid rain. For example consider Germany. Germany is something like the 3rd or 4th most powerful industrial nation in the world. Yet the country is about the size of New York, New Jersey and Delaware combined. The out put of gasses has mixedf with water vapor, water vapor rises in the atmosphere until it condences into a liquid, but having mixed with the toxic gasses, instead of raining down as harmless water, we have acid rain.

Other problems are lung cancer and breathing problems. My local news channel did a story on some study done that claimed people who spent more than hour a day on the free way were at a higher risk of lung problems in their life. The cause is because they inhale more CO2 from the exhaust of cars. I know other claims say that people who live in cities vs. rural communities are also at a higher risk too.

One thing I am not saying is that CO2 emissions are not a problem - they are and we need to deal with them. What I am saying is even if CO2 emitions have contributed to global warming (which I do contend that they have not caused global warming) the real problem is issues like waste management, consumption of fresh water, killing off plants and animals necessary to keep respective ecosystems stable, deforrestation, strip mining and so many other concerns are far more pressing matters than global warming. Sure that is also on the list, but I think it needs to take a back seat for the time being.

You're saying that most of the increased CO2 is being reabsorbed back to the earth, so how come the global temperature is still rising overall?

The sun is warming us up. The earths albedo is decreasing (see my earlier post on that) but what that means is the earth is absorbing more heat from the sun because the surface contains more and more things that absorb heat. Those deep blue oceans actually absorb a considerable amount of heat. So do the rain forests. But albedo is basically an astronomical term used to describe a planet's reflectivity - how much of the sun's heat is reflected or absorbed. The more darker surfaces you have on a planet the warmer it is. A lighter surface means more heat is reflected back into space. As we see a gradual decrease in the size of our ice caps (ice reflects heat) you'd naturally assume the planet is warming up. But can we say that human activities are the cause of this? Well we cannot say humanity prevented it, that is for sure. And we also know the Earth does go through climate changes, sometimes more rapidly than others.

Even if you take away all the forests in the world its still going to take a long long time to really alter the earth's atmosphere. The real thing that absorbs CO2 is the ocean - rather the algea in the ocean. Warmer oceans mean more algae. More algae means less CO2. The problem there is other pollutants are killing of the algae. Less algae, more CO2.

Also, there is a chain reaction with global warming. As the temperature rises and more freshwater is being dumped into the North Atlantic Ocean via the melting of the ice-bergs, the currents of this ocean is altered and its effects could be disastrous.
from a National Geographic report(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0627_050627_oceancurrent.html) we know that the North Atlantic Ocean acts like a conveyor belt to move the warm surface waters to the Arctic, release the heat into atmosphere and make those waters denser. It also moves this denser water southwards and into the deep ocean nearer the equator.

I saw a similar national geographic program that claimed that same conveyor belt is the reason ice ages happen. As it stops flowing during temperate, or warm periods, less warm water reaches the poles. This causes a gradual reduction in temperature that eventually lead to another ice age. Naturally these climate cycles last between 120,000 and 100,000 years. Which if that is correct we're actually entering a temperate period now.

Even though the effects of Global Warming may seem insignificant now.... as the "imbalance" becomes greater and greater... eventually a chain effect/reaction will take place, the "system" of the earth will malfunction and eventually....it will bring about a major global disaster.

I think pointing to global warming as the cause for this global "malfunction" is reallhy scape goating the real problem - people in general. I certainly agree with the chain reaction idea. Weather or not we're putting lots of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is of no consequence in comparission to the fact that since modern man has existed - about 50,000 years - nearly 30% of all animal life has become extinct. Many agree that Earth is currently in a period of mass extinction. Only this time the cause is not natural phenomenon (well in one sense it is, since we are a natural product of the earth) but rather the cause is humanity.

And mass extinction is only part of the problem. Humans are growing at an alarmingly fast rate, we believe the human population will double ever 39 years. If the population was officially 6 billion in 1999, then that means in 2038 (there about) there will be roughly 12 billion people. Who's going to feed them? Where are they going to get heat or shelter or clean water or medical supplies? People consume reasources and part of the reason this mass extinction of other animals is happening is because we consume more from the Earth than we put back. As we continue to grow in populations the rate of consumption will only increase.

According to the math I did,10,000 years to fill the atmosphere with CO2 was based on the fact that most of it gets reabsorbed by plant life and water vapor - mainly the oceans and forests. Take those way and it only takes about 1000 years to fill the atmosphere with CO2 and even a much less amount of time to alter it significantly - only ten years for one percent change.

What this demonstrates is that the problem right now in our time is not CO2 emissions themselves, but the reasons CO2 is being emitted in the first place and the fact that people are causing global devistation. CO2 emissions is just part of the greater issue, but not proof that people caused global warming.

I know that this will probably not happen any time soon... but for those that give a damn about our future generations.... then do your part to drive less, save energy, protect the organisms and plants........ OR........ never get pregnant again~~ *cough* lol

Thats what I'm saying. Stop dropping bombs and start dropping boxes of condoms. Start teaching third world doctors to give visectomies. Maybe in a macabre sense a global plague is what the planet needs. Maybe a global plague is actually the Earth's defense mechanism to us? Who knows. All I'm saying is people shouldn't fall for the hype about CO2 missions causing global warming. We should be more concerned and environmentally aware though and we should be far more worried about the future. We seriously need to be worrying about using fossil fuels and aiding developing countires. Those two issues are key factors in the future of our species. If we do nothing let it be business as usual, we're going to use up all our reasources and by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

Despite the bleak under tones I do think that unless the sun just gets mad at Earth and dicides to bitch slap it with a giant fire ball, humans, will survive for a very long time in some form.