[cogitator]

I am in full agreement. Also for consideration:

Acid Oceans

I also agree with this one.

[AppyPappy]

If we don't do something, every human will eventually die.

[RightWhale]

Contrast the planning for terraforming Mars to the planning for terraforming earth. There is a major disjoint, both in who is planning and in what they think they can accomplish.

[Paloma_55]

I have a problem with the suggestion that global warming is subject to "engineering changes".

Greenhouse gasses? Yes, I think we could do something about them if in fact, we determined they mattered...which has not been proven.

But global warming is currently unproven to have a humankind component to it. Prior global temperature rises were higher than the current one, are periodic, and appeared long before human activity.



This is similar to suggesting that we have to solve a flat tire by re-engineering the car..when the flat tire has nothing to do with the design, it has to do with a nail that we had no control over.

[Mogollon]

The inconvenient truth for the environmentalist whackos is that there is no correlation between rising C02 emmissions and the 0.7 degree C rise in global temperature.

The CO2 level was rising between 1940 and 1970 but the average global temperature dropped during that period.

[Paradox]

These are engineering problems which, if implemented, could be a GREAT boon for conservative processes. Nuclear Energy, combined with renewable fuel sources (Ethanol, if we could bioengineer something with a much more favorable conversion ratio, it would be a great start), plus carbon sequestration. I am of the opinion that the only practical hope for us is Technology.

[Publius6961]

the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ...

What part of GIGO do these clowns continue to refuse to understand?
In order to "predict" anything, the penomena and all their nuances must be fully understood. I continue to believe that, even in 2106, that will not be the case.

[Publius6961]

I also agree with this one.

I don't. At least not in the alarmist sense in which it was intended to be delivered.

Whatever happened to "adaptation"?

[wjcsux]

Kitten bait?

[Always Right]

I am in full agreement.

I am too except the last part. Global warming is more of a natural problem than the scare-mongers want us to think, and all the engineering in the world won't be able to correct all that much. If we really tried to do some massive engineering to fix the problem, it would have many unintended consequences. We just aren't smart enough to be tinkering with it.

[Old Professer]

One thing we keep forgetting, only carbon and hydrogen readily burn when mixed in the free air; where could we possibly store the CO2?

Carbon nanotube matrices?

[OrioleFan]

I believe the causes of global warming have to do with the orbit of the Earth (it ain't circular) and how it tilts in relation to the orbit. Other influences are the relationship with the moon and other planets. The effects of greenhouse gasses are probably insignificant.

Kyoto was an attempt to destroy American businesses more than anything to do with global warming, much like ISO standards.

[MissAmericanPie]

Just in case no one is noticing our magnetic fields are weakening at an alarming rate. The inner core of the earth rotates at a far faster rate than the outer crust. Or did. No one seems to understand why the earth is bulging so much at the equator either.

I have to wonder if all our under ground nuclear testing had some effect on slowing the speed of the core. In any case the lessening of gas emissions will have little or no effect on global warming. If we all switched to bicycles tomorrow there would be no change.

Only the Sun has the power to heat the earth up and there is nothing to be done about that unless we can come up with a really big pair of sun glasses. Being a believer I know that at some point we will have some event that blocks much of the suns heating effect, be it an asteroid strike or a volcanic eruption the majority of mankind will be protected from global heating, only to face starvation at crop losses.

[gandalftb]

The only certainty is uncertainty. The earth is a very complex ecosystem, this factor causes cooling, that factor causes warming, there is no definitive trend.

However, there are intuitive trends. Mankind is burning more hydrocarbons every day than ever before. That has to upset our planet ecosystem, but relatively how much? We know that earth has a tremendous capacity to absord and dampen mankind's insults.

The scientific data is disturbing and we should use to force political change away from burning oil, muslim oil, radical muslim knocking-our-buildings-down oil.......

[The Great RJ]

The whole premise that carbon dioxide is the culprit in the modest increases in global temperatures seen as of late is a stretch. World CO2 levels have been higher during the last Ice Age ...hardly a case for CO2 being the cause of global warming. What about solar output, certainly the sun isn't constant and is what we are seeing a result of solar changes not CO2? If massive amounts of CO2 cause climate change shouldn't we have seen a temperature shift during WW-II when whole cities were burning worldwide and coal was a major power source?

[3niner]

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only one of a dozen or so factors that control the temperature of the Earth, and a relatively minor one at that.

Regardless of what we do, it's very likely that the next ice age will start within the next 2,000 years. In the mean time, it makes sense for mankind to continue to advance our technology. Right now, it makes sense to build a lot more nuclear reactors, and develop new energy sources. After all the oil, coal, and natural gas won't last forever.

Below are a couple of informative links. They summarize information collected by geologists and paleontologists. These kinds of scientists have the advantage of looking at hundreds of millions of years of physical history, while our alarmist climatologists are simply extrapolating from insufficient data.

Granted, the past isn't the future, but having a better grasp of what went on in the past can give great perspective about what's likely to occur in the future.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[HKMk23]

The REAL truth is more like this:

We live in a hypercomplex environmental system with multiplied millions of interrelationships ranging from the obvious to the undiscovered. Our ability to model such a system simply does not exist. Despite the models that we have, there are vastly more interrelationships that may bear upon the issue that are not included in our models.

Taking climate in terms of a system of equations; we have precious few well-known equations and millions of variables. The system simply CANNOT be solved at this hour of human history, and it is so complex that our descendants will look back upon our infantile efforts in much the same way that we look back upon man's early attempts at flight. Our present models, even with the level of complexity that we have achieved, are so far from reality that one might find them laughable, if they weren't being used in an attempt to drive policies that would be detrimental to all of us.

"Global warming", taken in terms of man's early efforts at flight, is a group of hand-wringing true-believers shouting at the rest of us, "I jumped off the roof with an umbrella, fell and broke my leg. Therefore, it is patently IMPOSSIBLE that man will EVER gain the ability to fly and we need to outlaw future attempts or there'll be far worse than just broken legs. You'd better believe me or you will rue this day."

To compare the complex relationships between the manifold factors influencing climate with our present models is just a few orders of magnitude more absurd than comparing an F-18A Hornet with the aforementioned umbrella. How much more absurd -- how far beyond credible, then -- to take output from these models and construct a global crisis. And how unbelievably irresponsible and, frankly, stupid to insist upon sweeping public policy changes based on that output.

We know too little to make too much of it.

[JTHomes]

Look, it is very simple. If a glacier melts, plant trees in its place. Trees will suck up the CO2 and WHAM - back into the ice age we go.

[Fishrrman]

From the article:
No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming.

One place already has. It's called North Korea, and not long ago, there was thread on FreeRepublic with links to pictures of what the place looks like today.

That's the way it would look for _us_, IF the greenies were able to get their way. Let's hope they never do.

- John

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The premise for the climate change crowd is that without humans, climate change would not happen.

I believe that the historical record shows otherwise.

[Tribune7]

If someone wants to replace our coal & natural gas power plants with nukes I'll sign up.

And if global warming is true, Bruce Springsteen will be responsible for destroying the world

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Of course, he couldn't have done it without Hanoi Jane.