Global warmin

[imported_Counts]

What are your thoughts?

I admit that working for Pittston for several years made me question some of the Science behind it and the fact that I do not like to "Take someone's word" for an issue like this I have questioned everything.

To me it seems that those "Scientist" that are pro global warming seem to be folks working for green earth or some such place that will always blame humans for something. But for the most part the other side (anti global warming) seem to have most of there studies done by big oil or folks that would not want to see change.

That is why this article caught me while I Had heard this info before it had not been in an article like National Geographic (Of course this is the same bunch that did a hatchet Job on this area back in the early 90's LOL)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

I believe that Global warming is true.... some of the reasons we are having such bad weather around the world.

[R0cketer]

I think its probably a valid condition (global warming) and that we are responsible for a slight variance, but the majority is just natural. The fact that Mars is going through something similar, and unless I miss a point there aren't any of us people there, it kind of shows credibility to the thinking that it does just occur.

[imported_Counts]

That is my thought as well. I really "THINK" it is more of a cycle than anything but at the same time it could not hurt to TRY to use more renewable resorces where possable

[plantsman]

I think global warming is a farce. There was a mini ice age in the 1300's, way before industrialization. It receded of its own accord. Core samples from the solar ice cap have shown that carbon dioxide levels were just as high in ages past as now.

[CoeburnCane]

The problem with global warming and why it's a buzzword for Liberals and a dirty word to Conservatives isn't grounded in the science of whether or not it's actually true or even feasible--the problem lies in the motives behind how Liberals & Conservatives talk about it.

It's really simple--Liberals will drop tons of money into "green" studies, and since they are the money source--those studies will inevitably find someway to skew what data they get to take a shred of feasability and pass it off as a lead-pipe-lock truth. The more people they get to believe that, the more money their lobbys get, and in turn, the more money they get from campaign contributions from making their donors wealthier.

Conservatives do the same EXACT thing. They're all in the pockets of oil and big energy, so they will dismiss global warming a lot more easily than others due to the fact that if they acknowledge it then they will have to legislate to attempt to stop or slow it. If they do that, then that will put further restrictions on oil/big energy, and then there goes their pocket linings in the forms of kickbacks and campaign contributions.

Follow the almighty dollar.

For the record--I have no motivations and from what I've read on the subject, it's not as immediate of a problem as Liberals would have you believe, however--it is a major problem that will fester like a cancer until something's done about it. It's not just going to correct itself as most Conservatives would have you believe. It's simple "garbage in, garbage out" logic--the more greenhouse gases and CFC's you put in the atmosphere, the more it degrades naturally. However, if we ever got to the point of cutting those out enough to allow the atmosphere to naturally heal over time, then society as we know it would have to find fool-proof alternatives to a lot of everyday things...which unfortunately will never happen because alternatives would take money out of all politicians' pockets and they won't let that happen if they can help it...which sadly they can.

[R0cketer]

Thanks CoeburnCane, I got busy earlier and couldn't go into it like I wanted. Nutshell, I doubt that any of us will experience any true effect from Global Warming. Nor do I actually think our planet will. I'm sure that someone will set off nukes before the effects ever get to a level that it would actually make a difference. A .005% of a degree every 50 years in actual difference is not going to matter. That being said, there are plenty of positive sides to a more 'ecological friendly' way of viewing the world and treating the world.

[Monkeyhead]

I'll tell you who is to blame is those dirty cavemen driving there SUV's around, and all of there cows farting. Those are the one's we should blame. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[aphrodite4ever]

I was watching the discovery channel one day and it said that polar ice caps on mars were melting at almost the exact same rate as the ice caps here on earth, so what I want to know is if this is true then how are we supposedly causing global warming on mars???? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Who drove the truck on their trip to Mars, while they lived there for years and measured the stuff? The US would likely work things out sooner or later, but the rest of the world complains that the US is rich and should PAY to fix this. This is the group that can cause the most harm for my part. Some nations don't give off the CO2 we do , but they don't pay for some other things . France sticks out in mind, hollering about the energy sources they have. Power from ocean waves, free except the up-keep of the system. Still not cheap enough, but they could sell a lot of these ,if we banned our present energy sources. Same with nukes, I'd rather gamble on global warming than a power plant failure. And you just don't gain much if you blow up a coal fired electric plant.