View Single Post
Old 10-13-2007, 03:48 PM   #53 (permalink)
ngdawg
peekaboo
 
ngdawg's Avatar
 
Location: on the back, bitch
He's not the only one who feels this way.
The debate has been, pardon the pun, heated for years and doesn't seem to be waning any time soon.
For every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit.
Somewhere in the middle is probably the truth. Clearing of rainforests and old wood growth forests has detriments that can not be ignored. The superfluous burning of fossil fuels does as well. But, since the 1970's, when our impact on the atmosphere first seriously came to light and policies began to change, the climate, greenhouse gasses, 'global warming', et al, did not.
At that time the 'industrial revolution' was less than 200 years back, with the height of 'careless' burning of fuels, manufacturing of new, potent chemicals and their thoughtless disposal being less than 100 years back.
In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally.
Some failures: car pooling, efficient use of landfills, reduction of methane and/or developing an efficient use of it; development of alternative fuels, both for transportation and home use and mining.
While I appreciate anyone's efforts to be more conscious of the resources available to us, I also feel Gore and his ilk are political Chicken Littles.
Quote:
Atmospheric CO2 levels have climbed by more than 35 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Fossil fuel combustion, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and land-use change, including deforestation, is blamed for the rise. Roughly 75-80 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide results from fossil fuel burning, while about 20-25 percent is produced by deforestation. The United States, the world's largest economy and consumer of energy, produces about 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
source
If scientists can't come to a conclusion, how can anyone else?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
ngdawg is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360