...and Bush wants to cut the EPA's funding?
...to fund a war in Iraq for more OIL that is causing the pollution...

I think Bill O' rights has got the right idea, methinks the debate going to heat up. Anyway, back on topic, I think that humans combined with a warming trend are causing global warming, it isn't a good thing, but thats just my opinion?

EVERYTHING is caused by humans. Haven't we figured that out yet?

Damn :::OshnSoul::: beat me to it....

Yeah...Kinda obvious. LOL :lol:

Lets just float this one up again to avoid having to do it all over.

Sounds like a good idea, but you did start the other thread :)

BTW, did you know that you're sig is so out of context as to be misleading?

After rereading all of that I realize that I made a very long impassioned post responding to your criticisms of the way I handled myself (my last one) and you never responded.

If for every action there is an equal but opposit reaction, and heat is a measurement of energy (or something like that, been a while since my last physics class) if the earth is warming up what is cooling down? If the earth is releasing more energy, where is it going? And in time why won't the net release of energy net back to equilibrium?

There was a good NOW with Bill Moyers segment a while back called "Ode to Kyoto." It was about the energy industry's stealth campaign to confuse the public and stop Kyoto. Judging by some of the comments made in this thread, it appears to be highly successful...

http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index_012304.html#video

Did anyone point out yet that this statement isn't even close to being based in reality? I looked through the thread and didn't see it....You will have to charge those cars up, and at the moment, you are probably charging them with coal power.

In any case, unless research has changed dramatically since I last looked at it, aren't Volcano's and other naturally occurring events like that the primary sources of CO2 and other vehicular-emissions-like gasses, by several orders of magnitude?

Virtually eliminated. The most likely electrically driven cars will be from hydrogen/solar. Solar cells WILL be getting better. A huge bump in federal funding will see it happen faster. Then we can use solar power to concentrate the hydrogen exclusively. There, virtually clean source of energy. Using coal and oil power plants 'now' for the hydrogen at the very least allows us to turn the pollution from cars into a point source, which is something that can be controlled and cleaned up much easier and cheaper.

Volcano's and other naturally occurring events are the primary sources of CO2 but they release their CO2 all at once. One big dump and that dump falls out of the atmosphere relatively quickly (planetary scale) because it is so concentrated in one place.

Humans on the other hand produce a constant stream of CO2 that is well dispersed over the planet. The other part of that problem is the loss of carbon sinks, by various means.

Hogwash. Find research from real scientists, not environmentalists. 95% of meteorologists disagree that any warming is caused by humans. The world has been FAR hotter in the last 500 years than it is now. The mid 1800s were particularly hot.

Here's a fact that should put to rest any baloney notions of humans causing anything.

In 1991, Mt. Pinatubo erupted and put over 2000 TIMES as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere in one day than mankind did in the entire 20th century.

Volcanoes are a source of carbon dioxide, but their contribution to the global budgets of greenhouse gases is very small. On the time-scale of decades to centuries, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanic sources cause negligible climate change. It's because the gasses are spewed out in such a large concentration, all at one short point in time that it's effects are lowered. If all the active Volcanos in the world were to steadily release their gasses over the course of hundreds of years you WOULD see a net planetary increases in greenhouse gasses. As it is, it literally comes out in the wash.

[edit]So you can wrap your head around this concept. You have a pot of water. You also have an energy source. You could do one of two things to heat up the water. Either release all the energy at once at the water in a large flash of heat, or give it a steady heat of 100 degrees C for five minutes. Which heats the water better?[/edit]

A volcanic eruption has many effects, the sulfuric acid that this particular eruption created in the stratosphere blocked out sunlight. This led to a direct global surface cooling of 0.5 degrees C a year after the eruption. You can expect the cooling influence of a Volcano the size of Pinatubo to last almost a decade.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1128035329.htm

As to this. Show your hand. Show me a source of 95% of meterologists disagree that any warming is caused by humans. It is also funny that you say, in a thread started with an research project printed in the JOURNAL of SCIENCE, that you want research from real scientists. This leads me to believe you haven't bothered to read anything on here.

Woudl you classify the Pentagon as an Environmental Group?

Also feel free to quantify your claim that Mt. Pinatubo released 2000 times more greenhouse gases than humans have in their entire history. Please cite me how much in each gas Mt. Pinatubo released, and how much humans have in their history.

Finally "The world has been far hotter in the past 500 years than it is now." Um, What? Again source. Here' I'll spot you with this one.
20th Century warmest in 500 years.

Here's another one A 500 year climate change record from bore-hole data
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/t-trend.gif
Wow, you're right, look at how high the last 500 years are compared to today!

*Hint, for everything you come back with (if you come back): Limbaugh letter does not count.

Some people will never accept global warming as a truth, mostly peole who make money off the things that cause global warming.

In highschool I had 2 absolutely brilliant science teachers, they taught me the real reason some people don't accept global warming.

[QUOTE=Superbelt]The pollution from driving will be virtually eliminated once we transition to electrically driven cars.QUOTE]

This statement would make sense if we produced electricity using nuclear power (BTW big in europe) otherwise if the electricity is produced via a coal burning plant the emissions come from the power plant not the car? What about battery disposal etc.

It seems when we try to build nuclear power plants in Calif environmentalists always protest?

Whats funny is that I too grew up in the 70s and earkl 80s when global cooling was all the rage, we were heading for another ice age and acid rain was going to dystroy the crops and mankind was going to starve to death hence I am a bit jaded by scientists. I wonder if they really know what they are doing. Just a few days ago in the paper they said the ozone hole was shrinking?

Actually Nuclear power currently draws heavily from coal powered electrical plants. There is an intense power need to start and continue the fission process, and coal power is the only one with sufficient umph to do it.

The Ozone hole grows and shrinks during the year. It depends on the seasonal temperatures. There has ALWAYS been an ozone hole/thin area that fluctuated, it was just that our chlorine emissions into the atmospere were making it ridiculously larger.

the realistic solution is ...we need more pirates...

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/pirates.jpeg

Please don't bump three-year-old threads to post a funny image in relation to them.