I think it's something to do with the promotion of the walfare of all mankind, or something.

right then, just in that post, you are showing how ignorant you are. either say it like you know it, or don't say it at all. coming off as being a condescending prick won't help your side at all.

This isn't really research to prove my point or anything, just something interesting I came across just now. I was grading papers for a geology class (I don't teach, I'm just a lab assistant, don't let the fake name fool you, hehe), and this article came up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071016/wl_canada_afp/britaincanadausclimateenvironmentadventurepole_071016135614

If you can read between the lines of these things (you have to with everything from the media these days), look at this quote: "The latest estimates for how long it will take for the Arctic ice caps to melt range from 16 to 100 years." That's more than 600% difference in those predictions, and that's not even counting the scientists who say that we aren't going to lose the caps (they're there, they just don't get the same press coverage because they don't predict doom and gloom). That kind of variation isn't worth basing any sort of policy on, yet we're spending billions trying to fight this, and we don't even know if it's our fault.

Just a thought.

We've only got 160 years of moderately accurate temperature recordings. Also do not forget that most of the recorded temperatures have been in the city's. It's a well known fact that the air temperature in a city will be higher than the surrounding countryside, this is mostly due to all the black asphalt and the tall building. Over time the amount of both in the city's has been increasing. This doesn't mean that global warming is a myth necessarily but it does draw into question the accuracy of the historical data. Satellite temperature readings are a much more accurate method of measurement for this purpose, because it can measure a wide area. Sadly that technology is still rather new, 40 or 50 years of data isn't really enough to draw much of a conclusion from.

Personally I agree the earth is warming, yes dramatic sea level rises can occur and can do great damage to lives and property. However I'm not entirely convinced that humans are the only cause of global warming (though I do keep an open mind about the issue), we know that there were times in history that the earth was much warmer than today, thereby it's entirely possible that what is happening now is mostly natural. That doesn't mean I think wasteful use of fossil fuels is good, the supply is limited and in about 60 years or so the production will start to fall as what's left becomes harder to get at. Also I highley doubt most os the pollution is from passenger cars, rather a large portion of it is from power generation and other industry.

Currently we are quite wasteful with electricity, we rarely use compact fluorescent bulbs where it'd make no difference, like in shaded lamps, and let's not forget this picture that's mostly street lamps beaming light uselessly into space. Better lighting fixture design along with replacing obsolete bulbs with more efficient designs could potentially save about 1 BILLION dollars a year (1998 estimate) and tons of fuel. Also modern low pressure sodium bulbs emit a very narrow spectrum of light that can be easily filtered out so you don't have that damn light beaming in your window all night.

here's a good sires to consider,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=wildlife%20globalwarming%20climatechange%20nwf%20schweiger%20greenland%20scientists

Thanks, no hands. Good point about the open mind thing; people tend to assume that if you're skeptical about global warming it means you have a closed mind when there are closed minds on both sides. I wouldn't have become a skeptic if not for an open mind, I grew up where everyone believes in it!

They do try to compensate for the urban heat island, but they do it with an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much, and they apply it inconsistently.

And with hybrid or electric cars, don't forget that that electricity has to come from somewhere, too, and it only saves fossil fuels if it comes from nukular power. As it is, it's inefficient because the electricity has to be generated, then stored, then moved, then stored again and used in the cars. Very wasteful, you might as well just use the fossil fuels directly in your car.

"it only saves fossil fuels if it comes from nukular power"

have you heard of things called wind turbines? or geothermal? or solar panels?

you're lack of common knowledge on these basic topics throws your whole argument into question, because who's to say if you dont know about one thing, maybe you dont know about anything. When you use your words, be careful what you're saying. I'm sure you believe what you're saying, and I don't believe that you are ignorant about everything, but I will tend to think of your ideas as less credible because of your lack of education, percieved or otherwise, based on what you say.

I have heard of.... nukular power! We can always talk about wind, solar, geothermal, etc., but no one wants it in their backyard. People complain that windmills are ugly and kill birds, solar plants are always in the way of some migrating animals, etc.

I would LOVE windmills in my backyard. They are incredibly efficient...I can't remember the exact stat but it was something along the lines of X number of windmills in California? Or some other place not too big? (X being a relatively small number) could cover the entire planet's energy usage.

Also, Chaos, the point of electric cars is more to lessen the drain on fossil fuels than to use the 100% greatest most efficient car evar. Once again you seem to lack knowledge from both sides of the issue...

problem with windmills is reliability, you cant count 100% on the wind, thats not to say they shouldn't be used to supplement power generation, but I'd not want to rely on them, nuclear power is actually a much better option that it was back in the 70's as the safety measures have gotten better, though no system is perfect ever. Geothermal shows great potential but is likely many decades off, solar panels are not very efficient land wise, and are subject to the weather and night.

Things like this can serve a dual purpose. Many areas with reliable enough sunlight like for instance south California also have a shortage or limited supply of drinking water. Use the setup to turn sea water into steam to power the turbines allowing the facility to act as a desalinization plant, producing power and fresh water. Also an added bonus is you get natural sea salt, which is itself a salable commodity.

Whatever we do, one of the easiest and by far the least expensive is to simply use electicity more efficientley to do what we want rather than illuminating space. Here's a good site about that: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~atolea/second/page2.html

I realize this may sound incredibly condescending, but:

a) Windmills cannot be used on a large scale, since they would have drastic effects on the local and global climate. They are drawing their power directly from the wind after all, thus changing the amount of energy the air contains.

b) Global warming is happening. The human population is affecting it. Whether it is much worse or far less significant than one or the other side is trying to make us believe remains to be seen. In any case, I fail to see why you are so set against the Kyoto Protocol, PC. I would be interested in hearing why.

c) Like PC stated correctly, using electrical cars only shifts the problem. However, nuclear energy not being all that it's cracked up to be (it is very expensive, actually, and requires quite a bit of infrastructure and thus 'grey energy' that is being produced by burning fossil fuels), and definitely not a sustainable option.

In any case, burning fossil fuels like oil and coal is basically just stupid, because they are far too precious to be burnt like that, being needed to produce various materials and medicine, among other things. Sadly, they are, like PC said, very handy, being easy to transport and having a high energy density.

d) I already said it in a similar thread some months ago, but I'll reiterate gladly: There is no simple solution to the problem of the increasing energy demand across the globe (wait until China really starts working and India comes on-line). The 'solution' is, obviously, a compound of many different types of power plants, ideally incorporating less and less expendable fuel sources (I'm limiting my system to the earth, to keep it simple...) over time.

/me is a scientist... well, almost... And I'm no hick I tell ya =9

But global warming is a giant pile of smelly lies!! And anyone who believes those lies is just another sheep following the flock.

As PC already noted, mars is also warming, and the solar cycle is to blame. The Earth's temperature is highly dependent on the solar cycle, it only makes sense that temperatures are currently on the rise. Additionally, worldwide volcanoes pump out about as much emissions as humans (given no major eruptions). When a large eruption occurs the emissions produced far surpass what humans do to the planet. Guess what happens after a major volcanic eruption? You guessed global warming? WRONG!! The thick gasses actually reflect more of the suns rays then they trap and the global average temperature drops a little. So how do our emissions differ?

We should be far more worried about our inpact on forests and oceanic algaes, which recycle our slowly dwindling Oxygen supplies. Global warming is a SCAM by the OIL companies to up prices and taxes. The fact that any of you fall for it just shows how gullible sheeple are. Wake up and plant a tree, it will do the world alot more good then boycotting petrol products.

Al Gore came flying in on his 747 to tell us to cut carbon emissions and follow his example. Then he took over the internet he created.

Whoa, hold up there, drazed! I very much appreciate that there is someone else out there who doesn't buy into the crap, but let's not say it's a scam by oil companies. Rising prices do not equal rising profits; larger quantities of sales increase profits. In why in hell would anyone but the government want to increase taxes? Most people don't understand that nearly the biggest component of gas prices is the taxes. If the gas tax in an area rises, people automatically assume it's the oil company price gouging. The global warming money goes away from oil companies (they spend out the ass to appear "green" and avoid the bad publicity) and toward scientists and politicians who cry "global warming" to get grant money and tax revenue. "Big Oil" is not evil, "Big Government" is.

Except for the fact that in the US, "Big Oil" == "Big Government".

Didn't you get that memo about Bush?

Yeah.... there's absolutely no proof of that. Bush and Cheney both sold their oil stocks before they ran for office, specifically to avoid that accusation. Not that it helps, the stereotype is that if you're a Republician you're up to your eyes in Big Oil, etc. If this was really a war for oil we're in right now.... where's the oil? And if Bush is so concerned about getting oil, how come he's not out there aggressively pushing drilling in ANWR?

Of course, you might be sarcastic with that statement. It's hard for me to tell, because so many people I know actually believe that.

It is pretty naive to think that the oil lobby does not have political power. I would not go so far as to say that there is a direct link from the current administration to the oil lobby, simply because I have no proof of that (and if I did, I would not be producing that here, but elsewhere), but the various industrial branches are almost bound to have some influence, otherwise they would be inexplicably stupid.

Yikes! I'm not saying that either! Every corporation has political power, and it would be stupid for oil companies to not stand up for themselves and see what they can get accomplished politically. They get villified enough as it is! Every company lobbies (only the big ones do it a lot and on a national level). Here's what would do away with lobbyists: a flat national sales tax. This isn't really the thread to argue the positives and negatives of such a thing, but if the tax code could be printed on one or two pages rather than who knows how many thousand, there would be no tax loopholes and no reason for lobbyists. That's also why such a thing would never pass, too many lobbyists would be out of a job.

A side note on nukular power, we could recycle a lot of our nukular waste and use it as fuel, but we signed a treaty with the USSR (which doesn't even exist anymore!) that says we won't because one of the products is plutonium and they don't want us making bombs. We don't even have to store nearly so much nukular waste as we are now, and I don't get it.

Please, PLEASE stop saying 'nukular'. I know you're joking, but I can't stand it. :)

However, I seriously doubt that if taxes could be declared more easily, there would be no more lobbying. Or perhaps I just don't understand your reasoning behind that, not being familiar with the problem itself.

I don't want to stray too off-topic here, but I should say it wouldn't so much eliminate lobbying as make it much harder, since most of it's about tax breaks. Congress makes a new tax law saying that the money will go here, and it does but it also goes here and here and here. If there wasn't such a huge tax code, they'd have to get a lot more creative. Because so many people enjoy these loopholes, though, it won't happen. It's too bad, too, because any politician who really cared about low-income families would be all over this, because they can't afford to hire people to find them these loopholes. One interesting solution (that I support as a stepping stone) is the Fair Tax. Check out the FairTax book by Neal Boortz and John Linderer, and before you say "but they're Republicans, I'm not listening to them!" give the book a read, it's short.

Fine, if it bothers you, Toshiro, I'll stop saying nukular. I'll just find a clever way to work subliminable messages into my posts instead, that'll be my new strategery.

Try this. In the UK, it was until recently required in some schools that everyone must watch Algore's movie. A couple people complained, and a British court heard arguments from scientists on both sides of the issue and officially ruled that there were inaccuracies in Algore's movie that must be brought to students' attention if they are required to watch it.

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

Practically the whole movie hinges on that fake animation of a drowning polar bear, and it turns out polar bears haven't died from global warming. When Algore went on Oprah to promote his movie (the only time I've ever watched Oprah, and I never want to again, it was nauseating), Oprah asked the audience if his presentation had changed any minds and a stupid woman actually said that it was the fake animation of the polar bear that changed her mind, because it was so cute and it was dying! Heaven help us, these people vote.