See, he's even smarter than I am!

'It might be causing global warming' is enough for me to think about it. Most of the solutions to the issue seem to be on the right track any way. To say we need to find alternate fuel choices kills my worry about global warming and my worry that we need to end our dependence on the Middle East for our oil.
Again, preventing something that may happen...

We can't control a weather front. We can't stop a tornado or a hurricane or any weather phenomena or affect them in any known way. Those are minute compared to global climate.

All I know is that there was an ice age. There was a warming that thawed the ice age. There have been periods of recorded history with rises in temperatures and lowering of temperatures for significant periods of time. Far more extreme than what is currently happening.

I look at the data that says the average temperature has actually declined (though statisically insigificant) since 1998. I'm not going to get up in a tizzy about it.

Of course, we could say after it's too late that these warning reports by these global warming scientists were merely historical documents.

So let me get this straight. A 100 year increase (yes, of "only" one degree, but a single degree rise in ocean temperature has a MAJOR affect on world climate) isn't enough for you to consider a trend, but you're using an 8 year period as your "case closed"?

I find acting in a socially conscious way so overwhellming at times that I ignore the whole concept. As much as I'd like to do the right thing, it seems there never is a clear answer. What I do end up doing usually is a matter of convenience to me.

So I take public trnasportation to work becasue gas prices are ridiculous, and I've come to like not driving. I recycle, becasue it's easy to put things in a seperate bin. I waste water becasue I love a long hot shower in the mornings.


Hmmm - maybe this needs to go in that "confessions" thread we had awhile back

I don't think most people have a problem with this chain of thought:

The earth is warming in some way.
Mankind may be (and I would say probably is) contributing to this warming.
If we can change our contribution to this it should be considered.

But I think a valid question is at what cost?

What if the only way to reverse global warming and maintain the current average temperature is to euthanise the global population down to 2 billion people and ban the use of any form of energy that produces greenhouse gas emissions. Would it be worth that cost?

If not, then we're not arguing about whether there is a cost too high but where that line is and then the basis for agreement mostly evaporates as it will boil down to highly individualized sets of priorities.

I personally think some very obvious solutions have been missed. That irrational fear of nuclear power has made the situation worse and needs to be reconsidered. In our anti-polution policies we have favored greenhouse gasses over particulate pollution (thus diesel isn't common here as in Europe where they have mostly approached it from the opposite direction). We have to decide if we'd prefer dirtier air that doesn't heat the global climate or cleaner air that does (no, it isn't an absolute black and white dichotomy but when choices have to be made which is preferable)?

As has been noted, we don't have current climate models that accurately explain the current global climate so it is hard to put a lot of faith into models that try to predict it 100 years from now. So, since I'm not willing to sacrifice everything to prevent something that may happen regardless I have to decide just how much I am willing to sacrifice.

Alternatively we can let the government dictate how much we sacrifice and then the question is should they use worst case models, best case models, or the model that most closely matches the economic result they hope for anyway?

Considering the amounts of green house gases spewed into the atmosphere since 1998, it would be logical to assume that if the cause were man made green house gases that the temperature increase would not have stopped, would it not?

No where did I say case closed. In fact, I am the only one here apparently saying the case is still open as to what is going on.

The hysteria about global warming requires a brand of human arrogance that astounds me.

I'll add my confessions. We take the subway because we don't want to pay those prices for gas. I recycle because Ralphie makes me do it. I hate recycling. I think it's a scam. I hate the smugness of ten speed bicyclists and people who drive hybrid cars.
I also feel that the big car companies need to shift the need for gas. There should be a way to power cars with bio disel by now. But they are preventing that. Me not driving doesn't do a dang thing for the environment. It needs to be on a bigger scale. But until big business is onboard, there's not much we can do to truly change what's happening...