Maybe Uncle Bob was one-hundred percent right ...

[Camino LS6]

as I said, you are in the minority.

Story of my life...

[PurdueGuy]

as I said, you are in the minority.

Apparently I am too...

[Satty]

I have the solution for global warming, but nobody wants to pay me for it, so here goes:

Everyone on earth with a car starts it up, turns the ac on full blast and opens the doors. Gloabal temps drop, everyone wins.

You're welcome.

[AAS]

...

3. We are cutting down the forests that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

...

Don't trees convert oxygen back to carbon dioxide at night? Or did I totally misunderstand elementary school science?

[Intrepidation]

Don't trees convert oxygen back to carbon dioxide at night? Or did I totally misunderstand elementary school science?

Totally.

[Croc]

Not that I think anyone on this board needs it, but it explains the situation to the lowest common denominator.

1. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This is a proven fact, not a theory.

2. We are adding massive amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

3. We are cutting down the forests that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the full situation proves too complicated to people who care more about who Paris Hilton is dating. So it really does need to be broken down to "Gas burning V8 = bad for puppies".

Edit: You can't address the problem without finding the cause. Of course I realize there are many other sources of CO2 that need to be addressed, but this is a car website.

Another fact you seem to be forgetting is that trees produce a very small amount of the earth's oxygen; most comes from algea.

Most local health departments collect them to be recycled.

Really? That's nice. Most municipalities have collection centers for bottles and cans, too...but does anybody use it? Nope. Most people are totally ignorant of the mercury since traditional lightbulbs aren't toxic. Really, what's worse? Slightly increased emissions from incandescant bulbs? Or what about toxic landfill and groundwater contamination due to CFLs? I'll stick with the incandescants.

as I said, you are in the minority.

Sweet, let's go marginalize everyone who isn't exactly like we are.

Really, I try to be mindful of the environment when I can, but the global warming thing is not as cut-and-dry as many people want to think it is. I really bristle when the True Believers marginalize anyone who questions its existence--this is science, not Sunday School.

[pow]

Another fact you seem to be forgetting is that trees produce a very small amount of the earth's oxygen; most comes from algea.

Producing oxygen doesn't magically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Forests, particularly those in the Amazon, are enormous carbon sinks, and chopping them down will have a significant impact on emissions, regardless of the fact most oxygen comes from elsewhere..

Sweet, let's go marginalize everyone who isn't exactly like we are.

Really, I try to be mindful of the environment when I can, but the global warming thing is not as cut-and-dry as many people want to think it is. I really bristle when the True Believers marginalize anyone who questions its existence--this is science, not Sunday School.

The scientific consensus is that 6.5 billion, rapidly industrializing human beings undoubtedly contribute to climate change. Man's exponentially growing footprint on Earth is unprecedented, and the potential of the infant effects observed so far is catastrophic. The debate is on how humans should best minimize these effects, as that would involve compromises and changes many are not willing to make.

There's not much incentive now to make great progress - just look at the slow pace of alt fuel development - so I don't expect any drastic changes will be made until it's absolutely necessary.

[CARBIZ]

Sounds like we had better start terraforming Mars soon. This planet is about done.

[Croc]

The scientific consensus is that 6.5 billion, rapidly industrializing human beings undoubtedly contribute to climate change. Man's exponentially growing footprint on Earth is unprecedented, and the potential of the infant effects observed so far is catastrophic. The debate is on how humans should best minimize these effects, as that would involve compromises and changes many are not willing to make.

Yes--there is clearly an impact. But how much of an impact? The earth is still geologically coming out of an ice age...some warming is to be expected.

One thing to consider is the amount of "pollution" generated by natural events like forest fires and volcanic eruptions. While there's nothing to be done about volcanos, forest fires are a lot less common or long-lasting as they used to be due to firefighting. Can you imagine if there were no firefighters to put out the forest fires?

My point is that while many models show this significant global warming due to humans, it's a model--that's what models do. Models take results and try to create algorithms to explain those results. Even the most complex models leave out some variables that are either overlooked or their impacts of those variables on the process are not yet known. Considering how recently humans started recording the daily temperatures, and how recently those instruments became scientifically accurate, we don't have a lot of data.

Now, I'm not arguing against being proactive and caring for the planet, but I'm not going to go all Chicken Little on everyone's ass.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

Yes--there is clearly an impact. But how much of an impact? The earth is still geologically coming out of an ice age...some warming is to be expected.

One thing to consider is the amount of "pollution" generated by natural events like forest fires and volcanic eruptions. While there's nothing to be done about volcanos, forest fires are a lot less common or long-lasting as they used to be due to firefighting. Can you imagine if there were no firefighters to put out the forest fires?

My point is that while many models show this significant global warming due to humans, it's a model--that's what models do. Models take results and try to create algorithms to explain those results. Even the most complex models leave out some variables that are either overlooked or their impacts of those variables on the process are not yet known. Considering how recently humans started recording the daily temperatures, and how recently those instruments became scientifically accurate, we don't have a lot of data.

Now, I'm not arguing against being proactive and caring for the planet, but I'm not going to go all Chicken Little on everyone's ass.

+1

[Camino LS6]

Let's not forget that cars produce only a tiny fraction of worldwide Co2 emissions.

[Nick]

We need to initialize large scale production of massive catalytic converters for volcanoes. They have gone unregulated for far too long.

[Blake Noble]

More fuel for the fire:

http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/11/th...-swindle-video/

[Blake Noble]

Guys, please try and spread that link about to your friends, if you wouldn't mind. I am far beyond tired of hearing about "Global Warming."

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Hmm.

Some clarification seems to be required here.

I may love my V8s, but I am a major advocate for both alternative fuels and planting trees - the status of "global warming" notwithstanding.

However, I simply don't buy all of the fearmongering BS we are being fed.

Me too...

But here's the kicker, and this is true for A LOT of people. I'm so tired of the condescending and 'outcasting' tone of the environmentalists that I'm beginning to not really give a sh*t.

After all, I'm not going to live forever and I'm not dumb enough to have kids. So why should I care?

(Keep in mind, this is me being devils advocate AT THIS POINT IN TIME)