What views do you have on this issue?

Do you drive a "gas-guzzler"? Do you leave the heater on all year round?

Would you be willing to pay "Green Tax"?

Or are we all worried about nothing?

Im glad you brought this up...

Anyone seen the new Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth"...

What a load of rubbish...

I haven't seen it.

But calling Global Warming a load of rubbish........

Nice to see nobody cares... hehe

Well, I don't believe in global warming and we drive an SUV. I don't like the fact that Iam being forced to buy reformulated gas at outrageous prices, only for it to evaporate in my tank while it sits in my drive way....
Yes the temp here where I live is below 0 right now and I hear there is a freeze going on down south.

global warming isn't the issue...social structure is...we've had bigger changes in temperature before...only 400 years ago there were vinyards in scandanavia

the only reason that rises in sea levels are an issue now is that the majority of the worlds big economic powerhouses are in fixed cities on coast lines

people throughout the world aren't as flexible in migration as they were in the past

sorry folks...but all these energy saving lightbulbs and recycling aint going to do jack shit in regards to stopping global warming...nothing would...people tend to forget that volcanic activity pumps out far more greenhouse gases than human activity...we dont even come close

not to mention the earth has methods of redressing the balance

the volume of sea locked in ice is less...the area of the sea exposed to the atmosphere is more....hence its now been shown that the sea absorbs 3 times more CO2 than it did 20 years ago

the higher the temperature of the atmosphere the faster trees convert CO2 to O2....helping redress the balance of CO2

like i said...the only issue is an economic one...thats why governments are beginning to freak out...western government know that global warming can topple them economically...and they are bringing in all these green measures which, if you look at all of them, are actually designed to save money more than save the planet...more efficient transportation of goods...more efficient packaging of goods...etc etc

Kudos to you!! I don't see how anyone can argue with that! It certainly feel like the government is insulting our intelligence. Where have you been all my life? LOL

There may be a little truth in it, but for the most part it's a load of BS. Come on. I'm surprised they haven't gotten a stupid acronym for it like GW for global warming

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Global Warming debate. No one seems to have their facts straight, and as late as 1975 a couple of news magazine were reporting on Global Cooling. Admittedly, their data was wrong, but still it is funny.

I subscribe more to the belief of natural climactic cycles.

Yeah, the idea that we might be going through a warming period is not crazy. The way it is portrayed in the media and by politicians is idiotic.

Not only do they tend to get the facts wrong, they also tend to look at the short term rather than the long term. It is a little warmer than the late 70's (almost always the starting point of the charts) but the late 70's were a low point, which is why they thought we were heading towards another ice age. if you look at the 30's, it was warmer then. And let's not forget that it was also significantly warmer during the medieval climate optimum, 1000 years ago. And you know what, it wasnt half bad. It was when it got colder that things really started to suck.

but that doesnt stop anyone from claiming that the end is near. Every time we have a heat wave, it is declared to be proof that global warming is real, that it is our fault, and that it is going to wipe out all life as we know it. I'm still waiting for them to admit that there is no such thing as global warming now that we are having unusually cold weather.

The fact is, there has been an increase in solar activity recently. That's why mars is getting warmer. It has nothing to do with us landing Science Utility Vehicles on the planet's surface.

Let's also not forget that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses are released by nature. Forest fires, grass fires, animals and plants breathing, microrganisms, they all pump out greenhouse gasses. If we stopped all our emissions, it wouldnt stop global warming, it would only slow it down. There are far better ways to spend those trillions of dollars.

Green Tax, are you kidding me? We pay enough taxes as it is, tax this tax that, theres no way I'd be paying for another tax. I drive a 01 carolla so I do fairly well on gas.

The only thing I'm worried about it the people in the next generation, but we should be fine for another 50-100 years.

Not too long ago a "renowned climatologist" claimed that global warming will kill billions of people and the few remaining breeding pairs of humans will all be in the arctic. And this was actually reported as if it should be taken seriously. Just another in a long line of absurd claims about global warming to be treated as gospel. It's insanity. Whatever happened to telling the both sides of a story, or even just critical thinking and/or common sense?

Now, before I move on to the big picture, I must actually dissect the absurd claim I mentioned, as it is just to silly to ignore.

How hot does the earth have to get for everything south of the arctic to become uninhabitable. It's one thing to picture the sahara getting even hotter, but if people can survive in the deserts of the world, how extreme does global warming have to get in order to render toronto uninhabitable? Well, uninhabitable for climate reasons, as opposed to just because it is toronto.



Why is it that so many people (particularly those in the media) don't question this stuff the way they would anything else? For the love of God people, why is it everyone forgets that as humans we are capable of adapting. It may get pretty damn hot, but that's why we have air conditioning. Sea level may rise 14 feet (or, worst case secnario, 17 inches if you ask an actual scientist) but people are entirely capable of moving. It sucks, but it can be done, and has been done by people for thousands of years, whenever nature decided to screw us over.

A green tax or these idiotic carbon credits won't fix anything, and only serve as a way for people to pay their penance for living the good life.

This really is a religious movement more than science. Global warming (and the environmentalist movement in general) is just the latest in the great tradition of doomsday cults. We live in a prosperous and decadent society and in order to appease guilty consciences and appease various other psychological forces, some people can't help but buy into the idea that the world is coming to an end. It's been happening since the dawn of civilization.

The pattern of behavior also fits perfectly. Global warming is touted as the absolute truth and anyone who questions it is treated like a heretic (yes, nuremburg style trials have actually been proposed) The climate cult uses classic cult logic which sets things up in a way that makes it impossible for them to be wrong, as no matter what happens, it is a sign of global warming, and anything which seriously damages their claims (such as the recent experiments which proved that radiation from space causes cloud formation, which means that increased solar activity we are seeing is also increasing the protective power of the sun's magnetic field and decreasing cloud formation, providing a multiplyer effect which would account for far more warming than anything humans are doing) is conveniently ignored. They essentially claim that we have collectively sinned and brought this fate upon ourselves, and that we must make sacrifices in order to escape this fate. They have even set up a system in which you can buy forgiveness. Hell, when al gore addressed a senate panel a while back, he was actually refered to as a prophet. All that's missing is the weird guy in the sandwhich board shouting "Repent! The end is near!" and only because he got his own movie instead.

Now the ones who are being challenged when evidence shows that the antarctic and many glaciers are growing, and that many areas are actually cooler than recent averages, they are saying "it's not global warming, it's climate change" which is pure bullshit. The climate changes. Constantly. That's what it does. If you say the world is heating up, it's a vague an mostly meaningless prediction (with the exception of massive shifts in global temperatures, the mean global temperature is a worthless measure, as the climate and weather are affected by the differences, not the averages) but at least it's a prediction. This "climate change" nonsense wants to keep all the crazy doomsday predictions and condemnation of society while throwing away the actual global climate predictions and replacing them with the notion that stuff will happen. And if that's all you are predicting, you are probably right, but you arent saying anything worth hearing.

The sad irony is that while this all hides behind science, it actually violates everything science is supposed to stand for. Skepticism is supposed to be encouraged, not ridiculed. Science isn't supposed to look for a consensus, or to take a vote to decide what's true. If gallileo could see this he'd be laughing, because these jerks are no different from the ones who put him on trial for daring to challenge the teachings of aristotle, and yet they think they are in his position. It's really quite sad indeed.

Although I don't really have the time to give a full and frank reply to the above post (which is what it deserves) at this moment in time, I would just like to state this...

It isn' beyond the realms of reality to suggest that global warming could be another form of people control, a mask for governments to hide behind in order to rule through fear, its worked before, anyone remember the millenium bug?

Come January 1st 2000 planes were supposed to be falling from the sky, financial institutions would be ruined and society as we know it would cease to be. Well, as we all know now, this was a load of rubbish, however, the reports of panic buying of extra food, water etc were recorded all over the world just prior to this... divide and conquer? Rule through fear? Shut up and shop? It makes you wonder.

Isn't that the basic premise of michael crichton's last novel?

No idea.

Probably.

Did anyone see the South Park with Al Gore?

How about John Travolta and his whole do as I say not as I do approach to Global Warming?

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

The fact that he owns them wouldn't be so bad if he didn't have four of them pulling the fifth like a chariot, while he stands on top and whips them. That's just taking it too far.

Al gore might be able to justify all the emissions from travel as being necessary for fighting his war on carbon, but why does his home use 20 times the energy of an average american home? I loved the fact that he was confronted about this when he was in front of the senate (the guy who did it is obscure and no one would recognize his name but has become a recent favorite of mine) and was offered a pledge to bring his home's energy consumption equal to or below the average level within one year, and he refused. Given that it directly referenced al's own demands of the people and used much of his own language about the urgency of cutting back, he really had no excuse. It clearly demonstrates what a hypocrite he is. We have to do with less, but he can have far more than any of us ever thought possible.


And why the hell am I seeing leonardo dicaprio's expert opinion on global warming in the news?! Given that one of the most common signs used by global warming nuts is the existence of iceburgs, leo should obviously be a bit more skeptical, seeing as it was an iceburg from a century ago that started his career. Insanity.

An interesting side-note: Has anybody seen the comparisons between Al Gore's mansion and George Bush's ranch? The Bush ranch has justabou every "green" feature invented, but Gore's mansion uses about a streets worth of power every week.

http://www.snopes.com/politics//bush/house.asp

Love it, HST! Thank you!!

that is freakin' hilarious!

Yeah, bush may have an environmentally friendly house, but that is totally balanced out by the barbecues he has there:

So much global warming news out there, so little time. But the 2 things that I have to mention are the carbon credits and the elimination of free speech.

This little carbon credit scam started out as a little laughable trend, but now it's turning into serious fraud. Investigations into the system are finding all kinds non-existent reductions in emissions, and massively inflated prices which only encourage people to pollute. Case and point, there is a chemical plant in India which in the course of operation generates large amounts of a rather potent gas. It would cost $3 million to upgrade the plant and eliminate the gas, but instead, due to the way the carbon credit market works and the potency of the gas, they have been able to sell $600 million in carbon credits, and with that money, they will be building another plant which will produce refrigerants, which will allow them pollute more and sell even more carbon credits. What the hell?!

But that isn't nearly a bad as what's happening across the pond right now. A small group of global warming experts are trying to get the government to censor a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle claiming that it is inaccurate. Now, they said nothing about the major inaccuracies in Al Gore's propaganda piece, but this one they feel, needs to be edited until there is nothing left they disagree with. One of them actually said: "Free speech does not extend to misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements. Somebody has to stand up for the public interest here."

Am I the only one here who finds that a little ominous? Who the hell gave these people the right to decide for all of us what to believe and what not to believe. These guys do not have exclusive say as to what is true and what is not true, and they most definitely should not have the ability to silence anyone who they disagree with. Apparently trying to take away technology and prosperity isn't enough, they want to take away our basic civil liberties as well. scary.

Oh good grief.

How do the GW alarmist tree huggers explain the warming on Mars since they insist that PEOPLE are responsible for the cycle the earth is in?

Three words: Science Utility Vehicles.


Seriously, it's something they just don't talk about. But then, one of the "factual inaccuracies" they want censored is the idea that it was warmer a thousand years ago during the medieval climate optimum, something which is denied only by global warming wackos who can't explain the geological evidence, the tree cores, or the historical evidence which pretty much proves it. Instead, they subscribe to the hockey stick theory, which says the earth's temperature was stable throughout all of human history until the twentieth century when it took off like a rocket. Nevermind that it was actually getting colder from the 40s until the end of the 70s, That doesn't matter either.

Seriously, they keep saying we have 10 years left, but they've been saying that for the last 20 years. I find it amazing that anyone still listens to these people, let alone pays them to do more BS research.

If you think the planet isn't warming up you might be wrong.

If you think the reason that the planet is warming up is solely because of people you could be an idiot.

If you think that the green movement serves any other purpose than enabling govt's to tax you or in some way keep a climate of fear in order to more effectively control their citizens you're either a politician or extraordinarily naive.

It warms and cools (usually both at the same time) but that's not the important part under normal circumstances. It takes large fluctations in mean global temperature to have meaningful change. The important thing isn't the average, it's the differences. Worrying about the average temperature is like worrying about the average exchange rate, it's nonsense. What really effects the climate is the variations from one area to the next.


I have to wonder why they are now trying to cut back on emissions from livestock, but no one cares about all the emissions from wild animals. Arent there a hell of a lot more wild animals giving off carbon and methane than there are cows and pigs? Bambi is the real problem, not porky. I can just see the ads now "save the planet; Kill something cute"


I'm sure there are many people who are motivated by just such an agenda (particularly in the political arena). But you also have to keep in mind that a lot of the research is coming from people whose careers are dependant on getting grants from committees which are far more generous when you use alarmist rhetoric.

And much of the problem stems the media, which reports the more alarming bits of unfinished research. This works for them because fear tactics get viewers/readers/listeners and many of them have been genuinely suckered into believing this crap.

And let's not forget that wacko environmentalism is disseminated to the masses via not only the media (news and entertainment alike) but also through massive PR campaigns, political action, and for many people, through the schools. In fact, it's gotten so bad in the public school system (here in the states anyway) that a florida school actually thinks it can get away with failing children whose parents refused to show up and watch Al Gore's little propoganda piece. Bad enough that schools around the country force kids to watch that crap, but to force the parents should be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

All of that rhetoric and misinformation makes it extremely difficult to criticize anything environmentalists say without hitting knee-jerk reaction that says "but I love nature" as if anyone who disagrees wants to destroy the world just for the hell of it.

There are people promoting this crap who did it to fulfill a political agenda, but they succeed because far more people accept it and pass it on, because the masses often accept rhetoric and fallacies over valid logic, and because so many people are psychologically predisposed to believe this type of doomsday message.

I can't argue with you. Your posts are too smart and well thought out!

Thought y'all would enjoy this.

On global warming, think globally but act logically
Pay attention to numbers and tell me where the money should be spent, says GEORGE WILL
11:59 AM CDT on Sunday, April 22, 2007

QUOTE

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a "serious problem."

But consider this from Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. He says: Compliance with the Kyoto treaty would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's recent "global warming survival guide," No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril, than a Big Mac.

This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16 ounce T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration, and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles – trailing a cloud of carbon – to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.

Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse-gas emissions 0.3 percent.

The question is: Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant – and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

George Will is a Washington Post columnist. His e-mail address is georgewill@wash post.com.