Global warming is true, but people dont have that much effect of it.
One volcano exploding causes more pollution than man kind has ever made.

Global warming is true, but people dont have that much effect of it.

One volcano exploding causes more pollution than man kind has ever made.
I dont think cutting down on our pollution will do that much good.
Its like doing one sit-up a day to loose 20 pounds.

Have you read through the thread?

I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why Global Warming ISN'T fact.

I'm sure you all know the principles involved, so I won't go into them, but I do believe in global warming.

And yes, I have seen An Inconvenient Truth. Was quite an interesting watch, by the way.

Temperatures of up to 45 degrees Celcius have plagued much of south-eastern Europe, from Croatia to Bulgaria. According to press reports, several elderly people have died of heat-related complications. The Romanian Health Ministry reported 19 such deaths.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/.../article-165839
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm

"The same thing can happen as a result of sea-level rise. Bangladesh is having terrible problems in this area. It has a population of about 120 million in an area the size of Wisconsin, and there is already border tension between Bangladesh and India. A significant chunk of Bangladesh is projected to go underwater in the next 100 years. Where are those people going to go? There's no room left."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/071000-102.htm

I believe Global Warming is REAL, cuz i for one felt it on my skin this summer... and last year we barely had snow on Xmas and on the New Year there was no snow at all... which never happen untill now, we had snow untill february and so... in fact if i remember well last year i was wearing Shorts at New Year's party rofl.

Here you can see how Winter was before Global Warming...
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/222772/

You cant really compare one year with the next... global warming isnt dramatically changing our climate from year to year. Our earth is millions of years old - our climate isnt going to shift that fast.

You're so like wrong about all this, you just have to live somewhere to know what exactly is changing or not, saying it isn't so its just plain stupid.

I've gotta say, I watched The Inconvienient Truth and it seems like propaganda to me. After reading through this whole thread, I could care less if people think global warming is real or not. Isn't the fact that we're polluting our earth enough to motivate us to try and clean up our act? Global warming or not, we should be trying to live lifestyles that are healthier and more beneficial for the earth and ourselves. I get kind of disgusted when I hear people say they wouldn't be willing to change their lifestyles. It's like a druggie refusing to clean up his/her act to me. The earth needs to detox.

I've gotta say, I watched The Inconvienient Truth and it seems like propaganda to me. After reading through this whole thread, I could care less if people think global warming is real or not. Isn't the fact that we're polluting our earth enough to motivate us to try and clean up our act? Global warming or not, we should be trying to live lifestyles that are healthier and more beneficial for the earth and ourselves. I get kind of disgusted when I hear people say they wouldn't be willing to change their lifestyles. It's like a druggie refusing to clean up his/her act to me. The earth needs to detox.

I've gotta say, I watched The Inconvienient Truth and it seems like propaganda to me. After reading through this whole thread, I could care less if people think global warming is real or not. Isn't the fact that we're polluting our earth enough to motivate us to try and clean up our act? Global warming or not, we should be trying to live lifestyles that are healthier and more beneficial for the earth and ourselves. I get kind of disgusted when I hear people say they wouldn't be willing to change their lifestyles. It's like a druggie refusing to clean up his/her act to me. The earth needs to detox.

I definitely believe that global warming exists. People who think it doesn't have probably been somewhat brainwashed (for lack of a better word). I've read that there's been evidence of global warming ever since factories started growing in great numbers during the Industrial Revolution, and temperatures nowadays are significantly warmer than they're supposed to be. They have been for the past several years. Global warming is not a lie.

With our nation's politics so split, it seems like just as many people that believe in Global Warming think its a lie. What are your views on it? Are we really damaging our Environment with our huge production of carbon dioxide? Or are scientists and enviromentalists simply exaggerating?

I was flipping through my Chemistry book today in class, and found a very interesting section on Global Warming. It's an A Beka Book, published by a Christian college... last updated in 2000. I completely disagree with what the book says, but I thought it'd be interesting to share and debate on.

Global Warming
Recently, some scientists have speculated that mankind's production of CO2 (from fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and cement manufacturing) may significantly enhance the greenhouse effect, causing average global temperatures to rise. Although man's annual contribution of CO2ot the environment is far smaller than nature's (roughly 7 billion tons vs. 200 billion tons), these scientists worry that this small increase may cause unpredictable changes in the global climate. Environmental activists have gone much further, predicting global flooding, disease epidemics, mass famine, and even the extinction of the human race if drastic action is not taken to slash CO2 emissions.

Earth's climate history
Actually, mankind's effects on the global climate are probably far smaller than some would like to think. Although the earth's climate is not well understood, the science of climatology has shown that the earth's climate tends to fluctuate over long term cycles. For example, between AD 900 and AD 1100, a period climatologists call the Medieval Climate Optimum or Medieval Warm Period, global temperatures are thought to have been significantly warmer than at present. The weather was so mild that grapes and citrus fruits were grown in England; the Vikings established successful farms and colonies in Greenland; and the Anasazi Indians built a large agriculture-based civilization on the Colorado Plateau (which was then characterized by a warm, moist climate). By the 1300's, however, global temperatures dropped sharply, plunging the world into a period called the Little Ice Age. The Vikings' crops and livestock in Greenland began to fail, the colonists died, and the island became covered with ice. Widespread exhaustion and malnutrition due to poor weather and crop failures left Europe vulnerable to huge plague epidemics that killed millions of people. Cooler, drier weather on the Colorado Plateau spelled the end of the Anasazi civilization in America, while at the same time the Thames River near London froze over in the winter with ice thick enough to support annual "ice fairs." In the years to come, the unusually cold winters would cause great hardship for early American colonists. About 1850, the climate began to warm once again, gradually ending the Little Ice Age; by the early 20th century, citrus fruits were being grown in the United States as far north as the Carolinas. This warming continued until 1938 or so, when temperatures leveled off and began to drop once again (probably related to ta decline in solar output). As late as the 1970's, unusually cold winters prompted environmental activists to call for drastic government action to save the planet from "global cooling" and an imminent Ice Age. In the late 1980'sand 1990's, temperatures once again began to climb (corresponding to an increase in solar output), prompting renewed calls to save the planet - this time for global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations responded to fears of global warming by convening a 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Under the direction of radical environmentalist Maurice Strong, leaders of 150 nations drafted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which called for nations to "voluntarily" clash CO2 emissions, at great cost, to 1990 levels. In 1995, at a second UN conference in Berlin, developing nations voted to exempt themselves from any restrictions while approving mandatory CO2 cutbacks for developed nations such as the United States. These mandatory cutbacks were later incorporated into an amendment to the Freamework Convention called the Kyoto Protocol, drafted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1998.

The Kyoto Protocol demands that the United States reduce its CO2 emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2010 (a 30-40% reduction below estimated 2010 levels). It also calls for restrictions on hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Interestingly, most other nations fare far better under the treaty than the United States. China, Singapore, Mexico, and many other rapidly industrializing nations are specifically exempted from the Protocol, while the nations of Western Europe are allowed to count the shutdown of pullution-emitting Communist factories in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's as if they were cutbacks in their own CO2 production.

Costs of Kyoto
Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have argued that slashing CO2 emissions by as much as 40% below estimated 2010 levels will have little if any economic cost. The Clinton Administration estimated that the only noticeable effect would be an increase in gasoline prices of 6-8 cents per gallon, while some environmentalists have even argued that the treaty will save money and jobs. However, since the treaty lays heavy burdens on U.S. industries while copletely exempting most overseas industries, it is likely that it will only accelerate the flight of energy-intensive U.S. industries to other nations, with the inevitable loss of American jobs. Some critics predict that by 2010, the Kyoto Protocol could result in the loss of 2.4 million U.S. jobs and cost the average family as much as $2700 per year in price increases and losti ncome. Energy shortages like those of the 1970s may once again become commonplace, particularly if environmentalists continue to obstruct the construction of new nuclear plants.

Possible benefits of rising CO2
These huge costs are particularly ironic in the light of the fact that increased CO2 levels (and even global warming, should it occur) would likely be a net benefit to mankind. It is a known fact that plants grow much more efficiently at higher CO2 concentrations; if the CO2 content of the air is experimentally doubled, crop yields increase up to 50% while requiring much less water and fertilizer. In addition, history reveals that periods of warmer average global temperatures tend to be associated with better living conditions for humanity as a whole. During the medieval Climate Optimum (when average global temperatures were 6-9 degrees warmer than at present), average life expectancies increased significantly due to reduced disease, higher crop yields, and better nutrition. The global cooling that ended this period (the Little Ice Age), by contrast, was associated with a 10-year drop in average life expectancies.

Looking ahead
Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol seems to reflect a "ready-fire-aim" approach that characterizes many environmental issues. Although the fate of the treaty is not yet certain, it is likely that the global warming debated will continue for some time to come. As Christians, however, we can be certain that "while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and sumer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22). Although we should do all within our power to protect the world God has given us, we must always remember that the fate of the earth rests in the hands of its Creator.

That last paragraph scares me the most... the idea that the earth will only cease to exist when God's ready for it to. The first few paragraphs just lead up to global warming... most of the bizzare content is in the last two paragraphs.

Agree, or disagree on the book's claims? Discuss.

Can a smoker reverse the damage they've done to their lungs? No they cant.

Global warming is evident, whether you choose to beleive it or not, and it will affect you in some way or another

Temperature changes are becoming radical
Nature itself is changing, due to the growing increase of warm weather such as, ocean tides, rising humidity, and seals. YES seals. Seals are dying off because the fish are going furhter and further out to cold water, and seals live near the coast. Also, more animal species are dying off as well. South pole penguins such as the emperor penguin are dying off not only because their food source is becoming harder to find, but because the temperature in the SOUTH POLE is rising. Emperor penguins are adapted to COLD temperatures, not warm.

lets not forget about Venus either. If we look at Venus, we can tell that their is an obvious greenhouse affect. Plenty of gas, plenty of warm air.
perhaps Venus was once like Earth, and it slowly heated up over hundreds of years? I bet Earth well end up like Venus in about five hundred years or more -_-"

Actually, they can. The body has amazing rejuvenating abilities.

Also, regarding the whole monitoring temperature and CO2 levels. Wow, they've monitored CO2 for 30 years, plenty of evidence to deduce that the earth is going into peril. I mean, it clearly shows that this is the highest it's ever been in earth's 6.5 BILLION years of existence.

Haha. I find it amazing how some people try to argue about something they don't even know about.

I mean, I might do it, but I give up knowing full well I can't go on. So, Kimmytree...you just got served, bitch!

To Everyone
- - -
Global warming is gay. That's my scientific output on this. Are you gonna go burn down all the factories? Then shut the fuck up, because when you sit here and talk about it to a bunch of fucking fifteen year olds, it makes you look a little bit dumber.
Alright, let's keep this neurtral. 6.5 billion and 6 thousand years. That's what you have to say for now on. It's only fair. Like the guidelines say....

There was global warning before we even existed, we have some to do with it, but Al Gore is an idiot, to many flaws in his theory.
Him getting the Nobel peace prize was ridiculous.

Americans will be interested to read that an English High Court judge has ruled Gore’s famous film contains nine key factual errors, and should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent ‘political indoctrination’.

It’s worth repeating the ‘nine errors’ identified by Judge Michael Burton:

1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

3. The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.

9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.