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.

I agree with global warming, but I do not agree with the fact that HUMANS are to blame for it. We only produce a FRACTION of the carbon in the atmosphere, and by that I mean single digits of giga tons. Also, the scientists doing most of the studies who were with it in the begging are now against it, I wonder why?

Rotting leaves from trees create more carbon a year than the human factor to the world, that includes cars, and all of the things told to be causing global warming to SKYROCKET.

Professor Ian Clark says it the best, "You can't say CO2 will drive the climate, it certainly never did in the past."

Also I love Al Gores complete stance on it, that the melting ice caps will kill us all. He mentions Greenland's under continental currents, and well what he says is not true, he mis used the data given to him to further the scare factor of his movie.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" worth every penny.

Also, I would like to point out the scientist who first STARTED studying Global Warming is against it, why? Because the media and the government agencies have turned it into a money game, thousands of jobs rely on funding to research something that is not happening.

All a "Inconvenient Truth" has going for it is a few maybe "What ifs."

^bing bing bing bing bing bing!

Scientists who are coming out and saying that Global Warming is happening are all being funded by the government and in order to get those funds they're telling the government that they're going to look into things that the government wants to hear. They're not going to say we need the money so we can prove that global warming isn't really happening as y'all say it is. The government refuses to admit wrong in many regards. That's why recently they've gone from calling it 'global warming' to 'climate change' haha.

Global Warming is one of many touchy subjects I speak on, and I am totally against Al Gores propaganda he spreads in his movies, he flat out LIES about a deciding factor of ice caps malting. Wanna know why? Because if he told the truth, you would realize it makes no sense, what he is promoting in his slide show would show the complete opposite if you knew the complications of the atmosphere, CO2, water warming and other factors. He doesn't tell you those factors, because if he did, his entire presentation would then be a public lie.

this is a very big deal. and its getting worse rom pollution.

Well... it's either global warming or evolutionary. Lets just hope it's global warming and we can fix it. Cuz if it's evolutionary, we're lookin at another age of the dinosaurs :x

lol

Accept the dinosaurs died from a meteor hitting the earth and blocking the sun out. This would actually be the complete opposite if what they are saying what we are doing to the earth is happening. We would die from it being too hot, not too cold. So the complete opposite yes.

Also, the sun will blow up in a few million years anyway, so the end of earth will happen, we just wont be around to see it.

Well there's two theories goin on. Global Warming and Global Cooling.

There's also another theory that the earth is gonna flip. North Pole will be south, and south pole will be north.

What I meant about the dinosaurs was, human life will expire once everything freezes over. Not because of comets :D

No such thing as Global Warming. At least not of the scale most politicians want us to believe.

My own view is that Global Warming is a convenient cover for just how low our natural finite resources are getting. It's also a fabulous method of social control.

But we wouldn't be bothered about that - as it won't happen in our lifetime; but Global Warming? That's a very 'now' thing. Quick! Terrify the populace!

There's not even any confirmed evidence that Global Warming exists. No two scientists or institutions are in agreement. Where's the evidence?

As Tamacracker has said, in the late 70's the concern was over Global Cooling. Ironic, huh?

There's some great resources for anyone interested at www.globalwarmingisafarce.com

^Yar.

I don't think it's so much a cover up for the dwindling down of finite natural resources though. I think it's something for Al Gore to do. If he really cared he'd tear down his house and move into something much smaller, instead of something that uses 20 times the national average.

Also there are so many factors that everyone leaves out. A recent one I found out about is with the increasing landfill technology, they're absorbing more and more carbon, which is going to omg stop global warming

Bleh.

then u clearly do not read science journals
not to mention the latest IPCC report, which was written and reviewed by thousands of scientist around the world, who are ironically in agreement.

everyone needs to go read the report Smoke Mirrors and Hot Air, besides being extremely interesting, u'll see who's really doing the "covering up".

people can argue all day over whether they think the increase in temperature ( which is proven, and supported by evidence) is because of humans or natural. i don't see why we wouldn't put effort into more environmentally safe practices, what is there to lose by playing the safe side?

so what if u dont KNOW FOR SURE that it's going to be a problem in ur lifetime, u dont KNOW FOR SURE that ur gonna need car or health insurance but u still buy it don't u.

I wrote a paper on this and did hours of research; INCLUDING scientific journals.

Please link me to relevant sources and back up your arguments.

http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01b.htm#cru
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0118/p02s01-usgn.html
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/articl...?ContentID=5300

man this topic was closed last time i tried to reply
ANYWAY
ur first link is by john daly, the opinion of ONE man

ur second link
because the "christian science" monitor is what id really wanna quote for my scientific resources. sorry, if i had turned that into my college professor he would have laughed in my face, but i duno about urs

i was confused by the third link, it just telling how much pollution our cars put out. i dont get how thats relevant to ur argument that global warming doesn't exist and isn't a reason for concern. that whole website was in support of global warming existing and being a problem it seemed like. not skeptical so i dont know

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...irrors-hot.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

id start out with those three links
we already know the IPCC's take on global warming, and since 1988 thats always been the leader we look to...
National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society

i personally trust these GROUPS, that express an opinion reached by MANY scientists more than ONE scientists opinion, aka john daly who died in 2004

Ok look the Earth is heating up, no doubt about that. Is it natural? Yes. Medieval times were way hotter. It was cooler to an extent that they feared another ice age a few decades ago. We're actually emerging from a mini-ice age. I too wrote a 7 page paper on the topic of Global Warming, but I don't see that as a source as you probably picked the side you supported and found facts backing that up.

Yes we can clean up the environment. Yes we can do all sorts of stuff to make the air cleaner, but it's not going to stop whether or not the Earth gets hotter or colder.


edit:: and this smoke and mirrors books, who wrote it and from what perspective is it?

Union of Concerned Scientists



i still don't see why we wouldn't want clean air, regardless of if it effects the temperature of the earth.

Whether Global Warming exists or not, taking certain measures will be beneficial either way. Look at our gas prices, and where we have to get our oil from. By driving more fuel efficient vehicles and consuming less, thats less money we have to hand them.

And I dont see how anyone can state that pollution isnt bad for our planet and atmosphere. If its not contributing to Global Warming, its gotta be doing something. Just like when a person smokes or consumes something unnatural, it ends up hurting them in one way or another.

I still believe there's a fairly good chance that Global Warming IS real. But for me, there's still a small chance that we're wrong. But even if there was just a teeeny chance that we WERE causing it, why not take the proper precautions, just in case? The precautions people are wanting us to take are nothing major. It's not like they'd alter our way of life.

exactly
there's no harm in playing it safe, i think there's a ton of benefits like not depending so much on foreign countries. it seems pretty logical to me.

And as far as driving more effecient vehicles goes, the technology has been here. We already have decent effecient cars here in the US, but Europe has cars that get almost TWICE the fuel economy. I saw in a magazine awhile back about how Volkswagen has a car similar to the Rabbit / Golf over in Europe that gets like 60 or 70 mpg. But, the article added that VW will be unable to bring it overseas to the US. I dont think our government (current one at least) wants us to have more fuel efficient vehicles, because thats less money we'd spend on gas. Alot of our vehicles cant even pass the requirements to even be sold in Europe, because of their emissions and fuel economy.

Ahhh, now I'm rambling.

They also have way less people driving, more mass transportation, and weaker less-safe cars.

Btw, Global Warming is real. Is it the end of the world? no. Is it natural? yes. Was it going to happen regardless of what we did? yes. Will it eventually cool down? yes.

oh ok
i duno why i bother reading so much information from actual scientists when i could just asked u since u have all the answers. its much more simple this way. i wasted a ton of time
lets all go back to pumping a bunch of waste into our air and oceans and using ridiculously inefficient things. won't bother me if my children never seen blue sky

*sigh* I hate when people automatically assume that when I say what I just said that I'm also saying we should keep polluting.

Did I make up those answers? nah. I researched it all, so meh.

no ur right, u never said we should pollute, so i apologize for assuming that

i researched all my answers too
everyones researched all their answers
which i guess is why this topic will never go anywhere


i'm gonna stick with the IPCC and their thousands of scientist
and whoever wants can stick with their organizations, who's board members include staff members of exxon mobil

my final opinion is we should work on making things more efficient, more environmentally safe, regardless of what is causing global warming. it's not gonna hurt anything to be cleaner. i don't think people will ever agree if the rising temperature is human made or not, but there's no doubt pollution is a problem.

I agree with you for the most part. Rising temperatures, some is human induced, but the majority is not. That was one of the things I looked into. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in the 80's and that one eruption put out more emissions than humans have since the industrial revolution. The point I'm arguing is not that we should pollute, nor should we ignore the rising temperature all together, rather we shouldn't try to stop it.

I could make arguments about the scientists on the 'Global Warming is Happening' side, but I've made that argument earlier in this thread, as well as every argument that we've just discussed.

How can we be so sure of how much we have and have not induced? The earth is millions of years old, but we've only been polluting for the past 100 - 150 years or so.

What if we can help stop it? Better safe than sorry, right?


Less people driving is a good thing. Heck, the roads are overcrowded enough as it is. 50 years ago families didnt have 2 and 3 vehicles like they do today. Mass transportation is also a good thing. If I lived in a larger city like Chicago or something, I'd definitely use it. But weaker cars? Where do you get that from? I dont think car manufacturers are doing that to get better mileage - its out of cheapness. It's more profitable for them to make a car cheaper and sell it at a regular price. Compare cars today to ones from like 20 years ago. Today they're lighter, flimsier, and not as quality made.

And oh, a vehicles weight isnt the only thing that contributes to better fuel economy.

I know it's not the only thing that contributes to fuel economy. I'll find other info regarding cars later.

Regarding the first response, I'll go get an interview from my boss on monday. He's a geologist, maybe he knows a thing or two.