http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Just one article, but it's worth a read. I'd like to see more research in this subject. I tend to be a little hesitant to believe most global warming reports that I hear because they seem to be fielded by people who are just trying to push their whole naturalistic anti-industry philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd sure like to see a closer look by people who seem like they're less out to prove a point, and more interested in really studying our world's climate and prepare us for the inevitable natural fluctuation that the earth will eventually throw our way.


EDIT: I have looked at the whole thing that closely yet, apparently it's actually twenty seven articles.

I agree wholeheartedly. Healthy skepticism is warranted; especially since the issue is highly politicized.

Calling Jon`C...

We're not saying we don't believe in global warming, we're saying the political squabbling that goes along with it is turning a lot of people off. I don't want to have to join a political movement just to believe a scientific theory. I don't want to associate with these rabid moralizers and their hypocritical finger-pointing.

Fixed.

It was 33 degrees below zero here...in March...yet 60+-ish (above) in January. I don't freakin' know what's going on. :p

As politicized as it may be, I want to to look at me straight-faced and tell me that the billions of tons of crap we pump into our atmosphere each year has no effect, and that it is all just a natural cycle. The rapidity at which climate change is happening surely has something to do with people's activities.

Just listened to a report on NPR the other day about how Sudan is losing Gum Arabic crops pretty badly, partly due to war, but also due to climate change.

I want you to look at me with a straight face and tell me that volcanic explosions haven't ever done the same thing on a much larger and more violent scale.

Global cooling creates deserts. Deserts are bad for things that need water, like us.

A quick Google search disputes those claims. (Hint: volcanoes global warming was used as a search term, loads of stuff came up against that very claim. But there exists obvious bias, such as here, and frankly I don't know enough to sift through the research behind the stuff).

In short, do you want to source your opinion?

Then again, that's what this whole thread will be for the most part, baseless unsourced opinions from armchair experts on everything.

Yeah, a quick google seems to refute that. According to the USGS, CO2 from one volcano is less than 0.01% emitted by man each year.

Here's another source that says man made greenhouse gasses eclipse all the natural volcanics by about 150 times.

That's because there is only a fraction of the volcanic activity now than in the distant past. There have also been higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the past as well than current levels.

I guess, but if we're worried about the global warming occurring now, isn't that irrelevant?

It's relevant in understanding the natural warming and cooling trends of the planet.

this is a dumb thread.


CO2 isn't even that effective of a greenhouse gas. We also produce methane (agriculture) and water vapor (EVERYTHING WE DO), both of which are significant but largely ignored factors. Also, all human activities produce waste heat. So global warming is going to happen to the planet no matter how many trees and car batteries we hug.

Volcanos do produce a significant amount of greenhouse gases but they also aerosolize dust and ash which is reflective. Increased volcanic activity would have a cooling effect.

CO2 as the most effective greenhouse gas?

More like H2O.

emirite?

Another things is, short of bringing about changes so drastic that massive poverty and world starvation follow, can we do anything? From what I've heard, the Kyoto treaty isn't nearly enough to put an effective dent in our emissions. How much harm would we see in letting it run it's course? It's only a matter time before fuel are used that are more efficient and less harmful both on the local and global level.

I said VOLCANIC EXPLOSIONS, not normal volcano. >: (

I can't wait until Mount St. Helens erupts again. It better be at night, and they'd better have HD coverage.

I hate you sometimes.

Don't forget nitrous oxides!

Yes, but releasing all that carbon into the air that was taken out of the air back when Earth was a swamp world has to have some effect. And yes, methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas, but that fact doesn't really refute anything. Human activities also increase methane entering the atmosphere, and if warming melts the permafrost in the north, huge amounts of methane could be released that would accelerate warming even farther.

Canadians are just angry that the world would rather try to save the lives of people in third world nations than allow Canada to get nicer weather.

The earth doesn't say in equilibrium. It changes. We only have two choices : Hotter or colder.

If it gets hotter, the ice caps melt, we lose some dirty cities that need a good scrub anyway, and we get some nice inland seas with lots of nice beaches. Also the ecology collapses and we all starve to death before it comes back.

If it gets colder, the ice caps still come here. Except now they're glaciers, and don't have nice beaches. Also the ecology collapses and we all starve to death before it comes back.

Pick one. And get over it.

I never disputed anything. I'm not really a part of this discussion. This thread is stupid.

Yeah, who wants to be poor when your children are dead?

It's absurd to say that our children will die from global warming. Absurd. It's even absurd to say that their health will be detrimentally affected. You've got a helluvalotta proving to do to back up that statement.

While I am concerned about "global warming". I'm more concerned about the overpopulation of the human race. However, I do believe that many of the "green" alternative technologies are definitely better for the environment. The difficulty is that "better for the environment" just might be relative.

I didn't say poor, I said mass starvation. We're screwed either way.