What's your opinion?

Mine personally.... It's a load of bunk. Why? Well... don't take my word for it...
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featur..._of_belief.html

Billy3

I will offer my opinion:

If Global Warming issues lead to sustainability then I am all for it. However, I am not really into all that Carbon tax or any other "green tax" stuff.

If I owned any beach front property I would consider selling it in the next decade or two

Which "Global Warming"?


The one that has been part of a Global Cooling/Global Warming cycle for millions of years?

The one where it is possible some of man's activities might be affecting the weather - either cooling or warming?

or

The one where Al Gore states that man's CO2 emissions are causing what will be disasterous Global Warming?

that one

The weather pattern is indeed changing....I don't believe, however, this is man made.

This is just an excuse for millions of "experts" to sustain lucrative employment, and governments have just found new ways to tax the population.

Who is All Gore, anyway......How come a failed politician has now become an environmental expert?

I do believe it's manmade. I mean, we're using oil like there's no tomorrow.

Although it's natural for around this time to get hotter (there's this every so many years or centuries cycle that goes between cold and hot, I think last one was the Ice Age) but the charts have been going a little too high for comfort.

And sheesh, more people are getting cancer. Not enough prevention for skin cancer.

As for Al Gore... he might have failed as a politician, but that doesn't make him unable to be good in something else, does it?

global warming happens through history, its natural, thats a fact...

with that said, if some of the recent warming is due to man, what do you really think you can do to stop it? I mean as an american, i have to sit through one news special about record gas prices and how much gas companies are making, and then on the next channel they're talking about how all of the fuel burning is causing global warming. I mean our government is so stupid. They can't take a stand one way or another on anything. Its not like the average american can really cut down on his/her fuel consumption a day, its just not possible for us. Leave it to the corporations and governments to fix this problem, if there is one, even though I don't think either are capable or willing.

While we can't stop this natural cycle, we shouldn't be doing anything to make the natural increase even higher.

Oh, that one!

Yeah, you and me and 31k others - Global Warming Petition Project.

These are only the folks who knew about the Petition and weren't fearful of retaliation if they signed it. Meaning, there are no doubt many others who agree with the petition's statement, but weren't in a position to risk the problems associated with not going along with what Al Gore and the CO2 alarmists were saying.

Notice this: (from the petition)

I'm thinking that all the facts are not in, all the scientists do not agree, and there is still a lot to debate and determine.

skyfuser - Yes, Al Gore could be good at something, and apparently he is very good at spreading false information regarding this Anthropogenic Global Warming concept. Not that he cares what we think, he is making hundreds of millions of dollars on his carbon credit scheme.



Well, it appears that the warming cycle has halted, and we are in a cooling period. Moreover, while I agree with you that we shouldn't do anything that might make the situation (either cooling or warming) worse, the scientific community isn't in agreement that anything we are doing is having anything more than a negligble effect.

Remember - CO2 is not a bad thing. The plants love it and, indeed, need it. An increase in CO2 in the lower atmosphere means plants will be healthier and their fruits more bountiful. With all the people going hungry in the world, this increased harvest is definately desireable, don't you think?

That's true about CO2 being vital to the survival of the ecosystem.

But the ozone layer thinning out is another major concern. While no one can prove anything, there's a significant correlation between the amount of oil and gas being emitted and how much ozone being destroyed. +the greenhouse effect, heatstrokes and UV rays are going to be more common and dangerous.

Harvesting also requires fertile soil

@Skyfuser




Actually, since the banning of CFCs, the hole in the ozone layer has stabilized.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole



Billy3

Nope. Global warming (or cooling) is totally unrelated to ozone depletion. Greenhouse gasses have no effect on the ozone layer.

ACK, sorry >___< I'm still under the impression that the ozone layer is connected to global warming.

And JohnWho, I would perfectly agree that Al Gore being an "expert" is probably only a money making scheme. Who to trust...

But still... I think we should not try to make the greenhouse effect any worse than it is now >_<

We are all occupants upon this planet, sun spots come and go. taxes just go on and on going up to reduce the sunspots?? I have seen the way forward (pay more tax and everything will be OK)

Yes, that would make sense, however, the problem is that there is not scientific agreement or consensus on how much, if at all, the level of CO2 (man-made or natural) in the atmosphere is effecting either cooling or warming of the climate in what is termed the "green house effect". Before we damage many countries economies, I would think we should have a better understanding in this regard.

I do not believe we should waste time, effort, or money on a scheme that may not make any difference when that time, effort, and money could be spent on projects that certainly will make a difference to the people of the world. We could be using that to feed more people and to provide medical attention to more people, for example.

This CO2 controversy should be viewed as an entirely separate situation from being better stewards of the planet, something I fully support.

That is why I asked which "Global Warming" are we discussing.

Reading this thread, I happend upon a serindipitous thought. That I have yet to see any one mention or take into consideration. We all know that the human body gives off heat. We can see that in thermographic images.

Take these facts into consideration:

And this one.


So in summation we have 10 times the human BTU output from 300 years ago. Could that not be a contributing factor thats never been taken into consideration. All these warm blooded people heating up the planet.

I happend to check an online World Population guesstimator and it said todays guesstimated world population is 6,813,480,597. So simple math 6 813 480 597 X 222 = 1 512 592 692 534 BTU's. Give or take a million or two BTU's.
That seems to me we humans by ourselves generate a bit of heat

Quote #1 from: Here

Quote #2 from: Here

I say, Thank God for global warming! With the winters we've gone through the last couple of years, this one I thought would never end, just think how cold it would have been without global warming...

As for the record breaking heat in some cities, sometimes, does anybody ever take into account the amount of heat put off by car engines, mechanical equipment that is running to cool buildings and homes, the heat stored and reflected, released from the asphalt roads? The bigger the city, town, the more of that you will have. Do you really count that as "global" warming?

Wildabeast -

Good observation.

The Urban Heat Island effect is very much understood, and, in fact, has played a large part in the over estimating of the warming global temperature before it was recognized/discovered and the data was adjusted to lower the average temperature readings.

Essentially, many data recording devices which were in fields near agricultural areas had been moved to building roof-tops, asphalt parking lots, or near air conditioners and were recording obviously higher temps than they should have been.

Unfortunately, the Global Warming Alarmists continue to use these over-inflated false figures when they show temperature increases.

The main concern I have about human-induced climate change is this: we are simultaneously increasing our carbon output and destroying the earth's ability to absorb carbon.

In other words, we burn greater amounts of fossil fuels while destroying ecosystems...the Amazon rain forests, the ocean's kelp beds, the coral reefs, ect.

The problem is that short term changes might have long, sweeping ramifications. The fact that we can only guess, so far, at these ramifications fuels the arguments of those who are against the very notion of human-induced climate change. The problem is the time scales; humans are not good at grasping much more than centuries at a time. 100 years "feels" like a long time to us. It is difficult to produce conclusive data from experiments that would require many millennia to complete!

We know that the earth has undergone large shifts in climate over the years. This time (if we are indeed riding the wave of such a shift) human behavior will have had an impact; where the pendulum comes to rest when the dust clears is hard to guess with so many variables, both natural and artificial.



Are you seriously suggesting that burning millions of tons of coal make plants healthier? Hmm, what ever did plants do before the industrial revolution came along?

I am reminded of an episode of The Simpson's in which lobbysts for the logging industry showed 'before' and 'after' slides to a local politician. The 'before' slide depicted a sickly, dilapidated bunch of trees; the 'after' slide showed all the forest creatures having tea parties on the stumps with a rainbow overhead...

---

Reduction of emissions will have sweeping benefits. Remember, carbon is only one side-effect of fossil fuel consumption. Heavy metals, sulfur, and many other toxins are released in a continuous flow into the environment. These chemicals saturate our drinking water, our air, or oceans, and our food.

While I agree that evidence of human-induced climate change is not easily obtained and can be in some cases subjective, I tend to err on the side of caution. Reduction of our environmental footprint can only have positive effects for the overall health of humans and the environment; even if it turns out that we don't have a significant effect on climate change.

Also, I do not subscribe to the suggestion that the reduction of emissions can only harm the world's economies. There are far greater dangers to the health of an economy. In developed nations, new technologies can fuel new sectors; developing nations can learn from our mistakes and perhaps avoid the pitfalls of fossil fuel addiction. There are many paths to stable economies that don't necessitate putrid industrialism.

---



The problem here is that overall rise in global temperature does not equate to a linear raise in temperature in any given location. The opposite can be true, in fact. The earth's climate is a complex system; a change in one variable can have unpredictable effects elsewhere.

Which is why I, as I previously mentioned, prefer to err on the side of caution.

Excellent post,in my opinion, locally pwned.
Abunantly clear,some members in this thread,can't see the wood for the trees,as they say.
"OH.It's not happenin,brudder." Too late when it has happened.

And the main concern people like myself have is that there are so many people, including yourself, who don't separate the two situations.

I'm with you on not destroying the ecosystems.. the rain forests, the ocean's, coral reefs, etc.

The anthropogenic CO2 emission situation has nothing to do with that, and, as has been discussed, there is not any form of certainty that it is having any noticeable effect, either positive or negative - and both cooling and warming has some of both - on the global climate.




No, we can do more than "guess...at these ramifications". The scientific community, if allowed to discuss, debate, analyse, etc. in the proper scientific methodology, can do better than a "guess".

To react to bad science based on false assumptions would move us in an even worse direction than a "guess", in my, and many others, opinion.

This is the problem with the alarmists, such as DSTM - they buy into the bad science and accuse others who want to "get it right" (or at least as right as possible), as being part the problem, not realising that those that say this and won't let science properly analyze the situation are actually part of the problem.



Yes, this is a concern, but the question I'm trying to get you to see regards which part of human behavior, if any, is having an impact, and further, whether the impact is bad or good.

Take some time to investigate - a little warming would be great for most of Siberia and Canada, for example, since it would extend their agricultural growing periods. In other words, a little warming isn't bad for all of us, no matter what the cause might be.




Don't be silly, of course I'm not saying to burn coal simply to make plants healthier, however, check out the levels of CO2 in many of the professionally run greenhouses - it is 2 to 3 times or more the current levels in our lower atmosphere.

When before the Industrial Revolution? Again, do some research - CO2 levels globally have been higher than the are now.



Well, if your source of information is The Simpson's, I guess you've got me beat.

Although, whether you want to accept it or not, plants are "happier" at CO2 levels higher than current levels.




Ah, pollution is again, a separate issue from whether CO2 emissions are affecting the climate.

Remember - it is the "Al Gore/CO2 causing certain catastrophy" that I'm questioning.

(Note to other readers - it is a common practice of AGW Alarmists to attempt to alter the subject of the conversation. This way they don't have to defend the junk science upon which their premise is based.)




"Environmental footprint" overall is not the same thing as what I'm describing specifically. Once again, it is Anthropogenic CO2 Global Warming that I'm saying is not settled science.



Doesn't matter what you subscribe to, the fact is that attempting to adhere to the Kyoto protocol, and attempting to engage in Al Gore's sponsored carbon trading scheme, is hurting many European economies even as we speak.

Meanwhile, China and India, for example, are moving forward and will continue to thrive, even though they are both increasing their CO2 emissions annually.

Again, you attempt to shift the topic - it is not "putrid industrialism" that is the main topic of discussion. The main point is whether CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, either natural or anthropogenic, are having an effect on the climate and it so, whether that effect is cooling or warming and how measurable is that effect.



Well, first the "overall rise" seems to have stopped, and, in deed, most "climatologists" are reporting a cooling trend.

I would agree on the "err on the side of cauton" idea if the AGW by CO2 science was not based on bad science. Heck, I'd even say "tough, uh, poop" to those countries whose economies may suffer because of changes they would have to make if the science was better.

To use an example you mentioned, above, this overreaction to man's CO2 emissons is detracting from concern over the Rain Forests. We may discover in 20 or 30 years that the effort we wasted going down the AGW/CO2 path was wasted and should have been directed toward preserving the Rain Forests. Of course, it will be too late then.

Because of all the attention it is getting, I believe it is extremely important that modern science be allowed to analyze and debate this subject in order to prevent us from doing the wrong thing (either way).



DSTM -

It is abundantly clear that some members in this thread don't want to know the truth or can't handle it.

I notice, though, that you don't add anything substantial to the thread - just an insult.

This is another tactic that you Alarmists often use. If one can't argue the facts, insult or attack the messenger.

Not trying to insult you,in the least, John.If you take my remarks as an insult,Well........
I have read every Post, you have made, both here,and on another site,and you came into this discussion,with a closed mind.
I am not an Alarmist,just a person on this planet,who worries we are burning too much Fossil Fuels, and we are lousy custodians of this Planet.
Every reputable link, I supplied on the other Site, for you,was treated as crap by you,and only your links were credible in your eyes.
I came into this discussion with an open mind.I get the impression from your Posts,you had your mind made up long before,
you even posted your first post.

How can the reduction of carbon-absorbing plant life...not relate to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I see what you are getting at...that protection of biodiversity on the earth is itself a worthy endeavor. However, anthropogenically speaking, we are burning the candle at both ends. So yeah, I think it does relate to the discussion.



I wasn't very specific here.

The research I have read about include long term studies of various ecosystems from high in the Alps to the Poles to the ocean floor to the worlds' deserts; core samples showing atmospheric composition; various types of satellite data, including distributions and patterns of precipitation; and so on and so on.

What I meant by "guessing" is that we've only made these kinds of measurements for, geologically speaking, an infinitesimally small amount of time. Thus, it is difficult to build accurate models to predict future behavior.

One "guess" scientists recently made was the suggestion that hurricanes will be worse due to a warmer ocean. The idea was sound; tropical storms have always been thought to gain energy directly from the ocean. More heat energy in the water could easily mean more energy for the storms, thus larger storms. Since the data has been correlated, no such link has been found. The lack of this link has been taken as a "triumph" by some of those who believe that human-induced climate change is false. It's a bit of a, "Ha ha, take that Al!"

Another guess: as I mentioned before, complex systems have non-linear effects when variables are changed. A physics professor told us of one possible scenario. As the temperature goes up, the poles begin to melt; the ocean water becomes less salty, and the change in water density disrupts ocean currents. Weather patterns then change, warmer-than-longitude-should-allow weather enjoyed by much of Europe would be gone.

An alarmist reaction would be, "Oh no, stop driving, Europe won't have a growing season anymore!"

My reaction is more like, "more research is needed on ocean currents and the effects of changes in water density. I need coffee." Something like that, anyway.



I am uncomfortable with the idea of justifying our actions on the account that unforeseen changes might be for the better. I would rather focus on reduction of our impact, in all its forms, and deal with natural difficulties as they arise.

It's a bit like introducing a predator to remove a pest, only to find that in the end the predator does three times the damage.



I will admit, I was being a bit smarmy here. Tried to lighten it up with a Simpson's reference. Your statement, as it was, reminding me of people who say things like, "c'mon, smoking isn't thaaat bad for you."

My point is that you can't simply accept "a little extra C02 for the plants" without looking at all the other negatives that come with industrial pollution.

C02 levels have been higher, in the distant past. The problem is how fast it has spiked. I read in my local paper that there was a recent core sample going back 65,000 years; we are at the highest levels of C02 since at least then.



Note to readers - I had no intention of 'changing the subject' for this purpose.

OK: here's a question. The basics. Why is the earth moderately warm while the moon is -123 C in the shade and or 150 C in the light? It's due to the properties of our atmosphere; its ability to trap heat. This ability comes from specific gases that prevent longer wavelengths from leaving. We know what some of these gases are; water vapor, methane, CO2 to name a few. The atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen; about a third oxygen; and one percent trace gases. The C02 lies in that 1%. So how much bigger would that trace have to be to have an impact on the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere? It's not conceivable that humans - adding CO2 for several centuries at an ever-increasing rate while destroying the earth's ability to absorb it - might not nudge it just enough?

This, not "alarmist propaganda," fuels my argument. Unless I am just "spewing junk science" again.

I agree that scientific method should be employed and the community should continue to debate. This is how all science progresses. But remember, all major theories have "battles" surrounding them; from quantum mechanics to plate tectonics. It's part of the game. If I am on the loosing side and a better model for the climate is found, I will cede.

By the way, one argument is that climate is more heavily effected by variation of solar activity than the composition of our atmosphere. This may be the solution. However, wouldn't higher levels of greenhouse gases work in concert with increased solar radiation?



Could you please cite this statement? And it had better not be Fox News.

Hey, LP I only have a minute or so, so let me just address this.

The bottom line question is whether, and how much if any, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere effects the climate, either cooling or warming.?

The Alarmista say it has a catastrophic warming effect. The other side of the coin - what are sometimes called the "Deniers" - say it has no warming effect whatsoever.

The problem with these discussins is that there is a very large contingent of scientists that aren't in total agreement as to whether the effect is more than minimal, if that, and some show that it could be either cooling or warming. The AGW Alarmists stifle any sort of scientific discussion and debate, making it very difficult for us non-scientists to know, or even reasonably understand, what is really happening.

The question isn't simply whether we have any sort of effect, it is very specifically, at least when discussing "Global Warming caused by anthorpogenic CO2 emissions", how much effect and what kind of effect.

We should not react, or overreact as the case may be, without a better understanding of the problem, if there is one, and possible solutions.

Be back later to attempt to address your other items.

I'm going to respond to this one very fast.

I think JohnWho refers to the CO2 emitted by the coal, not including the dust and other nasties (which includes lead in those fancy car engines) that're part of the waste. It's needed for plants to continue photosynthesis.
Before that, of course they have enough CO2 (with the increase of humans, more than they'll ever need) to go through photosynthesis.

For this whole "global warming" research thing, I think it's better to just spend money on it and get absolute. While, yes, world hunger and famines are also an important issue that we know how to solve, it's also better to prevent something that we weren't sure were coming but didn't bother to do anything about.

Well, sort of, Skyfuser -

If your neighbor was out in the yard yelling "the sky is falling!",

would it be prudent to run around with him or move your family to a cave giving up your job and your home,

or would it make more sense to find out if the sky really is falling?


There are people yelling "the world is getting warmer because of man's CO2 emissions and our world is heading for disaster because of it".

However, there are many who are saying, "Hmm... the scientific evidence does not seem to support that assumption. We need to learn more."

We aren't far apart on this at all then.

We do have millions of years worth of data regarding cyclic global cooling and warming, however.

None of what you say relates directly to whether CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause either cooling or warming, or if it does, to what extent.

Again, this is the main thrust of the discussion.



No, that's not what I'm saying or doing. I'm just pointing out that a little warming doesn't necessarily mean catastrophy, nor would a little cooling. However, "below average" cooling would have a much worse effect than the same amount of "above average" warming.



Once again, that is a separate topic from whether AGW/CO2 is affecting climate.



Sorry. It just gets old when AGW Alarmists use that tactic. Didn't mean it to seem like I was being personal.



CO2 makes up less than 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. (Note that is less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent.) A very small amount. Moreover, the primary "green house gas" is water vapor. CO2 is a minor part of the GHG's, too.

What is "conceivable" and what is reality aren't always the same thing, as I'm sure you know.





Essentially, we agree here, as well. We need to allow the scientist to have fair, open discussion and debate, and not something forced by either politics or money. ALL the scientists will never agree on any theory - we seem to agree on that. However, what is happening here, regarding AGW/CO2 is that the supporters will not either engage in or allow the scientific process to proceed. They want you and I to accept what they say without allowing us to either examine the facts or listen in on the discussions and debates.



Yeah, give me a minute and I'll provide a link or two. I'm somewhat laughing at the irony of your statement. Setting politics aside, the Fox network seems to be the least "pro-AGW/CO2" network, but they all aren't doing a good job of providing us with unbiased information regarding it.

We should not be getting our information on this subject from any of what is called the Main Stream Media. If possible, we should get the information from reliable scientific sources, but unfortunately they get filtered through the MSM and they give us what they want us to believe by manipulating or distorting the factual data. Worse, the UN commissioned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to somewhat confirm that CO2 is the major cause of global warming, and not to determine what may be the real primary cause or causes. Therefore, we have to be careful not to use the UN/IPCC as a source sometimes, as well.

It would make more sense to see if it's falling down or not. But maybe it's just an acorn

We are pouring money into this, yet we are getting mixed results. >_<

LP -

here's one on the cooling trend that also shows how confusing the reporting may be. It says that the warming may continue, but doesn't show conclusively that CO2 levels are impacting either the cooling or the warming trands.

'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study Says

According to AGW/CO2, as CO2 levels rise, which they've continued to do, so will the earth's temperature. Yet, this is not happening.

Interestingly, at no time scale ever has CO2 level rise preceeded temperature increase. In fact, it is always the other way around - temps go up, CO2 levels increase, temps go down, CO2 levels decrease. The AGW/CO2 folks imply that it is the other way around, but that is not the case.


Sceptical scientists aren't necessarily saying that temps force CO2 levels, however. They are willing to, and many are, debating whether some other event or events may be causing both temps and CO2 levels to change the way they have.

Again, the one's that want to debate to get the truth are willing to discuss any possibility, while the alarmists want nothing of the sort.

Interesting thought, Animal. But what about the animals? Don't forget the animals!

Humans have endangered and caused extinction of hundreds of thousands of species. The increase in Human pop. is possibly directly proportional to the decrease in the animal pop. around the world. Not to mention, all of the terrain that was cleared and destroyed to make way for farmland and cities.

Along that line, we breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2.

Those that really want to do their part and cut down on man's CO2 emission to the air

should simply stop breathing out.

I would like to add 2 things to this thread

when the freon problem emerged, traditional scientists scoffed(those with fat government grants) and made fun of the 2 indian scientists who did the original research, later when the hard evidence came in, and scores of more established funded researchers attempted to refute the findings, the consensus was the original research underestimated ozne depletion by 30%.

Hmmmmmm

The next year an international moarotium was established on freon production and the ozone layer was saved.

When the first global warming warning were issued, computer modeling on weather was in it's infancy. An old fart, who had retired from meterology years before, remarked check your volcanic eruptions, a year or two later Mt Pinatubo erupted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

and erased decades of global warming

Right now we are pumping out gazilion tons of particulate matter to cool the earth while offsetting this with CO2 emmisions.
It's not nice to fool mother nature or the "balance in the force"

When I was younger the US actually thought we could survive a nuclear exchange and win, a little archeology and a layer of blackish grey deposits showed where a mass extinction had occurred some few hundred million years from the fallout of debris
erupted from an asteroid hitting the earth and a several year moratorium on sunlight. Those same infant modeling climatology
computer systems showed a similar effect from only a 25% or less detonation of the world nuclear weapons. Not being totally idiots it was decided to scale back.

Long after I am gone you young farts are going to inherit a screwed up world, I hope you don't repeat my generation's mistakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

those of you who don't study history are doomed to repeat it

People can we all agree CO2 is not the main problem but instead we should be more concerned with things like Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrates spiking in our drinking water? Really CO2 levels are not posing an issue. Our water supply and the toxins often found in it? That should be one of our main concerns. Greenland thawing? Greenland has been thawed before and it will again, we cannot hope to control our ecosystem until we fully understand it and we dont. We cannot even get to deep HALF of our ocean. Our ocean which covers THREE QUARTERS of our planet. Some of us will agree with Al sure, some of us wont, we can still get along without flame. Personally I think he is a tool, that is my decision, I think he just says what gets media attention. However he is right in that we need to eliminate POLLUTION, CO2 is not thus, rather it is a completely natural and in fact NECESSARY chemical for our ecosystem. If we all of a sudden become madly successful at completely eliminating it, we wont mind you, we would die. I think first we should eliminate chemicals that are toxic and then see where we stand.

That makes sense, EightPence -

There are some definite things that we should be doing, rather than wasting time on something that we are not certain will make any difference at all.

Hi all, I'm new to the forum...This may be a late reply, but it's still a burning issue...
Global warming is a big concern today. With all those statistics and predictions, it sure does scare me...but what is it that we can do? If someone were to tell me what I should do as an individual to help arrest global warming, I'm ready. But to make everyone do it is important...there isn't enough being told, i think, or it's probably not being said such that it will impact every individual. But, it's high time we all did something. We definitely do not want our land being washed away into the sea.

Erica

Erica -

First, remain calm.

Second, take some time to discover that you are being misled into believing something that isn't happening.

Examples:

The world wide Polar Bear Population is not decreasing.

The North Pole being ice free happens often and is not something recent.

The Earth has not been warming since 1998.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. In fact, it is a necessary part of the "carbon cycle" upon which virtually all life on this planet is based. While reading this reply, you've been exhaling CO2.

There is no scientific observed evidence that CO2 atmospheric levels cause either measurable cooling or warming .

There is no scientific evidence that there will be a 20 foot rise in sea level caused by the rising CO2 levels which are nowhere near the high levels that they have been in the past.



There is more, but essentially, "global warming" by humanity's CO2 emissions is not happening.



It is a good thing to be better stewards of the planet. Re-cycle what you can. Waste less. Reduce actual pollution.

Do not lose sleep over something that is not happening.

The facts are not all in, all of the scientists do not agree, and the debate is not over.

Wish global warming would hurry up. It's freezing over here.

That is unfortunate. Sorry I can't email you some warmth.

Here's a link to an excellent article written by the founder of the weather channel - John Coleman

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html

Just got to say this in reply to you, Mate, you are dead right!

Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are recoginised as the Winter Resorts for Southerners to come for the Winter. Backwards to America, because we live towards the South Pole? Land Downunder? Bit like the Florida Area in USA?

This year has been the Coldest on Record for this Area.

Right now we have two Heaters going in a Lounge Room not designed for Cold, the whole house is made of Concrete to retain coolness, not Heat.

People confuse Global Warming with what is really going on?

The Weather all around the World is changing. Mother Nature has enough of us. Noone can fool her.
Look at what She has done all over the World? Earthquakes, Twisters, Tidal Waves, Tornadoes, Cyclones, you name it?

What could we do in reply?

Nothing, but help the Victims!

That is the Scarey part.