[slcchina]

Don't get me wrong, I AM an envrionmentalist. But I have friends who don't see global warming as a legitimate threat. They point - and to some extent I agree - to the fact that we have very limited data in terms of the planet's past history, and only accurate measurements for a tiny fraction of that time. That said, I think that one of the ways to get around the arguments posited by those who don't view GW as a threat is to ask the question: what about the fringe benefits? Even if we're completely wrong about GW, taking steps to curb it will help out the environment in general. Burning less fossil fuels means cleaner air. Reducing emissions means cleaner air. Alternative fuels means stretching the remaining fossil fuels farther. GW has begun to strike me as an issue very similar to abortion: there are two camps, and both are absolutely assured of their righteousness. Perhaps a way to bridge the gap is to set aside the larger issue of GW and direct the attention of opponents to GW theory to the benefits that will occur if the steps proposed by GW advocates are taken.

[Matc]

About not understanding the Earth's cycles is true. But that is not really the whole story when it comes to global warming.

The point is that we are altering the Earth's cycle. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily since industrialisation (CO2 levels were roughly constant for 10,000 years before that). And the science of what Carbon Dioxide does is well understood. It is for this reason that most mainstream scientists believe in global warming and why most governments are taking it seriously.

[Turtle Girl]

I agree with MatC. There are times when good science is made to look bad by groups who would suffer under a more green plan for the future, and they will try to destroy the reputations of reputable scientists. Scientists just report the facts they have tested or observed along with a discussion based on these well tested and researched topics. The media will debunk some science as 'just a theory' without understanding what a theory in science is. Theories, in the science world, are hypothesis that have been tested time and time again that have never been proven wrong. So yes, they are not proven, but there are very few theories that become scientific 'laws' (such as the law of gravity, and I think we all agree that exists!).

There is still a lot to be learned about global temperature cycles, ice ages, the impact of plinean volcanoes and meteor strikes, etc. I think there is little doubt that human activity on the planet has effected these processes in ways we do not yet fully understand. I, for one, would rather not find out the answers -- I'm for making changes yesterday to minimize our impact on the global ecosystem before we trash the planet. We won't bring about an end to life on earth with our careless behavior, but we may make it impossible for human life to continue. Our current behavior is self-defeating, and listening to the naysayers who refute consistent scientific research serves no ones best interest.

[horselover]

Not to mention that it's quite destructive.

[Raptor235]

I also just heard on the coasttocoast show a scientist mention that if all the volcanoes stooped spewing gas into the air we could drive on gas as much as we wanted...

In the end the earth does balance it self out and in the end if we stand in the way I don't know if we can withstand the earth cleansing itself of pollution even if that includes us...

[horselover]

The earth cleansing itself will probably kill the entire population off since all everyone's used to is pollution.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Matc

About not understanding the Earth's cycles is true. But that is not really the whole story when it comes to global warming.

The point is that we are altering the Earth's cycle.

Prove it. Show me an earth that is without human activity so we can determine what the effects of human activity are on the earth we have.

Carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily since industrialisation (CO2 levels were roughly constant for 10,000 years before that).

Actually I once saw two graphs from by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia that showed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (which is no longer available?) and temperatures (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Carbon dioxide levels went up long before temperatures showed any kind of increase, much less a sustained increase.

Similar graphs can be found here: The Rise of CO2 & Warming. Notice that the temperature anomalies range from about 0.6 degree below normal to about 0.6 degree above normal- suggesting some sort of natural cycle. Also notice that carbon dioxide levels began going up after the turn of the 19th century with the rate of increase rising dramatically after 1950. But, temperatures didn’t even reach 0 until the 1940s and they did not go consistently above 0 before the 1980s. If carbon dioxide (and by extension other manmade greenhouse gases) traps solar heat, why did it take so long for the earth to show any signs of warming?

BTW: If the air has more carbon dioxide, what keeps plants from using it? I realize that we have cut much of the earth’s old growth forests, but we have also planted tree farms. And what keeps the plants we haven’t cut down from using the excess carbon to grow bigger or reproduce more offspring?

[Matc]

flaga it is self evident that we are altering the Earth's cycle. My statment never said whether or not it is a large or drastic effect, just that we are changing it. We are altering gas levels in the atmosphere so we must be changing it.

You can look at a few simple analgies to see why it takes a while for the Earth to warm up. Think about an oven, whack it up to 200 degrees and put in some food. The food doesn't instanltly go up to 200 degrees, it takes a while to heat up. The Earth is very large and can sink a lot of energy. Especially considering how much ice there is, remember substances change from solid to liquid (ice to water here) *without* a change in temperature but still need energy to do so. So there would be a delay.

I'll check with a biologist on the last point instead of just guessing.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Matc

flaga it is self evident that we are altering the Earth's cycle.

How so? What phenomena can I witness that indicates it is self-evident that humans are altering the earth’s cycle?

My statment never said whether or not it is a large or drastic effect, just that we are changing it.

If it is self-evident that humans are altering the earth, shouldn’t the extent to which the earth is being altered be equally self-evident?

We are altering gas levels in the atmosphere so we must be changing it.

This is the best statement demonstrating circular reasoning that I have seen in a long time. You assume that humans are altering gas levels and you assume the earth must be being altered because you have already concluded that we are altering gas levels. You have presented no proof that human activity is altering gas levels so your conclusion about altering the earth has no empirical evidence.

You can look at a few simple analgies to see why it takes a while for the Earth to warm up. Think about an oven, whack it up to 200 degrees and put in some food. The food doesn't instanltly go up to 200 degrees, it takes a while to heat up.

The food doesn’t take a century to heat up either.

I'll check with a biologist on the last point instead of just guessing.

Funny you should mention checking with a biologist since I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University. We know that plants use carbon dioxide. So the more carbon dioxide the earth has, the more plants the earth can theoretically support.

[Nate Martin]

GW is dramatically changing the climate much faster than it would naturally.

If there is not enough evidence now, then I think people are just ignorant.