Slashdot Mirror

How about http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8233632.stm

Or maybe http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a5LmlZgQzoPQ&refer=australia

And http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=3740

Then there is http://ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Disintegration

Also http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/29/coral-reefs-glue.html

Of course there is also the http://www.coral.org/resources/about_coral_reefs/threats_to_coral_reefs

I could go on, but I have a feeling that it still wouldn't convince you. Global Warming is not a myth. True, the Earth does go through cycles. I don't dispute that. However, the rate of climate change is far faster than previous cyclic rates. The rate now versus that of the pre-industrial age is much, much faster. The global ecology cannot adapt fast enough to the change. What used to take thousands of years now takes hundreds, and increasingly, decades. There is plenty of research all around to find. Pretty much the only studies that disagree with the idea of global warming are those that are done by the oil companies and their allies.

On top of that- cars, to a large portion of the population, are freedom. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Freedom to live where you want. Freedom to just say "fuck it" one day and go on a road trip. Freedom from the clock- I don't have to leave the bar with my friends to make that last 10:30 pm bus, I can stay til closing time (assume I'm sober for this one). There is no substitute for this.

On top of that - cars, to a large portion of the population, are death. 1 in 84 Americans will die from a car accident*. 33% of the earth's carbon dioxide, the primary global warming issue, is from cars**. Cars are one-third responsible for the greatest threat to civilization in recorded history, largely because of people like you.

Your version of "freedom" is death. If you want to live like an ignorant hedonist, don't take us with you. Making the necessary adjustments is no more difficult than maintaining personal hygiene. (something tells me that's a bad example for this guy)

And no, I will not assume you were sober, you were drunk, and we all know it. Hence the tone of this reply.

There is a perfect substitute for this model of freedom: COMMON SENSE.

* http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/oddsofdying/?table_sort_735950=3
** http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm

Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:

According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.

This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.

As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.

Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).

After all that I found another source which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.

As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons while another indicates 400 million tons.

Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.

I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.

According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.

This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.

Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.

As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my asserttion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.

Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).

So my original statement stands. The increase in global temperatures is probably caused by both natural and man-made actions. How much mans contribution to the effect is debatable but it does exist. The issue now is what, if anything, can we do to at least stabilize our contribution.

If you don't want to believe that man contributes to global warming, fine. That's your right. However, rather than sit around and do nothing I prefer to take some measures to reduce my impact. Think of it like getting kids vaccinated. You don't know for sure if they'll get the mumps (like what is now appearing in Iowa) or any other disease. However, you're willing to spend the money now to prevent them from getting something in the future. Same thing with global warming. Take a few preventitive measures now to curtail our influence in the future.

Besides, controlling greenhouse gases is a job creation package. Think of the industries that will need to expand or be created to produce new equipment to reduce gases. What about the people who will have to service that equipment? It's a win-win situation.

"The sky is falling! It's all our fault!"

The climate on planet Earth has gotten less than a degree warmer in the last 150 years.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#graph

First off, there's no real proof that our CO2 is heating up the climate.

Oh yea? Why? Because you, "the Shadow" knows? And what is the basis of your conclusion on this? Let me guess, "Cause you said so."

Nevermind the Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere, Methane Also Increasing, More Frequent Extreme Weather, Disappearing Glaciers, Melting Arctic Sea Ice, Melting Antarctic Sea Ice, Greenland's Ice Sheet Melting, and Tropical Diseases Spreading. Let's just ignore all that, or better yet, let's bury our head in the sand and blindly support an administration hell-bent on burying scientific evidence.

Come on.. this is the USA being talked about here, you know, the same one that signed the Kyoto agreement and promptly pulled out of it not wanting to harm the economy, that even doubted that global warming was real despite of the evidence to the contrary, eventually catching up with the rest of us, and is the biggest producer of pollution in the world, bar none (The US contains 4% of the world's population but produces about 25% of all carbon dioxide emissions.)

The concept of looking out for the environment like this is news for them.