Less than half of all published scientists agree with global warming Options

[Hartmann]

It's SO much easier to refute an argument when it's the 'talking head' opinion.

It is, especially when that talking head happens to be making claims that are easily denied with other scientific evidence.

Personally, I think our warming problems have more to do with buildings/infrastructure and changing the reflection patterns of the earth than I think it has to do with pollution.

There has been pollution since before the industrial revolution yet we're just now seeing the effects? If the affects are so bad and immediate shouldn't we have seen drastic warming during the period when there were no regulations on industry and output? Back when we were pumping full blown sulfur and acids into the atmosphere.

[Testm0nkey]

but the effects are not immediate. it just builds up as reactions continue and it takes time, for example, for pollutants to reach the stratosphere. but the time of the industrial revolution IS when this latest warming trend started

and if thats what you believe, that global warming is caused by buildings and infrastructure (which i personally dont get. cities just concentrate the problems of pollution), its still global warming which is a problem that needs to be addressed. and if you believe in air pollution than driving a higher mpg vehicle would help

global warming isnt "pop culture" the fact that the majority of environmental scientists, and climatologists support it is pop culture? and personally a mechanical engineer still wouldnt have any indepth knowledge about global warming. engineering doesnt have anything to do with that except maybe environmental engineering. and math and science arent the only backgrounds that conduct scientific studies

[Hartmann]

but the effects are not immediate.

Thank you. People are up in arms saying how pollution is going to kill us all and the earth is heating up so fast and the ice caps are melting. They make it sound immediate.

I subscribe to theory that the impact we have is smaller than what most people think and that the earth adapts (just like it has in the past to big changes). I think we should limit our pollution of course but again, I don't think we need to freak out about it.

[Testm0nkey]

its really high right now and only going to continue to get higher. and since its been building up for what 150 yrs now, whats going on now it the time when its reaaaaally important to do something. its about changing the way we live BEFORE theres no freshwater left, and we are trying to get used to 115 degree weather

the earth cant possiby adapt as fast as it needs to neither can we. ie. heat waves increasing and the death toll that happens each time. think about how long evolution takes, we cant just adapt to such severe climate in 2 or even 5 generations

even if you still dont believe in "freaking out" about it - not like climatologists are killing people - pollution has noticable effects. skin cancer, asthma, many droughts, severe weather changes

living in houston for gods sake how can you not want to do anything RIGHT NOW. you like the warnings that come on saying dont even leave your house today and dont go outside because the air quality is too bad and its too hot?

[pebkac]

It is, especially when that talking head happens to be making claims that are easily denied with other scientific evidence.

Personally, I think our warming problems have more to do with buildings/infrastructure and changing the reflection patterns of the earth than I think it has to do with pollution.

There has been pollution since before the industrial revolution yet we're just now seeing the effects? If the affects are so bad and immediate shouldn't we have seen drastic warming during the period when there were no regulations on industry and output? Back when we were pumping full blown sulfur and acids into the atmosphere.

My point was that you aren't really making an argument by calling global warming the "talking head" opinion. You're just using devil words to make your argument.

And despite what a lot of the right wing propaganda wants you to believe, there are next to no scientists who dispute the climate change situation.

Thank you. People are up in arms saying how pollution is going to kill us all and the earth is heating up so fast and the ice caps are melting. They make it sound immediate.

I subscribe to theory that the impact we have is smaller than what most people think and that the earth adapts (just like it has in the past to big changes). I think we should limit our pollution of course but again, I don't think we need to freak out about it.

Though I don't doubt there are plenty of people trying to make it sound like it's going to happen in the next 6 seconds, the majority of news reports I've seen haven't disagreed with you on the immediacy point. Most scientists predict the ice caps will start to melt within 50 years.

Secondly, the earth itself doesn't really adapt to big changes. It does have a mechanism to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, but only in certain quantities. Once man started putting CO2 into the atmosphere, it unbalances the equation.

[Dogmeat]

we need to hand over our country to china, because they know EVERYTHING about how to save the environment!

[Psykopath]

we need to hand over our country to china, because they know EVERYTHING about how to save the environment!

You know, you're the only one suggesting the whole "China knows what it's doing thing" with this issue...

And those that say pollution isn't that bad, global warming is a scam, etc.: Why do you keep believing the far left's exaggerated view of global warming (the whole 50 year apocalypse thing...) is what we're discussing? I don't think anyone is defending that shit. Global warming is real. It is a combination of natural (chemical/geological/etc.) and organic (humans, animals) that influences these changes.

And on the pollution thing: Do you detractors really enjoy smog/acid rain/sludge that much?

[Hartmann]

And on the pollution thing: Do you detractors really enjoy smog/acid rain/sludge that much?

"Detractors", that makes me really want to perk up and listen to what you have to say.

Do you think I really enjoy said things? Hell no.

[Psykopath]

detractor: one who reduces the value, importance, or quality of something.

In this case, detracting from the statement that 'pollution is BAD,' no matter which way you slice it.

so why the smilie?

[Oasis]

The environment and 'green issues' are increasingly a part of the White House daily briefing. For those of us who have been a part of the press corps for decades, this new commitment to the environment is quite revelatory. From recycling to carbon emission caps to clean coal technologies, we're all starting to believe that the administration truly cares about the state of the planet, which I suppose is good.

Anyway, as Press Secretary Dana Perino–who I'm still not quite used to, by the way–was discussing the current concern over glacial melting around Greenland, it occurred to me that if sea levels continue to rise, we will all be traveling around in boats, which could be fun, but there might be some danger ahead. In cities like New York, Chicago, and Dallas, skyscrapers rise so tall that the waters might not totally cover them, and the huge spears on top of some buildings could pose a significant danger to our boats. Maybe instead of wasting time, money, and energy to stop global warming, we should be more proactive about protecting our future by building stronger boats or shaving off these destructive skyscraper tops…before it's too late.

[Hartmann]

detractor: one who reduces the value, importance, or quality of something.

In this case, detracting from the statement that 'pollution is BAD,' no matter which way you slice it.

so why the smilie?

It was just one of those statements that 'sounded' condescending but in reality isn't. I don't call the folks on here stupid or anything, and I don't expect to be told that I don't value the environment, because I do, I just have a different view of how what we do affects the world around us.

If I remember correctly, I posted a bunch of stuff about coal-to-liquids, which I back not just for fuel purposes but because it is clean(er).

What irks me is commercials that say things like "coal is dirty" when in reality, you can walk into a coal fired power plant in the U.S. and head to the stacks and breath without the need for a respirator.

[Psykopath]

It was just one of those statements that 'sounded' condescending but in reality isn't. I don't call the folks on here stupid or anything, and I don't expect to be told that I don't value the environment, because I do, I just have a different view of how what we do affects the world around us.

Ah, fair enough. It wasn't meant to be condescending.

[Oasis]

Oh, and to back up my point, I'll include a scientific graph, since everyone seems to be hung up on scientific graphs:

[impala454]

Some fun CO² output numbers I drummed up while bored at work:

CO² mass = 1.98 kg/m³

Human Respiration = 0.05 m³/h ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-persons-d_691.html )
Human mass/hour = 0.099 kg/h
Human mass/year = 867.24 kg/yr = 0.86724 mT/yr
Population of the Earth = 6,634,535,752
Population of the Earth mass/year = 5,753,734,786 mT/yr

Avg Passenger Car = 11,450 lb/yr = 5,193 kg/yr = 5.193 mT/yr (wikipedia)
Avg Passenger Car Population = 600 million (as of 2002)
Avg Passenger Car Population mass/year = 3,115,800,000 mT/yr

Toyota Prius = .104 kg/km = .167 kg/mi
Toyota Prius @ 15k mi/yr = 2,505 kg/yr = 2.505 mT/yr
Toyota Prius takes over the world passenger car population = 1,503,000,000 mT/yr

Cow = 5756 L/day = 5.756 m³/day = 11.397 kg/day = 0.475 kg/hr ( http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/78/12/2760.pdf )
Cow mass/year = 4159.91 kg/yr = 4.160 mT/yr
Cow Population of the Earth = 1,300,000,000
Cow Population of the Earth mass/year = 5,408,000,000 mT/yr

US Airline (CO²/gallon jet fuel) = 20.88 lb/g = 9.47 kg/g ( http://www.becomeafriend.org/carbon/report.php )
US Airline total gallons consumed (2005) = 18,062,449,227 gallons
US Airline mass/year = 171,051,394,179.69 kg/yr = 171,051,394 mT/yr

Kilauea Volcano (normal non-erupting) = 8,500 mT/day ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUSM.V52A..07G )
Kilauea Volcano mass/year = 3,102,500 mT/yr

Mt St Helens 1980 eruption = 42,000,000 mT ( http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/se...ntributions.pdf )

Estimates from "green" site in 2000 ( http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/study_co2_outpu.html ):
Road Traffic: 4,110,000,000 mT/yr
Aviation: 654,000,000 mT/yr
Shipping: 812,000,000 mT/yr

So to put some numbers side by side:

Yearly CO² Output (in millions of metric tons)
Human population respiration: 5,753
Cows: 5,408
Passenger cars (green site): 4,110
Passenger cars: 3,115
If all passenger cars were Priuses: 1,503
Shipping: 812
World Aviation: 654
US Airlines: 171
One Eruption from Mt St Helens: 42
Kilauea Volcano: 3

It was kinda hard to find CO² output numbers for other types of animals so I just did cows and humans. No doubt the total amount of CO² output by all animals would be pretty staggering. Pretty interesting numbers IMHO.

[Billy]

So to put some numbers side by side:

Yearly CO² Output (in millions of metric tons)
Human population respiration: 5,753
Cows: 5,408
Passenger cars (green site): 4,110
Passenger cars: 3,115
If all passenger cars were Priuses: 1,503
Shipping: 812
World Aviation: 654
US Airlines: 171
One Eruption from Mt St Helens: 42
Kilauea Volcano: 3

It was kinda hard to find CO² output numbers for other types of animals so I just did cows and humans. No doubt the total amount of CO² output by all animals would be pretty staggering. Pretty interesting numbers IMHO.

So humans are to blame for elevated levels of CO2