"containing terrorism" ?!?! who said that we were containing terrorism? All I was getting at is that we can push it back . .. .that we have some control over terrorism.


"medicinal ingredients from the rain forest" ?? That is a seperate subject. If you want to save the medicinal ingredients that come from the rain forest, then save it. --buy it, take it over . .whatever. But that certainly is not the same subject/ goal as global warming.

Handling is containing, Island. Neither of which we're doing with terrorism. Pushing back terrorism? How are we doing that? We're pushing it back to where from where? What control? Is the war in Iraq controlling terrorism?

The Brazilian rain forest is as much a part of global warming argument as the polar caps as its destruction is also due, in large part, to man-made actions/events.

So, dd, are you saying, that we have more control over our global temerature than we do for the problem of terrorism? ...it kind of sounds like you are making that claim. (?)

That is what I'm saying. We can correct some of the ills done to our planet through changes in our lifestyles, particularly with transportation. With terrorism, we can change that as well, but not by throwing over 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives at a false-positive effort that reflects this country as repugnantly self-absorbed.

So, just how much do you think we can we cool our planet down, if let's say, we take half the cars/drivers of the roads? ...will that bring the temp down 1° ? ... 5° ? :cool: ...will the Canadians be happy about the new, better, lower temperature.

I do know we can mitigate the 10,000 barrels of oil Americans use every second with some creative onslaughts toward our current habits, which in a sense will slow down any further damage we're causing the environment.

How many terrorist attacks have we had in the USA since 2002? Seems like that is a stat that would be easy to track.

If you really want to get off topic, AIDS is 100% preventable by controlling behavior.

We are wasting our time and an idiotically huge amount of cash and resources on something that can be prevented in practically every single case and should not invest ANYTHING into curing it, since the money is much more efficiently used in prevention. It is a waste and reprehensible when you think of all the people you could feed with that money.

Here in Kalifornia, incandescent lights will be illegal soon, a sacrifice at the Altar of Global Warming. How much is that going to cost in increased health costs, more or less than we save in electricity, and will it be worth it to the people with direct, adverse effects from this change?

Before going into Iraq and Afghanistan, we went over all the available intelligence from around the world, had both houses of Congress vote on it, then made a move. You don't believe it, but this was something that was done after careful consideration, but with your perfect hindsight vision, you know it was the wrong thing to do. How many years after we made this move did it become crystal clear in your hindsight mirror?

Certainly we can have an impact on our carbon emmissions, but how much will it hurt our economy and help our climate? Keep in mind that 1/4 of the world population, or whatever China is, will be making no effort at all to reduce their carbon emmissions, neither will India.

Oh, and dd74, you need to sell all your cars and stop using electricity completely, you really need to reduce your carbon footprint before you start pointing fingers at anybody.

dd- This thread is about global warming and has taken on the twist of what can we do about it (assuming that we have any control over it. --your position) yet you continue to slide sideways in your responses. That is, you seem to want to duck (Daffy?) the issue of control over global warming. "Mitigate" (our energy use) to "slow down any further damage" is a really weak answer to the larger question. I'm not asking for precise answers either. Just tell us, ballpark... how much do you think we can we cool our planet down, if l we take half the cars/drivers of the roads?

How about an easy one: DO we need to cool the planet?

It was warmer yesterday than it is today so the climate can't be getting warmer.

These scientists who are telling us all about global warming and the ice shelf melting, who is picking up the tab for their work and would that cash cow keep giving milk if they said that global warming wasn't a big deal?

I'd agree that carbon credits are not going to be sufficient to eliminate the global warming spectre. But instead of whining about me "going personal," how about fessing up to the position that "global worming" is a hoax perpetrated by liberal politicians for nefarious purposes. The world finds this global warming thing interesting. You seem to dismiss it. Rather than pretend we are talking about something else, how 'bout finishing this first?

We went personal before. I assume you remember what that looks like. Ad hominem "why are you going personal" remarks are deflections, Island. Either this global warming thing is interesting, with many unanswered questions, or it's dismissed as though it is a hoax. What say ye?

The lefties are going to do just like in CA. They will pass a law on acceptable temperature ranges for the Earth and all will be fine!

anyone know where I can find a BIG glass ?

Rika

I'm trying to help you out here Supe. Re-read that part about the eclipse. ...Climate change happens regardless of what politicians do --JUST like eclipses happen regardless of what politicians do. Eclipses are interesting, as is the physics of global temperature, BUT, there is a HUGE disconnect between what is happening (eclipse or climate change) and what the politicians demand and promise. Furthermore, no politician is stating what thee perfect temperature is. --never mind that pesky detail of getting a good temp reading. ...just keep telling the masses that they must obey the "direction' laid out by the self-anointed experts. ...whatever that direction may be. --do you not see a problem with that?

Well Supe, think about it. I'm feeling generous, so I will give you and dd untill Aug 1st to change your misguided positions on this; ELSE, I will BLOT THE SUN FROM THE SKY!!!! .. .REPENT!!!

It's high time conservatives reverse this kind of thinking. No, I'm not suggesting they admit global warming is a fact. But there is ample evidence that green house gases can raise temperatures. Why then should we not look for ways to reduce those gases?

We can all plant trees, which use up the CO2 we are adding, and what is wrong with that? Rain forest depletion is a factor in this formula. I'm not suggesting that we can kill or save the earth, but why not work towards being proper caretakers?

So I will walk to work,
NOT
reason
I'm not going to stick my finger in the dike to stop whatever may come,
besides I feel stupid stopping drops while China and Russia and other 's pee on my head.

Besides 'mankind ' will take care of itself long before it's warm or cold.
Rika

How do you "cool" a planet? We should examine the legitimacy of your question.

My point is conservation. My point is, as I said, mitigating current ongoing damage to the planet's resources.

The damage/evolution we live with now cannot be reversed. We are beyond "cooling" and whatever that means. As far as saving what is left, there are ways. They don't necessarily involve taking cars off the road, either.

Well I.....I really don't want to raise the ire of Ra, the Sun God. If I confess my heresy here to you, and promise to fall into line behind all your future statements and political beliefs, would you speak with Ra and perhaps save us from the terrifying event scheduled for approximately 9:30 Universal Time on August 1?

Having said that, here we go again:

If you were saying that we should be careful what decisions and responses we make to global warming since we really do not fully understand its mechanism, causes, effects, etc......then we would be in agreement on that.

If you were saying that we should be looking into learning more about those mechanisms, we would agree there as well.

If you were saying that there are certain things we're already pretty sure would be good decisions regardless of what our research will say about global warming mechanism.....like energy conservation, reductions in chlorofluorocarbons, protection of the Amazon rain forest, alternative energy means, etc.,....then we could agree on that also. In a general sense at least, and perhaps argue about the details.

But that's not what I think I'm hearing from you. When I look at your last post, I see a litany of justifications for dismissing the entire issue. Ergo my remarks about curiosity or lack thereof.

As you know, I deal with construction project. Large ones. And I think you may also know my penchant for analogies. It would be convenient if construction contractors did not have to clean up after themselves. It would be nice, and less expensive, if they could walk away from the damage they inflict on property. But they cannot. And should not. We make them clean up after themselves. Why would we think that does not apply to us, when we define "the property" to be Earth? It makes intuitive sense to me that humans should, at least at this point in our history, consider the impacts we are making on the planet. You, and many others, seem to me to be dismissing this issue. I've heard folks say they think Earth is just too big, and nature too robust, to even potentially suffer from human impacts. The evidence, and common sense, run contrary to that position in my humble opinion.

A poor statistic which current analysis shows is false. The question is how many attacks on the USA has the war in Iraq prevented? No one has a viable answer. Plus attacks can originate from numerous other places in the world. Iraq has prevented nothing.

Well, that's ignorant. But I don't want to get off topic...

Yep, but it's the conservatives who don't want condoms passed out in public schools, correct?

First of all, you have to get the money to waste the money. Problem is it's already been wasted on Iraq and Pakistan.

Man, that's a stretch. incandescent vs. fluorescent lights. If one is truly concerned health-wise, go outside and play in the sun to remedy any harmful effects.

At the first mention of Iraq as part of a fabled "axis of evil."

So it's their problem and not ours? Who's pointing fingers (as you mention below)? The "I'm not going to do it unless the other guy does it?" is true sandbox mentality. I'm not surprised you support it.

A bit extreme and somewhat impossible in this modern world. That's like me asking you to stop breathing to reduce your own carbon footprint. :D

Very true, Jim.

Glenn, it's getting to the point where your comments are so deflecting and simply callous, from recent subjects such as Obama, Apple, and now global warming, that they are hard to respond to.

Whereas you once were a person of independent thought , now you seem like an incorrigible sourpuss in a chair with a cane.

Oh, well. Maybe the board is wearing thin on you. Time to leave, perhaps? SmileWavy

More climate change events/information:
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080327/47eb29d0_3421_13345200803271749472510