That is exactly one of the problems - the oceans are being acidified (youare surely aware they don''t really suck up the CO2) by the CO2. That is killing the coral reefs - besides their great beauty and diversity, besides the huge economic value for tourism - such reefs also shelter many food fish.


Mulely can't debate the facts so he just quotes another blatherer. Don't confuse that with facts.

Read the DOE report if in doubt.

sammy2 - if it is your hobby then you surely know that oil has a global market. that oil (if found - and you surely know there is a difference between reserves & proven reserves) then it will go onto the global market, not just to the US.

so.... the correct comparison is not to us usage is it?

or are you proposing that we nationalize the oil companies or something?

even if found, restricted to the US and burned - all it will do is make global warming worse. There is NO debate that increased CO2 increases global warming - there is a small amount of debate as to whether the human caused impact is the largest or is a rel. small impact. That is the only debate.

I mean debate among scientists who study this area. Getting a tv weatherman to sign a petition does NOT count (yes, the anti-reality of glbal warming crowd did do that).

uh, yeah there is debate. First of all, there is debate as to how much effect CO2 has on global temps. (being that it is such a small player in the "greenhouse" mix to begin with. ...water vapor being the fat king.)
Then there are those Ice cores... Ice core samples tend to support that rising gloabal temps push CO2 out of solution (oceans) . . and yet time and time again, we have evidence that no 'run away' warming happens. (as the doom-sayers would have us believe)

Ah, yeah, which side started whining 'xxxxx number of climate experts agree that global warming is here.' ?:rolleyes:

You can argue all you want but the facts refuse to go away.

I also just love how people with no technical training in this area think they are experts.

So island, let me know when you go back to school. That 1st post of yours is truly demented gibberish - where do you find this stuff?? IT can't all be on Fox "News"

Dude you have been beat down on this issue repeatedly. I think you get with the other lefties back at the collective (borg) and forget.

Now here we have a thread with 1750+ views - some of which are no doubt from normal people.

Go back and take a look at the two sides again. One side cites climate scientists and panels of climate scientists such as the National Academy, the Nation Research Council and others. The conclusion that golbal warming is primarily caused by humans is based on the work of 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, has been exposed to extensive peer review, and is accepted by nearly every scientist and political leader - even G. Bush recently accepted this.

The other side relies on web blogs by those who have no credentials, have performed no research, and no nothing of atmospheric physics or chemistry. They rely on personal attacks, yelling in print, changing the subject and various debater's tricks, and appears to be authored by teenagers such as mule and others. The "highest authorities" they have marshaled for their view are one climate scientist who has been in the pay of oil companies for many years. This is not competitive grant money he obtained for research sponsored by oil co.s - it is direct payola. The rest of the "experts" on this side consist of TV weathermen - most lacking even a 4 year meteorology degree - who were signed up as "experts", a few scientists in other, unrelated fields, and a variety of people whose expertise and even existence has never been verified. This side relies heavily on politicization of debate - righ wing blogs, fuzzy news outlets with a political backing and others "push" this agenda, since the normal news outlets refuse to back it.

Anyone at all can come to a reasonable conclusion as to the veracity of each side.



Well, let the kiddies start their screaming again...