I deny, categorically, that there is a benefit to reducing industrialization on planet earth. No only do I deny it, the benefits outweigh the negatives on the order of several magnitudes. This is easily seen by the increases in health state of humans in industrialized nations as opposed to those without industrialization, increases in leisure activities (such as Porsches, etc.), and many other benefits. What is more, those that want to deny industrialization to third world nations are to be dispised for their callous disregard for the improvement it would bring to the daily lives of the people in those countries.

Again, I deny that industrialization has any effect on Global Warming, the subject of this thread. There is absolutely not a scintilla of evidence showing the opposite.

Bull*****.

I suppose you believe in "intelligent design" too then.

Translation: I have no facts with which to argue about the subject of this thread, so I'll attempt to change the subject to some other topic, completely unrelated to the thread.

I am not trying to end industrialization. And certainly, as a capitalist, I do not want to keep anyone, including third world countries (your example), from the benefits of industrialization.

I want to know if it makes sense to REDUCE THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS of industrialization upon the planet and mankind. To restate the bleeding obvious - it's the NEGATIVE EFFECTS of industrialization I wish to control.

What's your problem with that? That's the position I would like explained.

Because to force control via government intervention means the used of violence to do so, and that's unacceptable.

I don't know. This one's not easy.

There's Fastpat and Redbeard on the one hand - and the IPCC and the world's top climatologists and scientists on the other.

Tough call!

The world's top GOVERNMENT climatologists. Not a tough call. Again, the IIPC report is a kind of Phrenology. Your appeal to authority is amusing, though. :D

The earth is a realtively tiny ball spinning about a gigantic ball o' fussion -- the Sun.

In other words, the earth is the Suns' Biatch. and when the Sun has a few solar storms, guess what? . . .Yep, Al Gore has an "issue" to scare with.

"Man" is so damn arrogant at times. remember when the Iraq count was hiting 2k US dead? . . . and then Mother Nature came along and wiped out 250,000 with just a hick-up.

Get some perspective people. We are not such big players in all of this.

Force control? If people vote and support the reduction of the negative effects of industrialization through regulation and market forces - the end result is automatically violence? What an odd view of representative democracy. What a negative view of the optimistic choice of proactivity.

I am appalled. I think this is the first time I've lumped with pat.

The market will sort it all out voluntarily.

However, government itself is force, and nothing else. Democracy is mob rule via government.

Specifically, governments are deeply commited to "proving" Global Warming is happening as a result of the activities of humans in order to gain further control of those humans.

As always, it's about government power. If government was the answer to Global Warming, the Chinese would be miles ahead.

Savor the experience.http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/...ool_shades.gif

I agree wholeheartedly with your perspective. But I am unsure of the true effect of tiny players on the stage - "for the want of a nail". For that reason, I choose action. We can choose different actions, when needed, for different times.

Define Negative impact, the causal links, consequences and the work required to counter the issue.

The friggen data being thrown around in this thread, even by supporters, shows that these cycles have occured in the past. We did not have impact on those.

Please explain this.

As much as it pains me to admit it....I'm with Pat on this one too. Any discussion about Global Warming may as well be a discussion about politics, because the two are inseparable.

Global warming isn't the reason to keep our environment clean...health is. So much cancer is ideosyncratic. No explanation, none. I believe our effect on the environment has a greater influence on the incident rate of various cancers than it does on Global Warming. No data offered to support that suspiscion, but a reasonable suspicion none the less.

A. The climate is changing and temperatures of the ocean are increasing

B. These changes are cyclical

C. Carbon Dioxide is a contributing factor

D.Mankind's use of fossil fuel does two things: creates carbon dioxide and heat

E. To what extent these contributions have made to the overall change has not been quantified precisely

Sound about right?

C is the disputed one. Correlation/causation and all that.

I wonder how they would vote if "The Anti Climate Change Act of 2007" included an additional $2/gallon gas tax.

Of course natural cycles are in effect - no one can deny this. I believe man has an amplifying effect on natural cycles. Some local examples: Dustbowl of the thirties and sardine fishing in Monterey, CA. I think evidence that man's activities have an effect on ecology is a given. I think we should act on that knowledge.

Let us also consider that man is part of the ecosystem.