www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Thank you for that link...  

Pretty good argument...  

A ) suffer an inconvenience of financial world depression at worst...
B) The world suffers an inconvenience of mass starvation, mass extinction, wars and finally death.

But people will still find an argument.....   Nature...

This is just "Pascal's Wager" on the existence of (the Christian) God redressed for environmentalism. If you follow the link to the wiki you'll even see the same decision theory style matrix being used.

Given that I regard the "man-made global warming" campaign as a quasi-religion, the use of Pascal's simplistic logic trick seems entirely appropriate. The guy on the video is clearly an evangelist (spread the word!), and his enthusiasm for catastrophy as a consequence of inaction is hilarious.

If you replace "existence of God" or "man-made global warming" as the true-or-false option with something like "stepping on the cracks in the pavement brings bad luck", then the actual worth of this matrix is exposed. The same logic applies, this time to something obviously preposterous. 

Tread carefully, fellow Brycers...  ;-)

I thought it had basically been proven scientifically quite some time ago that global warming is nothing more than the natural and espected climatic cycle of the Earth. Of course you can always bride 'authorities' to speak one way or another (like is common in courtrooms); so I feel it is undecided issue.
However you feel about that,...
Consider "global warming = global starvation":
This is far from a proven fact. Many independent studies have concluded that rising concentrations of 'greenhouse gasses' and the liberation of VAST tracts of nutrient rich arable land in Canada and Siberia would dramatically INCREASE the global food supply;  as only a relatively small percentage of the currently arable land (of lower agricultural output and which is only arable with heavy nitrate fertilization <- derived from petroleum) of the Earth would be made unusable by the same temperature increase.
So that is inconclusive too. It is easily arguable (and I am not going to be arguing about it here), using pecisely the same logic, that humanity should be attempting to accelerate global warming as possibly the only feesible course of action to meet rising food supply requirements...
Example:
"Maybe if we can all pull together to jack up the planet's temp. a couple more degrees, we can stave off that impending world war over diminishing food supply." <- consider that using the preacher's logic (ok, he might be a politician), and you can prove that too.
False logic is no good way to carry on a scientific investigation; or to present scientific fact.

I have a brain to think through issues. I remember the 'ice age is coming again' craze from a while back. I'm certainly not going to have mind made up for me about this by somebody else's faulty logic.

Everyone is in denial about that fact that the earth is changing... our fault or natures fault.. does not matter..    There is no making lemonade on this lemon of a mistake...   Corporation does not want to give up the OIL habit...  We need to live more "green"  anyway...  and stop arguing semantics..

Lets co-operate with each other and keep this planet in one piece...

You have an Oil fixation. You link it to everything.
If oil is cut off, then there really will be massive starvation and war. How else are the billions of tons of food needed to be grown and shipped to the areas of the world that can't feed themselves?

I imagine you own clothes? have food? etc.?
If you have it, oil brought it to you or wherever you bought it from. Unless you are 100% self sufficient, (growing your own food, raising livestock for fabric, and so on) you use as much oil as the next person. I'd be willing to wager that you use a great deal more of it than I do.

I'm sick of reading political progranda slogans in your posts. This is supposed to be an art site, not a political platform for you to spew your dogmatisms. There are other websites around the net for you do that. Maybe you should try using them.

And I'll think and feel whatever I want to, until some political party or other gains enough influence to force me to do otherwise.
Another thing I've noticed about political people is that they always try to force everyone around them to think and feel the same as they do.
What great world that be, huh?

Talking about oil is not political...     for your information....   It is environmental and economical  
  if you tire of reading into my post and finding politics in them don't read into them.... 

Again.... I was not talkng about politics I was talking about the present condition of this planet vs one of the biggest offenders of the environment...  OIL companies..  sorry...

I recent,, your attitute towards me..  and incase you have not noticed... 
**
This happens to be an OT post about global warming!!!!  Out Of Topic!!
**So take your anger else where... I'm quite aware of this being an art forum.... 

I hope I won't hear from other members jumping in on your band wagon towards me...

There are lot of stuff I read in this forum that I don't like...  but I keep on trucking! fella.. I don;t jump on anyones bones... This really burns me up...

@tom271
I'm not angry at all. There is no band wagon either.
You are just offended because I disagree with you and didn't fall for that video's chessy fake logic. i.e. I'm "in denial"; because your viewpoints are, of course, infallable.
I don't agree with you, so it is a psychological disorder on my part. So much for that individual diversty in your signature. :laugh:

And your upset because my opinions don't fit with your political agenda. i.e. I'm not co-operating and not living the way "we need to be living".

You want to cut off oil supplies and starve billions of people to death, that's your own business. Don't try to force me to help you do it.

Quote - Tread carefully, fellow Brycers...  ;-)

Indeed, so i am not going to discuss AGW here.

But do notice that they nowadays rather like to speak about "Climate change" rather than "Globalwarming"!

And in the headlines this week, "Denver targets global warming". But do keep in mind that for the Denver temperature record of the last 12 warmest years 9 of them where before 1955 and the lastest record year was in 1994 (on the 4th place out of the 12). 1934 Still being the warmest year ever for Denver.

Its getting hotter, blame "Global warming". Errr... its actually cooling, blame "Climate change".

No matter what, it is still our fault, we should repent, bladibladibla....

Sometime around Novemenber 2006, NASA stated that not just Earth's temperature rose, but also Mars.

If it's man-made global warming, then why is Mars getting hotter too?

Anyway, it's all the Sun's fault ;-)  (http://www.evilconservatives.com/) "Global warming, radiation, and cancer. No, this is not a promotion for a new movie. No, this is not some sort of wild fantasy that can't be backed up with real science. These are just a few of the horrible effects the Sun has on the Earth everyday. Send a message to Washington that the Sun must be destroyed, if not for us, for our children. Act before it's too late." 

;-)

**@dvlenk6:  ** I'm "in denial"; because your viewpoints are, of course, infallable.
**where the hell did I say "you" were in denial.... what viewpoints??
**
You know what you are out of your mind..  I never attacked you.... yet you are attacking me... 
I never gave an opinion on that video....  so what are you talking about....   My whole premise is to get along and solve the problem....  read my post again...!!

when I said "everyone is in denial"  I ment that in a broad general term...   not you!  or anyone in here posting specifically...   I hear the same bull ___  everywhere about solutions to this climate change...    you are reading too much into it...  

This argument is not new to me...  Someone else started on me for just vocalizing my thoughts a few months ago...    I'm not offended by your opinion of the changing wheather my friend I'm offended because you took it to my door step...   You got an opinion say it..  just don't name it after me..

enough is enough... lets end this here...

FACT: The Earth may or may not be Warming/Cooling and it may or may not be the fault of Man/The Sun/Nothing.
None of that really matters anyway; but Something has to be done about it.
We just need to figure out what to do and how/when/where to do it; assuming we should do it at all.
So get on board, get with the program, join the team, join the club. It's for the children's sake.
[Paid for by the committee of decisive indecision]

@tom271
blabbity, blabbity, blah
Liberals are always whining about something or other. I don't pay much attention to it anymore.

**THE FOLLOWING IS THE PERSONAL OPINON OF UVDan AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE POLICIES OF RENDEROSITY OR IT'S MODERATORS.

I AM NOT A LIBERAL.  Let's just get that out of the way right off the bat.

The term global warming is kind of misleading because the whole solar system seems to be heating up at the moment.  I am a big fan of the cyclical argument.  That is that the Earth (and other planets) go through natural cycles of heating and cooling.  I also believe that massive amounts of co2 are spewed naturally into the air by the planet daily that dwarfs our own co2 emissions.  However it has been fairly proven to me that the gasses and other pollution that are produced as a result of our civilized society are bad for the earth.  China puts a new coal fired power plant in operation each month and they do not use ANY environmental protocols with regard to the emissions.  The prevailing winds inevitably bring these over to the west coast of the USA bringing pollution advisories and breathing difficulties with them.  Is China bad for wanting the industry that the rest of the world has enjoyed for a hundred years already?  No they are not.  However they should be doing more about controlling the emissions that come out of their powerplants.

Pollution is bad.  Clean air is good.  What in the world is so wrong about finding green alternatives?  A few years back Mother Earth News published an article on how to construct a solar powered steam generator with a parabolic fresnel lens arrangement that followed the sun.  Many households in the southwest USA and other places could get 100 percent of their electrical power from such arrangements.  Ask yourself why this is not being done.  It is because the Oil and Energy companies pay huge sums of money to the people that are supposed to represent the American people to keep this sort of thing under the radar and off the shelves.  It is far past time for the poor people of the world to stand up to the rich corporations that enslave them.  I am all for the oil companies being nationalized for the sake of the world's citizens.  It belongs to all of us, not just the oil companies.  The world's future is being mined and sold by the oil conglomerates.  There is not really any shortage of oil, yet we pay three dollars for a gallon of gas.  Check out the oil company profits for the last quarter and what the CEO's make in bonuses each year and then try to tell me what we pay for gas is fair. **

Those are all good arguments, UVDan
I don't owe anything to OIL (meaning the oil corporations) or any other big business; but there just isn't any alternative available right now. There several ideas around that could help alleviate petroleum usage in certain areas, maybe in most areas. They just are not available, in large scale, at the moment. It does not matter why, for the moment, they just aren't there.

Yes, the oil companies milk the situation for billions of $$$ every year (Though I am not opposed in any way to a corporation that makes money). Yes, I believe that they funnel bribe money into the representative bodies to keep it that way.
None of that is questionable, IMO. The question that is never answered is:
What to replace it with, in the short term, to keep the fragile food and commerce networks that keep the world alive and going, from collapsing completely?
It is always, "smash the oil companies", "stop the oil companies". But there is never a solution offered as to what to do about filling the void. Other question that troubles me deeply is:
Who is to be put in charge of it?
What are the new overlords going to do with it?
Is there any garuantee that it will better off in a socialized government arrangement than it is now?

If I seemed testy in earlier posts, it is because I do not much appreciate attempts to silence opionions that may not be in line with somebody else's. I try to afford anybody the right to their own opinion as they see fit to express them. I'd appreciate the ability to express my own opinons from time to time as well. That doesn't seem to be in the cards now-a-days; but still...

One good thing about the so-called "global warming" issue is that it can make for some good artistic material. Vickie next to the camera keeping cool in a hot, road warrior scene..... Great stuff! ;-)

**Pollution is bad.  Clean air is good.

     Well said. watching people flail around with their arguments of the lack of Global woarming is almost amusing. I propose a simple experement. It requires a car and a garage. Close the garage door start the car. Tell me if there are any ill effects. I will be the standard it is measured against sitting in a garage without the car running. Greenhouse gases are bad for you. If you like, you can come over here to China and breathe the slop they call air. My experement is oversimplified but judging from the posts only good things can come from pollution. There it not enough blotter acid in the world toget me to beleive that. 

       Scientific models are imperfect so there will always be doubts about the exact results but there are a few things that are a given. Weather will be chaortic and predicting it has never been exact. Ther ewill always be extreme examples. The ice age thing is because there were two harsh winters in a row in the 70's some people latch on to any old thing.  If you are so caught up with that, I suggest the best place to do your reasearch is from the canals of mars. 

In the end I am not certain of the complete effects of greenhouse gases on long term climate change. I do know pollution is bad clean air is good. Most people who die in fires die of smoke inhalation. **

First, politics affects everyone and should be everyones business. It can throw us into faschism or worse if we all stay asleep.
Second, global warming may be complete nonsense or not, but I do know that fear of doing the right thing is crippling humanity. Right now I could be driving an electric car with zero toxic fumes and getting 60 miles a dollar, but instead I have to put up with a stinky  piston powered car and getting 8 miles a dollar.  Is that insane or not?   Humanity will crumble unless our leaders STOP BEING AFRAID OF DOING THE RIGHT THING.  NO MATTER WHAT THE COST,  DOING THE RIGHT THING ALWAYS LEADS TO SOMETHING BETTER.

@**dvlenk6 ** I hope you and I can be friends in the forum and not take these matters too much to heart..   opinions are like A_ _  Holes, everyone has one...  

When I read your concerns against certain attacks against the oil companies..  I hear you say.. "what are we going to do without oil if it is shut down today and what are we going to substitute it with..."  Right!    Good question..  Now, No one wants to shut down the oil pipes this minute... This is a mistake to assume..  I assure you that I wouldn't want to "just" shut down the oil and not have a substitute on hand...

The reason some people ( particularly Liberals)  attack the oil companies is to get those oil companies to co-operate in finding an alternative source..   Alternatives have been around for a long, long time and big oil industry has spent and still does $ Billions $ on lobbyist  in Washington to keep congress from accepting and setting forth bills that toughen laws and forces them to get them to either step out of way or help out....  They don't want to.. They talk the talk but lack the walk..

This is what the fighting words and hostilities towards the oil conglomerates and empires are about.. to voice our displeasures at them... Believe me they really don't want to let a good viable source of energy to emerge... I don't blame them..  I don't blame the congressmen getting the free trips, perks and checks...  do you?   No one wants to shut down anything...  We as people must prevail on this...  Show your dislike for paying $3.00 a gallon..

Hope you see my point...  if it doesn't apply let it fly...

Thanks

The oil companies are never going to co-operate with creating a product to put themselves out of business. Any Corp. exec. that even proposed such a thing would immediately be dismissed from his position by the stock holders. Plain as that.

My biggest concern by far is putting the government in control. If you think it is bad now; just let the government step in. You ain't seen nothing yet. I've seen how they work from the inside. It would be the worst case scenario.

I'm in favor of really tough environmental laws. Ones that are enforced, not the crap that is around now.
Greenhouse gasses is far from the worst pollutions threatening the world. It just gets all the hype and publicity because its a political 'hot ticket'. So the real bad ones can slip through unnoticed: bio-toxin & radio-active dumping into the oceans, massive industrial chemical leakage; ground water pollution on epic scale. Don't hear much about the millions of tons going into the oceans every year, do you?
Pollution of ground water supplies is much more threatening to the Earth right now than the little bit of CO2 (in the scheme of things) that goes in to the air. Oil plays a large part in ground water pollution as well; as I said, I not in debt to the oil companies. By-products from the refineries are some of the worse toxins around.
Yes, you need to breathe; but you also need to drink.  (care for a nice icy glass of Toluene?)
There is virtually no regulation to stop any of that, or it is ignored because the fines are far less expensive than the fees for safe disposal.

I think the pseudo-environmentalists are playing "global warming" (or WTF you want to call it) like a harp in political circles and they completely ignore the less publicized and far more serious pollution issues.

Not accusing anyone here of any of this
I'm not looking for trouble with anyone here.

@Dvlenk6

Try to imagine a world without oil and its products?
Take a better look at what oilcompanies really do?
Take a good look at politicians, why are pollution rules not enforced or even installed?
Take a good look in climatology, its real ugly what comes up there, the things that most of regarded as thruths just because it was told us so....?
Take a good look at the Greens, and what their ideas for a better world would mean for you?

http://www.climateaudit.org/
Start here and learn the real truth, not the inconvenient one.

I didn't say greenhouses gas emmission is good. I didn't say oil companies are good for the ecology. I'm saying there are worse pollution problems that get ignored because of the political impact of Oil and GW. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Water pollution (as one example) is a much worse problem than emmision based air contamination; but you don't hear about it much. It doesn't exist. Ask the politician campaigning for tougher air quality controls, he'll tell you. <- He's the one that killed the bill to initiate tougher emmision controls on cars, BTW.
You have to actively seek out information on water pollution. GW is in your face every day; but is nowhere even in the remote league with the water situation for ecological impact.

If you have ever been around during a dysentery outbreak or done relief work in a Drought/Famine situation, you might have a different idea about the severity of GW, in the scheme of things. I'd imagine the people that clean up the masses of dead fish and marine birds that wash up onto beachs probably feel the same way.

What is very scary about the quickly diminishing fresh water supply is that 43% of the causes for it are classified as 'unknown'. It's pretty disturbing to me that there is really no investigation trying to resolve that 'unknown' factor (there is some; but only small scale individual efforts).
Why?
Because every institution (at least if they are interested in public funding) is on GW research.

So, in a way, I think the GW craze (because I feel it is blown out of proportion in relation to other issues) causes more serious and immediate issues to get glossed over.
I think GW is "fashionable environmentalism". I think at least half the people talking about it have no concern for the ecosystem. I think a lot of those same people live lifestyles that contribute to it. Like the overfed guy sitting in the air conditioned room with many refrigerated soda cans behind him, talking about it in the video from the 1st post.

If you want to interpret my posts as meaning I have no concern for the ecology, that's up to you.
You're way off base about that; though.

I guess this needs to be added to every post:
***** NOTE*** I'm not attacking anyone, just stating my opinion NOTE**

^maybe I should change my signature to that.

What I think is worse than global warming is putting flouride in the drinking water system. When the body breaks it down, it has the same effect as mercury. Maybe it's time I dig a well.

Don't dig a well near where I live.
Unless you happen to enjoy the smell of rotten eggs and the taste of sulfuric acid.

**There are lots of things to watch out for that people used to take for granted like flouride in water, mercury in fillings, lead in paint, etc.

The easiest way to start down the green path is to stop doing nothing.  Even the homeless person picking up aluminum cans to sell at the recycling center is doing something.  Recycling plastic grocery bags and soft drink bottles is doing something.  Using rechargeable batteries is doing something especially if those batteries are recharged with solar power.

I think it is important for companies to allow those employees who can do their jobs from home using their computers to do just that.

Growing your own food when possible eliminates all kinds of pollution and waste and gives you fresher, more nutritious food.

I would propose that only electric vehicles be used for personal driving in cities with more than a million inhabitants.  That would cut down on a huge chunk of pollution.**

**Cryptojoe, former moderator of the Rhino forum, is designing a system that uses convection heat and photovoltiacs to generate electricity combined with generation through trash processing.  

FREE ENERGY AND TRASH RECYCLING! 

So far the big money has the men who represent us in Washington scared of the idea and doors are not being opened as quickly as they should be.**

By the way, did you know that over a hundred years ago they had mass transportation that ran on electric motors with zero emissions.  Then the oil industry took power and the world was never the same. 

A few trillion dollars can buy you any government you want to buy, and people will never do the right thing if it means sacrificing a fat paycheck.  THAT'S THE LAW OF HUMAN PHYSICS!

Was it a battery or was the mass transit getting power from electricity along the rails? If so, where that electricity came from? Coal plant?

A few years ago I started playing around making my own sterling engines. A lot of fun. Basically there's a lot of excess radient heat everywhere... your hand, the exhaust from your computer, running Bryce on a dual core using 100% CPU.... The cement along roads, the roof of a house.... Lots of things give off heat which can be converted easily using a sterling engine. Even the heat of your hand can power one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine  A link about them.
http://www.stirlingengine.com/ A company that makes them.

You can buy kits if you want to play around with them, or build them yourself. There's a type of competition among sterling engine enthusiasts to make a sterling engine out of anything.. even tin cans, straws, string, and a heat source....

If you want to make these engines work for you in terms of saving engery in a practical sense, you'll need a lot of them. So they are not practical to run your house on them, not yet anyway. But they are getting smaller and more efficient every year. Current talk is like having them small enough to fit under every shingle of a house's roof, converting heat into energy from every shingle. We're not there yet technology-wise yet, but that's the goal among some enthusiasts.

Dann-O wrote:
"watching people flail around with their arguments of the lack of Global woarming is almost amusing. "

Luckily, the humour quotient for the thread is rescued by your spectacularly greenhouse-irrelevant car-in-garage experiment (though I suppose it might be helpful for anyone feeling suicidal over fears of the woarming - and don't worry, carbon monoxide isn't covered by the Kyoto treaty).

"Greenhouse gases are bad for you."

The mean surface temperature of the Earth would be at about -18 °C if the gases in the atmosphere had no "greenhouse effect". Have you tried typing at -18 °C? You'd have to leave the car running and insulate the garage.

The most significant atmospheric greenhouse constituent (due to abundance) is di-hydrogen monoxide, sometimes known as "water". In the form of vapour and clouds, water is responsible for 90% of our lovely, cosy greenhouse effect.

If you're calling water "bad" I might have to question your political leanings. Water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of the earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70% of you is water? And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids. What do you drink? Vodka? Are you some kind of Commie?

The next most significant freeze-stopping constituent is carbon dioxide. This trace gas (just 0.038%) is an essential part of the global food chain. Plants and ecosystems love it so much that even the tiny increase that industry has added to the air is thought to have increased agricultural production by 15%, saving millions from starvation and large areas of the natural environment from having to be ploughed up. It's really nasty stuff. 

"I do know pollution is bad clean air is good."

In an effort to explain the lack of their predicted warmening, warmenisers have offered the excuse of high levels of particulate and aerosol pollutants as causing a compensating cooling. So Dann-O, your participation in the dirtiest economy in the world is saving the planet from melting. Good things can come from pollution.

Fancy a tab?

Quote - What do you drink? Vodka?

Only when the liquor store is closed and I'm out of Rum.

In the 19th century the electric power was delivered by simple wires and  It worked.   Just imagine what we'd have now if the industrial revolution was not monopolized by the oil industry for the entire century.  Imagine the battery technology we'd have today.  Also, once you establish an electric economy, that electricity can be generated in localized areas in any manner you want... coal, tidal, solar, wind, water, geothermal, fusion...etc.
Of course all this is now irrelevant, since everyone is scared to death of the oil monopoly.  Even GOD would not dare threaten them, because they have more power than GOD.

Quote - ...Even GOD would not dare threaten them, because they have more power than GOD.

The don't even have as much as power as Microsoft

Environmentally speaking.. a possible solution..

1. A  strong bi-partisan environmental legislation backed by strong laws...
2. regulate the special interest lobbyist groups -or-  *get rid of them all together.. *
3. move the power in this country from corporatology back to "We the People"

we are talking environmental solutions here.... thats all folks
.
this is a  key to getting things done....  not "the" key..   but a key..    As long as the special lobbyist can get "in" there will be too much temptations($$$)  to do more for the rich corporations and not for the people..   Pull the special lobbyist money out of this equation and you'll have simplified the process..    Honest moneys will find its way to the right and honest green energy labs and people..   

We are talking environmental issues here not strict politics..  for those politically sensitive individuals  reading this....   

but most likely you'll go on and on... 

but here is what I can't stand....  
How the words.. "Gobal Warming"  have become dirty words for some people.   Anyone posting the words "Global Warming" is bound to get a lectured on the true meaning of these words..   I see people scrambling for synonyms to avoid what has become the steady flow of pure associative negativities towards these words. This, I feel, is because Al Gore is a Democrat and he is getting a lot of attention from his pertinent and appropriate film topic.   All I hear is a steady state of bumper sticker polysloganizations and knee jerk sludge..  An attempt, I think, to steal the thunder..   I will continue to call the condition of this planet's rising temperature , no matter why or how come, as ...   you know it...   as GLOBAL WARMING..

I like getting along with people.. no matter your affiliations...
**Want to comment go a head.. but don't attack me personally... I've had enough of it.
if attack is all you got,  It be nice if you didn't bother...  lets have a conversation...

**

For me, I think the best way is through common sense. I know if I dump a can of paint or used batteries into some water, in time it could seep into the very water supply I drink. I don't like that, so I won't do it.

In my travels I came across a saying that has stuck with me over the years "the lazy walks twice." This implies by not doing something right the first time (the lazy) then ya have to redo it all over again. It doesn't make sense to be lazy... you end up having to do more work.

This global warming issue for me comes down to decision. Which is the right decision. If something is to be done, whether or not global warming is real or not, comes down to what decisions are the right decisions. Making the wrong decision for the right intention can be a mistake. And to make a right decision of anything depends on knowing what is really happening.

Revelation 16
 8.  And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
 9.  And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

dogor,
Eventually if not sooner than we thought. So where do Christians stand on global warming? Real believers? It's getting really hot.....whew

I was born into a catholic family my self.... *

8.  And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
 9.  And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
***now, this could amount to a good source of free energy....!

BTW: happy father's day!!!**

Protestant here. What was that Al Gore said? "Like a walk through the book of Revelations." An Inconvienent Truth or The Inconvienent Truth. He must have read that. I don't know where in time those events will take place personally.

dogor,

Luke 21 
33.  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
 

*Inconvienent Truth or The Inconvienent Truth. He must have read that.

*It was a film about Global Warming...  made the film and narrated it...  I'm surprized to find someone who does not know that...

tell me do you believe in the rapture?   you believe the earth is only about 10,000.00 years old?

hope you don't mind me asking...

~7,000 ... or 5 billion.
Somebody's got it wrong.
Take your pick.

I would have thought politics and ecology was enough controversy for any one thread.

*"If something is to be done, whether or not global warming is real or not, comes down to what decisions are the right decisions."

*How about a carbon tax that is linked to warming, or more accurately the specified predictors of warming.

The IPCC made specific predictions about what initial form warming due to a man-made greenhouse effect would take (as distinct from other warming influences, such as the Sun), and said that it would be an early indicator.

If the early indicator shows up, the tax goes up - as it should. The higher the warming indicator gets, the higher the tax goes - to the point of making carbon fuels uneconomic. If the indicators don't show, the tax stays low (or eventually disappears) - as it should. 

That is a course of action that can be started now, that will only take effect if needed, and won't cause damage if it is not needed.

I'm up for it.

*~7,000 ... or 5 billion.
Somebody's got it wrong.
Take your pick.

I would have thought politics and ecology was enough controversy for any one thread.*

Not sure what you are referring to with that statement....  but in case you did not know... religious people  (bible readers) believe that the earth is only 10K yrs old...    or so...maybe a little more..    that God made man and woman not so long ago...  further,, there was no controversy here...  I was just asking dogor a question about his belief...

@PJF:  read my post again...  if you don't do legislative and stop negative money from coming in  you can hope to do nothing...    you got to take it to the legislative and pass laws... 

Thanks for the fathers day wish.

      As far as solutions to global warming. Take a sensible approach and strive for greater efficiancy in all things and simultaniously work out new cleaner sources of energy that can be used. 

       Getting the oil companies to go along with it would be very difficult. I think the solutions will come but not from the States it will be somewhere else because of the power of big oil in the states. When people find out that all the cars in Korea run on seawater and get 100 miles to the gallon that will force change. (that was a hypothetical example)

      Of course there are other forms of pollution that can be devastating and actions should be taken to right those wrongs too.  I think reason has a difficult time finding its way into this debate because everyone is pre-decided by partisan politics. Step back and look at things in a logical manner.

No I don't mind at all. I could get hammered for saying it, but no I don't believe in the "Rapture" the way some do. I don't know how old the world is either. I don't even know exactly how it was created except to say by the Lord. I wasn't there. The story of creation has a lot of holes in it literally and I think are there on purpose.  If it was explained in detial we'd still be scratching our head in my opinion. It's over our head and the book would be how thick? It wasn't that long ago man learned how to fly. Birds on the other hand.....

I read the Bible. I like it. I don't claim to know all the mysteries in it. Some believe things without checking them out. I do. That's what it's there for. Many people died to make that possible.

dogor, 

thanks for answering...  and you answered it quite nicely.....

Quote:
*      As far as solutions to global warming. Take a sensible approach and strive for greater efficiancy in all things and simultaniously work out new cleaner sources of energy that can be used.

I agree with you.....
Again,, and am not trying to force Ideas down anyones throat.... read my post again .. unless you do something in Washington (the house and senate)  we are just blowing hot air....  no pun intended...

The concept of using other fuels is neat to me. I've been studying up on bio gas digesters and all kinds of bio fuel makers on the web. We waste a lot of things that could be turned into clean energy and maybe even solve some of our garbage problems at the same time. It's not going to happen over night though, but  if done right it shouldn't even cause people any discomfort during the transition while at the same time creating new jobs and opportunities. If you've ever been up in the moutians and come back down you'll see how much automobile polution stinks. You don't smell it normally because your used to it and always surrounded by it. It stinks! I was still a long ways away from any big cities when it hit me. It's everywhere I guess except for high altitudes.

dogor,

*everywhere I guess except for high altitudes.
*Thats a big yet....

That's what I meant tom271.
It's either about 7,000 yrs old (if you believe the scriptural record) or about 5 billion yrs old (if you believe the scientists). Obviously one of those figures is wrong by a long shot. You decide who you want to believe is right.
I said controversy because I seldom see religion being discussed anywhere without controversy becoming involved.

I personally have 0 (zero) hopes that Washington (meaning the US government) is capable of doing anything but compounding the problems of anything that it becomes involved in.
"Costs more, does less" ought to be the Fed. Govt.'s slogan.

There won't be any real changes until people alter their buying/consumption habits and change the marketplace.

**@dvlenk6   ** now a little politics hope you wont mind...

I believe in science my self...  and I believe in the constitution and what the fore fathers had in mind for us... We people...   Which was a government by the people for the people in a republic...   This is a Republic not a democratic states..  We practice Democracy and live as a Capitalistic society.. 
  For the last 60 yrs.plus... it is through the middle class that this country has nourished it self and it is through a healthy middle class that keeps the machineries going..

The government  for the last  25 years has been slowly deteriorating in the hands of people who believe that corporations, privatizations and the super class elite are the solution to the great dilemma.. which is: Should I share the wealth with the people or should I rule the people and keep everything..  The liquidation of the middle class is has been systematic and  an essential step in this process of a plot...  Shrinking  the government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub... another essential step..    R. Regan said:  the (nine or eleven) worst word in the English language you want to hear are;  "am from the government and I am here to help you.."  he began the shrinking process of this government .. 

There were ( and still are ) two views that seem to fester two founding father guys.. (skipping names and dates)  one notion was that people were inherently evil and government should be there to keep them from mischief and in line..    The other was that people were inherently good and government was there to assist, protect and enhance their quality of life..  fortunately the former prevailed and this country started on a good foot... 

  If you lost hope for the government of the United States of America is because it is not fulfilling  its promise as it should...  and It can..  There are people again trying to collapse and destroy the constitution and its government of the people...  an elite small group of CEO's and corperates...   they own the media,,, the tv news... the news papers... everything!  J.Carter was instrumental in signing a bill to allow unrestrained buying for these corporations.. opening Pandora's box.. ata boy Jimmy!   If the government is bad it is because the people who we intrusted to run it are bad...  Just my opinion....

This is why I wrote my signature

thanks for the time...

*J.Carter was instrumental in signing a bill to allow unrestrained buying for these corporations.. opening Pandora's box.. ata boy Jimmy!   If the government is bad it is because the people who we intrusted to run it are bad...  Just my opinion....

*Sorry I  meant  B. Clinton