An Inconvenient Truth

Because it's far, far outside the normal range of variation for the temperature of the Earth, based on all the data and models we're able to devise. A lot of that data goes pretty far back, too.

Why would anyone care?That is what is so absolutely laughable about today's conservatives.If it is totally natural, will the effects be any less?There are a few things we can do to mitigate the effects, why not do them?Edited by jar, : appallin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem with increased CO2 in the atmosphere is it traps more heat, hence global warming. The problem with decreased O3 (ozone) in the upper atmosphere is it allows more ultraviolet radiation to strike the surface. The problem with increased CO2 is not {directly} related {or a cause of} the problem of decreased O3 so far as I know.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Greenland wasn't in the Arctic Circle at the time. There's a little thing called "continental drift", that despite the name, applies to more things than continents.

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I was pretty adament on not making that point. I asked a simple question stemming from an inquisitive nature. How does Global Warming effect my Christian beliefs? They don't. I believe that humans and nature share a symbiotic relationship and its very important to protect that bond that God instilled. That's what I believe. However, I tend to see these Malthusian conspiracies as being based off of a fear more than it is an immediate, pressing issue. I also see it used by some as a tool of manipulation to slowly glean support for eugenics.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I understand that, but how would we really know either way? I mean, it seems to go in waves as far as I can tell. Some years are hotter, some are colder, some are ranier, some are drier. Again, I'm not undermining the fact that Global Warming exists, I'm merely asking what determining factor makes the case soley against human pollution rather than, perhaps, a mixture of human pollution and a natural cycle?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Because I object to sensationalistic scare tactics, like SARS, Avian Flu, and West Nile virus. Yes, those are legitimate diseases. Yes, Global Warming exists. But the way the media presents it just frightens people like my mother. You know, and a large part of that is people's draw towards people's curiosity about death, like wanting to rubberneck at a bad accident. I understand that. But its almost as if they want it so they can feel justified in their misery. I can't explain it more than that. So, I would prefer to know that these aren't veiled threats like SARS. I would appreciate an actual answer. Aside from which, the US has been locked on about Global Warming for nearly 20 years. We have lower emmisions now than ever before, more recycling, more conservation efforts underway. I know the UK and Canada and a few other nations are on the ball too. Who we need to get onboard, as someone pointed out, is China, India, Mexico, and other big contributors to pollution because it effects everyone. What does my political affiliation have to do with my question? If its natural then what do you want to do about that? All we can do is what we've been trying to do to mitigate the effects and raise awareness. High rises have to, by code, be engineered to mitigate earthquakes. That's great, but it isn't going to stop nature from doing her thing. Same thing for the rest of natural disasters. I lived in Miami for most of life. I grew up with the reality of hurricanes. My first one was the worst natural disaster in US history, until Katrina. I mean, what can you do? You can move. But South Florida has millions of residents. Can't get them all to move. So if it is just a natural occurance then there really isn't anything you can do to stop nature from doing its thing. That's all I'm saying. Now, if the Warming effect has greatly contributed to the intensity of these natural phenomenon, then like I said, we need to continue to do our part to slowly wean back into a natural cycle.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

The data. And it's hotter now than it's even been before, that we have measurements for. Those measurements go back hundreds of thousands of years.It's like the difference between it being a little warm in your house, and your house being on fire. When it's 2000 degrees in your living room, the correct conclusion is not "hrm, something's wrong with the thermostat." I don't think anyone's arguing that there aren't thermal cycles in climate; but the climate change due to human activity is 10 times that due to regular natural cycles. The relevance of a natural warming cycle is bupkis in the face of the enormous climate havok wreaked by human activity.

So, you're telling me that when Greenland was apart of Pangea that it was situated near the equator? I don't think so. Aside from which, Siberia was once a desert. That seems highly unlikely. As far as anyone can tell, the earth was once a very lush place. For whatever reason, a cold snap occured and brought on an ice age. Now, what once was tropical is now a tundra.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Maybe it's time people were afraid? We've been presenting the data for nigh on 40 years now, and nobody paid attention. So calm didn't get the job done. It's time for a little alarm, I think.

You do the same things you'd do if it were man made. You do those things you can do, things like:

• reduce emmissions.
• move folk from low lying areas.
• repair the infrastructure.
• curtail water consumption.
• get rid of the gas guzzler vehicles.
• build a plan for handle 30-50 US Internal Million refugees.
• put together an inventory of available supplies and resources.
• stockpile a two year supply of food for 100 Million people.

Those are a FEW steps it would be wise to take.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

so I take it you don't accept continental drift theory?because yeah, greenland was once part of pangea. just as all the other continents (and that massive island nation that was once a penal colony--no, not Georgia).do you know how many times earth has been a lush place? The greatest it's ever been was in the carbiniferous period--that's where all our coal comes from. after that, the world pretty much went desert mode, and came back out to tropics mode in the jurassic period. since the dinosaurs, we've been through several ice ages.oh, and about 600 million years ago (not talking about the explosion) there was a global ice age. as in, even the equator had ice floating on top of the ocean. It's still a hypothises as far as I know, but it's a damn good one (they occassionaly run the show on discovery).here's a decent link for te drift theory--includes a animated graphic too.http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...glossary/Contdrift.shtml

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I can't argue with that. You know, Illinois Senator, Barack Obama, gave a lengthy speech on SUV's and how terrible they are and everyone needs to get new, more compact vehicles that use FlexFuel. After the speech was over he got into his GMC Envoy, one of the largest SUV's on the market. Despite Obama's hypocrisy, I believe FlexFuel may offer some solutions to us. Some experts don't think that an alternative, organic fuel can sustain the requirement for America. Its working well for Brazilians, but then again, half of their country don't own cars, much less, food or homes. But one thing is certain: The oil is running out. And even though the Canadians have discovered the largest oil supply in the world, its only a temporary fix. It can't sustain the amount of vehicles on the road toaday for more than 20 years. Aside from which, every new car on the road is increased CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I would point out there are other reasons then enviromental ones that Barack gets into an Envoy as well as possibilities for security reason. Also the envoy is probably diesel vs gasoline. Which while dirtier then gas is far more efficient then gas. Could also be running on the vegetaable oils, you never know could of had a biodiesel engine, I mean the military has had those suckers for ages.And your post appears to contradict yourself, as you setup a phrase that makes Obama look bad yet you are going over to his points. He does believe flexfuel will provide some short term solutions like you do. But you put him down in the same breath that you praised him.

I think its possible, but I'm not sold out on the notion. This is what we know, absolutely. That the continents are indeed moving away from one another, at an average pace of about an inch a year. What we also know is that the earth's crust is composed of huge slabs or plates that shift, sometimes causing earthquakes and tremors. What is speculation is that the earth was once connected. Its an interesting theory and I appreciate the research, but the premise of theory, as best as I can tell, is to explain Australia's diversity. They needed someway to get Marsupials and Aborignese on that continent, and the isolation made for it a perfect candidate for the evolutionary model. Perhaps, but one thing I do know. In all of the Pangea simulations, they have to shrink Greenland and Africa by 30% to make it fit. Once. If you say so, then why couldn't the Warming effect be apart of this natural cycle that occurs every few million years. I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate here. I think its an interesting topic. Yeah, I have serious concerns about Discovery's programs. Mythbusters rocks though, as well as many other of their programs. Its their theoretical ones that are disconcerting. They give these dialogues about certain dinosaurs that they could not have possibly known by looking at bones. Its really silly, actually. And the viewer is under the assumption that this is an absolute certainty. For instance, I was watching "Walking with the Dinosaurs," or something like that, and they had a creature who runs into dung to escape from predators. All this they surmise by looking at bones, often not even a full skeleton. I also find it a bit silly that they have dinosaurs with these deep growls, like roaring lions. This doesn't match any reptiles today. Reptiles hiss, they don't growl. All this surmise by looking at bones. Its specualtion like this that encroaches in on the textbooks, where imagination becomes fact. They just make things up and the general public nods in approval. Is it possible that that they rolled in dung or have deep, gutteral bellows? Sure. But how have they come to such conclusions by looking at fragmented bone? Therefore, I have to sometimes take Discovery with a grain of salt.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal