Kerry,

Do you know what an exponential curve is? Look it up and then find a graph of human population growth. You'll find they are identical. Then there is another simple fact to keep in mind. Population can not keep going up 90 million people a year forever. That's roughly creating the population of the United States every three years. If you believe this is sustainable forever...you are a friken idiot.

As far as global warming keeping kids up at night. More power to Al Gore...I hope he is scaring the shit out of people....even if there is only a 10% chance he and scientists are right. Because what's going to be a hell of alot scarier is having to move the population of the entire state of Florida into Georgia, if what he describes happening. Of course you will be long dead by the time that starts to happen (so its easy for you to laugh off), but your children and grand children won't. Wouldn't want them to look back at your generation and consider you a bunch of knuckle heads that could have prevented or slowed the process down.

Kerry,

And its funny. Twice I have clearly demonstrated (step by step) the fact that man is contributing to global warming, with the only question being how much. And twice you have been unable to respond. Why is this. Unable to defend your own position?

"The better conclusion is that we should stop loading children up with the fears of psychologically disturbed adults."

Indeed.

Let's start with "sin", "Satan", "Hell", and "God will punish you for..."

"Let's start with "sin", "Satan", "Hell", and "God will punish you for..."

Mmmm. Two problems with your analogy. 1--These things are real; and 2--Easily avoidable.

Aside from which, if children 9 through 11 are having nightmares over these things, something is wrong to begin with.

In your fantasy world "life after death" is real and Global Warming is not. In reality Global Warming is supported by scientific evidence while "life after death" was created by primitive people with vivid imaginations.

Today people who cling to such primitive superstitions have no interest in caring for the Earth, because in their fantasy world, the Earth is unimportant and life gets really good at death. death = heaven.

Those of us who reject such tabloid-oriented gibberish know that the Earth is our one and only home and to pollute it is to destroy it, thereby destroying ourselves. We live in the Here and Now because the Here and Now are real. We love the Earth because without it we have no life.

If children are afraid of Global Warming they may grow up to make a positive difference in their world. Children who are taught to be "God-fearing" carry their much-valued god-fear into adulthood and then do nothing but demand obedience to authority.

Kerry,

I don't know constitutes real in your world, but in mine, the following facts pretty much speak for themselves.

C02 by nature traps heat + Man releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere + the sun warms the atmosphere (and the C02 that didn't use to be there) = Man has contributed to global warming.

End of story.

"We live in the Here and Now because the Here and Now are real. We love the Earth because without it we have no life."

After 80 to 100 years you have no life, anyway. What do you care about ages to come?

What difference does it make?

"If children are afraid of Global Warming they may grow up to make a positive difference in their world. Children who are taught to be "God-fearing" carry their much-valued god-fear into adulthood and then do nothing but demand obedience to authority."

Why should anyone care what happens after they die? People who believe in eternity believe in that which survives the paltry life we live on earth. Therefore they care about the eternal souls of themselves and others.

Human-caused global warming is a theory. It is controversial. Because it is, it does not belong in the heads of children. It is utterly wrong to make children believe they are responsible for the future of the planet. They are CHILDREN. it's bad enough that half of them blame themselves because mommy and daddy don't live together anymore. How dare we put the future of all humanity on them and tell them everyone is going to die if they don't recycle their candy wrappers?!?

Recycling and riding bikes and driving hybrid cars cannot stop a planetary catastrophe, if it is coming, and it is not those who are at peace with the idea of endings that are psychologically disturbed--it is those who simply cannot accept that life as we know it could end, and that would not necessarily be a bad thing.

I hate to break this to you so bluntly, but the fact is that you are going to die. And so am I and so is every person that has been blessed enough to be born. And, someday, this will all end.

Where you're going to be after that doesn't have a thing to do with global warming or what you think you did to stop it.

"C02 by nature traps heat + Man releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere + the sun warms the atmosphere (and the C02 that didn't use to be there) = Man has contributed to global warming."

So what?

Global warming, global cooling, dinosaurs, meteors, ice age, whatever.

It comes, it goes, it's history. Why do you have such a problem with the rhythms and vicissitudes of planetary life?

Kerry,

Ask your grandchildren that, when your "little rythmn of life" fucks up their's.

Difference between me and you is that I care about the consequences my actions in this life have on the future. You don't seem to give a shit. Burning down the world's forests, acid rain, and spewing pollution into the air when you don't have to, isn't a natural rythmn of life...its an obscenity...and I hope God calls you to task for your smug attitude when it comes to the trashing of his creation.

"and I hope God calls you to task for your smug attitude when it comes to the trashing of his creation."

And there it is. The God you don't believe in OWNS this creation. And if He wants it to get warmer, it will. If He wants it to cool off, it will. If He wants to burn it to a crisp, that's HIS prerogative.

You can't ruin it. And you can't save it, either.

It is utterly wrong to make children believe they are responsible for the future of the planet.

I guess its wrong then to make them feel responsible for any of their actions, either to their fellow human beings, or the planet. Lets not teach them about being a safe driver, behave responsibly, or use a gun in a safe manner...since all of these behaviors are about protecting people in the future from your wild child.

You can't ruin it. And you can't save it, either.

Is that so? Guess what, all Russia and the US would have to do is push the button and your little planet that supposedly can't be ruined by man would be a radioactive wasteland. You are in a dream world as always...thinking man is to insignificant to affect the Earth.

Oh Kerry, is God the creator of urban pollution? Is he the one killing all the fish in a river when some bonehead Chinese company dumps chlorine in a river. Is God the one killing all the fish 50 miles out into the ocean from the Ganges River in India? Is God the one causing acid rain in the Northwest. Is God the one turned Indonesia and parts of Southeast Asia into a smoke choked no man's land last summer. Did God create the leaded gas that was killing people. Did God create DDT that was wiping out whole populations of bird life...including America's greatest symbol. Is God the reason that beavers didn't exist in NYC for the last 200 years. Is God the reason the Brown Bears disppeared from the American West shortly have white settlers showed up.....I could go on and on about what God has apparently been responsible for and man had absolutely no part in. But we all know your notion that man is impotent when it comes to affecting the Earth is utterly ridiculous...and a display of ignorance equivalent to a 2 year old.

Ahmanrah,

There is a significant difference between empowering children to the responsibility they are capable of taking and making them believe they are responsible for the future of the planet.

Someone who drives carelessly and hits someone with a car is responsible for that result. A child who throws his candy wrapper in a trash can instead of a recycle container isn't responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps.

There is nothing about global warming that justifies giving children nightmares.

Here's a thought. I lived through the last three decades of the Cold War. And I never lost a night's sleep over it. Even when I saw "The Day After" and "Testament."

But then, nobody tried to put the burden for the arms race on children. It was the adults who were responsible, and it was the adults that were expected to deal with it.

And look. We're all still here.

Human-caused global warming is a theory.

Kerry,

Its not a theory. I just demonstrated in 3 easy steps how it is fact. Now get over yourself imposed ignorance already.

"Three easy steps?"

That's not science. That's a late-night infomercial.

"NOW how much would you pay?

$500,000? But, wait! You also get this world tour of international music venues--and a shot at a Nobel Prize AND the nomination or the Democratic Party for the presidency in 2008!"

And look. We're all still here.

Yah, you got lucky. And I suspect you will even attribute that luck in some way to God. But using car's as an example. Those who survive accidents will say God was on their side, while at the same time we will grieve for the poor guy that got creamed, and say nothing about where God was for him that day. But how hard will people really look at what truely saved or took the lives of the people involved in both accidents. Alot of people are saved in accidents, not because of God, but because they were good drivers, or had well made cars, and other people caused accidents or died in accidents because their cars sucked or they were wild drivers. In other words human actions good or bad really are the determiners of how an accidents plays out most of the time...not always, but most of the time. And the same is true of the environment, society's actions as a whole, will affect the lives of everyone else. I can guarrantee you with 100% certainty that fewer people in the United States will die next year if there were less pollution, better made vehicles, safer drivers, smarter gun owners, etc. To think we have no affect on anything, simply because the world is to immense or to grand to envision it, is just an excuse to do nothing.

You give the example of throwing a candy wrapper in the trash versus recycling. Well just think how much less trash there would be on the highways, in land fills, on the streets and in the air (pollution generated by incinerators, and the producers of raw materials) if everyone threw most of what they use in a recycle bin rather than in a trash can. It would make a hell of a difference...even though you can't see it.

Kerry,

Demonstrate that my three steps are wrong.

1. Please show me evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

2.Please show me evidence that man is not producing huge quantities of CO2 that rise up and stay in the atmosphere.

3.Please show me evidence that man has not destroyed to a large degree, the forests that covered much of Europe, North America, and Asia. Forests are one the major mechanism that nature uses to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

4. Please demonstrate that the sun doesn't warm the planet's atmosphere.

Its as simple as that. If you can prove any of these wrong, then you win. If you can't you lose.

That's not science. That's a late-night infomercial.

Being a smart ass isn't helping you. I assure you.

Kerry,

here is a chart for you on concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice "year 0" on the far left, and the sharp vertical green line that jumps from 270 ppm to 370 ppm in essentially no time (compared to the time scale of the graph). I don't really care if you think they can measure back 400k years. All you have to do is look at the last 6k (they can easily measure back the yearly ice rings in Antarctica 6k years)...you will notice no where in that time frame is the rise so dramatic. In fact in 100 years the ppm rose faster than it in the prior 6k years combined. And since you young earth folks can't imagine time periods much greater than 6k years, 6k years must seem like a pretty long time, which would make a 100 ppm spike all the more dramatic for you all. And wouldn't you know it, it all happened at the same time we turned the world's forests into a tinder box, and have been burning billions of barrels of oil, all of which produce CO2...hmm. Anybody who can't connect the dot between their tail pipe, or their campfire and the atmosphere is pretty much a moron...or in serious denial of reality.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Nice chart.

And, again, so WHAT?

You still can't explain to me why it matters.

18,000 children worldwide die of starvation every single day. Why are we so concerned about the affluent children of the future--and not bothering to do anything about it?

Your four elements don't add up to either "global warming" or planetary catastrophe.

Your four elements don't add up to either "global warming"

Is that the best you can offer as a rebuttal? Tell me what is missing.

Kerry,

Since CO2 is toxic in large quantities to humans, here's an experiment you can try, that proves my point. There are several other substances that trap the heat of the sun, one of those you know all to well...water vapor. Take a dry room hot room in your house, and pump a bunch of water vapor into the room. By doing this, as with C02, you are increasing the ability of the air to store energy. And if you jack up the humidity in the room high enough you will personally feel the difference. And anyone who has lived in a hot dry place, versus a tropic place of equal temperatures, knows the oppressive feeling that that added humidity adds to dealing with the heat. And its not all in your head...there is more energy in the air in a hot humid climate than there is in a hot dry climate. And people are more likely to suffer heat stroke in such a climate. And your more likely suffer problems in a hot humid apartment than you are just a hot one.

CO2 is no different, and its affect is as easy to demonstrate and measure as the water vapor example....making your denial and self-imposed ignorance all the more laughable.

Kerry,

I'll offer you an even simplier proof that CO2 is greenhouse gas. Take a look at Earth and Venus.

Earth's atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, with the remainder being Argon, CO2, water vapor and a variety of other substances. The average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees.

Venus' atmosphere is 97% Carbon Dioxide. And its surface temperature is 894 degrees.

Now of course I your going to try and pull a fast one on me and say...oh but its closer to the sun, so it should be warmer...to which I will rebut and say that the space surrounding Venus is probably -200 or colder...and none of the ships we sent to Venus or Mecury ever melted, so I can conclusively say that avenue of rebuttal is dead end for you.

So its an easy step for me to state, that the more CO2 we add to atmosphere, the more the atmosphere resembles that of Venus, which is hot as hell because of all of the CO2 in its atmosphere.

Without fear there'd be no religion. Religionists teach their children that to be "God-fearing" is to be virtuous. They "put the Fear Of God!" into their children daily.

As for children losing sleep over Global Warming, i doubt it. Sounds like more not-news from the hysterical right. Like "the gays want to get married!" and "They're teaching science in public schools!"

Art,

Actually I think the no-news is really that gays are going to somehow pervert the entire world. Homosexual behavior has been demonstrated as far back as at least the Greeks, alot longer than Christianity has been around, and they haven't succeed in all that time...probably because homosexuality isn't a disease you can spread.

"As for children losing sleep over Global Warming, i doubt it. Sounds like more not-news from the hysterical right. Like "the gays want to get married!" and "They're teaching science in public schools!""

It's a study done in England by a supermarket chain. Nothing to do with the "hysterical right."

Kerry,

Pretty hard to deny what is trapping all that heat in Venus' atmosphere isn't it.

Gary

Seems my other post got mashed into the previous one.

Here's another site by Gary Braasch, to give you even more overwhelm data and photgraphs.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/

All this dog-and-pony nonsense about global warming is beside the point.

The point is that it is despicable to scare children with the alleged "threat" of "global warming."

Leave the kids alone.

Kerry,

You wouldn't leave your kids standing in front of any oncoming bus, and I won't leave mine to ignore problems we created.

Did an interesting bit of reading at the store this afternoon. On the back of an 8 pack of compact flourscent GE (a reputable company by any measure) states that by using their 13w bulbs (which are equivalent to 60w incandescent bulbs, you will save energy equivalent to 1 ton of coal. That is alot of coal. I challenge any self-denial neo-con on this board to breath in the fumes from 1 ton of coal and see if it doesn't kill you or seriously damage your health. And to say we aren't doing anything to the environment...what a bunch of BS.

Kerry,

The only horse an pony show going on is you dancing around the overwhelming facts in front of you.

Its funny I find myself argue with Kerry about higher standard of proof for scientists than she has for her own religion. Millions and millions of pages of data, and text exist on climate change, going back hundreds of years, and much of these documents have been picked over and picked over by 1000's of scientists just waiting to find a spot where a competiting scientist has screwed up.

And then we compare that to Kerry's proof for the exist of God. She has the bible, a few old scrolls (half of which the church wishes never were uncovered) a few historical references...and a thousand different religious orders, each with its own interpretation of what the passages in the Bible means.

She considers the evidence for Global warming lacking, compared to the core belief she holds most dear. Other than the voices in your head, you have no greater evidence that God created the universe, than UFO nuts have that aliens exist.

"You wouldn't leave your kids standing in front of any oncoming bus, and I won't leave mine to ignore problems we created."

No, and I wouldn't tell them stories of children hit by buses and tell them that if they don't do something about the number of out of control buses they will personally be responsible for the deaths of thousands of children, either.

There is no reason for any American child between 9 and 11 to have nightmares about things they aren't in danger from.

"And then we compare that to Kerry's proof for the exist of God. She has the bible, a few old scrolls (half of which the church wishes never were uncovered) a few historical references...and a thousand different religious orders, each with its own interpretation of what the passages in the Bible means."

Put some numbers here, Einstein. Go find them. Just how much documentary evidence is there for the Bible? Just how well attested is it? How many "old scrolls" are you talking about, and how well have they been authenticated?

Go do your homework before you talk about this again.

Not so easy when you are forced to explain to your kids why plants that shouldn't bloom until late spring, are blooming in the middle of winter, and why chunks of ice that are 5000k years old, and the size of entire US states are breaking off Antarctica.

Kerry,

All the scrolls on this planet related to the bible, don't amount to 5 years worth of graduate thesis and doctorates produced on very specific aspects of global climate change. And you can throw out all the dialogue that has accumulated regarding the bible, because that is nothing more that rehashing of the same material. Most scientific research brings with it new material....there is nothing new that has been produced related to the bible (except for the occasional missing scroll) in the last 2000 years.

Again, I will repeat it.

I DON'T CARE.

The Earth can warm or cool or burn up or disappear in a haze of frozen fog (we got that last week; it was cool).

Life goes on. Or not.

"Not so easy when you are forced to explain to your kids why plants that shouldn't bloom until late spring, are blooming in the middle of winter, and why chunks of ice that are 5000k years old, and the size of entire US states are breaking off Antarctica."

Do you actually know any kids that would ask you that? That's something fed to them by adults with an agenda.

LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE.

Thirty years ago, we were heading for a new ice age. Now we're not. Isn't that progress?

You people are never happy.

Kerry,

Here is a number for you. The Bible contains approximately 120k words.

A quick search of Google Scholar using the very generic term "climate change" produces 932k results, that means in sheer citations alone I would fill nearly 8 bibles....which says nothing of the content. But just for grins, lets say that each article cited has approximately 15 pages, with 1000 words per page (aka 15000 words per article...I actually estimated this continuing words in a real scientific journal), that would mean almost 14 billions published words related to climate change, compared to a paultry 120k words for the Bible? That is just for articles that include the specific term I used, net necessarily all articles on global warming or climate change.

So yah, unless you can produce 14 billion published words of material on the bible (not rehashed theological debates), I think my point is pretty well made. And boy, I didn't even bring up the fact that journal articles are generally nothing more than an executive summary of the reams, and reams of data and field book notes that the scientists collect and store in their offices and university basements.

I DON'T CARE.

You may not, but I bet the scientists warning the government about the inadequacies of the levy system in Lousiana have a bunch of new converts, given they had been warning the politicians what was going to happen for years.

Life goes on. Or not.

Yah life goes on...especially for those who ignored the tobacco companies, and listened to the scientists who were telling them the shit they were smoking was bad for them.

Thirty years ago, we were heading for a new ice age. Now we're not. Isn't that progress?

Yah and a thousand years ago, everybody thought lightning and floods occurred because God was angry, that the earth was flat, and that we were the center of the universe. Science didn't have the exact answers to start with, but it sure produced the truth to these mysterious far faster than clutching a bible and praying did.

You people are never happy.

To be perfectly content, is to be boring. We know the answers to the Universe our out, and man has the capability to find them...just like we figured out out to split the atom, cure disease, fly to the moon, and find planets around distant stars. While those who are perfectly content are still sitting around their modern campfires, hoping and praying they can make it heaven...and not accomplishing a hell of alot in the process.

As Confucius wants said, those who say something can't be done, should get out of the way of those who are doing it.

Wow.

You are really, really stupid.

Even I am amazed.

You don't know what an "authenticated document" is, do you? Or how an ancient manuscript is validated?

You can dig up a million screeds on global warming, and not one of them is an authenticated document.

I'm telling you again. Go look this stuff up before you talk about it any more. Find out HOW the Bible is authenticated, HOW we know it to be reliable, and HOW MANY copies of it we have from antiquity.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain why it should matter whether human beings continue to occupy the earth or not.

The Earth doesn't seem to have missed the dinosaurs. Why would it miss us?

I DON'T CARE.

You don't care about air pollution, but you'd probably get all upset if someone pissed in the pool you were swimming in, or some terrorist dumped poison in your water supply. In fact your paying billions to make sure the latter doesn't happen....and yet pollution is just like someone pissing in the air you breath and it doesn't phase you a bit.

You neocons are a run breed.

"You neocons are a run breed."

Okay, now it's your turn to define "neocon."

Second, what is a "run breed?"

Kerry,

You are really, really stupid.

Reduced to nothing but name calling. Good sign a debater has nothing left to back up their position.

Look up what? What else do you have besides some bibles and scrolls, and a few historic documents. Where are the billions of pages backing up the existence of God and Jesus...that don't use the bible as their basis for evidence. I can't look up what is not there.

You can dig up a million screeds on global warming, and not one of them is an authenticated document.

And who has to authenticate them first...the discovery institute, who has a vested interest making sure the reality of global warming never sees the light of day. Yah right.

The Earth doesn't seem to have missed the dinosaurs. Why would it miss us?

Your toilet won't miss you either, but you keep it cleaner than the air you breath.

that should have been funny breed not, run breed.

"Your toilet won't miss you either, but you keep it cleaner than the air you breath."

Snicker. You haven't been in my bathroom.

"that should have been funny breed not, run breed."

Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you.

"Look up what?"

The evidence.

"What else do you have besides some bibles and scrolls, and a few historic documents."

Go find out.

"I can't look up what is not there."

Actually, it's more like you can't find out what you won't investigate. It's there, but you're not looking.

Kerry,

Caring for what you do to environment has nothing to do with worrying about what the Earth thinks...and everything to do with having a little respect for yourself, your community, your children and grandchildren....not to mention the plants and animals that give you life on a daily basis. Why the average person doesn't connect the dots, and realize that generating needless pollution is like pissing on yourself and liking it...is beyond me.

"Kerry,

Pretty hard to deny what is trapping all that heat in Venus' atmosphere isn't it.

Gary"

I'm glad you explained this later. For a minute there, I thought you were blaming pollution on Gary, Indiana--which I actually would accept as a valid theory. :-)

Kerry,

If its out there it should be easy to find. So here's my reference to the evidence, give the equivalent.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

It shouldn't be hard to produce, unless it isn't there. ANd like I said, you can't include anything that is not original material, which means theological debates and ruminations about the bible and what it means are out.

I didn't say global warming wasn't copiously discussed all over the place.

I told you to either do the homework and find out the actual facts about the Bible or stop talking about it.

I'm not going to do it for you.

I know of nowhere on this planet where I can get 900k peer-reviewed documents presenting original material (not from the bible) that demonstrate the existence of God, or Jesus.

In fact the closets I get is the word "christianity", at 338k references...but I suspect 90% of them are on Christianity from the 10th century onward, not 2000 years ago, when it really mattered.

I'm not going to discuss this with you until you learn what an "authenticated document" is.

Kerry,

Authenticated document could mean a thousand different things. What I do know is that many scientist document produced in a peer-reviewed journal is as close as you are going to ever get to an authenticated document. And the authenticity of any such document will get tested over an over again by the scientific community until the end of time...that is what makes science so powerful. There is always someone new looking at old date to make sure it still holds true based one what we know. Unless you can offer a alternative definition that any reputable scholar wouldn't laugh out of the park, I think I have met the definition.

"Did God create DDT that was wiping out whole populations of bird life...including America's greatest symbol. "

DDT was not doing that, but we banned it anyway. It's in this article, right up there, where you started reading. The Rachel Carson thing was nonsense.

"here is a chart for you on concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice "year 0" on the far left, and the sharp vertical green line that jumps from 270 ppm to 370 ppm in essentially no time (compared to the time scale of the graph). I don't really care if you think they can measure back 400k years. All you have to do is look at the last 6k (they can easily measure back the yearly ice rings in Antarctica 6k years)...you will notice no where in that time frame is the rise so dramatic. In fact in 100 years the ppm rose faster than it in the prior 6k years combined. And since you young earth folks can't imagine time periods much greater than 6k years, 6k years must seem like a pretty long time, which would make a 100 ppm spike all the more dramatic for you all. And wouldn't you know it, it all happened at the same time we turned the world's forests into a tinder box, and have been burning billions of barrels of oil, all of which produce CO2...hmm."

Statistics 101. Correlation is not causation.

Just because it's warmer doesn't mean we caused it.

wow, that post was terrible, let me try that again...

An authenticated document could mean a thousand different things. What I do know is that any scientific document that has gone through a reputable peer-reviewed journal is as close to as you are ever going to get to an authenticated document. And the authenticity of any such document will get tested again and again until the end of time...which is what makes science so powerful. There is always someone new out there striving for a better answer...which means there is a built in pressure to prove past authors wrong if its possible. So unless you can laugh come up with an alternative definition that any reputable scholar doesn't laugh out of the park, I dare you to offer it.

Oh and in any authentication process you have in mind, the opinions of people who are not experts in a given field of study bear no weight. A right wing policy wonk, a soccer mom with a highschool education, or a clergyman with no scientific training...have no bearing in deciding the authenticity of any scientific finding.

DDT was not doing that, but we banned it anyway. It's in this article, right up there, where you started reading. The Rachel Carson thing was nonsense.

After we got rid of DDT, the american eagle population started rebounding. Imagine that.

And I have already demonstrated a perfect corelation between the percentage of CO2 in the air and temperature. It sure isn't the other 3 percent of Venus' atmosphere that is causing the atmosphere there to trap enough heat to melt lead.

"Authenticated document could mean a thousand different things."

No, in archeology it means one very specific thing.

And if you don't know what it means you have no business criticizing the validity of the Bible.

If want a hint at what you're talking about, check out FF Bruce, or more recently Lee Strobel--or, less academically, Josh McDowell. Look for the phrase "5000 manuscripts."

Kerry,

Its as simple as this. The more CO2 you pump into atmosphere, the warmer it gets. And we have been pumping billions of tons into the air for over a century. We can argue about how much of affect all that CO2 has had, but you can not argue it has had no affect. That would be like saying no matter how much acid you dump in a lake, you are never going to change its acidity. We all know that's a bunch of horse shit...because it can be demonstrated a million times over to the same affect.

So unless you can magically demonstrate that every once of CO2 we pump into the air God magically makes disappear...you can not deny we are increasing the CO2 levels...and if we are increasing CO2 levels, we are increasing the air heat storage capacity. Its no different than dumping acid in a lake....just because you can't wrap your head around the idea that we can have an affect on a large scale...which is really what it comes down to. You can fathom man send a space ship to Mars because its hard to deny, but can cannot imagine him having the ability to pollute his own planet, even though you can see the evidence of pollution all around you.

The idiocy of your position just astounds me, which I probably which I have wasted so much time on it. Your denial is like trying to deny the heating affect man has had by building massive cities. Anybody with a $1.50 themometers, a car, and 20 years on there hands can collect enough data to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that all that asphalt and smog increase temperatures in comparison to the surrounding country side. And frankly cities are nothing but a microcosm of what pollution, deforestation and urbanization have done on a planetary scale.

Kerry,

A document may be authentic. I doubt the bible has been authenticated six ways from sunday. And its also been demonstrated historical that some of what the Bible states historically is accurate to some degree. But that still doesn't prove anything about whether God exists, or Jesus existed, or was more than a regular human being.

But scientists can measure a thousand times over how CO2 behaves when heat is applied to it, and they can measure the contents of the atmosphere a million times, and watch the level of CO2 rise over the decades. They can also measure the CO2 (hell they can see it) that we are pumping into the air...it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots frankly.

"After we got rid of DDT, the american eagle population started rebounding. Imagine that."

They also stopped dying of lead poisoning, and the government started enforcing the laws against shooting them. Imagine that, too.

Kerry,

I can imagine you humming "Whistling Dixie" with your fingers buried deep in your ears.

There is nothing about the global warming argument that is "fizzling out." In addition, I find it amusing that you're citing a survey conducted by a British Supermarket Chain to support an argument regarding childhood psychology. You reject an argument for global warming that is substantiated by years of research and endorsed by the scientific community at large... and yet, you embrace and write an article about a survey conducted by a supermarket chain? Are you silly? I just have one question; Was the survey conducted next to the Cocoa Crispies or near the GoGurts?

"You reject an argument for global warming that is substantiated by years of research and endorsed by the scientific community at large... and yet, you embrace and write an article about a survey conducted by a supermarket chain? Are you silly? I just have one question; Was the survey conducted next to the Cocoa Crispies or near the GoGurts?"

I accept opinion and attitude surveys for what they are--surveys of opinion. This tells me children are worried, which I find the result of the unconscionable insistence of adults on forcing children to shoulder their psychological instabilities. Global warming, on the other hand, is a scientific question, for which there is not a definitive scientific answer. The answers of science are not about how many people agree with them. They are about facts. We do not know what causes global warming. I do not accept the idea that global warming is necessarily something bad.

Whether global warming is bad is an opinion question. Whether it is occurring is a scientific question. Why it is occurring is a scientific question with no clear answer at the moment.

But even if they found the only 500 children in England losing sleep over global warming, that still means that 500 children are losing sleep over global warming. And that is 500 too many.

You are not willing to deal with the factual indisputable portion of this science, *pollution*. Why should anyone give you a second glance on your opinion? No I'm not taking a survey!

It seems you have concern for those 500 who worry, yet for the thousands who die each year due to pollution you show little to no concern at all. I suppose we have a need to do a supermarket survey on the dying in order for you to respond. If people who think like you would put their head in the sand "literally" many of the worlds problems would be solved. I sacrafice you to save thousands, I call that love.

Your article would have registered on the credibility scale if you had actually addressed the points of the survey.

Well, well, well. Looks like we've got a rat's nest of "Global Warming Caused by Humans" apologists here. Very interesting. Especially the Chief Rat ahman, who keeps on ranting about how "scientists" are soo sure about Man's role in this "disaster". Chief Rat ahman is quite convinced as to the certainty of humanity's blame for this terrible turn of events. C.R.ahman states that "scientists",[his gods], hold the key of knowledge here. What does C.R. ahman say to all those "scientists" who debunk this theory,[for that is all it is], of Global Warming? Hmmm? Does he say, "oh you are not really a scientist", or, does he say, "bah, I don't believe you even if you ARE one because I WANT, I MUST believe in Global Warming"? I wonder. I happened to hear a "scientist" the other day speaking about all of the good that had come about from a previous "warming". Methinks you fatalists should check out just exactly what happened throughout history in relation to the cooling and warming of our planet.

Whether global warming is bad is an opinion question.

I suppose one could say that the question of whether murder is bad or not is also a matter of opinion. Global warming has the potential for some very severe consequences. Climatologists... people much smarter on the subject than you... do not dispute this. If it were only a few raising red flags, then I could understand your skepticism, but we're not talking about a few. We're talking about the vast majority that agree global warming is bad. You said earlier that correlation is not causation. This is true. But correlation can suggest causation. The greater the correlation, the greater the likelihood of a relationship. Statistics 101. It doesn't really matter what you think though at this point because the evidence speaks for itself and ignorance can only hold out for so long. The problem is that this isn't something you can procrastinate on. One the negative effects of global warming become reality, it's alreay too late. It's like suddenly realizing that you should slow your car down seconds before it slams into a tree. There is a point beyond which there is no return. You silly people think we're talking about a little bit of flooding and maybe some tropical resorts on the beaches of Maine. That isn't at all what we're talking about.

Lisa,

If a thousand scientists tell me we have a problem, and only 1 doesn't. I am going to hedge my bets and going with majority, especially if that majority is telling me there is a train wreck coming.

Do realize that it was also scientists that invented the first gun, and wouldn't be surprised if a healthy majority finally believed the gun would work, after seeing the evidence, and the few who didn't believe probably got shot and wondered what the hell just happened to them.

There's only be a few times in history where a science question with this must consensus turned out to be proven wrong, and even those that were, didn't necessarily destroy the old argument completely, they just moved in a different direction. Which would be the equivalent in the Global warming argument of saying we think its going to take a 100 years instead of 50 years to happen. Or a new discovery might find it things are worse then they realized. But if you think the entire argument of man affecting the atmosphere in a determental fashion is going to be defunct. I'd say there is as much chance of that, as you surviving the pumping of your cars exhaust into the sealed cabin of your car...with you in it.

well, it isn't a thousand to one C.R.ahman. Oh and JNE, the consequences of a slight warming period to the earth is an opinion question most decidedly. Read about it.

Lisa,

I don't care if its 100 to 1, I am still not going to step in front of that bus. What is totally funny about this discussion, is that if we were talking about any other group of scientists, developing products you guys rely on every day of your life, there are almost no questions asked...from the medicine you consume, the cars you drive, the food you eat, scientists used the exact same methods that are used in determining the facts about global warming. They did research, put it out into the scientific community to critique, and then once enough of consensus was reached and appropriate tests were conducted...products and theories are accepted. Its only when scientists are studying in areas that bumb up against the personal beliefs of neoconservatives that all of a sudden all the scientists are incompetent, and all the work is bullshit, no matter how much proof they demonstrate and no matter how strong a consensus exists amongst them.

Its a bit ironic that people rarely believe they know about their heart than a cardiologist, but you seem to think you know more about climate and weather than the people who have studied it for centuries. Funny thing is though, most people probably listen when a forecaster says a tornado is coming or a hurricane, because its something they can't deny...but global warming is something they are predicting won't affect us for century....you take on a know-it-all attitude, because you have been afford the time to be smug...and skeptical. But I can pretty much bet, that if scientists can predict the start, and monitor the movement of a tsunami across the vast oceans of the planet using equipment their research built, they can figure out that we are affecting Earth's climate, and they can figure out with some certainty how the Earth is going to behave as it warms.

I can say this...people living on the shores of India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand are probably still wishing their governments had had the wisdom to invest in tsunami research and monitoring equipment of scientists, even though massive tsunami's haven't happened in the recent recorded history of any of these countries. If the had had the monitor system that modern countries in the Pacific Rim had, many of those who died in 2004 would have been saved...even the knuckle heads who can't conceive of scientists having the ability to predict and monitor something on a planetary scale. Hint! Hint! They do it all the time. And if they can do it with the oceans they can do it with the air.

"Its a bit ironic that people rarely believe they know about their heart than a cardiologist, but you seem to think you know more about climate and weather than the people who have studied it for centuries."

Funny you should say that. It's actually quite common for people to ignore the advice of their cardiologists--and medicine is one of the areas in which there is very rarely a "pure" consensus regarding cause and effect.

Remember when sugar was bad for you? Then sugar substitute was? Then it wasn't? And coffee? And eggs?

It's called the "practice" of medicine for a reason.

It should be called the "voodoo" of meteorology.

Why should we believe people like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore, who have a history of making predictions of catastrophe--and being wrong?

"I can say this...people living on the shores of India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand are probably still wishing their governments had had the wisdom to invest in tsunami research and monitoring equipment of scientists,"

Um....right. Those governments were going to pump millions of dollars into bamboo-hut villages that barely eke out a subsistence living. Those devastated villages aren't like the coastal tourist towns in Florida, you know.

Those governments don't invest in ordinary infrastructure for the poorer parts of the country--you're faulting them for not having space-age monitoring equipment? You contrast them with "modern countries of the Pacific Rim"--that's the key, there. "Modern." It hasn't got anything to do with global warming or belief therein. It's money and priorities.

And if you insist on forcing everyone on the planet to take six great leaps backward in technology, good luck rebuilding things the next time there's a little too much rain somewhere.

Funny you should say that. It's actually quite common for people to ignore the advice of their cardiologists--and medicine is one of the areas in which there is very rarely a "pure" consensus regarding cause and effect.

Yah and alot of people die because they ignored their doctor. So what's your point?

It should be called the "voodoo" of meteorology.

Call it what you want, they are still better at predicting weather than you are. That's why they are the ones releasing the weather warnings, and your the one getting your ass out of the way.

Remember when sugar was bad for you?

It still is. That's why you have little kids with cavity filled teeth, and more teenagers than ever being diagnosed with obesity, and diabetes. And more people than ever dying from heart attacks, high blood pressure and stroke. Its all because of the high sugar and high carbohydrate (which turns into sugar) diets that people have, and all of it goes straight to the gut, or hips where it creates problems later in life.

coastal tourist towns in Florida, you know.

Ah how worldly you aren't. I can pretty much tell you have never been to Phuket. And to say they are all bamboo huts is a ignorant bigoted comment to say the least.

space-age monitoring equipment?

Maybe to you. I suspect more money was spent cleaning up the mess, than would have cost have a monitoring system in place. And guess who paid for part of it...you.

"modern countries of the Pacific Rim"--that's the key, there."

Guess you have no excuse to ignore scientists like these guys did then huh...your in the most modern society in the world...and you ignore them to the same degree as the poor, uneducated farmers of a third world country.

And if you insist on forcing everyone on the planet to take six great leaps backward in technology, good luck rebuilding things the next time there's a little too much rain somewhere.

I have no clue what you are saying here. What six great steps back...

In fact Kerry, there was a project funded by the US to give poor countries like Chile the ability to have an early warning capability in the event of a Tsunami. It is called project THRUST, and proved successful using equipment costing only $15k per unit, hardly a back breaker for countries like India Thailand or Sri-Lanka.

"In fact Kerry, there was a project funded by the US to give poor countries like Chile the ability to have an early warning capability in the event of a Tsunami. It is called project THRUST, and proved successful using equipment costing only $15k per unit, hardly a back breaker for countries like India Thailand or Sri-Lanka."

Good. Then I guess that problem was solved. So what's your beef?

But, wait. Don't answer that. You are still missing the basic point, which is coercion. These countries were not FORCED to take the technology; it was OFFERED to them. It offered an ABILITY, which they decided to take (and had the option to refuse). That's not the same as passing laws against light bulbs and SUVs.

Make it attractive to industry and the consumer, and they will do it; make it a question of right and wrong, and they'll spit in your face to do the opposite.

"Call it what you want, they are still better at predicting weather than you are."

How do you know?

Lisa, first... it is probably 1000 to 1 among climatologists. The skepticism increases proportional to the degree in which one is removed from the field. In other words, the biggest skeptics are those with no education in the field of study.

Second, you can have an opinion about whether or not something is bad. You can, for instance, have an opinion that torture and murder are acceptable ways of dealing with problems. So, yes, if you're saying the consequences of global warming are acceptable as a matter of opinion... I suppose you'd be right. The problem is I don't think you truly realize the scope of the situation. So a few glaciers might melt and sea levels will rise, right? So winter might be a little shorter and summer a little longer, right? Sounds fun. Let's break out the lawn chairs and suntan oil.

The potential effects of global warming are not really in dispute among experts in the field and they certainly aren’t a matter of opinion. The real dispute lies in the likelihood of those effects becoming reality. All agree though that there is a line beyond which we cannot return. Are you willing to gamble?

Nobody, including Gore, is demanding we stop using fossil fuels today. What most are saying is that it’s time to acknowledge that there is a problem and begin planning for the future…, to take steps to mitigate our impact over the long term. That’s a pretty realistic goal. It’s better to prevent a fire before it begins.

"Funny you should say that. It's actually quite common for people to ignore the advice of their cardiologists."

Doctors can't prevent stupidity, after all.

"medicine is one of the areas in which there is very rarely a "pure" consensus regarding cause and effect."

Medicine is a very broad topic. There are some things we know for fact. There are some things that are disputed. There are some things that are unknown. We know for a fact that cigarette smoking can result in lung cancer. This is actually a very good analogy for the current topic. The problem is that most smokers don't see the immediate danger and cancer is generally slow to develop, if at all. They continue to smoke and gamble with their lives. Then, one day, the Doctor tells them they have cancer... and lung cancer is rarely survivable. They could quit, but by that time, the damage is already done. They will, in all probability, die because they chose to ignore the obvious.

Jump if you want, but I, for one, do not care to follow you off that bridge.

But, wait. Don't answer that. You are still missing the basic point, which is coercion. These countries were not FORCED to take the technology;

Kerry,

If I have to force a country to save its own people with simple equipment, there are much bigger problems in that country than a potential Tsunami.

But I would have no problem pressuring a country that is polluting to clean up its act, because their behavior affects the welfare of my country and the rest of the world. People like you have to understand that there is a price to pay for polluting the environment. The price may not be evident up front, but neither are the consequences of bad oral hygiene or a bad diet. Neither of the latter will affect you immediately, but I can guarantee that not brushing your teeth and eat good foods will costs you down the road. And like Johnny said above, by the time you realize the consequences of your lax behavior, it may be way to late.

Its funny you guys will authorize the president to spend billions on going after terrorists and countries wanting nuclear bombs (because the death's they cause are quick and shocking), but you completely poo poo solutions to pollution, heart disease, and crime, which kill far more people, because you don't want your rights infringed upon in some manner or other...even though your behavior may indirectly contribute to someone else's death.

Hmmmn so you reference a survey by a British supermarket. And make this comment

An Inconvenient Truth is being passed off as a science movie

Well since I haven't seen the film I can't comment as to whether it is or is not scientifically sound.

Maybe you'll be interested in what British scientists think try this governmental site. Then again maybe you won't be so interested.