Global Warming

[Trinity]

Over 2T tons of ice melted in arctic since '03
Tue Dec 16, 2008

More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.

More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by NASA's GRACE satellite, said NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke. The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, he said, and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice;_ylt=Ah4IYs9ZI2dBaOm5GTawWcas0NUE

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

[Columcille]

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity



If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

[Leslie]

If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

Yup, totally agree with ya on that.

I can't help but think of this as the judgement of God because of how the world seems to be rejecting him.

[Trinity]

"The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for ***essments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to re***ess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071208_xli-world-day-peace_en.html

POPE BENEDICT XVI

[Trinity]

Hello Leslie,


I can't help but think of this as the judgement of God because of how the world seems to be rejecting him.

The Global Warming is not caused by God but by the human activities.

"Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle." --Pope John Paul II

Trinity

[Trinity]

If the new technologies are cheaper... the free market world would adapt to make a profit. You need to build a bridge to get to alternative energy production. As is, we are starting to go bankrupt with bailouts and who knows how taxing environmental restrictions are going to be with the new incoming adminstration. You should be happy that we suffer at the pump and people lossing ***s... we are being forced to conserve to save your precious planet. Besides how fickle is the low cost of oil anyways? It is always in a state of flux due to many factors in supply and demand, foreign relations with oil producing nations, and even natural or manmade disasters, and politicians wanting to tax more and more. It always seem harder to reduce taxes on a permanent basis than it is get money hungry politicians to cut spending.

I do not think we have the infrastructure yet to make the alternatives cost effective. It seems we need conservatives to take up on that issue, but look how the press treats Sarah Palin! Here she is trying to help build a natural gas pipeline, and she is a religious and prolife nut by the left wingers. The wackos in the left just cannot get past their rhetoric with substance. Even they were dupped by Bernie Madoff of a 50 billion dollar scam. I suppose since most were Democrats, I wonder if there is going to be a bailout for these suckers. I think Rush Limbaugh is right, there is no such thing as a moderate. From a religious perspective, Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me; also, evil is not the opposite of good, it is a perversion of good. As such, a moderate is a lefty whose rhetoric is clothed with conservativism, just as a Mormon who says their Christian.

John James Audubon, 1785 - 1851
"A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children."


Jesus had it right when he says you are either for me or against me;...

Could I see the quote please, from the gospel. Thank you.

Trinity

[Columcille]

John James Audubon, 1785 - 1851
"A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children."



Could I see the quote please, from the gospel. Thank you.

Trinity


Matthew 12.30:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. I was of course paraphrasing it from memory, but it is to demonstrate the relationship of real value over rhetoric which wants to p*** itself off as "moderate" or "centrist." The problem with post-modernism is it judges everything by ****ing arguments out of proportion by appealing to emotion and intent. What gets people in trouble is when they do not read past the language to the core... this is why we get a radical prochoicer as Obama in the white house. His rhetoric is clothed in some comp***ionate concern, deminishing the horror of his support of even refusing medical attention to children that survived induced botched up abortions. What was his statement, "that nobody is really pro-abortion?" Then you get some crook who scams 50 billion because he was judged by the way he presented himself as a philanthropist, a big donor to the Democrat party, and his demeanor fooled them all. Amazing.

At any rate, we were once children and as such your quote applied to our fathers at one time. True conservativism is neither borrowing from our children or given by our fathers before us. True conservativism is principle. We are taught by good parents that we are to spend what we already have, not what is expected or based on credit. Some are even taught we should live within our means. Congress does not do this. They base it on projections and not what is already in the coffers. Some States require by law to maintain a balanced budget, but it is based on expectations, and if those expectations are not met, you are going to get in trouble. So we have as a conservative principle fiscal responsibilities. Then there is the conservation of life, as such... abortion is absolutely evil. How can we borrow the world from children that are being aborted? Conservation of energy is conservative, yet it is not the end all be all. We must use energy to stay warm, travel, and operate our infrastructure. I should say the most ultra-conservative would have to be the Amish, and not Al Gore flying on private jets and his gluttonous lavish energy consuming homes.

In all things conservative, it is the principles in action that help create safety, security, and generates healthy lifestyles for the family unit. Liberalism seeks to approve of gay marriage, killing the unborn, tax the rich until there is equality (Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plummer is a great eye opener of a liberal), and spend money on en***lements for their voting constintuency. America did not become a great superpower for its socialism, capitalism is conservative. A strong military that is subject to civil authorities is conservative, else we learn in history that a strong military not subject to civil authorites tends to be subjected more to coup detats. Making profits by compe***ion is conservative, monopolies' profits tend to become greedy. If politicians would change their economic policies based on what is tangible from last years taxes, like what every responsible citizen must do, we would not have to worry about all the problems we are facing now. Now in regards to global warming and environmentalism, their ideals are become religious. Your scare mentality is no worse than Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." If discussion for progress is going to happen... then the best method I can think of fits the phrase best "slow is smooth, smooth is fast;" meaning the scare mentality of global warming must not take to extremes but operate slowly and calmly. When it is smooth, it will get to its objectives much faster, just as elementary students working in groups are told that the first group that gets the project done right gets an external reward just happens to take a lot longer to get that objective done right because they do not really take the time to slowly think the problems out.

Ok, I think I have vented enough so far.

[Trinity]

Matthew 12.30:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. I was of course paraphrasing it from memory, but it is to demonstrate the relationship of real value over rhetoric which wants to p*** itself off as "moderate" or "centrist." The problem with post-modernism is it judges everything by ****ing arguments out of proportion by appealing to emotion and intent. What gets people in trouble is when they do not read past the language to the core... this is why we get a radical prochoicer as Obama in the white house. His rhetoric is clothed in some comp***ionate concern, deminishing the horror of his support of even refusing medical attention to children that survived induced botched up abortions. What was his statement, "that nobody is really pro-abortion?" Then you get some crook who scams 50 billion because he was judged by the way he presented himself as a philanthropist, a big donor to the Democrat party, and his demeanor fooled them all. Amazing.

Thank you for the quote from the bible.

Benito Mussolini, the duce, has declared in his speeches across fascist Italy: "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us. The same words can have two different meanings, depending on who is speaking.

I also like this one: "...for whoever is not against us is for us."

I like this quote because it helps me to not see enemies everywhere.

This thread is first about Global Warming, and this issue is based on scientific facts and by worldwide scientific observations. Even Mr. Bush is now confessing that we are in a real environmental mess.


At any rate, we were once children and as such your quote applied to our fathers at one time. True conservativism is neither borrowing from our children or given by our fathers before us. True conservativism is principle. We are taught by good parents that we are to spend what we already have, not what is expected or based on credit. Some are even taught we should live within our means. Congress does not do this. They base it on projections and not what is already in the coffers. Some States require by law to maintain a balanced budget, but it is based on expectations, and if those expectations are not met, you are going to get in trouble. So we have as a conservative principle fiscal responsibilities. Then there is the conservation of life, as such... abortion is absolutely evil. How can we borrow the world from children that are being aborted? Conservation of energy is conservative, yet it is not the end all be all. We must use energy to stay warm, travel, and operate our infrastructure. I should say the most ultra-conservative would have to be the Amish, and not Al Gore flying on private jets and his gluttonous lavish energy consuming homes.

Well, it is difficult to blame the democrats for everything when the conservatives have governed the country for decades. Twenty-eight years during the last forty-five years. Or 62% of the mandates.


In all things conservative, it is the principles in action that help create safety, security, and generates healthy lifestyles for the family unit. Liberalism seeks to approve of gay marriage, killing the unborn, tax the rich until there is equality (Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plummer is a great eye opener of a liberal), and spend money on en***lements for their voting constintuency. America did not become a great superpower for its socialism, capitalism is conservative. A strong military that is subject to civil authorities is conservative, else we learn in history that a strong military not subject to civil authorites tends to be subjected more to coup detats. Making profits by compe***ion is conservative, monopolies' profits tend to become greedy. If politicians would change their economic policies based on what is tangible from last years taxes, like what every responsible citizen must do, we would not have to worry about all the problems we are facing now. Now in regards to global warming and environmentalism, their ideals are become religious. Your scare mentality is no worse than Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." If discussion for progress is going to happen... then the best method I can think of fits the phrase best "slow is smooth, smooth is fast;" meaning the scare mentality of global warming must not take to extremes but operate slowly and calmly. When it is smooth, it will get to its objectives much faster, just as elementary students working in groups are told that the first group that gets the project done right gets an external reward just happens to take a lot longer to get that objective done right because they do not really take the time to slowly think the problems out. Ok, I think I have vented enough so far.

Are you implying that there is no gays, abortions, or crooks among the conservatives?

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas for you and your beloved wife.

Trinity

[Columcille]

Thank you for the quote from the bible. I also like this one: "...for whoever is not against us is for us."

I like this quote because it helps me to not see enemies everywhere.

This thread is first about Global Warming, and this issue is based on scientific facts and by worldwide scientific observations. Even Mr. Bush is now confessing that we are in a real environmental mess.



Well, it is difficult to blame the democrats for everything when the conservatives have governed the country for decades. Twenty-eight years during the last forty-five years. Or 62% of the mandates.



Are you implying that there is no gays, abortions, or crooks among the conservatives?

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas for you and your beloved wife.

Trinity

The application of your quote is quite different in context. Luke 9 49-50 states:

49
Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company."
50
Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

The application here is quite different. The person who is "not against you" is indeed for you when they are in substance using the same authority of God to cast out demons. So we can gather that Protestants do share the same Lord when God is demonstratively performing miracles, even though they are not Catholics. It makes them as much our brother, even though seperated. The p***age I gave is quite different in context.

What you may call conservative, the grouping of certain individuals within us, does not necessarily mean they are conservative. A gay conservative is an oxymoron. A lot of conservatives who have in their daily lives the principle are also realists knowing that the necessary changes or metamorphesis of actual procedure into the favorable tried and true conservative principles are not going to happen in one day. If it took Rome about 766 years to reach its zenith of glory from 753 BCE to 14 CE, we cannot expect with opposition to maintain conservative policy making. Unfortunetly, because the nature of compromise is prevalent in our system... absolute conservative is not possible in a political system and the City of God will last and not the City of Man. Augustine's "City of God" tried to demonstrate the contrast between such. However, you as a Catholic should be in your principles and beliefs a conservative and promoting such conservativism to the best of your ability. The environmental responsibilities are important as Benedict has laid out, but do not expect the political system in its fight against global warming to be the savior of the world. The apocalypse has some very interesting aspects about the end of the world as well as other end time prophecies from the O.T.. The world will eventually end, we cannot stop that. Christ will eventually come also. We must as conservatives do what we can on all playing fields for the environment, but bridges need to be built to overcome the various obsticles. Some bridges as you propose for charity to unwed mothers are costly and only promote the bad behavior because it sends the message that a bailout for wrongful living can be had, treating only the symptom but not the cause. In the same way, over taxation and gross spending by the government in the name of the environment is a madhouse way of getting to the objectives. As is, most environmental charity groups administration costs are absolutely a travesty.
Friends of the Urban Forest's adminstration costs are 25.4 percent.
The National Parks Conservation ***ociation's adminstrative costs are 20.7 percent.
NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation's administration costs are 21.6 percent.

Compare to Food for the Poor, inc--faith based Services is a whomping 3.2 percent.

Now where is GreenPeace's administration costs? It does not even meet the 10 accountability standards to be listed in the CFC. Why is adminstration costs so large in these environmental charity groups?

Check out the above charities administration costs. Lists from A to Z is here:
http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

It seems to me that most religious based groups adminstration costs are around 12 percent.

Greenpeace Fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) en***y and promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, gr***roots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations. Contributions to Greenpeace Fund are tax-deductible.

Taken from their site, listed on the bottom when you try to donate.


It seems you got a whole networking of a bankrupt environmental religious organization. Its preaching in public education, helps lobbying, and supports those environmental organizations which probably take their donations and turn around and support Democrat campaigns. But besides saving whales, its seems like merely a front for the DNC.

In short Trinity, I am not sure which religion is going to win out with you... environmentalism or Catholicism. If you think government is the answer, then environmentalism is your religion of choice and not Catholicism. The world is going to end, and catastrophically at that too. We should do our best for our environment, but not at the expense where we bankrupt our livelyhood.

As Proverbs 30.8-9 states:
Put falsehood and lying far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; (provide me only with the food I need;)
Lest, being full, I deny you, saying, "Who is the LORD?" Or, being in want, I steal, and profane the name of my God.

Like I said, there needs to be a bridge where we can cross over responsibly and not charge all the buffalo's over the cliff. Your mentality over global warming is more important to you to force government as the answer rather than pointing to the impending doom that awaits this world when Christ comes again.

[Trinity]

The application of your quote is quite different in context. Luke 9 49-50 states:

49
Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company."
50
Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

The application here is quite different. The person who is "not against you" is indeed for you when they are in substance using the same authority of God to cast out demons. So we can gather that Protestants do share the same Lord when God is demonstratively performing miracles, even though they are not Catholics. It makes them as much our brother, even though seperated. The p***age I gave is quite different in context.

I accept your contextual interpretation. However, there is an extensive comprehension of this principle. And I find a good example of this principle inside your relationship with your spouse. Somewhere you had traced a line to have a mutual respect and a happy marriage. Even because she is a buddhist, she is not against you, and you as a catholic, you are not against her. In fact, even if you are rooted in two distinct traditional religions you find a way to compromise.

In brief, someone from an other religion, from an other opinion, culture, is not necessary my enemy.


What you may call conservative, the grouping of certain individuals within us, does not necessarily mean they are conservative. A gay conservative is an oxymoron. A lot of conservatives who have in their daily lives the principle are also realists knowing that the necessary changes or metamorphesis of actual procedure into the favorable tried and true conservative principles are not going to happen in one day.

Seriously and with a pragmatic manner, the conservatives have a very large spectrum with very distinctive opinions, on any issue. This is the same thing with the liberals. An ****geneous block of conservatives is something that does not exist. The proportion of gays into the conservatives is the same as the liberals. A rabbit is a rabbit, and a gay is a gay. This is the same thing with all the other ratios about any issue. They are not better and not the worst.


If it took Rome about 766 years to reach its zenith of glory from 753 BCE to 14 CE, we cannot expect with opposition to maintain conservative policy making. Unfortunetly, because the nature of compromise is prevalent in our system... absolute conservative is not possible in a political system and the City of God will last and not the City of Man. Augustine's "City of God" tried to demonstrate the contrast between such.

City of God, city of man (the two camps distinctive and opposed). I had read this exposition when I was in college. Dostoevsky also wrote about this issue (Church vs. Government, and vice and versa) in the Brothers Karamazov.


However, you as a Catholic should be in your principles and beliefs a conservative and promoting such conservativism to the best of your ability.

I agree with the ***essment of the Pope about the environmental issue, with his predecessor also. The Church acknowledged the urgency.


The environmental responsibilities are important as Benedict has laid out, but do not expect the political system in its fight against global warming to be the savior of the world.

Same thing about the abortion. Remember? Any issue cannot be win without the number. I expect that my fellow citizens can do something.

An issue cannot be won without a very large consensus favoring this issue. The war is with the mentality first. By changing the mentality the ballots will express the new mentality. The problem is that there is to much quarrelers and so less workers into the field. In brief, with all the religious scandals, disputes, and foolishness among the believers, everywhere, the credibility of religious people is not very high.


The apocalypse has some very interesting aspects about the end of the world as well as other end time prophecies from the O.T.. The world will eventually end, we cannot stop that. Christ will eventually come also. We must as conservatives do what we can on all playing fields for the environment, but bridges need to be built to overcome the various obsticles. Some bridges as you propose for charity to unwed mothers are costly and only promote the bad behavior because it sends the message that a bailout for wrongful living can be had, treating only the symptom but not the cause. In the same way, over taxation and gross spending by the government in the name of the environment is a madhouse way of getting to the objectives. As is, most environmental charity groups administration costs are absolutely a travesty.
Friends of the Urban Forest's adminstration costs are 25.4 percent.
The National Parks Conservation ***ociation's adminstrative costs are 20.7 percent.
NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation's administration costs are 21.6 percent.

Compare to Food for the Poor, inc--faith based Services is a whomping 3.2 percent.

Now where is GreenPeace's administration costs? It does not even meet the 10 accountability standards to be listed in the CFC. Why is adminstration costs so large in these environmental charity groups?

Check out the above charities administration costs. Lists from A to Z is here:
http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

It seems to me that most religious based groups adminstration costs are around 12 percent.

Greenpeace Fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) en***y and promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, gr***roots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations. Contributions to Greenpeace Fund are tax-deductible.

Taken from their site, listed on the bottom when you try to donate.

It seems you got a whole networking of a bankrupt environmental religious organization. Its preaching in public education, helps lobbying, and supports those environmental organizations which probably take their donations and turn around and support Democrat campaigns. But besides saving whales, its seems like merely a front for the DNC.

1) Why are we doing a preventive war if the Lord will come anyway (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
2) I am not a member from any of those private organizations. However, I followed the works of a scientific team in the South Pole (live).
3) There is a worldwide consensus on this issue, a consensus from the world scientific community, composed from scientists from all countries.
4) The problem is that we are living in a world with a short vision and with the laziest mentality. We only react when we are in a deep trouble.
5) I think americans should take the reports of the NASA very seriously. This is not Greenpeace.


In short Trinity, I am not sure which religion is going to win out with you... environmentalism or Catholicism. If you think government is the answer, then environmentalism is your religion of choice and not Catholicism. The world is going to end, and catastrophically at that too. We should do our best for our environment, but not at the expense where we bankrupt our livelyhood.

When people will be sick into a large scale, the wars for the natural resources and the catastrophic weather on each continent, this will take care of our economy.

Anyway, if the Pope is worried by this threat, I am also worried. Unless our last two popes were idiots.

Concerning my ap***ude to address all the complexity of many problems and without losing my attention on the essential, and because I do not polarize my mind, I am still a free thinker, even like a catholic. I am not a guy who need a chaperon. :)

Trinity

[Columcille]

I agree with the ***essment of the Pope about the environmental issue, with his predecessor also. The Church acknowledged the urgency.

Same thing about the abortion. Remember? Any issue cannot be win without the number. I expect that my fellow citizens can do something.

An issue cannot be won without a very large consensus favoring this issue. The war is with the mentality first. By changing the mentality the ballots will express the new mentality. The problem is that there is to much quarrelers and so less workers into the field. In brief, with all the religious scandals, disputes, and foolishness among the believers, everywhere, the credibility of religious people is not very high.



1) Why are we doing a preventive war if the Lord will come anyway (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
2) I am not a member from any of those private organizations. However, I followed the works of a scientific team in the South Pole (live).
3) There is a worldwide consensus on this issue, a consensus from the world scientific community, composed from scientists from all countries.
4) The problem is that we are living in a world with a short vision and with the laziest mentality. We only react when we are in a deep trouble.
5) I think americans should take the reports of the NASA very seriously. This is not Greenpeace.



When people will be sick into a large scale, the wars for the natural resources and the catastrophic weather on each continent, this will take care of our economy.

Anyway, if the Pope is worried by this threat, I am also worried.

Concerning my ap***ude to address all the complexity of many problems and without losing my attention on the essential, and because I do not polarize my mind, I am still a free thinker, even like a catholic.

Trinity

What is great about Benedict's quote you gave earlier is that it is cautious. The urgency from which you are approaching the problem is the impediment. That is why I think "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" holds true. Nobody here is saying we should not use alternative energy, nobody is here saying we should not conserve, nobody is here saying we should not recycle, or any other particular method that makes our environment better. I personally think the best approach would be an adaptation of Dave Ramsey's "debt snowball" applied to the goals of the environmental concern. The problem is that the environmentalists are pouring money into education to try to make people sick of the problem. That is a waste of money and resources. Everyone understands the benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment. It is a waste therefore to funnel money into education where it seems clear most people are already in agreement. If we make a environmental snowball, we are more likely to curb the effects or concern of global warming (even if the science is true or not).

There is one thing to be concerned for the environment and do what one can, there is another to forcefully manipulate people to the point of harming their livelyhood. People that work in plants for 12 hours a day, trying to feed their family, and also not being a leech on the government en***lements don't really care about what they can do for the environment because they haven't the time. If a city government doesn't mandate a recycling program, for whatever the reason... its no fault of that worker. If that worker is driving a junker because it gets him to work on time and it is the cheapest form of transportation due to a blue book value of living within his means... then don't be mad at him and the rest of the everyday folk. There must be realistic expectation from the ground up and not from the top down. Now what about the plants, whose about to go bankrupt? They all produce pollution, are you going to penalize them more and create more unemployment faster? If the alternatives are cheaper as you say, then obviously there is a buck to be made. I just don't see you harping more on the concern of global warming is going to change the market place unless you encourage, stimulate, free up restrictions to make the alternatives cost effective and profitable. As is, it is too costly to get enough solar panels on your roof installed. The cost of buying a new hybrid car to the cheapest new car on the lot is most costly for the average working cl***. The incentive to get them to buy a new car is not there, not now. You expect too much too fast. "Slow is smooth; smooth is fast."

Just remember, for those without God, environmentalism is their savation. We should not put our trust in their religious behavioral concern. Step back, breathe a little bit, rethink if you have too... but God is soveriegn and the world will end and our concern for the environment should be put into its proper perspective. Mainly, short term goals will turn into the longer term objective we seek. Just don't jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism because they believe the world is going to end... believe me... God said it--it will!

[Trinity]

What is great about Benedict's quote you gave earlier is that it is cautious. The urgency from which you are approaching the problem is the impediment. That is why I think "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" holds true. Nobody here is saying we should not use alternative energy, nobody is here saying we should not conserve, nobody is here saying we should not recycle, or any other particular method that makes our environment better. I personally think the best approach would be an adaptation of Dave Ramsey's "debt snowball" applied to the goals of the environmental concern. The problem is that the environmentalists are pouring money into education to try to make people sick of the problem. That is a waste of money and resources. Everyone understands the benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment. It is a waste therefore to funnel money into education where it seems clear most people are already in agreement. If we make a environmental snowball, we are more likely to curb the effects or concern of global warming (even if the science is true or not).

There is one thing to be concerned for the environment and do what one can, there is another to forcefully manipulate people to the point of harming their livelyhood. People that work in plants for 12 hours a day, trying to feed their family, and also not being a leech on the government en***lements don't really care about what they can do for the environment because they haven't the time. If a city government doesn't mandate a recycling program, for whatever the reason... its no fault of that worker. If that worker is driving a junker because it gets him to work on time and it is the cheapest form of transportation due to a blue book value of living within his means... then don't be mad at him and the rest of the everyday folk. There must be realistic expectation from the ground up and not from the top down. Now what about the plants, whose about to go bankrupt? They all produce pollution, are you going to penalize them more and create more unemployment faster? If the alternatives are cheaper as you say, then obviously there is a buck to be made. I just don't see you harping more on the concern of global warming is going to change the market place unless you encourage, stimulate, free up restrictions to make the alternatives cost effective and profitable. As is, it is too costly to get enough solar panels on your roof installed. The cost of buying a new hybrid car to the cheapest new car on the lot is most costly for the average working cl***. The incentive to get them to buy a new car is not there, not now. You expect too much too fast. "Slow is smooth; smooth is fast."

Just remember, for those without God, environmentalism is their savation. We should not put our trust in their religious behavioral concern. Step back, breathe a little bit, rethink if you have too... but God is soveriegn and the world will end and our concern for the environment should be put into its proper perspective. Mainly, short term goals will turn into the longer term objective we seek. Just don't jump on the bandwagon of environmentalism because they believe the world is going to end... believe me... God said it--it will!

I think you are right on one point. We do not need the Global Warming to see the american corporations falling into bankruptcy. This is already done, and this is not the fault of the environmentalists. I just hope you will like to ride in a japanese or a korean car. :)

What a nightmare!


Bush considering "orderly" auto bankruptcy

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration is looking at "orderly" bankruptcy as a possible way to deal with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry, the White House said Thursday as carmakers readied more plant closings and a half million Americans filed new ***less claims.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_autos;_ylt=AnceM9WuA9xyKnPlYUINO0is0NUE

Anyway, we still have a window of ten years for moving in the right direction. With you or without you.

Trinity

[Columcille]

I think you are right on one point. We do not need the Global Warming to see the american corporations falling into bankruptcy. This is already done, and this is not the fault of the environmentalists. I just hope you will like to ride in a japanese or a korean car. :)

What a nightmare!



Anyway, we still have a window of ten years for moving in the right direction. With you or without you.

Trinity

With an increase of restrictions on environmental policies, it will cut into the profit margins and on customer's pocket books. So current car emissions standards in California is a lot stricter than the national standard, and California doing really hot now, are they not? I bet Arnold has balanced and even saved the great state of California billions of dollars! NOT. He is driving it to the ground with his leftist "moderate" mentality. If a business is going to make more environmental friendly products and create even more environmental friendly work places, it is going to have to purchase new equipment and parts from its venders. If you already have paid off an older technology that works well, then be forced to add more debt by newer restrictions... it is going to cost money. It would be like an old air conditioner that has another decade of running efficiently with proper maintenance and then a government en***y steps in and says the newer standards for air conditioners are better and so make it mandatory for you to purchase or get slapped with a lawsuit should someone with asthma callapse. The government's litigation and en***lements outprices the pork barrel spending, newer restrictions are just going to increase the burden more. Again, if you want a snowball effect, you start with the small goals that can be achieved first rather than throwing all the money away on propoganda efforts. Government is not the answer, letting them encourage by relief, not taxation and spending, would help make the market look at alternatives with profitable results.

I drive a Nissan, very reliable, and made in the South in Smyrna, TN. You know what the big three seeking for bailout have in common? They are unionized!

[Columcille]

When two competing conservative principles are in conflict, the one that is against justice is suppressed in favor of the most just. Hence, a conservative principle of self-actualization may compete with another conservative principle as fairness in the given individual. Hence, when business's are corrupt... unions help to reign in fairness, but when unions are run amuk or run the bat for incompetant employees rather than allowing the company to replace them... it hurts those individuals who are competant and pull their weight of the workload. In such situations the unions are unnecessary and wasteful. As is, it is harder to disband a union once they are intrenched. The face of unions needs a facelift where we can reign them in also. The double standard of liberals is that companies are evil greedy enterprises, but when ***s are about to be lost and unions are threatened by the hand that feeds them is about to go bankrupt... that is a different thing. I guess conservativism attempts to balance the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progress. I sort of like the ten conservative principles: http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

I mention this because it seems there is a new literary criticism forming in our era... Marxism is obvious, Feminism is obvious, but now comes the Environmental critic. All things now are subject to the new liberalism. All Hail Al Gore, the mighty revealer of an inconvenient truth! All Hail Michael Moore, the mighty slob and Bush hatemonger! This is the face of your new religion. The spokespeople of the elite Hollywood and Washington DCers! Down with gun ownership, up with big government, abortion on demand, comp***ionate euthenasia, and the modern day men in tight tights Robyn Hood!

[Trinity]

With an increase of restrictions on environmental policies, it will cut into the profit margins and on customer's pocket books. So current car emissions standards in California is a lot stricter than the national standard, and California doing really hot now, are they not?

1) An economy without a clean planet is a total catastrophe. Pollution, and the environmental diseases , will cost trillions of dollars to the tax payers.
2) They are calling it global warming and not, local warming. What is happening in north pole and south pole has a direct impact in California.


I bet Arnold has balanced and even saved the great state of California billions of dollars! NOT. He is driving it to the ground with his leftist "moderate" mentality.

1) The California was already in the verge of bankruptcy before the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This was the main reason why his predecessor was recalled. Governor Gray Davis was not able to finish his term because the economy of California was in a so bad shape.
2) The real problem with the United States, is that the country is not compe***ive anymore. The country is slowly becoming a back wagon on the nations train. We the world, we have witnessed this decline during the last eight years. It is the time for waking up and to change your policies.


If a business is going to make more environmental friendly products and create even more environmental friendly work places, it is going to have to purchase new equipment and parts from its venders. If you already have paid off an older technology that works well, then be forced to add more debt by newer restrictions... it is going to cost money.

1) It already work in Europe and European countries are the world leaders for the implementation of the new technologies. That generates capital, and new ***s on the market. Many also reached their goals concerning their fight against the global warming.
2) The world will stop to buy the american products, if you stay behind. We already see this with your american cars and many other american products.


I drive a Nissan, very reliable, and made in the South in Smyrna, TN. You know what the big three seeking for bailout have in common? They are unionized!

An imported technology (Japan & Europe). :)

Thank you for proving my point. Japanese have this ap***ude to adapt their production to the change. They can innovate quickly and this is the major problem of your car industries. This is why they are on the verge of bankruptcy.

Trinity

[Trinity]

I mention this because it seems there is a new literary criticism forming in our era... Marxism is obvious, Feminism is obvious, but now comes the Environmental critic. All things now are subject to the new liberalism. All Hail Al Gore, the mighty revealer of an inconvenient truth! All Hail Michael Moore, the mighty slob and Bush hatemonger! This is the face of your new religion. The spokespeople of the elite Hollywood and Washington DCers! Down with gun ownership, up with big government, abortion on demand, comp***ionate euthenasia, and the modern day men in tight tights Robyn Hood!

1) I do not play into this game of blaming . I can post a lot about the foolishness of the conservatives but that would be unproductive and against all my Zen principles. :)

2) However, and concerning the Michael Moore documentary SICKO. What he had said about Canada, is totally true. This year I received around $12, 000 in medical services and that costed me nothing. Our country is one of the seven richest in the world. Your capitalist ideology of the right wing, can not meet the reality. We are social democrat, and we prosper. Same thing with the European countries. I have everything that what you have, and unfortunately, much more.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Obama names 4 top members of science team
By HOPE YEN, ***ociated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama's selection Sa****ay of a Harvard physicist and a marine biologist for science posts is a sign he plans a more aggressive response to global warming than did the Bush administration.

John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are leading experts on climate change who have advocated forceful government action. Holdren will become Obama's science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government's research on global warming.

Holdren also will direct the president's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Joining him as co-chairs will be Nobel Prize-winning scientist Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Ins***utes of Health, and M***achusetts Ins***ute of Technology professor Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research.

"It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology," Obama said in announcing the selections in his weekly radio address.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AlMn5X9a.EoMw98egbB_92Gs0NUE

Good move!!!

It seems that it will not be without you my dear friend Columcille. I am happy to see that your country is waking up. :)

Trinity

[Leslie]

Hello Leslie,



The Global Warming is not caused by God but by the human activities.

"Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyle." --Pope John Paul II

Trinity

It could not be happening unless God has allowed it to happen. He obviously is allowing it to happen for a reason.

[Trinity]

It could not be happening unless God has allowed it to happen. He obviously is allowing it to happen for a reason.

Perhaps. However, can we say the same thing for the 911? If this had happened accordingly to the will of God , why are we running after Osama Bin Ladin?

Trinity

[sayso]

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity


Satellites first started taking measurements of sea ice in 1979-1980. After 28 years of warming Arctic sea today is where it was when measurements started. Will we see news photos of Polar Bears frozen to the ice?

Where is the media now that the Arctic ice concentration is at the same concentration as when measurements began 28 years ago? How many years of normal ice conditions will it take before they admit the Polar Bear isn't threatened? The coverage of both Arctic and Antarctic ice has been very one sided.

You need to get out and read more. There are just as many if not more scientists that believe that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some with an agenda.

The Global Warming Hoax (http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.76)


The Global Warming Pe***ion Project (http://www.pe***ionproject.org/)

Of course if it is true I guess that means God really messed up by creating Adam and Eve. He should have just quit after the fifth day. :)

I do have an idea how we can stop global warming and save the world though. We can all commit suicide! Then the planet will be saved from all of us bad humans.:rolleyes:

[Trinity]

Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming
By Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer
April 8th, 2009

WASHINGTON – Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming — a radical idea once dismissed out of hand — is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's new science adviser said Wednesday.

That's because global warming is happening so rapidly, John Holdren told The ***ociated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month.

The concept of using technology to purposely cool the climate is called geoengineering. One option raised by Holdren and proposed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Using such an experimental measure is only being thought of as a last resort, Holdren said.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

His concern is that the United States and other nations won't slow global warming fast enough and that several "tipping points" could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_sc/sci_obama_science_adviser

Satellite data shows Arctic on thinner ice
By Steve Gorman Steve Gorman – Wed Apr 8, 2009

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Arctic sea ice, a key component of Earth's natural thermostat, has thinned sharply in recent years with the northern polar ice cap shrinking steadily in surface area, government scientists said on Monday.

Thinner seasonal sea ice, which melts in summer and freezes again every year, now accounts for about 70 percent of the Arctic total, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and '90s, the researchers said, citing new satellite data.

At the same time thicker ice, which lasts two summers or more without melting, now comprises less than 10 percent of the northern polar ice cap in winter, down from 30 to 40 percent. Just two years ago, the thicker so-called perennial sea ice made up 20 percent or more of the winter cap.

Scientists have voiced concerns for years about an alarming decline in the size of the Arctic ice cap, which functions as a giant air conditioner for the planet's climate system as it reflects sunlight into space.

As a greater portion of the ice melts, it is replaced by darker sea water that absorbs much more sunlight, thus adding to the warming of the planet attributed to rising levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by human activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090408/sc_nm/us_arctic_1

If we persist in our procrastination, after the next thirty years, there will be no North Pole. The consequences on your children and grandchildren will be terrible.

Trinity

[Columcille]

There will be no North Pole in thirty years? Ok, don't blame America. Blame the Communist Chinese. Get your UN resolutions to impact the real polluters. As is, Trinity, your bankrupting us with your moral support of Obama. I remember hearing about the pollution in China by newscasters covering the Olympics, you could actually see how bad the pollution was. I have lived in some big cities before, but the pollutions was not even close to what appears in some of the developing nations. I as an American, can only do my part where I live... but your incompetent UN, with its irresolute resolutions, its inability to stop the Iranians in their development of nuclear enrichment and the North Koreans testing its own underground nuclear test and missle launches is going to lend more pollution to our environment. If a dirty bomb hits the states because of an upcoming terrorist attack, I will blame in on the current president's weak policies and the UN's lack of resolve and commitment.

[Trinity]

There will be no North Pole in thirty years? Ok, don't blame America. Blame the Communist Chinese. Get your UN resolutions to impact the real polluters. As is, Trinity, your bankrupting us with your moral support of Obama. I remember hearing about the pollution in China by newscasters covering the Olympics, you could actually see how bad the pollution was. I have lived in some big cities before, but the pollutions was not even close to what appears in some of the developing nations. I as an American, can only do my part where I live... but your incompetent UN, with its irresolute resolutions, its inability to stop the Iranians in their development of nuclear enrichment and the North Koreans testing its own underground nuclear test and missle launches is going to lend more pollution to our environment. If a dirty bomb hits the states because of an upcoming terrorist attack, I will blame in on the current president's weak policies and the UN's lack of resolve and commitment.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

We are all responsible. This is not a question of patriotism. This is a threat for the survival of the human specie. The Western world is polluting much more than the Eastern World at this time.

By the way, there is also some thick smog on many american cities. Los Angeles is a good example.

Trinity

[asdf]

There are just as many if not more scientists that believe that Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by some with an agenda.

That's absolutely false.

With the release of the revised statement by the American ***ociation of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Columcille]

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=254017

Seems the five biggest cities are mostly in the East, not the West. In fact, it lists the micrograms for LA as being 36 and New York as 22 and this was in 2002. I guess you could say Cairo is West, but it certainly is not in North America. Trinity, better have some real facts about the real polluters. Your generalization is false because it lacks chronological order. Look at your own website you gave; the list given is back in 2004. The references given below in footnote 2 shows China is a greater pollutant than America. Now, what is the UN going to do about it? Tax America with emission cap and trade and reward the Chinese by non-interference. What a great policy to end human pollution, you don't want to tick off the military power that has no concern about its own human rights violations.

[Trinity]

Seems the five biggest cities are mostly in the East, not the West. In fact, it lists the micrograms for LA as being 36 and New York as 22 and this was in 2002. I guess you could say Cairo is West, but it certainly is not in North America. Trinity, better have some real facts about the real polluters. Your generalization is false because it lacks chronological order. Look at your own website you gave; the list given is back in 2004. The references given below in footnote 2 shows China is a greater pollutant than America. Now, what is the UN going to do about it? Tax America with emission cap and trade and reward the Chinese by non-interference. What a great policy to end human pollution, you don't want to tick off the military power that has no concern about its own human rights violations.

Top Ten CO2 Producing Nations
http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/moutline.gif
"Carbon Dioxide is a global problem, but the countries that produce the greatest amount per person are in North America, Europe and Australia. If Carbon Dioxide reductions are to be made, the lead has to be taken by people living in these countries. Most Carbon Dioxide in these countries comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil to heat buildings (including homes) and transport. Of course, Carbon Dioxide is also given off by all living things, but in general plants capture as much as animals and micro-organisms generate. In contrast, Carbon Dioxide produced by burning fuel adds to the gases in the atmosphere and cannot be captured by plants."
http://www.solcomhouse.com/toptenco2.htm

http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org/graphics/air-pollution-global-warming-faqs-co2graph.gif
"The United States is the world leader, producing almost 25% of the total CO2 emissions worldwide. China shows the most rapid increase in CO2 emissions, and Canada is the world leader in per capita CO2 emissions."
http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org/air-pollution-global-warming-faqs.html

It is in the interest of all the great industrial nations to solve this vital problem. There will be no winner but we will all be affected at the end.

The rich nations around the world have invested 5 trillions of dollars (5,000 billions) to save the american model (economy) from the bankruptcy. We can do the same thing with the Global Warning threat.

By the way, last week, the China has invested 100 billions more to help the world to come out of this economic mess.

The only country in the world who had no problem with his banks is my country. Our banking system was cited as a model to follow during the last G20. There is good ideas everywhere for escaping the Global warning, even from China.

Trinity

[Columcille]

I don't want China's money, I want Capitalism to win out, not socialism. Let the big companies fail, most of them have been run down by unions anyways. As far as the environment is concerned... CO2 emission by countries is one thing... put that in perspective of landm*** and you have some serious conflict. You also have to figure in things that counteract CO2 emissions, things like trees and forests. America has some great environmental resources protected in our national parks. You just reference the countries without context as to their landm*** and you belittle China's environmental impact.

China’s land m*** is 3,600,927 sq miles and is about 41,000 sq miles larger than the United States.
The population of China is about 1.32 BILLION people, representing almost a fifth of the earth’s population. A lot of CO2 from people, would you not say?

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn6515/dn6515-1_996.jpg

Here is a better picture of the dirt.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn6515/dn6515-1_996.jpg

[Trinity]

You also have to figure in things that counteract CO2 emissions, things like trees and forests. America has some great environmental resources protected in our national parks. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn6515/dn6515-1_996.jpg

North Pole and South Pole

"Western Siberia is the world's largest peat bog, a one million square kilometer region of permafrost peat bog that was formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The melting of its permafrost is likely to lead to the release, over decades, of large quan***ies of methane. As much as 70,000 million tonnes of methane, an extremely effective greenhouse gas, might be released over the next few decades, creating an additional source of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar melting has been observed in eastern Siberia."

Forests

"Pine forests in British Columbia have been devastated by a pine beetle infestation, which has expanded unhindered since 1998 at least in part due to the lack of severe winters since that time; a few days of extreme cold kill most mountain pine beetles and have kept outbreaks in the past naturally contained. The infestation, which (by November 2008) has killed about half of the province's lodgepole pines (33 million acres or 135,000 km2) is an order of magnitude larger than any previously recorded outbreak and p***ed via unusually strong winds in 2007 over the continental divide to Alberta. An epidemic also started, be it at a lower rate, in 1999 in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. The United States forest service predicts that between 2011 and 2013 virtually all 5 million acres (20,000 km2) of Colorado’s lodgepole pine trees over five inches (127 mm) in diameter will be lost.
As the northern forests are a carbon sink, while dead forests are a major carbon source, the loss of such large areas of forest has a positive feedback on global warming. In the worst years, the carbon emission due to beetle infestation of forests in British Columbia alone approaches that of an average year of forest fires in all of Canada or five years worth of emissions from that country's transportation sources.

Besides the immediate ecological and economic impact, the huge dead forests provide a fire risk. Even many healthy forests appear to face an increased risk of forest fires because of warming climates. The 10-year average of boreal forest burned in North America, after several decades of around 10,000 km² (2.5 million acres), has increased steadily since 1970 to more than 28,000 km² (7 million acres) annually. Though this change may be due in part to changes in forest management practices, in the western U.S., since 1986, longer, warmer summers have resulted in a fourfold increase of major wildfires and a sixfold increase in the area of forest burned, compared to the period from 1970 to 1986. A similar increase in wildfire activity has been reported in Canada from 1920 to 1999.

Forest fires in Indonesia have dramatically increased since 1997 as well. These fires are often actively started to clear forest for agriculture. They can set fire to the large peat bogs in the region and the CO2 released by these peat bog fires has been estimated, in an average year, to be 15% of the quan***y of CO2 produced by fossil fuel combustion."

Effects of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming


You just reference the countries without context as to their landm*** and you belittle China's environmental impact. The population of China is about 1.32 BILLION people, representing almost a fifth of the earth’s population. A lot of CO2 from people, would you not say?

Canada is eleventh per capita for the emissions of the CO2, and China has the ninety-one rank. The United States is just behind us at the tenth rank. Most of the people in China are living in the rural territories. We the Canadians have the second largest country in the world [after the Russia] and the life style is very high here. We are a bunch of avid consumers and we produce a lot of CO2.

Carbon dioxide emissions per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

CO2 emission per capita per year per country
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

Your country and my country, together, we are causing much more pollution than China. Per capita we are four times higher than China.

Trinity

[Columcille]

In terms of actually viewing the pollution, I see your maps always demonstrate a national mentality rather than where the pollution actually resides. It suggests for me that New York, NY is no different than Sante Fe/Espanola, NM in your eyes. The map I gave at least demonstrates where the highest concentration of pollution is. Which is clearly in China as well as up around the New England states. Perhaps China is doing something about it. Legal abortions, even mandating them, will help cut CO2 emissions from less people breathing and using energy or buying products from industrial plants. They are the real comp***ionate ones.


Wanted to add one more thing...

You stated the following:

Your country and my country, together, we are causing much more pollution than China. Per capita we are four times higher than China.

If you recall, the landm*** of China is greater than the United States. So combining our landm***es together and saying we are producing more CO2 than China just dilutes the perception. We could take your argument further and add the whole world against China and get the same truthful statement that we all produce more than China in CO2 emmisions.

[Trinity]

America's Most Polluted Cities
By Rebecca Ruiz, Forbes
Apr 29th, 2009

This time of year, many Americans are concerned with sunburns. In some areas, they should pay more attention to smog.

The reason? Though invisible, air pollution is a threat to 186 million Americans, according to a new report released by the American Lung ***ociation.

The annual report--State of the Air 2009--found that six in 10 Americans live in counties where ozone or particle pollution has reached dangerous levels. Both types of pollution can be deadly and have been linked to respiratory conditions like asthma, emphysema and bronchitis, and there is also evidence that particle pollution increases risk of heart attacks and strokes.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-most-polluted-cities.html;_ylc=X3oDMTFudWJ1NHV0BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEX 3MDOTc2MjA0NjUEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNwb2xsdXRlZC1 jaXRpZXM-

Trinity

[Columcille]

http://www.lungusa.org/

I wish they could make the facts more visual by a county by county color map.
The Forbes articles almost reads more like a columnist section rather than an actual news report. Besides, it seem almost restricted to just our country. How is China in comparison? What do they do for their citizens? I mean, they have socialized medicine. Are they spending even more money, or do they report their findings effectively?

[Columcille]

I wanted to say one more thing about cost of saving in medicine. Everyone is going to die of something, is the costs that they are projecting for savings really just hyped up? I mean if they don't die from asthma, are they just as likely to die of cancer or heart problems or Alzheimers? I mean, if you look at the whole scheme of things, everyone is making their own projection of savings to the medical community should they pump money into their special project. In reality, it is only shifting the death toll to another desease. And let's not forget about the nature of insects to adapt to the environment and crop damages done by them alone. Farmers who protect their farms by pesticides save their crops better than the organic farmers who do not. If it was not true, farmers would save more money by not using pesticides and the organic farmers would make more profit. But let's face it, when we go to the supermarket... just exactly how much more do you pay for that head of lettuce by an organic farmer over those who are not? How much of an environmental impact is the pesticides to us in comparison to the pollution?

That Forbes article is a bunch of toe-the-line Obamamaniacs. Look at the article's solution--which is why it less newsworthy and more an opinion column--"A study done in 2007 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that achieving federal air quality standards in the Los Angeles area would cost $2.3 billion per year, but save $14.6 billion."

I'd like to see how many of the 12 board members are Democrats. Is it one party rule, or on occasions do the three appointed by government only make it 3/4 majority when a Republican appoints? Is this agency a grap for power. How do they use the funds? Do they contribute funds back to politicians? Do they pay lobbyists?

[Trinity]

Al Gore warns on latest climate trends

[video]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/al_gore_warns_on_latest_climate_trends.html

"We can drift along as though there were still a cold war, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on weapons that will never be used, ignoring the problems of people in this country and around the world, being one of the worst environmental violators on earth, standing against any sort of viable programs to protect the world's forests or to cut down on acid rain or the global warming or ozone depletion. We can ignore human rights violations in other countries, or we can take these things on as true leaders ought to and accept the inspiring challenge of America for the future."-- Jimmy Carter

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over." --Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."--John McCain

"All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster. The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." -- Barack Obama

"The superior man seeks what is right; the inferior one, what is profitable."--Confucius

Trinity

[Columcille]

Wpw. they are so unbiased. Moderate Republicans who are spinless and leftist Democrats. They make great bedfellows. Just look at where they all stand on stem-cell research. Mmm. Didn't California spend a lot of money on embryonic stem cell research approved by Arnold? McCains stance was clearly the same as Obama, Obama lifted the Presidential executive order to ban such research. If they had the same concern over life, why do they destroy it?

[asdf]

Wpw. they are so unbiased. Moderate Republicans who are spinless and leftist Democrats. They make great bedfellows.

It's so depressing that this is considered [by some] to be a liberal vs. conservative issue.

[Trinity]

It's so depressing that this is considered [by some] to be a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Indeed. There are some people who are seeing only in black or white. They are simply incapable to see something good from their opponents. Anyway, on this issue the Republicans are dead wrong.

Trinity

[Trinity]

It's so depressing that this is considered to be a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Uniting America: Restoring the Vital Center to American Democracy
by Norton Garfinkle (Editor), Daniel Yankelovich (Editor)
http://www.thefutureofamericandemocracyfoundation.com/UABook.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Uniting-America-Restoring-American-Democracy/dp/0300108567/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243532707&sr=8-1

"In Uniting America, some of the country’s most prominent social thinkers—among them Francis Fukuyama, Daniel Yankelovich, Amitai Etzioni, Alan Wolfe, Uwe Reinhardt, and Thomas E. Mann—reject the myth of polarization. On topics ranging from the war on terrorism, health care, economic policy, and Social Security to religion, diversity, and immigration, the authors argue that there are sensible, centrist solutions that are more in keeping with prevailing public sentiment and that would better serve the national interest.

On issue after issue, [B]the authors show how the conventional framing of the debate in Washington has misled Americans, creating a series of false dilemmas and forcing choices between two extremes—at the expense of more balanced and pragmatic policy solutions based on enduring American values.

If there is, indeed, an expanding chasm separating the left and right in contemporary American politics, it exists largely as a specter employed by politicians more interested in manipulating voters than creating policies consistent with mainstream America's values. Editors Garfinkle, chairman of the George Washington University Ins***ute for Communitarian Policy Studies, and Yankelovich, founder and chairman of policy research organization Public Agenda, note America has rebounded from periods of great strife and disunity (the turbulence of the '60s and '70s, the Civil War), and the current divides aren't as bad as they could be. Essays examine topics from environmentalism to the war on terror and all conclude compromise is the key to finding acceptable ways to promote a healthy democracy. If the thesis sounds simple enough, the authors also dutifully bolster their case with a barrage of statistics and research (though a not unsubstantial portion of figures are supplied by Yankelovich's Public Agenda) to dispel the notion that the nation is being torn between two poles. Not a light read, the book will be appreciated and debated by scholars and those who work in public policy. Casual readers may soon find themselves in over their heads."

Trinity

[Columcille]

trinity, what is conservatism? If you could tell me what the Republican principles is, you would be closer to the answer than me. It used to be a party that stood for something, like a strong defense, limited government, and strong family values. It has been hijacked by the moderates and by the errosion of compromise from which those on the other side of the aisle have not compromised. McCain, Bush, and many of the leaders within the Republican party have not been about limited government but big spenders. Obama's upcoming budget, his continued efforts with the bailouts and "stimulus" spending is even more an error since he promised to go through it "line-by-line."

I veiw conservatism on the family level to be fiscally responsible to live within our means and pay off debt. Government has not been doing this at all for a long time. How is it that Obama, moderate Republicans and Democrats think that to get out of debt you have to spend even more money that we don't have?
How is borrowing money from China, who has their own pollution problems, going to help reduce pollution and at the same time get us out of debt? And if N. Korea hands terrorists the weaponry it needs to attack us and our allies from a dirty bomb going to help the environment? If you are as naive as Obama to criticize the intelligence agencies, reduce spending in defense, and say sorries to the world is going to change N.Korea, Iran, and the terrorists, you obviously fail to see how the criminal mind works in reality.

What is even more a gross error on your part is the attack of conservativism. The Catholic Church is a hallmark of conservativism. Catholicism is for pro-life, is against embryonic stem cell research, and such conservative principle is based on the sanc***y of life, on responsibility in both fiscal spending, in living within our means, and in family values that are against ****sexuality and other perversions from invading the home life. Tradition is conservative because it is long time practice of deep seated principles guided by the continued looking back at the Scriptures and in the authority of the Church's magesterium regarding right doctrine and right morals. We know in our daily lives looking at successful families that it is precisely because they follow conservative principles in fiscal responsibility and precautions such as setting boundaries, teaching children about the value of money rather than spoiling them and bailing them out, and other such things to chores and expectations or goal setting is successful conservative principle, even story telling helps solidify the family in bring it a sense of iden***y. If a family can practice this balance, then we should expect our elected officials to do the same... but they do not. Liberalism does not work in all its high ideals because they lack fiscal responsibility, they lack precautionary measures to secure the homeland (by strong defense) just as in the home if we live in a bad neighborhood one would expect a security system, fire alarms, and in really bad neighborhoods even gated doors and windows. Liberalism also attacks the iden***y of what it means to be an American. With all the apologies coming out of the mouth of Obama to the Middle East and to South America, he should also be telling them about the positive aspects of what America has accomplished so Americans can feel proud to be Americans even when we travel to their land for business or pleasure. If Obama wants to change the world positively, he should know the truthfulness of "speak softly, but carry a big stick" and "actions speak louder than words."

[Trinity]

HOME

Home (trailer):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8IozVfph7I

Website:
http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

Trinity

[asdf]

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and m***ive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. [...]

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. [...]

Prinn says these and a variety of other changes based on new measurements and new ****yses changed the odds on what could be expected in this century in the "no policy" scenarios - that is, where there are no policies in place that specifically induce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the changes "unfortunately largely summed up all in the same direction," he says. "Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming."

While the outcomes in the "no policy" projections now look much worse than before, there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions. Without action, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," Prinn says. "This increases the urgency for significant policy action." [...]

"There's no way the world can or should take these risks," Prinn says. And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quan***ies of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback "is just going to make it worse," Prinn says.
- MIT News (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html)

[texastig]

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

In 1000 AD, Leaf Ericsson founded colonies on Greenland and present day Newfoundland, which he called Vinland because of the grapes that grew freely then. Many scientists claim the average temperature was 7 degrees warmer then than it is now. The polar bears survived this natural phenomena and will also survive this one.

Thanks,
TT

[asdf]

In 1000 AD, Leaf Ericsson founded colonies on Greenland and present day Newfoundland, which he called Vinland because of the grapes that grew freely then. Many scientists claim the average temperature was 7 degrees warmer then than it is now. The polar bears survived this natural phenomena and will also survive this one.

Thanks,
TT

A very small bit of research would reveal to you that this may not be so. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Conservation_status.2C_efforts_and_cont roversies) (which has all the citations and research cited there), first the concerns:

The key danger posed by global warming is malnutrition or starvation due to habitat loss. Polar bears hunt seals from a platform of sea ice. Rising temperatures cause the sea ice to melt earlier in the year, driving the bears to shore before they have built sufficient fat reserves to survive the period of scarce food in the late summer and early fall. Reduction in sea-ice cover also forces bears to swim longer distances, which further depletes their energy stores and occasionally leads to drowning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#cite_note-monnett2006-109)Thinner sea ice tends to deform more easily, which appears to make it more difficult for polar bears to access seals. Insufficient nourishment leads to lower reproductive rates in adult females and lower survival rates in cubs and juvenile bears, in addition to poorer body condition in bears of all ages.

In addition to creating nutritional stress, a warming climate is expected to affect various other aspects of polar bear life: Changes in sea ice affect the ability of pregnant females to build suitable maternity dens. As the distance increases between the pack ice and the coast, females must swim longer distances to reach favored denning areas on land.[/URL] Thawing of permafrost would affect the bears who traditionally den underground, and warm winters could result in den roofs collapsing or having reduced insulative value. For the polar bears that currently den on multi-year ice, increased ice mobility may result in longer distances for mothers and young cubs to walk when they return to seal-hunting areas in the spring. Disease-causing bacteria and parasites would flourish more readily in a warmer climate.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#cite_note-amstrup2007-47"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#cite_note-derocher2004-20)

Problematic interactions between polar bears and humans, such as foraging by bears in garbage dumps, have historically been more prevalent in years when ice-floe breakup occurred early and local polar bears were relatively thin. Increased human-bear interactions, including fatal attacks on humans, are likely to increase as the sea ice shrinks and hungry bears try to find food on land.
And the info on predictions and the possibility of adaptation:

The U.S. Geological Survey predicts two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050, based on moderate projections for the shrinking of summer sea ice caused by global warming.(...)

Predictions vary on the extent to which polar bears could adapt to climate change by switching to terrestrial food sources. Mitchell Taylor, the director of Wildlife Research for the Government of Nunavut, wrote to the US Fish and Wildlife Service arguing that local studies are insufficient evidence for global protection at this time. The letter stated, "At present, the polar bear is one of the best managed of the large Arctic mammals. If all Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure.... Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have evolved and persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate."

(...) However, many scientists consider these theories to be naive (...) An additional risk to the species is that if individuals spend more time on land, they will hybridize with brown or grizzly bears.

[texastig]

A very small bit of research would reveal to you that this may not be so.

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Gl***man, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
__________________________________________________ _____________

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to increased warming, at least not when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl

[asdf]

You may find a few outliers/skeptics to the understanding of humans being responsible for climate change, but the fact remains that there is a vast majority, approaching scientific consensus, of scientists in related fields who accept the mainstream finding. For example:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity, fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century. The IPCC also concludes that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

[texastig]

You may find a few outliers/skeptics to the understanding of humans being responsible for climate change


Oregon Pe***ion
31,478 American scientists have signed this pe***ion, including 9,029 with PhDs. There is no convincing evidence of human release of carbon dioxide.
http://www.pe***ionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Pe***ion

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

AP News
Argentine glacier advances despite global warming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_argentina_glacier

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Respon sible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Thanks,
TT

[asdf]

Again, we're talking scientific consensus here, certainly as regards scientific bodies, journals, and peer-reviewed work.

With the release of the revised statement by the American ***ociation of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
-Scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by _dissenting_organizations)

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This ****ysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."
-Consensus on climate change controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_on_climate_change_controversy)

While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby.
-Climate change denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial)

[Trinity]

In 1000 AD, Leaf Ericsson founded colonies on Greenland and present day Newfoundland, which he called Vinland because of the grapes that grew freely then. Many scientists claim the average temperature was 7 degrees warmer then than it is now. The polar bears survived this natural phenomena and will also survive this one.

Thanks,
TT

"The climate of the Earth is always changing. In the past it has altered as a result of natural causes. Nowadays, however, the term climate change is generally used when referring to changes in our climate which have been identified since the early part of the 1900's. The changes we've seen over recent years and those which are predicted over the next 80 years are thought to be mainly as a result of human behaviour rather than due to natural changes in the atmosphere."

Climate Change: Observed impacts on Planet Earth
by Trevor Letcher
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245984557&sr=1-1

Trinity

[Trinity]

Earth bears scars of human destruction: astronaut
Irene Klotz – Mon Jul 27, 2009

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) – A Canadian astronaut aboard the International Space Station said on Sunday it looks like Earth's ice caps have melted a bit since he was last in orbit 12 years ago.

Bob Thirsk, who is two months into a planned six-month stay aboard the station, said he is mostly in awe when he looks out the window, particularly at the sliver of atmosphere wrapped around the planet.

"It's a very thin veil of atmosphere around the Earth that keeps us alive," Thirsk said during an in-flight news conference. "Most of the time when I look out the window I'm in awe. But there are some effects of the human destruction of the Earth as well."

"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time," Thrisk said. "That saddens me a little bit."

If Thrisk needs a sympathetic ear, he has 12 crewmates with him, at least until Tuesday, when visiting shuttle Endeavour astronauts are scheduled to depart.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_space_shuttle

Trinity

[alanmolstad]

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity
its the coldest winter ever....
When I was back in school in the early 1970s all the teachers were always warning their students of the coming ice Age.
Well, turns out thats something that we might be starting now.
The last 2 years have been very very cold...summers are getting shorter.....snow is staying longer....

record cold days, record snow falls ...and a stunning lack of activity on the sun lead me to believe that we are heading into a era of COLD......

[alanmolstad]

it's freezing outside.....we are about to enter April and there is a blizzard?

I have nothing but contempt for the people that say the earth is in trouble.....they have no clue...

[alanmolstad]

The worldwide economic crisis and the lowest price on the barrel of oil may give us the period we need to move the industrial countries to adopt the new technologies.

Trinity

well.....I doubt that ...

cheap oil, is the result of a lot of hard work and a lot of science in getting oil that before was out of our reach to now be able to be pumped out of the ground.

But the result is that the need to find other ways to power our cars has dropped away.
While you still see some talk about solar cars, or hybreads, the truth is that with gas at the pump as cheap as it is, there is simply no real reason to worry about building a sun-powered car right now...