Climate Change happening faster than we think?

[Pinseeker81]

.....Scientists across the board agree that we've had an effect, and that we've upset the natural balance that existed even a hundred years ago.....

There are about as many that do not as there are that do.

There's no doubt we've created large areas of localized pollution, but not on a global scale, and that doesn't mean the globe is going to get hotter from it. Gore flies around everywhere in a Gulfstream II that gets about 1mpg and lives in a house that uses enough energy in a month to power five average American homes for a year. But he wants me to believe it's all ok cause he paid to have some trees planted to make up for it? It's apparent he doesn't really believe his own preachings, and I can't take seriously the preachings of a hypocrite. When he moves his elite butt into an apartment and drives that Prius I'll give him the time of day. Should we try to conserve, use less energy, do things more efficiently? Sure. But I'll do it to save money, not because I believe in what what has been quoted as being "the greatest scam in history".

[iacas]

There are about as many that do not as there are that do.

Bullshit.

There's no doubt we've created large areas of localized pollution, but not on a global scale, and that doesn't mean the globe is going to get hotter from it.

That's not what I said. And that's why I can say bullshit to the above. Please don't twist my words. Nothing you quoted from me said anything about the "globe getting hotter."

Gore flies around everywhere in a Gulfstream II that gets about 1mpg and lives in a house that uses enough energy in a month to power five average American homes for a year. But he wants me to believe it's all ok cause he paid to have some trees planted to make up for it?

Right, let's just make stuff up now. From what I've read, Gore spent most of his lecture tour riding a bus. His plane, with the number of people he typically carries, is more fuel efficient than flying commercial large planes (which expend a sizable portion of their fuel

waiting to take off). And Gore's house might USE more energy than five other homes, but he also makes more energy than virtually every other home in the U.S. Net effect: he draws very little power from the grid. I'm off to San Diego in a few hours, so fortunately I'm going to drop this discussion soon, but in my absence, at least get your facts in order and don't twist the words of others. Even John McCain supports the idea of "global warming," or more correctly, the changes we should make. I'm paraphrasing him, but he said something like "Even if 'global warming' isn't as big a problem as some think, what's the worst that can happen if we give it some attention? We'll help the environment a little?" Again, you've got your head in the sand if you think that humans haven't upset the balance of nature by polluting. I don't necessarily support "global warming" per se, but I do support common sense.

[BASHERBAKER69]

With any measures we take to try to save the environment eg- drive less, switch off lights when not in use and look at our 'carbon footprint', all we are really doing is mitigating the damage that China is doing to the environment- they build roughly one power station a day at the moment in their quest for industrialisation. Their emissions are poorly regulated and show no sign of abating their activities. Theres not much we can do about.

The planet's temperature fluctuates naturally and will continue to do so- the idea that we are exacebating this Im not sure about.

[GaijinGolfer]

Which may be, again, proof of "global warming." And no, it's not contradictory; my understanding of "global warming" is that longer and deeper periods of cold are part of the same formula.

Exactly my point. We dont know enough to say how much of an effect we are having. If we dont know how much of an effect we are having, how can we possible know if we can do anything to stop or reverse things?

Have we effected the environment? Of course. The real question is how much of the changes in the climate are caused by humans and how much of it is just natural changes that the Earth is going though. The Earth has gone through natural phases of warming and cooling in the past, whats to say that this isnt just another one of those phases? You may not care what I think about this issue, but the fact is that even the scientists themselves dont agree on just how much of an effect humans have had on climate change. Oh and to answer your question, yes, I have seen the video. Its the biggest bunch of enviro-BS Ive ever seen. Id expect nothing less from Al Gore.

[immts007]

Exactly my point. We dont know enough to say how much of an effect we are having. If we dont know how much of an effect we are having, how can we possible know if we can do anything to stop or reverse things?

It's enough to know that our pollution damages then environment. We don't really need to know to what exact extent. We have LOTS of alternative directions to take for energy production that would not only be far better for the planet but would create new industry, new jobs, boost the economy, and help us move toward energy independence. The argument that because we don't know exactly, and because even scientists aren't in 100% agreement on the extents is a false dilemma.

On all the major points, the overwhelming majority of scientists in fields that pertain directly to the understanding of climate change/global warming are in absolute agreement on humanities impact on our environment and our role in climate change.

Oh and to answer your question, yes, I have seen the video. Its the biggest bunch of enviro-BS Ive ever seen. Id expect nothing less from Al Gore.

Maybe you could elaborate on the the specifics of your dismissal of the film and Al Gore? Just pick a few points, and share the knowledge you have that contradicts points made in the film?

[iacas]

It's enough to know that our pollution damages then environment. We don't really need to know to what exact extent. We have LOTS of alternative directions to take for energy production that would not only be far better for the planet but would create new industry, new jobs, boost the economy, and help us move toward energy independence. The argument that because we don't know exactly, and because even scientists aren't in 100% agreement on the extents is a false dilemma.

Exactly. ANY effect is worth reversing or at the lest slowing down.

And I may have been wrong about Al Gore's house in TN taking up a lot of energy. Seems it might after all. But then again, Bill O'Reilly is the one who said it, so who knows how accurate his take is. I could have sworn I read good things about his solar panels and wind turbines and whatever.

[michaeljames92]

look i have to agree with basherbaker that china and their 1.6 billion people are a huge contribution to the pollution. China's industrialisation with their big business and manufacturing is a big part in the problem. I also have to agree with iacas that what is the harm if we stop polluting with greenhouse gases and what not? Whats wrong with erring on the side of caution. Hell the world would be a much better place.