The global warming people are crazy. To think that human existence has an effect on the climate is absurd at best. I drive an F250 crewcab and don't need it for work, and people always ask me, "what do you need a truck that big for." I always reply, "I am doing it for the environment." The look I get is priceless.
Oh I don't know. I'd say there were some pretty significant natural disasters that did a hurtin' on old ma nature in the past. Volcanos emit IMMENSE toxic gas amounts. Who was measuring those? Did she heal from them? Hey....we're not talking about what happened since 1850, either. Try going back to those numbers prior to the A.D. suffix.....then to points you can't even fathom. And she's still kickin'! We humans can be so full of ourselves. Arrogance doesn't begin to describe it. If it makes Al Gore feel important to think he's putting neosporin on a bit of ma nature's rugburn......I wish he'd do so on his own dime. Her boo-boo will heal just fine, without him. Hell, she's broken bones and never had 'em set. She's freakin' MA NATURE! She gave birth to Chuck Norris....and he was a breach! She is an EPIC matriarch!
Why do you have to resort to these little inflammatory posts? Of course you can see redna is making some sense to the fact that we need to analyze the way we treat mother earth. It is that simple. Wether you believe in global warming or not is irrelevant. What is important to understand is that we seriously mistreat our natural resource and that needs to be corrected, even if that mistreatment does not result in global warming. I for one agree with Redna in that this 6.7 billion person thing is a bit too much, and that this is NOT a normal cycyle. We ARE impacting our earth in a negative way. What "region" is this "localized" pollution effecting? I would harbor to say that is has a lot more of a global implication than just a Gulf Coast thing.
I love the volcano theory conservative america has forced down peoples throats. You do realize that the volcanoes that increased the temperature thousands of years ago were on a mass global scale. There were thousands of active volcanoes which in return possibly increased the global temperature. We have had only relatively few volcanic eruptions or worldwide forest fires that spewed out enough dust, ashes, carbon dioxide, and other emissions that could block the sun and explain the rapid warming. Frankly, I don't care about Al Gore. It's unfortunate, the political agenda seems to fuel the naysayers. When you have paid scientists working for companies like Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell and BP telling mass media that there isn't any proof that human activity is the culprit for global warming, then I would say consider the source and their agendas. The average person doesn't pick up a Scientific American or New Science journals and read the thousands upon thousands of research that is overwhelmingly convincing that human beings are the cause of our world changing right before our eyes. The only controversial part of global warming is the future. If we continue at our current pace, the consequences of global warming will happen. What is unclear is whether it will happen in 25, 50, or 100 years? I guess who cares then we'll all be gone and our children/grandchildren will have to deal with it right?
Over-Population is another issue in its own. With 6.7 billion people were not gonna be able to handle much more. Thats why it becomes a moral issue with, do we try and save people that are sick, starving, natural disaster, etc... Its hard to come up with a strong argument against not saving someone's life when we are able too. In all reality it would be good for everyone if the world population cut in half, but who wants to sign up to be the other half.
I found that hardly inflammatory. Of course, I agree with all of this (except for the not a normal cycle bit). It's why I obtained a degree and am now working in the environmental field. Environmentally? It's only effecting the eastern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Western Florida coast line. That's hardly effecting the global environment.
And the rest of the scientists dont get paid?? lol. Guess where their funding comes from? Do you think they want it to dry up? Dont you think they want their grants renewed so they can continue to make a good living off of our tax dollars? Just sayin, it goes both ways. Do you really believe that painting your roof white as suggested by some of these "non-paid" scientists is going to save our planet? How about the giant mirrors to reflect the sun back into space? Is that an effective use of our money? Maybe our cattle ranchers should be painting all the Angus cows white. I've gotta go, I'm applying for a grant to study the effects of global warming on my consumption of Crown Royal.
Believe me, being pro global warming and receiving grants isn't where the money is. My post-grad advisor in college received close to $500,000 for a 3 year NASA grant proposal on climate change. After all initial costs were paid he said he had 200k to split between 6 other colleagues. So over 3 years he was making around 16,000 per year. If you want to make money, giving false reports against global warming is the way to go.
Wouldn't you love to see the accounting on that study? $200K, after all the "expenses" were paid? Salaries weren't figured into the costs? Why in the world would a scientist work for $16K/yr? Am I buying that? Hell no. I was born at night. But, it wasn't last night. How much stock do you put into findings compiled by a guy who considers himself a scientist.....but who also make $16K/yr? I'm betting my local weather guy makes 4X that.....and he's right about 50% of the time in an area consisting of 1 of 100 NC counties. The guy that scans my card at the Y every morning makes more than $16K/yr.....and he's only slightly more intelligent than a fern.
Well to be fair, most professor's work on multiple grants throughout a year, and they also have their professor salaries.
Exactly. I didn't say he was living below poverty level but he sure wasn't rolling in on a Benz. After consulting fees, trainee support costs, administrative fees (that aren't collected by names on the grants), travel and various other costs, there isn't much left over. I understand, Jeff, you might not know much about grants but when a grant is awarded, the institution or award participant isn't banking on it.
The stock market slides, as Floyd Landis admits to doping and simultaneously implicates Lance Armstrong. I'm linking these occurrences. It's as scientific as as linking 100yrs of weather data to "global warming".....on a planet that's at least millions of years old. Let's spend billions on FLoyd's rehabilitation. It's the right thing to do....and doggone it, we'll feel better about ourselves.
I have thought about this for a while. Think BIG picture. We are coming out of an ice age, relatively speaking. In the BIG picture, it was not that long ago that The northern part of the US was covered in ice. when the ice started its retreat, it was getting warmer, and that had absolutely nothing to do with human intervention. 100 years of data mean nothing if you isolate it and use it to predict the future. Sort of like saying that you will kill a 190" Whitetail because you killed a 140" last year. What ever is going to happen is going to happen. The ecosystems that we loose will be replaced by new ones. Gods creatures that move out of the area will be replaced by others. The ever changing ecosystems of this earth should be something to enjoy, not fear.
