I've been reading about the ozone hole. It's interesting how the pollution covering the holes helped us in some ways while it hurts us in other ways.

and the book State of Fear has been debunked in every possible way ... and you are using it as a "reference"? That is about as outlandish as accusing me of "group think".

I agree it is a confusing topic and you don't know what to believe. I think this planet has been warming since the last ice age.

Any scientist who agrees with Global Warming = Honest and rigidly scientific.

Any scientist who refutes Global Warming = Oil company hack or attention hound.

now there is the thinking that brought us the Inquisition

do your research but the results better conform to my preconconceived opinion or it's not credible?

ITS MICROWAVES

CO2 is necessary, yes. However, nature takes care of her own. When we as humans start messing up the perfect balance she had, that's when CO2 starts being the bad guy. It's simple, really. It's out of whack and we need to do what we can to get it balanced again.

A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.

"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.

Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html

Makes you wonder what exactly is going on. You have scientist on both sides telling us different things. Guess it depends on who's pockets they are in.
All though it seems more and more are going against the whole global warming thing, or climate change as they are calling it now.
What ever happen to the hole in the ozone haven't heard of that in years. Guess it's not the flavor of the day.

the reason we have oil right now is because millenia ago the atmosphere spiked with CO2. the plants and especially the algae and plankton in the oceans thrived and stored all of that carbon. then pressure and heat turned the carbon into coal and oil

problem is that the plant life stored that carbon over several hundred thousand years

but by burning it at the rate we do, we are releasing that carbon back in to the atmosphere over a period of a hundred years

I fully expect that the global warming (indisputable) is prolly man made, even though as they say one volcano will release a thousand times more carbon that the total of the history of mankind

problem is unless we can kill of about half the human race, it isnt gonna change. we can convert to a totally green technology and still wont affect the atmosphere for a hundred years. There is a lag time between carbon levels in the atmosphere and the effects we have on it. What we are seeing now is the result of the 60's and 70's pollution levels.

The onus on mankind isnt so much to try and modify the climate systems (we always screw stuff like that up) but to adapt to the changing climate and still learn how to thrive as a species in the new climate

the reason we have oil right now is because millenia ago the atmosphere spiked with CO2. the plants and especially the algae and plankton in the oceans thrived and stored all of that carbon. then pressure and heat turned the carbon into coal and oil

problem is that the plant life stored that carbon over several hundred thousand years

but by burning it at the rate we do, we are releasing that carbon back in to the atmosphere over a period of a hundred years

I fully expect that the global warming (indisputable) is prolly man made, even though as they say one volcano will release a thousand times more carbon that the total of the history of mankind

problem is unless we can kill of about half the human race, it isnt gonna change. we can convert to a totally green technology and still wont affect the atmosphere for a hundred years. There is a lag time between carbon levels in the atmosphere and the effects we have on it. What we are seeing now is the result of the 60's and 70's pollution levels.

The onus on mankind isnt so much to try and modify the climate systems (we always screw stuff like that up) but to adapt to the changing climate and still learn how to thrive as a species in the new climate

My dad who is a geologist says the planet has cycles. We are probably in a warming cycle. The question is whether we are making it worse with our poisoning of planet.

I agree with that. The planet is not static. It is ALWAYS cooling or warming. we tend to see the state of the planet as a snapshot frozen in time but it is always changing

it might the natural progression as a result of coming out of the last ice age. And in a thousand/ten thousand/100 thousand years the ice age will prolly come back

we might be hastening it. But I still think that the root cause is too many people. The best thing that could happen to the planet and the human race would be a natural disater to wipe out about half of the the human herd

Ahh thanks for this post!! Although expect some to try and go against this. As Gomer Pyle used to say
"Gaaw-aawl-ly" - "Surprise, surprise, surprise

C02 is a necessity for living things to survive, those that propose the opposite are biting their own hands off just for their political agenda. To hell with what we need, lets prove ole "righty" wrong, "righty" is bad. Yeah Yeah yeah, talk to the hand.

We all exhale carbon dioxide, maybe if we shut up those idiotic polishi*tans we can reduce the C02 emissions drastically.

YESSSSS OBAMA IS THE BIGGEST PRODUCER OF CO2 RIGHT NOW................

Maybe this would help...

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/250053

now there is the thinking that brought us the Inquisition

do your research but the results better conform to my preconconceived opinion or it's not credible?

Exactly my point. I hope you noticed from the laughing head that I was MOCKING the previous posts in the thread.

Exactly my point. I hope you noticed from the laughing head that I was MOCKING the previous posts in the thread.

Too bad you are unaware that the "paper" you mentioned was shot down as being one of the worst pieces of science in existence. Mocking adds nothing to your lack of knowledge on the topic. It merely highlights a lack of real information.

the reason we have oil right now is because millenia ago the atmosphere spiked with CO2. the plants and especially the algae and plankton in the oceans thrived and stored all of that carbon. then pressure and heat turned the carbon into coal and oil

problem is that the plant life stored that carbon over several hundred thousand years

but by burning it at the rate we do, we are releasing that carbon back in to the atmosphere over a period of a hundred years

I fully expect that the global warming (indisputable) is prolly man made, even though as they say one volcano will release a thousand times more carbon that the total of the history of mankind

problem is unless we can kill of about half the human race, it isnt gonna change. we can convert to a totally green technology and still wont affect the atmosphere for a hundred years. There is a lag time between carbon levels in the atmosphere and the effects we have on it. What we are seeing now is the result of the 60's and 70's pollution levels.

The onus on mankind isnt so much to try and modify the climate systems (we always screw stuff like that up) but to adapt to the changing climate and still learn how to thrive as a species in the new climate