<font color="#cc3399">Neb, I think it is pretty easy to prove that global warming is happening, the temperature average has incresed a degree or two in the last thousand years, my only point is, that there is no conclusive evidence that man can influence it one way or the other.
If it were possible then people in siberia and Alaska would be pumping out as much CO2 as they could to warm their places up...but it doesn't work that way.

Ice core samples from antarctica, the arctic and greenland show no correlation between global temperatures and the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The earths temperature has been much much higher in the past than it is now, and we are just now coming out of a rather extended interglacial period. Humans just have no real ability to predict what is happening since we have no idea what happened just prior to the last ice age. We don't know the whys or the HOWS to the entire geological cycle. All we have is observations from an insignificant portion of the earths global climate.

The good news is, the "ozone hole" is closing and will be completely gone in less than 50 years.</font>

Just for a word from the 'other side' of the greenhouse topic, try:

www.john-daly.com/#1905

There seem to be a few interesting links there.

Just out of curiosity, Magik, what was your source for the article that started this whole thread?

It really should be a matter of common sense that the continued release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in exponentially increasing amounts will eventually precipitate adverse effects for the global environment. Even if we grant that there may be many hitherto unknown mechanisms on the planet (as many ecologists actually admit, BTW) which may counterbalance the warming-up effect, it is folly to think that they can absorb an increasing amount of punishment indefinitely.

The word 'exponential' calls for a bit of attention. Basic arithmetic dictates that a numerical quantity, when doubled again and again (2, 4, 8, 16, 32...), quickly becomes extremely large. It has been calculated that if you took a piece of paper (approx. 1/254 inch thick) and doubled its thickness 42 times, it would bridge our planet and the moon. 50 doublings would almost reach all the way from us to the sun.

It is honestly difficult -- and foolish IMHO -- to believe that whatever coolong mechanisms there might be on our planet can put up with this kind of abuse in the long term. Besides which there might also be yet other unknown mechanisms which might exacerbate the warming, not reduce it.

Ultimately, the only truly incontrovertible evidence you can produce to state a case against cutting back on greenhouse emissions is as follows:

Find say a dozen Earth-like planets (good luck finding them).

Keep pumping greenhouse gases into their atmospheres for several decades, maybe even a century plus. Like what we're doing to our planet now.

After all that, examine the climate and ecosystems on these planets. Are they still largely unaffected? If yes -- okay, then I shall willingly admit defeat and accept that we can indeed continue along our present line with reasonable confidence that nothing bad will come of it.

In the absence of any such hard evidence, I would consider it more prudent to stay on the side of caution.

Unless you want to experiment with our planet to see the outcome. Do you?

Remember, what is at stake is the survival of billions of people. People with families and kids, just like you and me.

Nor do we have another planet to escape to if we mess this one up, as far as we know.

Technology? I suppose I'm prepared to grant that it can buy us some time, but it can't be the final solution.

After all, if we use advances in technology to cut down by half the amount of pollution cars produce, and then merrily proceed to double the number of cars, we'll return to square one.

In the end, we'll simply have to reduce our emissions, and eventually abandon the whole ideology of indefinite growth as well. If we want to stand a good chance of surviving, that is.

My two cents. Take them. Or leave them.

[ 09-27-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

KT, it would be common sense, if indeed the CO2 levels were increasing geometrically, but they are not. Indeed, it seems to be a very selective process on both sides as to what data gets considered for public consumption. I am beginning to believe, however, that mob psychology and hysteria are driving the discussion. Add to this the number of individuals who think that the only way to get public consensus on an issue is to allow it to develop to a critical point, or to manufacture a crisis point, and you have all the ingredients for seriously skewed science.

Check the link in my post, above. Look for the links on soi, sea levels, and some of the things done by the 'warming' proponents, then come back and let's talk some more. Have a great weekend!!!

Na i have not read all her but i dont think we have anything to do with the global warming to do, the world have change the temprature for millions of years by it self but it would be nice if the polution could be lowered as much as possible anyway! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

One more link to sample:

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...0/national.htm

This is a critique of the National Assessment. V. interesting reading.