• Stock Market
• Stock Investing Blog
• Trading Options
• Forex Trading
• Options Trading
• Bonds and Mutual Funds
• Stock FAQ
• Stock Market Basics
• Fund Information
• Investor Definitions
• Stock Market Forums

• Stephen Cooper

Home >> Stock Forums >> Anyone watch aninconvenienttruth yet?

Anyone watch aninconvenienttruth yet?

SporeMonger said: "An Inconvenient Truth is about global warming and Al Gore's pursuit to open some eyes. I'm not saying that I am a democrat, nor am I saying that I am not... Just wondering if anyone has seen it. Global warming is real, it's here and it is going to devestate the planet within the next 2 generations. I'm watching it right now. My feelings are that corporate greed and a personal "not my problem" attitude is the basis for not much being done about it. We are a very weak minded and stupid race indeed... We, as a human species need to have consequence stare us right in the face before we will act."

Mr. Gekko said: "I have it on my "wish list" on Amazon. I'll probably order it soon. I agree with your statement. It shouldn't be 65 degrees in eastern Pennsylvania in the middle of January. We're really screwing ourselves. :bricks:"

Harry said: "I have my own spin...that Global Warming is real but politisized. Our planet (like stocks :whacky011: ) has gone through many cycles...many ice ages...many warm ages. This is NOT new, but the anti-industrial crowd certainly is selective with their science. The natural occuring cycles are due to solar irradiance. Heat from the sun which varies for a variety of reasons. Fewer sun spots actually make solar irradiance greater. It is a domino affect that is already in play and won't stop. Melting ice caps actually releases more naturally occruing green house gases into the atmoshere and excells the process. We are on our way. It take hundreds of years to reform what we lost in 50. The cycle we're in started long before many of the "accused" man-made triggers even existed though. It has been determined that major volcanic eruptions in our century and earlier excedes anything man put into the atmosphere. Some science concedes to my points but goes on and says that industry and pollutants are magnifying the problem. I am for clean air and water for common sense purposes...health, but I think that the cosmos and the earth are going to manifest change whether we want to recognize it or not."

FirefighterB said: "I agree that we humans have a very short term, "want it now" mentaility. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I think that we could have set ourselves and our planet much better off years ago, it just would take sacrifices and profit losses that many are not willing to accept. I liken what we do to smoking cigarettes. For those that don't smoke, put in place your favorite vice (it can be those extra few helpings of food, that extra bit of money spent or credit limit utilized, or just being in a bad mood). Whatever it is, realize that we all have it in some way or another. It's part of being human. It won't kill, make you broke, or affect you right at this minute, so why worry? Sure, that ONE won't. But it sure adds to the next one, whether it's yours or someone else's adding to it. That one SUV won't kill the planet with CO2 or use up that much more gas, but it adds up when put with the others. That extra tasty piece of cake won't give you a heart attack, but the cholesterol will surely cling to your previous pieces of cake that have set up shop. That next cigarette won't kill you, but it sure doesn't help that you've smoked a ton before that. One drink won't make you drunk, but all of the ones you had before it will help. Not exercising today won't kill you, but when you add it to any or all of the above, you're putting a dent in your lifespan. (As a side note, I just heard on the news that one hour of exercise is equal to two hours of extended lifespan. A 100% return is something anyone should appreciate, not just investors). What do all of these have in common? Instant gratification without regard to the ramifications of adding it to the pile. But, unfortunately, we can't think beyond this instant. We can't think enough in the future unless the consequences of our current actions are right in our faces. We will continue to think that our planet will be okay and that we don't have to change our ways NOW until we are threatened with our own livelihood. I think this is sad, however, I am a human and am mired in the hypocracy involved with being one. However, I do find it amazing that a society that has been able to bring a computer from being room sized to the palm of your hand in about 30 years, bring flight to humans to the point that it is an everyday occurance in 50 years, and the ability to search a wealth of knowledge from around the world in our own offices in about 10 years, cannot become more energy efficient. How is this entire society still weighed down, over 100 years later, with a gasoline powered engine. How about coal? Do we use it because it's cheap and readily available? Could we not have come as far with solar or wind energy if it would have been as profitable? Of course not, it's free and how can you charge regularly? But, we're heading that way. However, it's entirely too slow. When gas prices we sky high, look at the burst of hybrids, biodiesel, and fuel economy increases. SUVs were forgotten and every commercial was about a hybrid and gas mileage. Of course, gas prices go back down (what exactly made all of this happen? Oh yeah, money) and everyone is touting SUVs and look at how hybrid and fuel economy commercials have become more scarce. We were ready to head that way when it was threating us, yet we forget as soon as the threat is gone. Ahhh, short term memory and total lack of thought of the future. I've actually been stocking up on Astronomy shows and have pretty much come to realize that there is little we can do to this planet that it can't recover from. When you think of the amazing things it has gone through over the past 5 billion or so years, we're nothing but an itch. The question is, will WE survive while it's recovering or will it kick us off before it starts anew? Sorry, that turned into a rant. Had to make up for not being around here for awhile. :wave:"

Harry said: "FirefigherB, I watch those show too...pretty coll...pretty scarey. The most interesting show I saw recent illustrated our moon as an indication to our history. Earth had all those impacts too...it's just that continental tectonic movement and change nicely hides the damage here. The most interesting tiblet is how life originated from outspace by either traveling rock or dust. Early in our planets development the enviornment was hellishly firey. It's deduced that after the cooling no DNA or one cell orgasms could evolve natively. Seeding from space started it all... ...and just as easily one big rock from space could end it all. Please recall the hit that Jupitor took a few years back...or was it Saturn? But for climate, why should mamkind expect perfect consistancy in a world that constantly evolves. We will adapt. I just hope we can keep the air and water cleaner for future generations. As a health care provider I see illnesses that just weren't predominante decades ago."

JohnL said: "[QUOTE]Early in our planets development the enviornment was hellishly firey.[/QUOTE] Dude if our world was ashen and firey and volcanic it'd be so cool. Especially if I was like a huge archdemon with a big flaming sword and I commanded an army of lesser demons. Okay I'm going to leave this thread now."

thezster said: "If you don't believe that human activity has had a serious impact on the environment - you're deluding yourself. Saying "Oh, it's always been that way" is liken to an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. :signs057:"

Harry said: "Sorry Zster. my world's not flat like yours. :signs047: Yes ...FACT: ~it has always been that way~. The phrase "the ice age" that many tend to mumble in terms of earth's history is indeed technically wrong. We've had many global expanses of ice and melt downs. Science has established this. Of course the Gore types' agendas are weakened by such facts. I respect the GREEN crowd but they can be blind zealots. Penn and Teller had a rep at a GREEN rally getting the crowds to sign a petition. The petition was to ban the dangerous poison dihydrogen monoxide. The pollster said dihydrogen monoxide was contaminating our planet and impacts each and every one of us. The got hundreds of signatures and dihydrogen monoxide is simply water. I read the nonesense...but I prefer data correlating a point...NOT determining a point and selecting data to reinforce it. And lastly, MARS is experiencing a global warming trend that parellels ours..####ease show me one factory on Mars causing that. ;)"

thezster said: "[QUOTE=Harry] I respect the GREEN crowd but they can be blind zealots. Penn and Teller had a rep at a GREEN rally getting the crowds to sign a petition. The petition was to ban the dangerous poison dihydrogen monoxide. The pollster said dihydrogen monoxide was contaminating our planet and impacts each and every one of us. The got hundreds of signatures and dihydrogen monoxide is simply water. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I've heard the stories reinforcing how easily swayed and seriously non-technical the average person can be.... And... I will surely grant you that the earth has gone through some seriously wide climate swings over the past few million years. However - those climactic occurrances did not happen over the span of 50 - 100 years as the case in today's environment. We are losing ice at the poles at an unparalleled rate in the known history of the world. Temperature increases have, in the past, changed over thousands of years.... today they're changing in decades... Is it natural?? Is it not?? I'm not the final judge on the subject - regardless of my science background. Yet - I defy you to look at the skyline over Houston - New York - LA - Denver - the list goes on for pages... and see the hovering dark clouds of pollution, created obviously by us - and convince yourself that that crap has no effect on our world today. And... no, my world isn't flat - it's more of a half-pipe shape - forcing you back to the center when you get too close to the edge..... :signs053:"

lil dickie said: "I saw the movie. I can tell you that in the midwest something seems to have changed. Hardly any snow this winter. :dazed052:"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry]FirefigherB, I watch those show too...pretty coll...pretty scarey. The most interesting show I saw recent illustrated our moon as an indication to our history. Earth had all those impacts too...it's just that continental tectonic movement and change nicely hides the damage here. The most interesting tiblet is how life originated from outspace by either traveling rock or dust. Early in our planets development the enviornment was hellishly firey. It's deduced that after the cooling no DNA or one cell orgasms could evolve natively. Seeding from space started it all... ...and just as easily one big rock from space could end it all. Please recall the hit that Jupitor took a few years back...or was it Saturn? But for climate, why should mamkind expect perfect consistancy in a world that constantly evolves. We will adapt. I just hope we can keep the air and water cleaner for future generations. As a health care provider I see illnesses that just weren't predominante decades ago.[/QUOTE] The one on the moon and how, basically, we owe our entire existence to the moon. Crazy to learn that the moon is, actually, bits of another planet that crashed into ours and formed into the moon through accretion. Also hard to believe that it was 15 times closer and totally filled the sky, actually pulled a wave of rock and water along the surface of the Earth because of it's gravity. Since the moon is moving away, has reduced to controlling the tides and, studies show recently, perhaps causing earthquakes and volcano eruptions when it's gravitational pull is in line with the sun's, instead of pulling from opposite sides. Of course, this moving away is another distinct possibility for our planet's demise (billions of years down the road, of course) besides for the sun expending all of it's fuel and expanding, thus turning us into charcoal, or the distinct chance of another asteroid-turned-meteorite turning us into oil like the dinosaurs. The planet you were thinking about was Jupiter and it sustained multiple hits from asteriods which, even on a giant gas ball, left noticeable black scars (some really cool pics, if you find them). Anyway, because we owe our planets axis rotation (seasons and weather) to the moon, as it moves away it's hold on our axis will wane until the Earth no longer tilts, has seasons, or supports life in the numbers it does now. Anyway, I definitely believe we could have evolved from the primordial soup or, even, a rock from another planet or solar system. Hell, I believe in it all the way back to the big bang. Where my spirituality comes in, however, is that even THAT, had to come from somewhere. As for Global Warming, we're definitely screwing this planet up. It was 72 degrees here in NYC on Saturday. In JANUARY! Sure, there are natural swings in temperatures and a volcano might have pumped more green-house gases into the environment than we have, but that doesn't mean that 1. we should be adding to it when we, honestly, can avoid it or at least minimize it or 2. that the planet really cares if we're on it or surviving or not. Every volcano on this rock we like to think is ours could erupt and throw EVERYTHING out of whack (see: we become oil in millions of years). We could nuke the entire thing and, after awhile, should things work out, there will be life again. We are but a tick in the clock of this planet, solar system, and universe. And that should drive you to humbleness, religious or not"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=thezster] However - those climactic occurrances did not happen over the span of 50 - 100 years as the case in today's environment. :[/QUOTE] Actually it has. Science has determined this. It's an exponential event. The melting caps release their own grenn house gases. The dominos are tumbling now. We are just observers. At most I may concede that we "may" contributing to a naturally occuring event....but this planet has been doing this before mankind developed industry. For lost polar caps to reform, it takes from 200 to 500 years...when the cycle reverses. Keep in mind, on the flip side ice ages propagated mankind's existed around the world...lower seas created more land bridges. And remember, your opinion blatantly discounts what's known to be occuring simutaneously on Mars."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB] It was 72 degrees here in NYC on Saturday. In JANUARY! [/QUOTE] And I can't even begin to tell you how happy I was about that. I hate freakin winter. :) Did anyone here a good weather prediction for this year??? Last year the hurricaine trends and routes were amazing predicted ahead of timeas was the warm winter. I gotta say investors are the BEST weather people. I haven't heard our next years forcast yet."

Rickster said: "Just play it safe and support nuclear power. :)"

Cryogenix said: "The sun, trees, moon and the cycles of life have substantially greater impact on this planet than we ever will (barring a nuclear disaster...), so to think that all the people of this planet (who if collected could fit in the state of Texas - with room to spare) are truly the reason for global warming is arrogant and idiotic. Gore's hidden agenda aside in AIT, the movie doesn't present the facts very well, doesn't elaborate or really touch at all on the reverse theory, fails to disclose that the "hockey stick" graph that's the primary fuel to feed this campaign is actually inaccurate AND unduplicable because the jackass who created the formula refuses to reveal its mechanics...blah blah blah. That, and the places where all the "readings" are taken are typically in cities that suffer from the "island effect," which is CO2/pollution that hovers slightly above the city, and NONE of which ever makes it high enough to be a problem to the earth's outer regions. It's life! We are fleas on Mother Earth's back. When she's tired of us, she'll shake us off, take a long, hot bath for a few million years and then perhaps the cycle of life will start over again. I say, get out there and enjoy life and quit worrying about things that are truly beyond our control to regulate. Again...the sun...solar flares = hotter climate! Check it out."

Cryogenix said: "BTW, those of you who enjoy science and exquisite CGI, there's a DVD called [url=http://shopping.discovery.com/product-27912.html]Hyperspace[/url], narrated by Sam Neill (the actor) for the BBC, and it's absolutely amazing!!! Perhaps the most interesting and dramatic DVD in my collection next to The Endurance. Truly a must-have! Nothing else touches it! Shows how we got here...how everything formed...where the solar system's headed...where we'll end up having to go. Breathtaking, heartbreaking and inspiring! :th_dblthumb2: I was in awe of the depiction of how small we are in the universe and how tremendously and intimidatingly massive our backyard is...it blew my mind. I never could comprehend just how infinite space was until seeing the visuals here!"

drdan said: "I'm shocked that with the intelligence of this group that anyone would think that global warming is caused by human activity. We are so insignificant to the force of mother nature it can be scary. If you really want some good information on the subject without any political agenda attached you can check out [url]http://www.realclimate.org/[/url] Here are some unbaised facts to consider when talking about global warming... 1.) It exists we are warmer than we have been in 400 years. So lets think about that It is as warm now as it was in the 1600s. Yep lots of cars and factories contributing to the same temperature back then - NOT! 2.) One volcano eruption contributes more Carbon dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfaric Oxide (Greenhouse gases) than the entire US production of greenhouse gases. How many volcanoes erupt every year on the volcanic rim? How many have gases spewing every single day? LOTS. Heres a link to the active ones - [url]http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html[/url] In fact the volcanic eruption in the Phillipines in 1992 caused global cooling because of the amount of ash it threw up into the sky. We are totally insignificant if one volcano can cause a 1 degree change in the entire worlds temperature in a couple of days and cause the summer of 1992 to be cool. 3.) The sun has been having some interesting changes here recently, meaning the last 50 years. It is actually warmer, throwing off more heat. It is throwing off more solar flares too and has had a little greater activity in the last 50 years. In fact we just had a massive solar flare just three weeks ago shoot towards Earth, causing a massive geoelectric storm. Rmember the news casts about the astronauts in the space station having to move to the space shuttle for protection? So the Earths ONLY heat source is burning a little hotter, can't imagine why the earth is warmer??? So is my head in the sand about humans being an influence on global warming OR do I think that mother nature is much more powerful than what some people give her credit for.:argue:"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=lil dickie]I saw the movie. I can tell you that in the midwest something seems to have changed. Hardly any snow this winter. :dazed052:[/QUOTE] Midwest and NORTHEAST! :sad010:"

FirefighterB said: "Again, we aren't the only source of global warming, nor the only reason things are increasing. However, we aren't helping. This is apparent by smog, increased cancer rates, increased asthma issues, increased heart attacks, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't just have to apply to global warming and its changes on the environment. I seriously doubt the solar flares are the reason for increased cardiopulmonary, digestive, and lymph cancers (besides skin, smartass), asthma, or a multitude of other things that have increased since we found a love of coal, autos, and petroleum-based products. The point is: we aren't doing anything to help ourselves. Sure, genetics play a HUGE part in what we're dealt (which sucks to admit, because I'm fucked) but we don't help it at all. All it takes is 50 extra calories a day (around 1/3 of a can of soda) to make you 5 pounds fatter over the course of a year or a few cigarettes over the course of a week to greatly increase your chances for having heart disease. Add a couple years (and a couple million other people influencing it) to that and is it really that hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of trains, planes, and automobiles (and boats) aren't having ANY effect?"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Again, we aren't the only source of global warming, nor the only reason things are increasing. However, we aren't helping. This is apparent by smog, increased cancer rates, increased asthma issues, increased heart attacks, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't just have to apply to global warming and its changes on the environment. I seriously doubt the solar flares are the reason for increased cardiopulmonary, digestive, and lymph cancers (besides skin, smartass), asthma, or a multitude of other things that have increased since we found a love of coal, autos, and petroleum-based products. The point is: we aren't doing anything to help ourselves. Sure, genetics play a HUGE part in what we're dealt (which sucks to admit, because I'm fucked) but we don't help it at all. All it takes is 50 extra calories a day (around 1/3 of a can of soda) to make you 5 pounds fatter over the course of a year or a few cigarettes over the course of a week to greatly increase your chances for having heart disease. Add a couple years (and a couple million other people influencing it) to that and is it really that hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of trains, planes, and automobiles (and boats) aren't having ANY effect?[/QUOTE] The world is getting a little more sensible. Thank God people are looking closer at fast food...soda machines are being taken out of schools. Per-Iraq war my wife and I both purchased Priuses for fuel efficiency reasons and found the low emmisions aspect to be very cool. Japan uses Hybrid buses meanwhile I have to close my car window every time I drive behind a truck... ...high oil prices did more for preventing pollution than politics ever could. But on the first cold nights I couldn't resist throwing some logs on the fire."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Again, we aren't the only source of global warming, nor the only reason things are increasing. However, we aren't helping. This is apparent by smog, increased cancer rates, increased asthma issues, increased heart attacks, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't just have to apply to global warming and its changes on the environment. I seriously doubt the solar flares are the reason for increased cardiopulmonary, digestive, and lymph cancers (besides skin, smartass), asthma, or a multitude of other things that have increased since we found a love of coal, autos, and petroleum-based products. The point is: we aren't doing anything to help ourselves. Sure, genetics play a HUGE part in what we're dealt (which sucks to admit, because I'm fucked) but we don't help it at all. All it takes is 50 extra calories a day (around 1/3 of a can of soda) to make you 5 pounds fatter over the course of a year or a few cigarettes over the course of a week to greatly increase your chances for having heart disease. Add a couple years (and a couple million other people influencing it) to that and is it really that hard to believe that the hundreds of millions of trains, planes, and automobiles (and boats) aren't having ANY effect?[/QUOTE] Actually, yes it is hard to believe that all those are having an effect because it has not been proven either way that it is or is not having an effect on peoples health. Diet, exercise and lifestyle have been proven to have an effect on the conditions you are talking about and that definitely has changed over the last 50 years. Out in the middle of Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, hell even Iowa they are having increases in the health issues you describe, however their smog rates are the same as they have been for decades almost non-existent, except in areas of large feedlot cattle operations. Ever been to the "country" and smelled the air (besides the occasional cow manure pile) It is wonderful. So why do we not have a large amount of smog over the feedlot operations in the country since they are producing greenhouse gases in large amounts? Because of geographic location. The greenhouse gases are swept away up into the atmosphere. Now look at the difference between Chicago and LA and Denver (talk about smog!) In LA and Denver - why? Because the gases are trapped because those cities are in valleys. In Chicago, we have a lot of industry, a little less than we used to, but there are still factories pumping out greenhouse gases. Why do we not have a smog problem? Because we have a giant lake next to us and Chicago does not sit in a valley - the gases can escape. Now for cities stuck in these valleys I think it is important to figure out how to control the smog, just for better air to breathe, which I agree, long time exposure just like cigarette smoking can have an effect (my opinion). They have known the cause of Cancer since the 1920s, it is chronic lack of oxygenation to the tissues. The problem is there are so many contributing factors that they can not pinpoint a specific thing to prevent the disease. Now if you have a lack of oxygenation to the air because of smog I think a resonable hypothesis would be that smog can cause cancer - problem is it has not really been proven - because people's lifestyles in the cities are so much different that there is not only smog to contend with as a contributing factor. But I will concede that the idea definitely has merit - increasing pollutants will have an effect on health - it has too. But is it polluting the world and causing global warming? No, I do not believe so, it is an insignificant amount and causes problems only in those specific areas in which the gases are trapped. Editted for punctuation to make it easier to read - sorry got a little passionate and forgot to punctuate."

BenHouston said: "I tend to lean towards harrys first post. However I do believe that humans ARE adding to the problem."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Diet, exercise and lifestyle have been proven to have an effect on the conditions you are talking about and that definitely has changed over the last 50 years. [/QUOTE] You're absolutely right that diet, exercise, and lifestyle have affected our lives, but I don't think that they were really more health-conscious 50 years ago. I think we have become a more instant-gratification and "busy" society that drives horrible diets. Really, I don't think you could say that our predecessors ate any healthier than we do, they just might have ate less. And, another thing... Our food is full of crap. Hormones have been injected into most of the stuff we eat to make it bigger, higher producing, and more profitable. The living conditions for many of those animals has become horrible (not that I really give that much of a shit about the animals) and, especially chickens, are stacked, packed, and racked in rows, one above the other. The shit all over eachother, eat where they shit (which means they're eating shit), and get all of that toxic, um, shit in their bodies. From their bodies to ours. [QUOTE=drdan]Out in the middle of Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, hell even Iowa they are having increases in the health issues you describe, however their smog rates are the same as they have been for decades almost non-existent, except in areas of large feedlot cattle operations. Ever been to the "country" and smelled the air (besides the occasional cow manure pile) It is wonderful.[/QUOTE] I grew up in cornfield and cowpie heaven, so I know what you mean and I agree with your "removal" theory. However, I think that this has to do with the relationship between quantity vs. area and ability to remove the gases. In the country, there just isn't the output of greenhouse gases, nor is there usually any valleys (as you stated) to keep them bottled up. However, there are some cities that hold the same traits, like London in the past. London Fog was not as much fog, as it was a smog from all of the coal and oil burning. If we're talking today. it's Houston, which is flatter than a board and has the Gulf within a relatively close distance constantly bringing in rain, yet it does not remove the smog. Anyway, again, I don't think we are THE CAUSE of global warming. But, we are definitely not helping the situations with our greenhouse gas emissions and our chemical pollutions. I'm really not that much of a lefty that I am against this stuff. I'm a human and a hypocrite. I like getting things fast, easy, and cheap. Although I see change coming in the form of increased organic and free range foods (not cheap...yet), lower emissions (good step, Governator), and better economy (thanks, hybrids), it's going to take quite some time to be "the norm." Hell, I've just spent the last couple hours (damn, I need a job) watching "Perfect Disaster" on the Science Channel. I've seen typhoons, ice storms, and floods destroy three major cities. And you know what, we can all run our cars 24 hours a day and dump chemicals wherever, or never emit another ppm of greenhouse gas or pollute another drop of water and all of that stuff is still going to happen. We are Mother Nature's cellmate and she appears to want us to pick up the soap. So, in that instance, screw it. Hook me up with another bag of Sour Patch Kids, bring that new SUV by, and let me borrow your lighter. I'm of the sort that would rather die fat and happy, than healthy and wanting. :flipoff:"

bobjitsu said: "It's going to be 23 in Vegas tommorrow and SNOW about 1-3". Global warming my ass. Al gore should have stuck with inventing this interweb thingy and not try to play Earth Scientist. :laugh:"

Heather said: "I saw the movie and thought it was interesting. I am not a democrat.. so I didn't watch it because of Al Gore. The landscape of a lot of places has changed significantly in photos. As for the weather.. it's definitely warmer here than I ever remember. It's only (barely) snowed here twice. In fact there are still yellow and purple flowers in bloom up at the mall. Definitely weird. I personally would NEVER buy a truck (because I don't need one) and our next car might even be a hybrid. I guess I'm "green" that way.. We can hope that Florida won't be under water in our lifetimes, anyhow!"

thezster said: "[QUOTE=Heather] We can hope that Florida won't be under water in our lifetimes, anyhow![/QUOTE] I dunno - just think how happy all those folks in Georgia will be when they wake up to discover they own waterfront property..........:whacky011:"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=thezster]I dunno - just think how happy all those folks in Georgia will be when they wake up to discover they own waterfront property..........:whacky011:[/QUOTE] :roll: Always look on the brighter side...LOL"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Our food is full of crap. Hormones have been injected into most of the stuff we eat to make it bigger, higher producing, and more profitable. The living conditions for many of those animals has become horrible (not that I really give that much of a shit about the animals) and, especially chickens, are stacked, packed, and racked in rows, one above the other. The shit all over eachother, eat where they shit (which means they're eating shit), and get all of that toxic, um, shit in their bodies. From their bodies to ours. [/QUOTE] Now you are definitely talking my territory.:laugh: This information has been totally misconstrued and blown way out of proportion. The hormone thing I mean. Did you know that peanuts have more estrogen in them than a woman! We implant hormones into beef to make them more feed efficient - not bigger - the processing plants do not want them bigger. The hormones are to make them more efficient so that feed costs are lowered. Anyway the way that beef cattle are implanted there is no detectable levels of increased hormones in the meat in comparision to the levels found in cattle that are not implanted. In fact overall in the male cattle (steers) there are lower levels of hormone than they should because they are castrated. Beef producers do not want high levels of hormones because it makes the meat taste bad. So the hormone thing is blown way out of proportion. It does not make girls come into puberty faster like many leftists would like you to believe. Now on the other hand the way chickens are kept - They really are not packed and racked in single pen rows like you see in all the pictures. That is only at transport. They are still stacked above one another in group pens but they have trays under each pen so that the chickens are not crapping on one another. Disease control is of the utmost importance. As far as eating shit chickens have always pecked at shit. They are overcrowded in my opinion. And another thing about them that is interesting and sad. They have been so genetically altered that a chicken from a big producer could not live free range on a farm like they used to; they would die. And as far as hormones in chickens I can not be as confident in stating that the hormone levels are not that different from hormone free chicken - no one has really done a study on that. SO...keep your prepubescent girls away from chicken....:dazed052: As far as the rest of your discussion Firefighter - I am right there with you! Fast cars bigger trucks that is cool!"

SporeMonger said: "Oh boy! I opened up a can of worms with this subject! I have a lot to say, so I'm doing a write-up offline. I will post it when I am done. :flipoff: J/K /w the :flipoff: :laugh:"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=SporeMonger]Oh boy! I opened up a can of worms with this subject! I have a lot to say, so I'm doing a write-up offline. I will post it when I am done. :flipoff: J/K /w the :flipoff: :laugh:[/QUOTE] Ahhh - we all have a**holes...oops I mean opinions!:laugh: Some topics just bring out the best in the release of hot air! This one just brings it out of me because I used to live it with the farmers especially when the study about how much methane gas cows produce and how it affects global warming - LMAO What a waste of tax payer money!"

thezster said: "[QUOTE=drdan] So the hormone thing is blown way out of proportion. It does not make girls come into puberty faster like many leftists would like you to believe.[/QUOTE] Darn..... So offering those kiddies a steak instead of candy was misguided?? [QUOTE]SO...keep your prepubescent girls away from chicken....:dazed052[/QUOTE]: Eat more chikken.......:go:"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Now you are definitely talking my territory.:laugh: This information has been totally misconstrued and blown way out of proportion. The hormone thing I mean. Did you know that peanuts have more estrogen in them than a woman! We implant hormones into beef to make them more feed efficient - not bigger - the processing plants do not want them bigger. The hormones are to make them more efficient so that feed costs are lowered. Anyway the way that beef cattle are implanted there is no detectable levels of increased hormones in the meat in comparision to the levels found in cattle that are not implanted. In fact overall in the male cattle (steers) there are lower levels of hormone than they should because they are castrated. Beef producers do not want high levels of hormones because it makes the meat taste bad. So the hormone thing is blown way out of proportion. It does not make girls come into puberty faster like many leftists would like you to believe. Now on the other hand the way chickens are kept - They really are not packed and racked in single pen rows like you see in all the pictures. That is only at transport. They are still stacked above one another in group pens but they have trays under each pen so that the chickens are not crapping on one another. Disease control is of the utmost importance. As far as eating shit chickens have always pecked at shit. They are overcrowded in my opinion. And another thing about them that is interesting and sad. They have been so genetically altered that a chicken from a big producer could not live free range on a farm like they used to; they would die. And as far as hormones in chickens I can not be as confident in stating that the hormone levels are not that different from hormone free chicken - no one has really done a study on that. SO...keep your prepubescent girls away from chicken....:dazed052: As far as the rest of your discussion Firefighter - I am right there with you! Fast cars bigger trucks that is cool![/QUOTE] I stand corrected in my view on both of these aspects, Doc. I'm more inclined to accept it from a guy that's been there than internet and reporters. Thanks for the insight.:th_dblthumb2:"

Heather said: "We don't eat chickens or meat so no extra growth hormones in our family! We've been veg for about 2 years now.. No one needs to kill these creatures on our behalf!"

BenHouston said: "[QUOTE=Heather]We don't eat chickens or meat so no extra growth hormones in our family! We've been veg for about 2 years now.. No one needs to kill these creatures on our behalf![/QUOTE] :sad010: dont take offence to this, but i hope you let your family choose.....for some reason this reminds me of supersize me...the girlfriend is nagging the guy to become a veagan the whole time. lol i lift weights and need a whole lot of meat to keep getting bigger so meat is so essential to my diet i guess thats why i am in such awe that someone doesnt eat meat..... i even have a shirt with a funny picture of it with these animals on it and it says "for every animal you dont eat...i am going to eat three :) ""

Heather said: "Don't worry, no offense taken ;) I don't force it on my family, they choose to be veg. :) The cats still get to eat meat based cat food, so they don't care. I'm not big on preaching it, because people don't want to hear it and look at you like you are some kind of a freak."

LongArm said: "[QUOTE=Heather]We don't eat chickens or meat so no extra growth hormones in our family! We've been veg for about 2 years now.. No one needs to kill these creatures on our behalf![/QUOTE] Do you eat fish/seafood?"

Heather said: "No fish or seafood, either."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=Heather]We don't eat chickens or meat so no extra growth hormones in our family! We've been veg for about 2 years now.. No one needs to kill these creatures on our behalf![/QUOTE] I don't like vegetables enough to be a vegetarian. A salad is good but that is about it. I can not imagine eating only vegetables. I may be the total opposite of you Heather when it comes to dinner. I could survive on a 16oz Prime Rib alone. Maybe with some steak fries but those really aren't vegtables either.:laugh:"

LongArm said: "I would literally go nutz without meat, poultry or seafood. :whacky011:"

Heather said: "We still eat some dairy and eggs. I'm not looking to change anyones mind, but there are a lot of non-meat/poultry/fish alternatives. We use soy milk instead of dairy milk for cereal and Morningstar offers a number of products that are like real ground beef, chicken nuggets and hamburger patties. You can find sloppy joe mixes made out of soy that taste pretty darn good, too. There are a lot of choices if you eat oriental or Indian. It really isn't as bad as you might think.. but that's just my opinion :)"

Harry said: "I am so paranoid about food that it ain't funny...so many perservatives...in meat and milk...so much antibiotics and steroids...in fish...so much mercury and dioxins...!!!:dazed052: I'm 46. I'm a respiratory therapist. I'm amazed at all the asthma around. Where was it when I was 5 years old...I didn't see it? Of course in the old days everybody died of coronary artery disease. But not much has changed. We just fix it better. People still get CAD, we saw them open, bypass their blockages, and send them on their way. And McDonald's THRIVES!!!! About 10 years ago 60 Minutes did a story about tanker trucks moving milf and/or juice also moving dangerous chemicals during alternate runs. And the trucks were not sanitized. I switched to local brands who I saw had their own trucks...of course I still bet the antibiotics and steriods...but not the cancer. :( BTW: The antibiotcs in meat and dairy are dangerous because the strenghten the bugs in humans that they are meant to attack."

Heather said: "I don't want to have to worry about cholesterol. That's some crap."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=Heather]I don't want to have to worry about cholesterol. That's some crap.[/QUOTE] Mine's been up to 250 for awhile. I had what might have been a small stroke...I got on LIPITOR FAST!!!!! ,,,I cut WAY down on milkshakes...my favorite food group. :whacky011: I put a little half-n-half in my coffee. Year ago I was watching a movie about Lou Costello and Bud Abbott, played by Buddy Hackett and Harvey Korman. Through his whole life Lou was drinking strawberry milkshakes. He died at 53."

Heather said: "I'm sure there were more factors than just strawberry milkshakes that killed him. :dazed052:"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=Harry] BTW: The antibiotcs in meat and dairy are dangerous because the strenghten the bugs in humans that they are meant to attack.[/QUOTE] Harry, This is just not true, at all! First in milk dairy farmers would have to buy an entire tanker of milk if antibiotics, even trace amounts were found in the milk. Samples are taken by the truck driver at every stop and recorded. The milk is bulk tested prior to dropping into the big vats at the processing plant. Then each individual sample is taken so that they can test the quality of the milk to determine what price the farmer receives for his milk. If any even trace amounts of antibiotic are found in the milk that farmer is fined and heavily. There are no antibiotics in milk. If a cow that is producing is given antibiotics to help fight off disease that milk is dumped and the farmer has to wait a specific period of time which is way beyond the time that it takes for the antibiotic to get out of the system before they can return the cow to the milk line. As for long term antibiotics being used in cattle to help increase feed efficiency two things. One the are pulled long before the meat is processed. Two the theory that it produces super bugs is just that a theory. It has never and I repeat never been proven to occur. It is a good hypothesis and has been tested many times but it has not occurred. the only time super bugs or antibiotic resistant bacteria have ever been produced is in a hospital setting in which antibiotics and disinfectants are used continually or when a person does not finish their prescribed antibiotics. Your statements are just passing on disinformation from a group with a political agenda. There are no antibiotics in your milk, farmers are fined if there are. Not even trace amounts are accepted. Also the steroids you are suggesting that are being used in animals are the hormone estrogen which is naturally occurring anyway and the "overdoses" are long out of the system prior to slaughter. There are a lot of fear tactics being used to continue this misinformation and people are affected by it. It is true that the majority of meat producers use hormones and antibiotics to be competitive in the market which keeps the price down; however they are out of the animals system prior to slaughter, you can not even find trace amounts above the normal limits."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=Heather]I don't want to have to worry about cholesterol. That's some crap.[/QUOTE] Total meat eater here - Cholesterol = 150! Genetics and exercise play huge roles in cholestrol levels. By the way Harry, did you know that Cholesterol (notice the esterol) is the precursor to hormones (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone); it is a steroid? :)"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=Harry]I am so paranoid about food that it ain't funny...so many perservatives...in meat and milk...so much antibiotics and steroids...in fish...so much mercury and dioxins...!!!:dazed052: [/QUOTE] After attacking the other part of Harry's post I figured I better give him credit where it is due. Perservatives in food are horrible. They make Harry's job with asthmatics and allergy patients 10 times if not 100 times worse. The cancer thing with pperservatives is still questionable but if they can affect the immune system like they do, then causing immune mediated cancers is not a giant leap Fish DO NOT feed your dog or eat farm raised Salmon. It is toxic if eaten on a regular basis. Wild caught Salmon only."

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Fish DO NOT feed your dog or eat farm raised Salmon[/QUOTE] Cool typo! :laugh: and what a mouth full!"

Cryogenix said: "[QUOTE=Harry]...60 Minutes did a story about tanker trucks moving milf and/or juice...[/QUOTE] I think I prefer this typo. Makes you wonder where Harry's head is between trades... :love031:"

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=Cryogenix]I think I prefer this typo. Makes you wonder where Harry's head is between trades... :love031:[/QUOTE] :laugh: , I should have caught that one! That is awesome! :th_dblthumb2:"

thezster said: "DrDan.... You Da Man! Good posts with lots of pertinent info.... By the way - can you provide some background/info/link to the Farm Raised Salmon assertion? I'd enjoy reading that. My wife spent 7 years in Juneau, got a taste for fresh, off the boat, wild salmon... and turns her nose up at farm raised. Being an aquaculturist by education - though it was quite a while ago - I always felt she was just being snobbish.... Cryo: Good catch!!"

drdan said: "Here you go Z... [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11999769&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum[/url] I know it is only one study but there are others. Also I do have to state two things to be completely informative. Most fish that we eat has some level of Mercury that is acceptable, even wild caught. It has to do with what they eat. For human consumption unless you are pregnant "SHOULD NOT" be a problem. Longer term studies are not conclusive, however. Second, in order to to have medical health issues or toxic affects you would have to be eating fish on a regular basis. However I don't know if I want to be eating fish that I know could be a problem if I eat too much."

thezster said: "From just a quick glance - it would seem we have a problem with farm feeds..... I have no issue with the validity of the studies - but wonder, since this is not a "new problem" why the salmon farming industry hasn't taken more action to purify their fish food (unless they have and I just don't know about it yet)... I guess it's not ever going to be a major issue in my household - as... if it ain't Pacific wild salmon... it's not getting in my fridge. Here it's not a safety concern... it's all about the taste...."

drdan said: "Yes the problem is what the fish eat. They eat plankton and other small invertebrates. Plankton are natures filter. They pick up many different toxins from their surroundings. Mercury is one of the most common to be picked up by these animals. Mercury is extremely common in rocks and ores and gets dumped into rivers, lakes and oceans during storms. We use it in Flourescent light bulbs. It used to be common for thermometers but we have gotten away from that. So really the major source of this contamination is natural not man made - go figure. So you are right in order to reduce the amount of mercury being fed to the fish we need to figure out a way to reduce the mercury found in Plankton. Plankton is so abundant in the ocean that it is cheaper to harvest it from there than it is to raise it in captivity. Don't know if you can raise it in captivity? (look at that something I don't know:laugh: ) And this brings us back to global warming. There was a study done last year predicting the end of the world due to rising temperatures of the oceans surface. This will disrupt the flow of nutrients to the plankton and algae. Two of the most important things that support life on this planet. Plankton is the begnning of the food chain and Ocean algae produce the most oxygen and remove the most Carbon Dioxide. Without the algae life as we know it will cease to exist we basically will die of suffocation because of too much carbon dioxide. How about that, what a round about way to bring us back on topic."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=drdan]And this brings us back to global warming. There was a study done last year predicting the end of the world due to rising temperatures of the oceans surface. This will disrupt the flow of nutrients to the plankton and algae. Two of the most important things that support life on this planet. Plankton is the begnning of the food chain and Ocean algae produce the most oxygen and remove the most Carbon Dioxide. Without the algae life as we know it will cease to exist we basically will die of suffocation because of too much carbon dioxide. How about that, what a round about way to bring us back on topic.[/QUOTE] Hahaha. Going along with that, I had heard that fact previously and actually saw it on a 2 hour science channel special on the life of a sperm whale. They said that the plankton in the ocean convert much more carbon dioxide to oxygen in a year than all of the forests on Earth combined. However, they also stated that the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are the highest over the time period since the industrial revolution that they have been in something like 20 million years (I'm not 100% certain of the number 20, but I know it was in the millions of years). I'm guessing they are getting this information through ice core samples and, since this wasn't a "global warming" or save the world show, it didn't strike me as having an agenda. However, it is TV. Which, brought me to search the all knowing internet. And, according to Wikipedia, well...you guys read it if you'd like. Scroll about half-way down to "Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere" and you'll see some great info. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide[/URL]"

drdan said: "I had forgotten about the Indonesia fires. Talk about pollution!:dazed052:"

thezster said: "Gotta tell ya.... this thread's content impresses me as much as anything I've read in this forum. Granted, some of the info is just so much B.S.. but it's all been presented well and relatively in-depth - with many different points of view. You guys can pat yourselves on the back for using a bit more of your grey matter.:th_dblthumb2:"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=thezster] Granted, some of the info is just so much B.S.. [/QUOTE] Is this when I brought up the methane gas study in cows or something else??:confused:"

thezster said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Is this when I brought up the methane gas study in cows or something else??:confused:[/QUOTE] Seeing as heifers outnumber bulls considerably - That would be CS - not BS......"

drdan said: "[QUOTE=thezster]Seeing as heifers outnumber bulls considerably - That would be CS - not BS......[/QUOTE] Good point! Imagine that you telling me about sex in animals! OK I was going to write more or change that last sentence but I think I'll leave it. :roll:"

thezster said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Good point! Imagine that you telling me about sex in animals! OK I was going to write more or change that last sentence but I think I'll leave it. :roll:[/QUOTE] just don't make the "in" a "with"... and we'll be fine!!"

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=thezster]Gotta tell ya.... this thread's content impresses me as much as anything I've read in this forum. Granted, some of the info is just so much B.S.. but it's all been presented well and relatively in-depth - with many different points of view. You guys can pat yourselves on the back for using a bit more of your grey matter.:th_dblthumb2:[/QUOTE] I wouldn't count me in on any of this, Z. DrDan, Harry, and the rest are bringing all of the class. I still drool on myself and it's about 24 years beyond acceptable. :roll:"

FirefighterB said: "Okay, I'm a Superior Nerd. I have watched many more hours of the Science Channel, namely a show aptly called "The Sun," (shocking, I know) and have found yet another possibility for global warming: That pesky sun! More specifically, it has to do with sun spots and sun flares. If you're interested in learning more about it, feel free to check the link. It'll explain much better than I could: [URL="http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research.html"]http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research.html[/URL] Besides, there's another show on about the importance of the moon on that I want to watch. I wish I could spur my interest in the market to this level, but I haven't found a way yet."

SporeMonger said: "Here are the results of the scientists' meeting on global warming. [url]http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070202/D8N1I3783.html[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "I look at Global Warming like this: The majority of scientists believe that we are at least 'significantly contributing' to the recent rise in the Earth's temperatures, and a small minority claim that it's a simple natural cycle and we aren't doing squat. One way or the other, the earth is definitely warming, while I personally believe that we are, indeed, contributing significantly to global warming, I think that whether that's true or not is a moot point. Explanation: if we ARE causing it, and we DON'T do anything about it, the planet and everything on it probably will die out - The only question is when. However, if we AREN'T causing it, and we DO something about it, our planet will just be a cleaner place to live. I'd like to think that most people understand the concept of 'erring on the side of safety', but considering that the debate is as strong as ever, well, maybe I'm just giving people too much credit. I think that those corporations who have a definite interest in seeing the public's opinion swayed one way or the other SHOULD NOT be able to fund 'scientific' studies or contribute to environmental lobby groups of any kind - The only reason I can see for people not tending to 'err on the side of safety' is one: Money, the acqusition of it, and who stands to lose it if unanimous approval for a sweeping reform of our energy policies are put into effect. I think someone is tampering with public opinion, and considering the possible consequences of those actions, it's appalling that they are allowed to do so by those who know about it. In my opinion, the government, instead of this dumb shit about ethanol, should implement a nationwide financial incentive for people to adopt more practical energy conservation methods, like better home insulation, double paned windows, ELF light bulbs, and, of course, more fuel efficient cars. That's the logical first step, and unfortunately, I'm not amazed that ethanol, instead of something more practical, is the getting all the buzz. If people use less energy, they pay less money to the power companies, and they do so for a very long time, because home improvements last a while. It's all about the money."

ndoggy said: "I think the best thing about the whole video is Gore riding around in the back of his limo while commentating the movie. I bet that thing gets 14 miles to the gallon. p.s. I didn't read the whole thread so if this was already stated my appologies"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=ndoggy]I think the best thing about the whole video is Gore riding around in the back of his limo while commentating the movie. I bet that thing gets 14 miles to the gallon.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't care if he rode around on a bulldozer. Any energy used by Al Gore has been offset many thousands or millions of times by those who have changed their habits after seeing his movie."

Rbreb13 said: "[QUOTE=ndoggy]I think the best thing about the whole video is Gore riding around in the back of his limo while commentating the movie. I bet that thing gets 14 miles to the gallon. p.s. I didn't read the whole thread so if this was already stated my appologies[/QUOTE]If Al Gore quit talking it would also reduce global warming. :dazed052: J/K"

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=Rbreb13]If Al Gore quit talking it would also reduce global warming. :dazed052: J/K[/QUOTE] :roll: :roll: :roll:"

SporeMonger said: "I'm not saying that I agree with Gore. Many aspects of the video are subject to scrutiny. I was going to do a write up on this subject and post it, but decided that it would be pointless since my research kept me in the middle and I couldn't take a side. Now, after reading this news, I think there might be some meritt to "us" being a major player on global warming and greed is the key reason why change will take a long time. The only solution is government involvement, which may cause many other problems."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=SporeMonger]Here are the results of the scientists' meeting on global warming. [url]http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070202/D8N1I3783.html[/url][/QUOTE] I was relieved when I learned of of the overwhelming conviction with which [B]they describe humans as major contributors to global warming in this report[/B]. @drdan, What do you think about it?"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]I think that those corporations who have a definite interest in seeing the public's opinion swayed one way or the other SHOULD NOT be able to fund 'scientific' studies....[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?page=1[/url]"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=SporeMonger]I'm not saying that I agree with Gore. Many aspects of the video are subject to scrutiny. I was going to do a write up on this subject and post it, but decided that it would be pointless since my research kept me in the middle and I couldn't take a side. Now, after reading this news, I think there might be some meritt to "us" being a major player on global warming and greed is the key reason why change will take a long time. The only solution is government involvement, which may cause many other problems.[/QUOTE] Firstly, there was a time that the world's top thinkers thought the world was flat. :th_coolio: Government involvement...even if I believed in man's role, government is by and for the corporation."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]I was relieved when I learned of of the overwhelming conviction with which [B]they describe humans as major contributors to global warming in this report[/B]. @drdan, What do you think about it?[/QUOTE] Just because the consenusus says it does not mean that it is for sure true. Scientists have had consensuses on many many things in the past that are just not true and then they have had to contradict themselves later. I am not convinced and here is my reasoning and I would love to get one of those scientists to explain this one... Mars and other planets in the solar system are also experiencing their own global warming. So our pollution is so far reaching that it is a major contributor to their global warming??? I don't think so. I would like further explanation. But for now the liberals and the people who feel we are destroying this planet have won a battle."

Harry said: "I more concerned about the H5N1 bird flu. If this flu mutates to one that can transmit from person to person, it will make global warming looking like parlor game. For those dwell on "FEAR", there is something tangle for you..."

thezster said: "[QUOTE=Harry]I more concerned about the H5N1 bird flu. If this flu mutates to one that can transmit from person to person, it will make global warming looking like parlor game. For those dwell on "FEAR", there is something tangle for you...[/QUOTE] "Tangle"??? or Tangible??? Not sure what you're trying to say here... Other than that you don't take global warming, specifically man's effect on it, seriously...."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=thezster]"Tangle"??? or Tangible??? Not sure what you're trying to say here... Other than that you don't take global warming, specifically man's effect on it, seriously....[/QUOTE] YOU I NEED SPELL CHECKER! :sad010: The problem is when the mis-spelled word is another word. :th_coolio: I feel man could be helping the normal process of global warming along, but I don't see man doing anything about it. Besides, the dominos are already in full clicky-click. We need to work on adapting rather than talking about what should have been down possibly 30 years ago. More impressive than this article is the satellite imagery which they don't show... Arctic ice shelf breakup reported Largest ice shelf in region was solid for 3,000 years [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3088059[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Mars and other planets in the solar system are also experiencing their own global warming. So our pollution is so far reaching that it is a major contributor to their global warming??? I don't think so. I would like further explanation.[/QUOTE] Mars is the only one that I would accept as the truth, because we can actually see the ice caps shrinking. The others are based on theories, speculation, and estimates based on things such as starlight refraction and atmospheric density, measurements made from millions of miles away. Plenty of room for error there. However, even if they are warming, does it make sense to simply ignore the entire issue because it *might* be the sun causing it, instead of us? Isn't it possible that our actions are having a cumulative effect, along with the normal cycle? Even if they aren't, how can we possibly predict when the natural trend will reverse? Shouldn't we do all we can to keep the Earth as cool as possible? There are too many questions, too many unknowns, and until we are endowed with infinite knowledge, I think erring on the side of safety is the best course of action. And smog sucks."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]There are too many questions, too many unknowns, and until we are endowed with infinite knowledge, I think erring on the side of safety is the best course of action. And smog sucks.[/QUOTE] Great point and the truth. We might or might not be the total cause of global warming, but we damn sure aren't helping the situation. (BTW, I just read in the NYT today that neither is the Kyoto Protocol. It has allowed Iceland to INCREASE it's CO output because their air is so pure. Great job on keeping your air clean! Now, go ahead and f*** it up a bit more...) I think we look at global warming in a wrong light. We need to stop worrying about "what we're doing to the planet" and put it one a more threatening level of "what the planet is going to do to us." We could trash the entire ozone and this rock will still be rotating the sun and, being as resiliant and evolutionary as it is, it will very likely come back. However, will we survive or be turned into oil (YAY!) for future generations like the dinosaurs were? I almost hope that there is a severe energy crisis again. Unfortunately, that's what it seems to take for us to get our asses in gear to make changes. My Fire Chief, one of the smartest men I've known, took a different approach at getting people to stop screwing up. If guys had an accident with the truck that proved to be avoidable, he didn't just chastise them (it didn't work), he'd send them home for 3 shifts without pay. Losing over $1k on a single paycheck is a quick way to get someone to think about the consequences of their actions. Paying over $3 a gallon got us to think more about hybrids and less about SUVs. Unfortunately, we have a short memory..."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]I almost hope that there is a severe energy crisis again. Unfortunately, that's what it seems to take for us to get our asses in gear to make changes. [/QUOTE] Yep. Money is the great motivator. Notice how we now have all this interest in alternative fuels? It seems that you can tell people about the end of the world all day long and they don't care, but as soon as you begin to touch their wallets, those collective gears in society's mind start turning, and action is taken. Silly people. I was glad when oil ran up. If oil had hit $120, we'd probably have a bill for nationwide comprehensive energy reform (that was worth a damn) being passed through Congress right now. The momentum would have been spectacular, probably only a step or two from everyone joining hands and singing 'Kumbaya'. While oil was rising, I was wondering what the hell OPEC was thinking, because an obvious consequence of increasing oil prices is increasing interest in alternative fuels, which, in the long run, shortens the amount of time they can wield their power over the rest of the world, and collect those fat paychecks for nothing. I have no idea if they're just short sighted, or if they know the end is nigh and they just decided to 'get while the gettin's good'. I hope that they are dumb enough to let oil prices rise again, but I'm betting that they aren't, which is why I don't own any oil stocks right now. We'll see."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Yep. Money is the great motivator. Notice how we now have all this interest in alternative fuels? It seems that you can tell people about the end of the world all day long and they don't care, but as soon as you begin to touch their wallets, those collective gears in society's mind start turning, and action is taken. Silly people. I was glad when oil ran up. If oil had hit $120, we'd probably have a bill for nationwide comprehensive energy reform (that was worth a damn) being passed through Congress right now. The momentum would have been spectacular, probably only a step or two from everyone joining hands and singing 'Kumbaya'. While oil was rising, I was wondering what the hell OPEC was thinking, because an obvious consequence of increasing oil prices is increasing interest in alternative fuels, which, in the long run, shortens the amount of time they can wield their power over the rest of the world, and collect those fat paychecks for nothing. I have no idea if they're just short sighted, or if they know the end is nigh and they just decided to 'get while the gettin's good'. I hope that they are dumb enough to let oil prices rise again, but I'm betting that they aren't, which is why I don't own any oil stocks right now. We'll see.[/QUOTE] Japan thinks oil is stablized. You can tell by all the japanese pickup trucks that were advertized on the Superbowl last night. Only the Korian KIA came in and bragged fuel efficiency."

FirefighterB said: "[QUOTE=Harry]Japan thinks oil is stablized. You can tell by all the japanese pickup trucks that were advertized on the Superbowl last night.[/QUOTE] Speaking of which, if I ever decide that I'd rather be flipping OPEC and mother nature the bird, that new Toyota is looking pretty mean. 381 hp, 401 ft. lbs, 6 speed tranny, all the other crap they talk about on the commercials. Daddy like. The truck is solid and, if they end up taking off in NASCAR and getting into the hearts of the faithful, they really might have a chance of breaking into the American truck market."

thezster said: "I'll just say.... If I were in the market for a pickup truck.... I'd probably buy that one..."

AlfredSokol said: "If you liked "An Inconvenient Truth" you will probably love "Who Killed The Electric Car"? It was Big Oil and GM (Sorry to spoil it) ;)"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]If you liked "An Inconvenient Truth" you will probably love "Who Killed The Electric Car"? It was Big Oil and GM (Sorry to spoil it) ;)[/QUOTE] It's already in my Netflix queue. :th_dblthumb2:"

SporeMonger said: "A note on energy stocks. They look great to trade, being recycled every 4 months or so. Especially oil. Now that I wrote it... the cycle will be broken... Are we in the Matrix? Is the market fixed? Am I being watched?? :signs053:"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=SporeMonger]A note on energy stocks. They look great to trade, being recycled every 4 months or so. Especially oil. [/QUOTE] So true...very volitile. The Saudi's are cutting production...the Iranians are dumping oil into the market. They're still having trouble with that rickety Alaskan pipeline. Low gas prices haven't catch up with some of the earning momentum yet. I think the summer driving season will inspire a homhum rally. PS: The drillers are STILL where it's at."

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=Harry]So true...very volitile. The Saudi's are cutting production...the Iranians are dumping oil into the market. They're still having trouble with that rickety Alaskan pipeline. Low gas prices haven't catch up with some of the earning momentum yet. I think the summer driving season will inspire a homhum rally. PS: The drillers are STILL where it's at.[/QUOTE] IMHO, the energy sector will keep going up in value, over months and years. So far, I am just interested in the cyclical aspect of the trades. You're not an agent are you? :shoot: :eek: P.S. I agree on the drillers..."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=SporeMonger]IMHO, the energy sector will keep going up in value, over months and years. So far, I am just interested in the cyclical aspect of the trades. You're not an agent are you? :shoot: :eek: P.S. I agree on the drillers...[/QUOTE] In years I agree...just not this year. Don't forget that HUGE reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that hasn't even been tapped for production yet. I can't imagine CRUDE even touching $70 with a temporary spike. I still see the ($50-60 range) Beware, aside from drillers all the other may be now reporting the BEST earnings...their peaks."

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=Harry]In years I agree...just not this year. Don't forget that HUGE reserve in the Gulf of Mexico that hasn't even been tapped for production yet. I can't imagine CRUDE even touching $70 with a temporary spike. I still see the ($50-60 range) Beware, aside from drillers all the other may be now reporting the BEST earnings...their peaks.[/QUOTE] How can I forget DVN. That was the stock I chased up and lost money on when I first started trading. :banghead: Thanks for the warning on earnings Harry."

newinvestor123 said: "Any opinion on PDS, anyone?"

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]It's already in my Netflix queue. :th_dblthumb2:[/QUOTE] You won't want to buy GM stock after you watch this! :signs053:"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=Mr. Gekko]I have it on my "wish list" on Amazon. I'll probably order it soon.[/QUOTE] I finally ordered it today. I'll post my opinion after I watch it."

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=Mr. Gekko]I finally ordered it today. I'll post my opinion after I watch it.[/QUOTE] Definitely do. See if you are convinced by the argument or not."

lil dickie said: "Gore was a little boring but the idea was decent."

DorisDay said: "[QUOTE=thezster]I dunno - just think how happy all those folks in Georgia will be when they wake up to discover they own waterfront property..........:whacky011:[/QUOTE] Yippee! I'll open a SeaWorld in my backyard and y'all are invited :) On a more serious note, don't we humans have a tendency to blame ourselves when we don't have to? You know, the dark ages, angering the gods, and making sacrifices and all that? Truth is we can barely predict the weather. 30 years ago everybody thought global "freezing" was the trend, and everybody panicked that a new ice age was starting. All we know is that there are cycles, but we don't fully comprehend them. Do I think we should take the blame for deforestation? Yes, 100%. Do I think we are responsible for the extinction of certain animal species? Yes, a million times yes. Pollution, yes... but changing the weather? To me that sounds about as rational as saying we can help tectonic plates migrate faster... Push people, push! And watch out, we might just anger Zeus again! :banghead:"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=DorisDay]Yippee! I'll open a SeaWorld in my backyard and y'all are invited :) On a more serious note, don't we humans have a tendency to blame ourselves when we don't have to? You know, the dark ages, angering the gods, and making sacrifices and all that? Truth is we can barely predict the weather. 30 years ago everybody thought global "freezing" was the trend, and everybody panicked that a new ice age was starting. All we know is that there are cycles, but we don't fully comprehend them. Do I think we should take the blame for deforestation? Yes, 100%. Do I think we are responsible for the extinction of certain animal species? Yes, a million times yes. Pollution, yes... but changing the weather? To me that sounds about as rational as saying we can help tectonic plates migrate faster... Push people, push! And watch out, we might just anger Zeus again! :banghead:[/QUOTE] You make some valid points Doris. What we [B]know[/B] is that there is shift in global temps. We also [B]know[/B] that CO2 is bad. What is still [B]rationally debatable[/B] is whether the two are connected. That said, trying to reduce carbon emissions can only have good results. Less of a bad thing is always good. :th_dblthumb2:"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]Definitely do. See if you are convinced by the argument or not.[/QUOTE] It's on its way as of Saturday evening. :)"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=thezster]I dunno - just think how happy all those folks in Georgia will be when they wake up to discover they own waterfront property..........:whacky011:[/QUOTE] Hopefully the traders at the NYSE will enjoy wearing scuba gear to work."

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=Mr. Gekko]I finally ordered it today. I'll post my opinion after I watch it.[/QUOTE] Well, I received the DVD the other day and watched it with my parents last night over dinner. First, let me say that I didn't sense any political bias in the film. I was on the look out for it during the entire thing and didn't feel any. As for the subject matter, Al brings up some very convincing arguments. Now that I've watched it, [B]I[/B] am convinced that we are the contributing factor to the current climate changes. Global warming isn't the first time we've altered atmospheric conditions. Case in point (an Al did bring this up towards the end of the movie), the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica. Scientists believed that the hole developed due to certain chemicals being released in the the atmosphere. These chemicals were banned in most parts of the world and now the Ozone has healed itself. This proves to me that we have the power to both destroy and heal our environment. We still have time to reverse the damage that we've done. Unfortunately, even though documentary isn't politically charged, it will take the right set of Washington/World/UN policy to accomplish what needs to be done. For our sakes (and more importantly, our children's') I hope action is taken soon."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=Mr. Gekko] ....it will take the right set of Washington/World/UN policy to accomplish what needs to be done. For our sakes (and more importantly, our children's') I hope action is taken soon.[/QUOTE] The IPCC report is spurring countries worldwide into action. It provides a foundation for the argument that global warming is at least being contributed to by humanity. It was certainly about time for something like that."

FirefighterB said: "Good to hear that you enjoyed the movie and that you didn't find it politically biased. I have not seen it myself, yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully it can help spur some change. I honestly think we're getting there. It will still take a little while longer, however, I honestly believe that, as a society, we're awakening to the woes of our current lifestyle. Over the past few years, changes have accelerated in the fields of health, environmental protection, and energy and new ideas have come to fruition much quicker in the previous years. There may be hope for us yet when it comes to saving this planet... Barring the chance that we beat the planet to the punch and decide of kill ourselves off with more conventional methods"

FirefighterB said: "On another note, I just heard on Bloomberg that Gore won an Oscar for AIC last night. That should help nicely, however, they also said fund managers have pulled out of alternative energy investments pretty heavily."

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Barring the chance that we beat the planet to the punch and decide of kill ourselves off with more conventional methods[/QUOTE] That's pretty funny B. [QUOTE=FirefighterB]On another note, I just heard on Bloomberg that Gore won an Oscar for AIC last night. That should help nicely, however, they also said fund managers have pulled out of alternative energy investments pretty heavily.[/QUOTE] Which is why I'm thinking about putting some money in. With all the worldwide public support, the recent release of the IPCC report, subsequent government subsidies and the steadily increasing price of oil, I think solid alternative energy plays as a whole are likely to be winners in the long term."

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]The IPCC report is spurring countries worldwide into action. It provides a foundation for the argument that global warming is at least being contributed to by humanity. It was certainly about time for something like that.[/QUOTE] Excellent news! :th_dblthumb2:"

Mr. Gekko said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]There may be hope for us yet when it comes to saving this planet... Barring the chance that we beat the planet to the punch and decide of kill ourselves off with more conventional methods[/QUOTE] This is very true. We are an intelligent species and can solve both problems at once. I think it's a matter of "will" vs. "arrogance"."

rubyred said: "Ah yes, what a great topic full of good info. Hybrids, dont make sense financially, so realistically people buy them to reduce pollution or use them as convienences such as carpool access etc. Problem is, what about 10-15 years down the line when the downside of hybrids starts taking effect. Their engines are turned on and off more, which will make them wear out faster. Their batteries wont last forever. When the batteries do go bad, people will take them in for new batteries, then will realize why they paid so much in the beginning for their hybrid, batteries are expensive. so what you are left with is a heavy hybrid thats running on gas only, not just a normal engine, but a underpowered, worn out 3 cylinder. Probably will fail smog, and then you got to dispose of the batteries. Theres been water powered cars made back in the first oil crisis. One guy died mysteriously from food poisioning. But theres an automotive xprize happening soon. Not sure if you remember the space xprize."

FirefighterB said: "Great points, Ruby. It is pretty amazing how tend to forget about things like that. Sure, a nuclear power plant is a much cleaner and, um, "safer" power source. However, figuring out to do with the reactor waste and, oh yeah, MELTDOWN are a couple things that are a little bit of a problem. Electric cars were a valid idea, yet is it really better if we're charging them with electricity made from the coal plant belching out noxious gases? How about hydroelectric power? Using nature's power in a clean way. Whoops, we flooded a few towns and dried up (or in California, made a rather toxic) a body of water. I also agree, while feeling a bit "conspiracy theorist" about it, that those in power and those paying for those to be in power definitely help keep some forward progress that might impede their increasing revenues under wraps. We are an ingenious people and can do some amazing things when we need to. I find it hard to believe that we can't or haven't come up with some better ways."

SporeMonger said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]Great points, Ruby. It is pretty amazing how tend to forget about things like that. Sure, a nuclear power plant is a much cleaner and, um, "safer" power source. However, figuring out to do with the reactor waste and, oh yeah, MELTDOWN are a couple things that are a little bit of a problem. Electric cars were a valid idea, yet is it really better if we're charging them with electricity made from the coal plant belching out noxious gases? How about hydroelectric power? Using nature's power in a clean way. Whoops, we flooded a few towns and dried up (or in California, made a rather toxic) a body of water. I also agree, while feeling a bit "conspiracy theorist" about it, that those in power and those paying for those to be in power definitely help keep some forward progress that might impede their increasing revenues under wraps. We are an ingenious people and can do some amazing things when we need to. I find it hard to believe that we can't or haven't come up with some better ways.[/QUOTE] Now and then, people from the government put their reputation aside and come forward about certain things: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/od_afp/canadaenvironmentkyoto;_ylt=Ar_zZTvOegmdUmxocP_r.J8DW7oF[/url] Things that make you go hmm..."

FirefighterB said: "Now, I am a believer that we aren't the only rock with some brains on it in this neighborhood we call a universe and that, it's very likely, that we might have had a visitor or two in humaniod, or microbial, form that has affected us in some way. However, I had to check the address on this article, and do a double take on that picture they have in there, to make sure this wasn't a joke. HAHAHA. I'm not being sarcastic or an asshole, Spore, because I believe we might know about our visitors or have a few of their toys, but I didn't think that article was real. Espeically when I saw the guy was 83 years old. He might have forgotten his Ensure and Ginkoba before that interview."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=rubyred]Ah yes, what a great topic full of good info. Hybrids, dont make sense financially, so realistically people buy them to reduce pollution or use them as convienences such as carpool access etc. Problem is, what about 10-15 years down the line when the downside of hybrids starts taking effect. Their engines are turned on and off more, which will make them wear out faster. Their batteries wont last forever. When the batteries do go bad, people will take them in for new batteries, then will realize why they paid so much in the beginning for their hybrid, batteries are expensive. so what you are left with is a heavy hybrid thats running on gas only, not just a normal engine, but a underpowered, worn out 3 cylinder. Probably will fail smog, and then you got to dispose of the batteries. [/QUOTE] WOW, listen to Mr positive. :th_coolio: Hybrids don't make sense financially??? You're math is fuzzy. Ya gotta look at the broader picture. I bought my Toyota Prius in 2002. My exwife brought one too. I have 60,000 miles on mine. Aside from the free oil changes and occasional routine service checks, the car runs like a dream. I've NEVER had a break job and purchased new tires only once last summer. Back in 2002 there was talk about a potential war in Iraq and I thought it might be a good idea to get these cars. The hyybrid system probably cost an extra 5K, but 2K of that was a tax write-off back then. Gas has been over $3.00 here in NJ since. It seems to be creeping up around $2.35 now at the cheaper stations. I've never paid $50 to $100 to fill it up like many around me...and it goes a heck of a lot further. The most I paid to fill up was $30 when gas was $3.00. And that got me 450-500 miles of travel. From a household budget point of view the car is a dream. The warrenty on the battery expires in 2 years. After that I would need to pay to replace it...but ya know, if the battery actually died it might actually be practical over buying new. As a respiratory therpaist I like the fact that I drive an almost emissions free car. I hate driving behind trucks and buses and smelling the soot. Relatively speaking, the combination of time and exposure to soot is slowly thating time off the ends of your life. Toyota quality isn't perfect, but it seems to at least match the best there is out there. At 46, I luved my Cadillacs, Lincolns, Olds, JEEPS, and Caprices that I've owned. But those days are gone forever without the advent of newer engine designs and fuel innovations to keep us a car culture. Bottom line, I work hard for my money. I ain't giving it all to the guy at the gas station."

Heather said: "Today Yahoo had more news that [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/pollution_storms"]pollution isn't helping the planet.[/URL] All of these chemicals that have been unleashed over the past 50 years can't be helping the environment.."

rubyred said: "Hey Harry, im sorry if i came off negative, it was not my intent. I should have mentioned the prius and maybe the insight(though resale isnt nearly as good as the prius) is the only hybrid i know about that somewhat makes sense. I am talking about honda civic hybrids and ford escape hybrids etc when i say they dont make sense other than for environmental reasons. Edmunds did a good article that you might find interesting. [url]http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/article.html[/url]"

AlfredSokol said: "Give consumers a[B] real choice[/B] and they'll buy hybrids. But only if the car is good."

rubyred said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]Give consumers a[B] real choice[/B] and they'll buy hybrids. But only if the car is good.[/QUOTE] care to explain?"

AlfredSokol said: "[QUOTE=rubyred]care to explain?[/QUOTE] Give consumers a choice. If they have to overpay for hybrids, they wont. If they can get a decent car with decent features and it happens to be a hybrid, theyll buy it. But many of these cars lack features."

rubyred said: "[QUOTE=AlfredSokol]Give consumers a choice. If they have to overpay for hybrids, they wont. If they can get a decent car with decent features and it happens to be a hybrid, theyll buy it. But many of these cars lack features.[/QUOTE] Problem is you are buying a more complex car with more parts and accessories that are needed to make it a hybrid, a higher price comes with that. I think the opposite, dont give consumers a choice, if you want them to buy hybrids, completely switch over, and reduce cost by making strictly hybrids. Then again i dont like todays hybrids so id be SOL. We have the technology to make efficient vehicles. Problem is consumers dont want something lame looking, yet aerodynamic, car, they want COOL and BIG. [url]http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php[/url] basically made a car that weighs 1/3 of todays cars combined with an aerodynamic body, with a modern small turbo diesel engine and accomplished amazing efficiency."

drdan said: "Since we have been having a great conversation New I thought I would dig up this old thread with a news post about NASA's administrator... You'll like this one!! OK, I like this one. [url]http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[QUOTE=drdan]Since we have been having a great conversation New I thought I would dig up this old thread with a news post about NASA's administrator... You'll like this one!! OK, I like this one. [url]http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967[/url][/QUOTE] Whether or not we are causing global warming, in my opinion, is not even worth arguing about. If we are, then obviously, we should stop doing what we are doing.. If we aren't, then the result of the global warming scare will only be a cleaner environment. The only scenario in which we can lose anything is the one in which we ARE causing global warming and we DON'T do anything about it. If this scenario were allowed to be played out, we would lose OURSELVES. Our entire species, or at least a very large part of it, along with the majority of other life on earth would be destroyed. Therefore, since the evidence for either side of the argument is inconclusive, should we just sit around and wait for conclusive evidence to surface? What if, by the time the evidence does become available to quash the argument, it says that yes, we are causing global warming? How long would it take that minority of scientists to sate their desire to be absolutely sure before taking any action? Let's take, for example, the last global temperature change, which was roughly 6k-10k years ago. (I am going on memory, feel free to correct me if my figures are incorrect) The range of temperatures were approximately 10-12 degrees F higher than they are now. What would the current anti-global warming scientists have us do? Wait until the earth warms 15 or 20 degrees before saying we should do something about it? Does anyone else see the folly in that line of reasoning, or is it just me? We, as a species (and especially as Americans), simply cannot continue to live the same way that we are today. The amount of air, land, and water resources on the earth are finite. It's not hard to understand that the millions of tons of noxious and toxic gases that we constantly pump into the environment are affecting it, and even if they are not contributing to global warming even one bit (which is almost certainly not the case), then they are undoubtedly causing other detrimental effects - Effects which we may not even be able to measure. We certainly don't know everything about the workings of our environment, as is evident to anyone who has ever relied on a 5 day weather forecast to plan their week. Who can say, with certainty, that our actions are not affecting the planet? No one, at least not truthfully. The global ecosystem is a marvelously complex system, one in which a tremendous number of variables come into play. By continuously pumping chemicals into the air and sea, and destroying vast tracts of vegetation for our own ends, we are changing the equation. No one can predict just how much we are changing it, but it is clear to most people that the effects are, and will continue to be, negative, and the longer we continue on this course of action, the more the equation changes. Adding fuel to the fire is the worldwide population explosion. The world's population is growing exponentially - It is going parabolic, and as healthcare progresses and becomes available to traditionally third world countries, more children will survive to become adults, and more adults will live longer lives. More people require more resources and pump out more pollution. Is it prudent to ignore the effects of humanity on the earth? I think not - Because as time goes on, we are only going to affect it more. We must proactively begin adopting new technologies to counter this, lest we find ourselves at the apocalyptic "tipping point," that many scientists believe we are approaching, without sufficient technology to keep ourselves from going over. I personally believe that we are in the beginning phase of a cyclical temperature upswing, and that we are contributing to the increase through CO2 emissions. How much we are contributing, or whether we are even contributing at all is yet to be seen, however, I am thankful that scientists and beauracrats are being proactive in solving the problem NOW, instead of waiting until every last scientist agrees with them. I do not think it is prudent to wait for incontrovertible evidence that we are contributing to begin doing something about it. That stance simply makes no sense to me... At all. Fundamentally, the Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, and as has already been seen with the Ozone layer and CFC's, our actions CAN have serious effects on our environment."

drdan said: "Wow where do I start? I will start with your last statement because it does sum up the entire argument. [quote=newinvestor123]Fundamentally, the Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, and as has already been seen with the Ozone layer and CFC's, our actions CAN have serious effects on our environment.[/quote] No it is not fundamentally sound, that is what is being argued and to say that our actions, which are miniscual in comparison to some of the natural occurences on this planet, are causing serious effects on our environment is giving humans entirely too much power. You said it yourself we can not even begin to predict the 5 day forecast, how can we even be sure we are adjusting the climate? So, you want to change the entire way we live, you want to alter the way business is done, destroy certain industries and people's livelihoods based on a hypothesis and fear. Lets bring this into the stock market world...do you base your stock choices, entering and exiting based on fear? I hope not if you do just give your money to me instead. :) You wouldn't base a decision on fear and yet here you are pandering to an environmentalists fear based propaganda that humans are destroying the world and that because the US drives the most cars per capita and now the new China has a lot of factories we should shut down capitalism because it is destroying the world. Do not get me wrong I am all for a cleaner environment. I just do not think we need to making radical changes to our entire culture based on a hypothesis that is being pushed forward on a Chicken Little story. So do I need more evidence that this is occurring...YES. Go back and read your last post New and read it like you were going to choose a stock you might scare yourself at how you are thinking.:th_coolio:"

Aligator said: "I am of the opinion that humans have not caused global warming, and the earth mechanisms that regulate temperature will reverse things in short order. I believe what the press (and Al Gore) is doing is like looking at the temperature rise between 8 AM and 11 AM, then calculating what the temperature will be by 3 PM........:whacky011: Holy Crap! At this rate it's gonna be 127 degrees! We're all gonna die! (unless you vote for me):)"

FirefighterB said: "I believe we are trashing this planet and, through our toxic pump and dumps and excessive population growth, we're going to be in trouble if we don't adapt. What was the movie that talked about us being parasites? Anyway, although I definitely think we need to do what we can to be more symbiotic with this planet, I TRULY don't believe that it matters in the long run. (Just my opinion here...for all of you non-evolution believers). We are but a blip on the radar that is the timeframe of this planet. If you look at most of those years, most weren't pretty, life-forming years. The ones that were sustaining of life (millions of years, at times) were abruptly ended by a catastrophe above our pay grade (eg, the close call [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event"]Tunguska, Siberia, event in 1908[/URL] that could have been a BIG problem had it disinegrated a thousand miles further west). Global warming may very well be happening. Whether we're causing it (which, I think we are definitely not helping), whether it's natural, or whether it's a combination of the two, how are we going to stop it? The climate change cycle has been happening for millions of years. Hell, it's what shaped our planet as we know it today. Anyone else remember the shallow sea over the Midwest (I have a trilobite fossil I found in my yard in Ohio to prove it), or remember that glaciers carved the Great Lakes, or that Hawaii used to not be there? Of course, we've got plenty of examples where we aren't helping things along, only to have nature finish the job. The Sahara, the used-to-be Fertile Crescent, the Mississippi Delta, etc. instantly come to mind. So, while the short term is definitely up to us, it's pretty audatious for us to think that we're going to be able to control a force that has been part of what shaped this planet's very existence. At least this time, we'll have parkas and/or boats. Take that, dinosaurs."

newinvestor123 said: "No drdan, that statement did not sum up my main point. It wasn't even close. My main point was clearly stated in my first paragraph: [QUOTE=newinvestor123]Whether or not we are causing global warming, in my opinion, is not even worth arguing about. If we are, then obviously, we should stop doing what we are doing.. If we aren't, then the result of the global warming scare will only be a cleaner environment. The only scenario in which we can lose anything is the one in which we ARE causing global warming and we DON'T do anything about it.[/QUOTE] I don't think I can say it any clearer than that. I do not base my decision on fear - I base it on the simple logic stated above. If you, who are presumably an educated person, cannot understand that, then we are all in very big trouble, because it is so very simple... Hmm... Maybe I can break it down into even easier to understand pieces, and you can print them out as flash cards to help you comprehend: A. Human CO2 Output = Increased Global Warming B. Human CO2 Output = No effect on Global Warming Ignore CO2 Output, (A) is true = We destroy our own planet! Decrease CO2 Output, (A) is true = We save our planet! Ignore CO2 Output, (B) is true = Business as usual... Decrease CO2 Output, (B) is true = Cleaner Environment! Print those out on cards, read them a few times - Actually, it might take more than a few times - And realize that there is only one losing scenario in this whole business; The one in which we do nothing. Allow that to sink in for a while.... Don't be scared... It's only the truth.. Oh, as for your (truly fear based) opinion on "changing the entire way we live, altering the way business is done, and destroying certain industries and people's livelihoods..." - What crap. And you accuse ME of pandering to fear based propaganda... How hypocritical. Who said anything about a drastic change in the way we live? Most of these changes will happen independently of whether you pay attention to them or not - The switch to nuclear power will happen right under your nose, and before you know it, you'll be using E85 at the pump. Car makers will increase the octane rating of their engines, and you will get no less MPG than you would with gasoline - And coupled with hybrid technology, you'll probably get far more. Before long, the option to integrate solar panels onto your roof will be as commonplace as deciding between brick or vinyl siding, and after your energy storage device (batteries, flywheels, hydrogen, whatever) has become full, you will be able to sell that energy BACK to the energy company. There will be no huge difference between a futuristic low carbon footprint society and the one we have now. We will maintain our comforts, and probably even increase them. To think otherwise is preposterous. Do you think people would REALLY get behind alternative energy if they had to give up anything BIG? Nonsense... The losses from the oil and coal industries, which have become highly efficient from a century of growth (e.g. they use less people to do more work) will be absorbed into the alternative energy industry. People will not have to "change the entire way we live" or any other such nonsense. Awww.... Was that the only negative factor you could come up with against reducing our CO2 output? So sad... If you want to continue this debate, present some facts backing your point up, instead of conjecture, and I will attempt to refute them. Otherwise, find another target for your insulting accusations of "pandering." I never pander to anyone, nor are my opinions based on anything other than logic. The simple fact is that whether we are contributing to global warming is debatable, but the logic stated above is not. It is clear, concise, simple, and true. In my opinion, it isn't likely that ANYONE in my lifetime is going to definitively prove that we are or are not contributing to global warming, and it does not make much sense to me to ignore the possibility of a cliff while debating whether it is there or not. Until someone proves or disproves the theory, it is prudent to assume the cliff is there, and begin steering ourselves away from it."

drdan said: "I apologized to New for offending him privately, so I am not even going to address that issue here except to say publically New I am sorry for offending you. Now back to the discussion at hand... OK I disagree with the "support" of your main point which can be summed up by your final statement that "our actions CAN have serious effects on our environment." That has not been proven AT ALL and is still hypothetical. So your entire argument is supported based on fear. You are willing to pass legislation and change the way people conduct their business for something that has yet to be proven will make any difference at all? Follow this logic... How can we change the environment by changing our actions if our actions are not changing the environment to begin with? It makes no sense. Like with your flashcard example the big problem I have is with the last one (Decrease CO2 Output, (B) is true = Cleaner Environment!) - it isn't true! Or at least it has not been proven to be true. Is there global warming? Yes. Are we causing it - that is the argument, or more specifically do our actions such as driving a fossil fueled car affect the environment. Locally probably, globally - I have my beliefs and you have yours. The major problem I have is being told that I have to change based on something that may not even be true and then having an entire group of people (environmentalists) use fear based tactics to try and force the change. My opinion is to let the marketplace determine what should be changed. If enough people want it then it will happen. There will be a demand. It is happening now, it is based on peoples desires not on their fears (well maybe their fears are driving their desires, but that is beside the point). My cousin drives an electric car, why because he wants to do his duty in keeping a cleaner environment; BS he is doing it because gas is over $3.00 a gallon! But there are other people who do for a variety of reasons and there are others who want to drive their fossil fueled HumVees. It is their choice, their freedom to do so and I do not think that anyone else has the right to tell the person in the HumVee I am sorry you have to drive an electric car because we think that maybe you are contributing to global warming. Kyoto and other legislation that dictates or forces change is very un-American. It spits in the face of capitalism and the free market. I understand that in certain instances to maintain a decent world that it must be done, ie blacks having the right to vote, women having the right to do anything and everything men are allowed, labor laws affecting the sweatshops. However this is a forced changed that does not have a direct correlation to anything bad. It is based on the fear that it might be happening. THAT is THE negative factor in reducing CO2 output. Movies like An Inconvenient Truth are propaganda to support the continuation of the disastrous effects of global warming that in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists around the world is just not been proven to be true. New we may have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. I brought it back up and now I am regretting it :laugh: My point with my first post bringing this back up was in answer to your question about what I thought about the scientific consensus on the global warming summit. I did not have an answer with proof to back it up. 3 months later I did. There is no scientific consensus. If we reduce CO2 output by the marketplace, fine the world is a constantly changing place. Will I be driving an E85 car, sure if they up the octane rating absolutely I could have my personal Alcohol Funny Car in my driveway ... those are not my concerns. My concern is the trampling of freedom and the forced change of peoples lives and livelihoods. And that is not hypocritical or fear based, it has been proven over and over again that changes from legislation have drastic effects on people's lives. Prohibition comes to mind in a more tangible way and recently the Patriot Act in a more subtle way, just two of the big ones."

Harry said: "newinvestor123 wrote... [quote] Ignore CO2 Output, (A) is true = We destroy our own planet! Decrease CO2 Output, (A) is true = We save our planet! [quote] That's grossly exaggerated...and sooo overly simplified is downright propagandist. Based on known science mankind "may have" or "may be" contributing to naturally occuring cyclic global warming. And whether man pushed this process along may be a mute point anyway. The dominoes have fallen. Exponential polar melting is occuring period. I doubt that if we turned off every engine and capped every chimney that it would make a bit difference. And please consider my view as IMPARTIAL. Consider our would's differences. Mankind like to take sides beit science or religion. No I don't believe the world if flat. No I don't believe is one God over another. No I don't believe that the solar irradiant cycles that affacts both Earth and Mars can be controlled by man. At the same time I merely praise anyone for making our water and air purer for the sake of our survival. But judging how nations are behaving towards each other, I see us as screwed. :th_coolio:"

roarflolo said: "Maybe you guys should read some of the articles here [url]http://www.realclimate.org[/url], written by real scientists [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10[/url]. I haven't read this entire thread but I saw someone mention warming on Mars which is addressed here: [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/[/url] Al Gore's movie is addressed here [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299[/url] and they do point out scientific errors in the movie so it's not a total fan-fest. CO2 lagging temperature: [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13[/url] And tons of other articles, references are always provided which is almost always lacking in main-stream-media articles. There's a good search function too so you can look up specific questions you wonder about and if you still can't find it the authors are pretty good at answering e-mails."

drdan said: "[QUOTE=roarflolo]Maybe you guys should read some of the articles here [url]http://www.realclimate.org[/url], written by real scientists [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10[/url]. I haven't read this entire thread but I saw someone mention warming on Mars which is addressed here: [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/[/url] Al Gore's movie is addressed here [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299[/url] and they do point out scientific errors in the movie so it's not a total fan-fest. CO2 lagging temperature: [url]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13[/url] And tons of other articles, references are always provided which is almost always lacking in main-stream-media articles. There's a good search function too so you can look up specific questions you wonder about and if you still can't find it the authors are pretty good at answering e-mails.[/QUOTE] OK I am containing my laughter, not at you ROAR, at realclimate being unbiased. RealClimate.org says they are impartial and non-political. Well....Do a whois lookup and you will find that the owner of the domain name is Environmental Media Services. Now you ask who is Environmental Media Services? Well... It is the communications department of the left wing public relations firm Fenton Communications. Un-biased my ass! Heres a nice article about them... [url]http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Yeah, drdan and I worked it out - I overreacted, and he promises not to accuse me of pandering anymore. :laugh: [QUOTE=drdan]OK I disagree with the "support" of your main point which can be summed up by your final statement that "our actions CAN have serious effects on our environment." That has not been proven AT ALL and is still hypothetical. So your entire argument is supported based on fear. You are willing to pass legislation and change the way people conduct their business for something that has yet to be proven will make any difference at all?[/QUOTE] First, our actions CAN have SERIOUS effects on our environment. This is not a theory, it is both common sense and proven fact. To think otherwise is to ignore reality. Here are a few examples, and I can find many more: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion[/url] [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/06/OCEANS.TMP[/url] [url]http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest#Deforestation[/url] Now, I assume you were referring to the Greenhouse Gas Theory. Yes, that is a theory, but as I said before, the original Greenhouse Gas theory IS widely accepted, and HAS been for quite a while. Fundamentally, the theory IS sound. Just because something is a theory DOES NOT mean that it isn't true. I assume you are disputing the Enhanced Greenhouse Gas Theory, because if you're disputing that greenhouse gases trap heat, you're among a few crackpots on the fringe of science. Sure, sometimes the crackpots are right, but those occastions are the exception, and are very rare. There IS a consensus on Global Warming, and the consensus IS that humanity is contributing to it. [QUOTE=drdan]Follow this logic... How can we change the environment by changing our actions if our actions are not changing the environment to begin with? It makes no sense. Like with your flashcard example the big problem I have is with the last one (Decrease CO2 Output, (B) is true = Cleaner Environment!) - it isn't true! Or at least it has not been proven to be true.[/QUOTE] drdan, you are not following me here... You obviously didn't allow the truth of my flash card logic to sink in. I really don't want to explain it again, but I guess I will give it one more shot... You are assuming that, because something has not been proven, that it is not true. However, the consensus (yes, there is a consensus - A consensus is a MAJORITY) and common sense say that it IS true - Yet you want to wait for definitive proof that it is not. Quite frankly, that proof will probably never come, and if the world's decisions were made according to this grossly fallacious line of thinking, we could all be saying "I'm not changing anything, because it was never proven!" While everything goes awry all around us. Once again, this is not "fear based logic" or anything of the sort - It is a simple hypothetical cause/effect scenario with four basic outcomes. Only one outcome is bad, and the only variable which we can control is whether we are going to continue pumping out these greenhouse gases or not. Ugh.. I can't keep explaining this simple concept... You guys are going to have to get over your urge to tell the rest of the world that "I'm right, and you're wrong!..." [QUOTE=drdan]Is there global warming? Yes. Are we causing it - that is the argument, or more specifically do our actions such as driving a fossil fueled car affect the environment. Locally probably, globally - I have my beliefs and you have yours. The major problem I have is being told that I have to change based on something that may not even be true and then having an entire group of people (environmentalists) use fear based tactics to try and force the change. My opinion is to let the marketplace determine what should be changed. If enough people want it then it will happen. There will be a demand. It is happening now, it is based on peoples desires not on their fears (well maybe their fears are driving their desires, but that is beside the point). My cousin drives an electric car, why because he wants to do his duty in keeping a cleaner environment; BS he is doing it because gas is over $3.00 a gallon! But there are other people who do for a variety of reasons and there are others who want to drive their fossil fueled HumVees. It is their choice, their freedom to do so and I do not think that anyone else has the right to tell the person in the HumVee I am sorry you have to drive an electric car because we think that maybe you are contributing to global warming.[/QUOTE] Personally, I think people who drive Humvees are assholes, mostly because they endanger others on the road, partly because they use a shitload of gas, and partly because Humvee drivers just tend to be assholes. Have you ever seen the aftermath of a large SUV or truck vs an average sized sedan? It's not pretty... But then it comes down to the chicken or the egg debate - "They have one, so I have to get one too, so I'm safe if we get in an accident." That's why I wouldn't mind it if ALL large SUV's were outlawed. The free market is very efficient in providing what PEOPLE WANT, which is not always congruous with WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOOD FOR SOCIETY. The problem with relying on the free market to solve everything is that people are notoriously short sighted and selfish, and will almost always do what benefits them first and foremost. That said, yes, your cousin is probably saving a bit at the pump now. I was so glad when I saw gas prices jump over the past few years, and I would be ecstatic if they shot up to $10/gallon. The only way to get Americans to pay attention, to quit using so much gas, to stop driving their 12MPG SUV to the grocery store for a gallon of milk, is to affect their pockets. That's the bottom line, and in that regard, the free market is a great thing. Indeed, Daimler Chrysler has plans to introduce their SMART car, which is hugely popular in Europe (and gets 50 MPG), to the US soon, and I'm sure that as long as gas is expensive, other carmakers will continue to introduce high mpg cars. Will they sell well? I don't know... We have far more SUV's on the road than any other country in the world, mostly because our gasoline has been, and still is, relatively cheap. Not many people want to drive around a shoebox, especially when they must share the roads with something that could obliterate them in a 30 mph crash. As long as gasoline prices keep rising, however, the overall shift to smaller cars will be inevitable. As an aside, did you know that the original Model T got 25 MPG? Know what the US average is now? 21... 80 years of technological advancement, and in terms of efficiency, we're going backwards. Who does this benefit? Of course - The oil and refinery companies... [QUOTE=drdan]Kyoto and other legislation that dictates or forces change is very un-American. It spits in the face of capitalism and the free market. I understand that in certain instances to maintain a decent world that it must be done, ie blacks having the right to vote, women having the right to do anything and everything men are allowed, labor laws affecting the sweatshops. However this is a forced changed that does not have a direct correlation to anything bad. It is based on the fear that it might be happening. THAT is THE negative factor in reducing CO2 output. Movies like An Inconvenient Truth are propaganda to support the continuation of the disastrous effects of global warming that in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists around the world is just not been proven to be true.[/QUOTE] Hogwash. Environmental legislation produces the standards, and hopefully, they allow the free market to find the way to meet them. THAT is the most efficient way to producing less pollution. And I won't even comment on your propaganda this, fear mongering that bullshit."

newinvestor123 said: "Damn 10k character limit - This is the end of my last post: [QUOTE=drdan]New we may have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. I brought it back up and now I am regretting it My point with my first post bringing this back up was in answer to your question about what I thought about the scientific consensus on the global warming summit. I did not have an answer with proof to back it up. 3 months later I did. There is no scientific consensus. If we reduce CO2 output by the marketplace, fine the world is a constantly changing place. Will I be driving an E85 car, sure if they up the octane rating absolutely I could have my personal Alcohol Funny Car in my driveway ... those are not my concerns. My concern is the trampling of freedom and the forced change of peoples lives and livelihoods. And that is not hypocritical or fear based, it has been proven over and over again that changes from legislation have drastic effects on people's lives. Prohibition comes to mind in a more tangible way and recently the Patriot Act in a more subtle way, just two of the big ones.[/QUOTE] Well drdan, I don't think we should end the conversation, at least not until I have converted you to the light side. :th_dblthumb2: You're concerned with the trampling of freedom? Hey, so am I! The difference is that I would GLADLY give up a few creature comforts to keep humanity from becoming "a virus" (From Mr. Smith's spiel in The Matrix, FF) and destroying our beautiful earth. Unfortunately, most people think along the same lines as you, or worse - They are either overly skeptical and want proof before a change, or they believe humans are contributing to global warming and STILL don't change anything. (Short sighted and selfish, indeed) I think that both standpoints are based on selfishness, as it is clearly evident that we CAN affect our environment in many ways. I think that some people just like to stand outside the crowd, point their fingers, and say "I'm right and you're wrong, na na na na na..." They seem to think that they are smarter for seeing "the truth", while everyone else chooses to reside inside their "bubble of ignorance." Also, all this crap about people's belief that we can affect the earth being nothing more than "self importance" is.... just... ridiculous... People who subscribe to that line of thought are ignoring the evidence based on THEIR OWN ASSUMPTIONS of human nature.... Which is so incredibly stupid that it sickens me. The Earth is a FINITE thing. There is only so much water, air, and land. Although it is A LOT of water, air, and land, we are pumping out A LOT of pollution into this water, air, and land. Yes, there have been cycles in the past, but those cycles were independent of US. Yes, the Earth has it's own compensation mechanisms for changes, but ON A GEOLOGICAL TIMESCALE, WE ARE PUTTING OUT MORE POLLUTION IN A SHORT TIME THAN THE EARTH CAN COMPENSATE FOR. It simply cannot keep up... It's mechanisms have evolved over billions of years, and they compensate in the LONG TERM. If, AND I REPEAT "IF" we are wiped out, an the earth becomes a wasteland of pollution, I have no doubt in my mind that it would be able to recover... EVENTUALLY."

drdan said: "The problem is science is not a consensus otherwise it would not be science. Science is specifically a hypothesis, objectives, testing, results. I do not see in there well we all believe that the hypothesis is true so lets act on that hypothesis. So I ask again, do you really want to enact legislation on a hypothesis? (I know you answered it as a resounding yes in your last post, I am just using this rhetorical question as effect) If this is the case then it doesn't matter what I argue. I feel it is a hypothesis that has not been proven so should not be acted upon. I am getting from you that you feel it has been proven enough for you to pass legislation to force the industries to change based on fear that you might be right. Now in my defense of my logic and of my common sense. I have said this before and somewhere in this long over 120 post thread there are other natural activities such as volcanoes that spew out more greenhouse gases a day than the US does in a year (I am exaggerating here but only a little) and the sun our only heat source is becoming hotter. I do understand about greenhouse gases it is what makes our atmosphere, it is what makes Venus 's surface temperature almost as hot as Mercury even though it is farther away from the sun. But humans are a small part in emitting greenhouse gas, sort of like taking a bucket of water and throwing it into a pond - it has no effect on the pond in the amount of water that it contains. That is what I am saying and NO we are not putting out more pollution in a short time than the earth can handle. The earth handles much more than we put out everyday by its own devices."

newinvestor123 said: "When the hypothesis aligns with common sense, the facts to negate it do not, and the legislation enacted would, in my opinion, only serve to give us a cleaner environment and could even save our very asses, then yes, I would be for it. I have read quite a few arguments against anthropogenic global warming, but none of the arguments present a very compelling case. If you can find one that does, I would like to read it. Volcanoes put out more CO2 than the US in a year? Even if that were true, anthropogenic emissions would still far outweigh volcanic emissions. The US, although we use a highly disproportionate amount of the world's natural resources per capita, accounts for much less than 50% of the world's CO2 output. Since the volcanic cycle has, presumably, been around for eons, to double it within the span of a hundred years might just make a difference, eh? [url]http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72[/url] You see, this just makes sense to me. If volcanoes were putting out so much CO2, then the average CO2 level SHOULD spike every time there was a major one. Only it doesn't. The chart shows a slow, steady increase, matching the worldwide rise in GDP, industrial activity, and corresponding CO2 emissions. And check out the very last sentence on page 6 of this study, carried out in 2005 by the British Geological Survey: [url]http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf[/url] One more: [url]http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html[/url] As for your "bucket and pond" analogy, you just said that if you throw a bucket of water into a pond, it has no effect on the amount of water the pond contains... I wouldn't point that out, because I don't believe you quite meant exactly that, but that's a good analogy, and indeed, if you add water to a pond, even a drop, then you obviously have MORE - The amount changes, if even by a small amount. And if you keep adding buckets, the amount keeps changing. I thought I could spruce it up a bit: You have a pond into which someone is throwing buckets of water, and you would like the pond to remain the same size. You tell him to stop, but the person throwing the water in the pond points at the sun and say "Hey guy, water evaporates!" And he keeps throwing buckets of water into the pond. You say "Hey, you're right, it does!" and you leave, thinking he can't really do any harm. The next week, you come back, your pond has grown by a few inches in diameter, and the same guy is there with the bucket, only this time, he has a friend, and they are both joyfully tossing buckets of water into the pond. You point to the increased size of the pond, and he responds by pointing to the small crick which drains the water out, saying "Hey guy, it's been like this for years! How could a few buckets of water make any difference?" You respond: "Yeah, I guess you're right - It's been here for years like this, and it DID rain pretty heavily a few days ago, and the sun hasn't been out lately..." And you decide it must be a natural thing for your pond to grow; a part of a natural cycle - After all, it's a pretty large pond, and their buckets are so small - How could they affect the pond? Maybe there's a spring under there - or something... So you leave and forget about it. Then, one day, you're walking out to your car to go to work, and you notice water all over your driveway, and it's coming from the direction of the pond! You rush over there, and what do you find? Not one, not two, but FIVE guys putting water into your pond! But they decided that, in the interest of efficiency, that buckets were too slow, so they worked together and hooked a hose up to the fire hydrant! "What in the hell are you guys doing?" You frantically ask, to which they respond: "We're putting water into this pond! You never said we couldn't!" The guys tossing buckets of water into your pond are the corporations, which will, for the most part, do whatever it takes to accomplish their objective - Make money. The pond, obviously, represents the atmosphere. Filling the pond, in the scenario, is a byproduct of... whatever the hell their motive for moving the water was. To allow them to do so without regulation, and depend on the public to make the correct decisions regarding what to buy and from whom, as far as I know, has not been tried yet. Although it would be a neat experiment to see whether the mass public would, overall, make the correct social decision, without regulations, it has yet to be seen whether that would be the case or not. Somehow, I doubt it would. In summary, I am all for emissions regulations, but the government should set the standards and allow the markets to determine just exactly which methods of limiting emissions are most efficient. [url]http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics[/url]"

drdan said: "New, you win. I am going to sell my Dodge 2500 RAM for a Toyota Prius. NOT! but I am excited to tell you that I can no longer continue this debate, not because I don't want to though. I have had a business proposition which will keep me busy writing for the next couple of weeks along with my own websites, so I am going to be off the forums for awhile. This one is really cool and I can not pass it up. But I will leave you with a couple responses - 1. Your sprucing up of my analogy is not quite what I had in mind. The bucket is analogous to the entire levels that humans are emitting and at this current time it is one bucket that bucket may be getting slightly larger except for the current legislation but it does not double, triple or quadruple like you are suggesting. It is miniscual in comparison to the entire amount. 2. I can't let you disparage one of my favorite industries with bad information. I am a car guy so you should not have brought up the Model T. :grin: Lets look at the stats of a Model T - 2.9L 4 cyl 20hp (that is not a typo it was only 20) top speed 45mph, weight 1200lbs, fuel mileage was actually between 13 and 21 from Ford. Lets look at the stats of the average car - 3.5L 6 cyl 250hp top speed over 100 mph, weight 3000lbs fuel mileage 21 mpg. We have increased hp over 100 times, almost tripled the weight and doubled the top speed. In fact on average on the highway most people go double the speed of what people driving the Model T's average speed was. In some states the Model T would not be allowed on their highways because it is too slow. I would say for gas mileage we are kicking butt to have all those improvements and keep the same mileage even with the emissions changes and the different type of fuel. Lets try to compare Apples to Apples or at least try to (there are no mass produced vehicles save for mopeds that are anywhere near 20hp anymore). Same company - Ford Focus 2.0L 4 cyl 136hp 2654 weight - fuel mileage 27/37 mpg. That is a drastic improvement in fuel mileage for a car that weighs twice as much using a smaller engine that produces over 100 more hp! Lets try the same weight and same hp in a kit car - The Centurion weighs 1200lbs, and uses a Kubota 17 hp diesel engine, maximum speed 65 mph. So OK 3 hp less but 20 mph faster - not bad but how about this - From the makers of the Centurion - "At 35 mph, Centurion delivers at 128 mpg. At 45-mph, fuel economy is 103 mpg, and at 55 mph it drops to 85 mpg. The poorest fuel economy recorded was 64 mpg, which occurred in downtown urban traffic." And that is without a turbocharger. If you turbocharged the diesel you up the horsepower and performance and improve fuel economy how about that for automotive technology! SO the Model T bites for fuel economy! Thanks again New for a great debate! Sorry I have to go for a couple of weeks."

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123] I have read quite a few arguments against anthropogenic global warming, but none of the arguments present a very compelling case. If you can find one that does, I would like to read it. [/QUOTE] I call that "wearing blinders". There's mountains of info. It's not compelling because you have fallen lock-step into one side of the issue. Propaganda is being pushed in people faces while truth goes forgotten. Man-made global warming is the flavor-of-the-day...or more specifically the cause-of-the-day. The media and the "need a cause" people fuel this wildfire of manipulated opinion. You just can't summarily discount the FACTUAL evolution of the earth's climate (with it's many ice ages and warm ages) and our relationship with our sun because it doesn't fit into your desired model for today's changes as being mankind's fault. Do you actually think that the earth's cycles will just stop in it's shoes?????? We humans being have been here for a short time. Our perception of climate has been that of a "steady state'. Now the climate burps and scientists line up for grants and politician's use the issue to position their own power grab...while they ultimately have ignorred the issues that are really important to me and you like healthcare, Instead they legislate for the corporate supporters. HISTORY IS IMPORTANT. Respect the past and understand the future. [url]http://nov55.com/gbwm.html[/url] Do your own search on "historic climate changes of the earth". Also research " solar irradiance". You'll realize today's scientific claims are wacko."

roarflolo said: "The guy is advocating intelligent design so one obviously can't trust him as a science reference, even if what he says about climate could possibly, maybe be true. At least the realclimate contributors provide proper references to real research."

newinvestor123 said: "Of course I do not think the cycles would immediately stop if mankind suddenly ceased emitting CO2... As I have said many times before in this thread, I don't know whether global warming is a wholly natural thing or wholly man made, but I suspect it's a little bit of both. I realize that throughout history, the earth's temperature has cycled. I also realize that the sun is emitting somewhat more energy right now, as it goes through cycles too... But I think that to assume that we have nothing to do with global warming because there COULD be other reasons for it is a mistake. My entire point is that the evidence for both sides of the argument is inconclusive, therefore we should exercise caution and act as if we ARE causing it, at least until we can get conclusive evidence that we are not. It is quite simple, really... Ever heard of the Council for Foreign Relations? Here's an interesting video: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoa0abqEpnk&mode=related&search=[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Hmm... apparently the sun's output doesn't have much to do with global warming, at least according to this study: [url]http://news.bbc########/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "Argh! [url]http://news.bbc.co[/url] .uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm (remove the space)"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=newinvestor123]Hmm... apparently the sun's output doesn't have much to do with global warming, at least according to this study: [url]http://news.bbc########/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm[/url][/QUOTE] Pure Bunk. Ive read the data from both camps for a couple of years right now. Every side manages to be very compelling. The industrial revolution started in1900. The cycles of warm ages and ice ages transends mankind. As ice caps melt so does the domino affect. Artic ice traps CO2 which releases into the air as it melts. Man may be a contributing force, but not a driving force. And all scientists agree, once the first domino falls the process is on it's way...there's no stopping it. It must play out. The MARs globabl warming is a "huge albatross" which is blantantly ignorred by the Global Warming maniacs. Selective statistics ain't science."

newinvestor123 said: "[URL="http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/17/arctic-ice-coverage-will-shrink-to-2050-projections-this-summer/"]Arctic sea ice to shrink to 2050 projections by... this summer?[/URL]"

FirefighterB said: "Anyone know any good boat manufacturers to invest in?"

newinvestor123 said: "Harry, are you still here? [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=15[/url]"

newinvestor123 said: "[IMG]http://www.nearingzero.net/screen_res/nz026.jpg[/IMG]"

newinvestor123 said: "Global dimming? Makes sense to me... [url]http://www.documentary-film.net/search/sample.php[/url]"

FirefighterB said: "Wow, man. Pretty good video. Could be a touch sensationalist and fatalistic, but it's definitely got some very valid points. My view is this: We have NO IDEA what exactly is going to happen. Global warming, AND global cooling, has been going on for about, oh, 4.54 BILLION years. We've been on this rock in human form for (no offense, religious folks) about 200,000 years. Hell, anyone remember [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea"]Pangea[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event"]any meteorite collision[/URL], or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age"]any ice ages[/URL]? Of course not, recorded history hasn't been around that long, so we don't know any better. However, I'd imagine that, if people understood what the hell was happening then, they probably crapped their pants then, too. We are not helping by pumping out CO2, toxic gasses, polluting the water, re-routing the waterways, etc. However, I think this planet is on autopilot, doing as it has done for the previous 4.54 billion years. We just don't "expect" things to get bad because, as far as our recordable and well known history is concerned, things have always been pretty copesetic. Change is inevitable. However, that's one of the things that makes all life, especially humans, amazing. We'll figure out how to survive and continue on. If we do go the way of the dinosaurs, then so be it. The change is inevitable. So, we should do what we can to take care of this planet and live harmoniously with the environment. However, we've also got to realize that this environment wasn't made specifically for us, so it's very possible things will not always be hunky-dory for the human race. But, for now, perhaps I should look into real estate land values in Greenland. Seems as though people are predicting much nicer weather up there...:whacky011:"

Harry said: "[QUOTE=FirefighterB]My view is this: We have NO IDEA what exactly is going to happen. Global warming, AND global cooling, has been going on for about, oh, 4.54 BILLION years. We've been on this rock in human form for (no offense, religious folks) about 200,000 years.[/QUOTE] That's kind of a oxymoron...we don't know but we absolutely do. Let me put aside for a moment the 2 schools of though on what's causing it... ie: natural or mankind affect. Public concensus has laid aside the fact the the dominos are falling anyway. We aren't going to stop it or slow it.That concept is human arrogance. The ecological landslide is an irreversible event. Thawing lands are creating a "permafrost" in places like Siberia and is excellerating the process expoentially by pumping out record levels of methane. In other words the warming process perpetuates itself futher along. It's a runaway train. Instead of looking to ways to curtail the events, which is likely impossible, science should be focusing on adapting."

Harry said: "Sounds about right... [url]http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html[/url]"