not in the least , I think your reasonable , logical . and I just disagree .
to say this didnt end the world and that didnt but all that together plus everthing else in my mind has an accumulative effect that makes those things equal to a drop in the bucket , to beat the metaphore to death

A volcano eruption or the Valdez spill is a drop in the bucket for the Earth. Now, imagine continuous flow of oil into our oceans. So, oil is spilling into our oceans nonstop, now imagine what the long term effects would be. That is the comparison. We are continuously emitting man mande pollutants into our air and we are seeing the effects. There is more science that shows that Climate Change is occuring and will continue to occur than science showing that most of the medications that doctors prescribe won't kill you. As a society we're willing to trust that science and pop these pills but we don't trust the science that is showing that pollution exists and is degrading our air quality. I find this interesting. How do you chose which science to believe?

Joe,

 

Excellent post, it touches on a number of things I believe are important.  If you look at the money dumped into supporting a theory that the data doesn’t support (Ona, show us your data source that supports your stance) I personally can think of many thing this huge outlay of money could better improve the human existence short and long term.  Conserving energy is a good thing most of the time.  The reason I stated most of the time, I remember a video I seen of a couple excited about the installation of their new wind turbine power system.  They were doing it not because there would be a financial pay back, (which it wouldn’t for over 15 years if nothing failed during this 15 year time) but to be green.  That’s a noble thing to do.  However, the huge diesel powered crane brought in to erect the tower and install the generator on the top of this tower most likely dump more emissions then would ever be recovered just using the same power from the local electric company.  Noble ideas executed blindly can do more harm then good.  I commend those who want to save our planet.  Who doesn’t want this?  All I’m saying is do it smartly with real facts that make since.  Don’t waste our precious resources on poor thought out theories.   

Eric D:  I'm not sure what the point is in me providing references since your point is just not believing in them.  But I'll throw out a few that I had laying around just in case people who believe the science are interested.  If you research this on your own at any library, there are countless peer reviewed scientific articles as well.  In the references I have provided below, there are other air pollutants other than GHG's, whithout going into a lot of detail, you will find that a warming climate will increase these as well.

I want to make clear, as I stated in a previous post, I am not in the group of people that say "the sky is falling," but I do believe that reasonable things must be done.  The majority of scientists are very practical.  It is the shock jockeys and radicals that make this topic way too emotional.

In previous years I have sat back and allowed people to outright call scientists liars and conspirators.  I always thought to myself why should I say something because I am never going to change their mind.  In the past 2 years I have decided to speak up because what I am finding is that by remaining silent more people actually believe that scientists are liars and conspirators because that is all they are hearing.  Most researchers just like to research and they don't speak up. 

Happy Reading!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This reference shows the effects of poor air quality on childrens health

Journal of the American Medical Assn (JAMA)

M. Weitzman, S. L. Gortmaker, A. M. Sobol and J. M. Perrin
Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester (NY), School of Medicine

CONCLUSIONS--These results indicate that the estimated prevalence of asthma among children in the United States increased by almost 40%, and that although the increase occurred exclusively among white children, the prevalence of asthma still remains higher in black children than in white children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This link is to the IPCC report on Climate Change.  This consists of many nations and many scientists and you can look up effects ranging from human health to water resources:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here you will see the results of a study showing the percent of GHG's due to fossil fuel burning (NOT a natural phenomena or part of the natural cycle:

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-1.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here you will see the anthropogenic air emissions vs natural GHG emissions.  You may note from this figure that some of our air pollution actually inhibits Climate Change (unfortunately there are other issues with those emissions), and the scientists still considered this pollution inhibition:

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some of the effects of minor changes in the Earth's temperature"

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig3-6.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is a good simple website which describes some research that the University of Michigan put together:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH)

Air pollution from biomass burning and asthma hospital admissions in a sugar cane plantation area in Brazil

Marcos Abdo Arbex^1,2, Lourdes Conceição Martins^1,5, Regiani Carvalho de Oliveira¹, Luiz Alberto Amador Pereira^1,3, Flávio Ferlin Arbex², José Eduardo Delfini Cançado¹, Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva¹, Alfésio Luís Ferreira Braga^1,4

Conclusion: Increases in TSP concentrations were definitely associated with asthma hospital admissions in Araraquara and, despite using sugar cane alcohol to reduce air pollution from automotive sources in large Brazilian urban centres, the cities where sugar cane is harvested pay a high toll in terms of public health.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm all about new technology/methods to save energy and have a cleaner planet. It is about fairness and the degree to which it is implemented.

My issue with it is it gets politicized and is used for control more than anything. I laugh when the Kyoto did not apply to India and China. Huh? If the powers that be are so concerned about the planet the rules should be the same for everyone. Not as a means for redistribution of wealth. Either its good for the planet or not, it shouldn't be discriminating between any countries. What's good for me should be good for you too!

Just like the Euro's use GMO free regulations for food. It really isn't about health as much as it is about a sneaky way of competitive advantage instead of outright tariffs on food.

The role of the government , the constitution allows for gov. intervention to protect private property .

Im just wondering for all of you out there , that call  for more and more sources , but never supply there own

please provide 1 source just one that claims that "climate change" is not impacted by human activity

1 rule this scientist can at no time have worked for the fossil industry ( including independent consultant )

The earth has a certain capacity to support it's living occupants and their activities. Earth's carrying capacity is not infinite and can be sabotaged, just like a closed geothermal loop, by overloading it. One does not need to be a scientist to see smog hanging heavy over many major population centers from NY to LA and Cairo to Delhi. With luck we can trash the earth and move onto another suitable planet, or we can get population growth under control and stay put.

Regards, Masoud

Steven Hawkins suggested that . a couple years back . He basically said That for the race to survive we would at least have to start colonizing

Slenzen ~ You mention fairness between nations. I agree and pray with my whole heart and soul that all nations will eventually make decisions that are good for all humanity. While I am waiting, I make the personal decision to try to make the most ethical decisions as I see fit. I am so thankful that I live in a country that for the most part also makes this decision as well. But, when my country does not follow this path, I will always advocate for the ethical choice.

China had the upper hand in the Kyoto Protocol because the United States refused to sign on. The United Nations needed a certain amount of signatures and because one of the largest countries (US) refused to sign, they needed to make "special arrangements" with China to ensure their signatures so that could at least move forward with some (albeit less than what they wanted) progress.

Keep in mind that we get our gymshoes, baseballs, coffee and many other supplies from child and slave labor. This gives other countries an advantage over us because they get to use slaves. So, the logical conclusion to your argument would be that we should have slaves to make it fair. We throw what is right or wrong out the door because if China and India aren't doing it, then the United States shouldn't either. Well, of course nobody believes we should have slave labor here (at least I hope not). And of course we should also make the right decisions when it comes to the environment regardless of what China and India do.

If anything, I believe the United States should impose an "environmental tax" on all imports that come from countries that do not do the minimum to reduce emissions during their manufacturing process... now THIS would even the playing field while also improving the environment.

I normally steer clear of this issue in technical forums but I will expound a bit on the dangers of overreacting.

1) DDT killed birds in food chain, so we got rid of it. From what I've read, it is hands down the best mosquito killer out there - everything else is less effective and more expensive. It is argued that the DDT ban sacrificed tens of millions of African children to malaria to save some birds.

2) We banned freon 12 to save the ozone. It was a cheap effective efficient refrigerant operating at low pressures. How many 3rd world citizens have not been able to afford refrigerators because of that decision? The ability to store food for a week is a huge advance in standard of living and quality of life. Try doing without a fridge or ice for a few days.

3) We are hyper-sensitized to sex predators, so we let kids out rarely and drive them everywhere - result, millions of obese, diabetic, sedentary children - for the first time, US life expectancy is falling, not rising.

4) Permitting new hydroelctric dams is dam near impossible, so to avoid dam damage we don't build them anymore and the fight is on to remove existing ones. Of course, that forces construction of new fossil fueled or nuclear power plants. Is this a good tradeoff?

The problem with this topic as Ona points out is that it is political and emotional. If we all agree that good stewardship of our planet is a good thing, do we really want to send this thread into 5 pages while each side tries to get the last word?
Joe

Engineer ~ I'm not sure what I wrote in the above posts that gives the impression that I am overreacting. From my perspective, I just believe the science and believe in being proactive about reducing harmful air emissions. Also, as an engineer, you are probably familiar with Risk Benefit analysis. While the risk overpowers the benefits of DDT in the United States, it does not overpower the benefits in Africa. Furthermore, the United States still manufactures DDT and exports it to other countries. So, if I were in Africa, I would make the decision to use DDT because the Benefit far outweighs the Risks. You really need to look at each scenario for it's own merits.

For example, in 1999 New York City had a significant outbreat of West Nile Virus. It was the opinion of scientific community that it was best to spray malathion throughout the City to kill the mosquitoes. In that specific case, the Benefits of using malathion (which has been proven to result in nervous system issues) far outweighed the Risks.

Again, I don't think I've been advocating overreaction. But is there something wrong with stating what the science shows? Something wrong with defending science when others say that research scientists are conspirators? For each of your scientific scenarios that you've listed above (and more that you may come up with) there are countless protective decisions which have saved many lives.

I believe that the main item that this society needs to come to terms with is that not everything is black and white. Furthermore, while we come up with some solutions that solve a problem, you will find out later that it creates another (think of how many drug recalls you've seen). Nobody is ALL KNOWING, but we do the best we can with the data we have. And, when we do see that a mistake has been made, we need to be able to admit it and find the next solution.

... and by the way, I realize I'm probably putting off the very people in this forum who have offered me the most help with geothermal. No matter what my opinion is on this matter, I still appreciate the amount of knowledge that all of you so willingly share.

While I understand you not wanting to get into this in this forum (that was my stance up until recently), as I get older I feel the need to speak up.

I'm not offended, and I agree that all these issues need cost benefit analysis. Somewhere I recently read that humans as a rule do not make rational decisions based on actual risk. Classic example is fear of flying - the car trip to the airport is the riskiest part of a trip. I haven't dug deep enough into the science of any of the issues I or others raised here to be certain of my own stance.

Look at the recent furor of lead paint on or within toys. I have small children and we believe it prudent to avoid brightly colored or metallic off brand toys from China, so we do that.

Meanwhile new rules by CPSC, goaded by congressional hysteria, impose rigid test standards on used toys. This may cause every purveyor of used toys such as thrift shops and church rummage sales to dumpster every donated toy since testing is not feasible. Is canceling Christmas for hundreds of thousands of low-income kids a worthwhile tradeoff? I'm not telling, just asking.

We have school boards expelling kids with aspirin and plastic butter knives in their lunch pails because of zero-tolerance drug and weapon policies.

We've drifted a bit off-topic, so I'll stop now.

Can somebody answer me this? If humankind is a primary factor in causing global warming, as opposed to the notion that it is a cyclical natural occurrence, then many eons ago, before humans were a measurable factor, what caused the global warming that melted the polar ice cap off the North American continent? How can we be sure we're not just simply seeing a repeat of whatever it was that happened back then?

My answer ( all be it a low information one ) would be there are many many causes for global warming specifically polar ice cap deterioration
to determine what % is natural and what % are man made has little or no bearing that I can see
In my mind the question is what are the effects likely to be
and what can we do about it
Considering controlling wind patterns , solar flares , earths tilt and rotation speed , volcanic activity , methane released though natural means and on and on
are well outside our control we should focus on what we can control ie. use of chloro compounds , use of fossil fuels .
While there is an army of naysayers claiming these actions have little effect on the planet
I have yet to find one thats claims potential positives .
If your life is based on economics alone first off I feel sorry for you and second fossil fuels will not last run the numbers however you like we will eventually run out
the inevitability of this will lead to less fuel that costs more money
I truly believe conversations like this will be looked at in 20 years like we look at the debate on the link between asbestos/ smoking and cancer