Ban volcanos! They're blockin' my tannin' rays!

I live in Mt the winters are 35 below ......global warming GOOOOOD

The world is 70 % water. Humans occupy about 1% of the available land mass. There is no way humans can affect the worlds tempreture. Basically pissing in the ocean. No effect. The suns activity (sun spots etc) and volcanic action are the drivers of earths climate. Don't fall for the carbon credits scam. Follow the money.

Did anyone catch the part where they said the sulfur dioxide from burning coal helps cool the planet. That part is sure to screw up the warming crowd since they are claiming coal is a major factor in warming and want to stop it.

And how has this little tid-bit of information managed to stay hidden for so long. Here we have scientists knowing that sulfur dioxide helps cool the planet and are just trying to determine what the major source in the high atmosphere comes from.

And so the back pedalling begins... What will they think of next to continue the quest for taxing the fvck out of us because we are to blame for the temperature of the planet... SCAM, SCAM, SCAM.

You guys really need to understand the science better if you are going to try pretending you have it all figured out.

Seymour, Jim and 1wizard

This is not backpedaling ... it is old news. It has been well known for over a century that volcanoes do indeed cause cooling. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, for example, caused global cooling, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, for at least a year. Major Java volcanoes, Tambura in 1815, and Krakatoa in 1883, caused significant global cooling including freezing on the Mississippi River near New Orleans and crop failures during what was called "a year without summer".

For unknowledgeable people like Seymour, Jim and 1wizard to dispute the findings of well qualified, highly educated climate scientists makes as much sense as telling a biologist that they know nothing about evolution or cell theory or informing their doctor that the germ theory of disease is a hoax perpetrated by scientists who are out to earn a quick buck.

Seymour, Jim and 1wizard do not deny the human factor in global climate change because they have a better explanation of the existing data. They do not even indicate that they are aware of that data. They just find it easy to believe anything that they hear from their conservative media .... the blowhard Rush Limbaugh, the insane Glenn Beck, the Fox News clown posse. They believe scientist are somehow (without explaining how) getting rich by promoting a false theory, apparently ignoring the fact that such a conspiracy would involve thousands of scientists in more than 100 countries.

They suggest that we "follow the money" to understand this conspiracy, not realizing or not caring that the Koch brothers, who have become among the richest men in the world selling fossil fuels, are funding a massive disinformation campaign denying anthropogenic global warming. Without any science knowledge or any apparent rational thinking process, folks like Seymour, Jim and 1wizard have become willing dupes for the right wing message. I'm sure the Koch brothers appreciate the efforts of these unpaid lackeys who volunteer their time and effort to spreading the denier message on Newsvine and other venues.

By the way, 1wizard, sulfur is removed from coal to prevent sulfur dioxide pollution. It is a serious health hazard and the major component of acid rain. I guess you were not any better informed back in the 60s and 70s than you are now.

"This has a cooling effect on Earth that can help mitigate the impacts of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses."

"Volcanic eruptions, even small and moderate ones, might counter some of the effects of global warming, new research suggests."

"A new study indicates emissions from moderate volcanoes around the world, such as the Augustine Volcano in Alaska, shown here, can hide some of the effects of global warming."

"Overall these eruptions are not going to counter the greenhouse effect,"

This article said nothing. Stated "counter." Stated "hiding." Stated "mitigating." Make up your minds.

The FACT IS this was the warmest decade since humans have kept records. As our population grows and we consume and use energy at a ridiculous rate per person we DO add to the burden of this planet.

Consider that where I live (america) it "COSTS" FIFTY SIX calories to bring ONE calorie of nutrition. That tells me that human activity certainly affects the health of the planet. So, if an orange has 80 calories multiply that times 56. That equals nearly 4500 calories to deliver an orange to me. A chilling fact.

Jim -768838

The world is 70 % water. Humans occupy about 1% of the available land mass. There is no way humans can affect the worlds tempreture. Basically pissing in the ocean. No effect. ...

There's currently 7 billion people pissing in that ocean. How many will it take to feel a warm current?

Brilliant comment, Rob. Glad you could contribute.

Volcanic eruptions, even small and moderate ones, might counter some of the effects of global warming, new research suggests.

Missed the first line of the article huh?

Actually, Dave, the yellow scientists and yellow journalists should have their swill as, "Volcano emissions can and do lead to changes in weather phenomena. Observable, historical data suggests some volcano eruptions are harbingers to net cooling in Earth's climate." Instead, the "scientists" and "journalists" hitched their article to a contextual absurdity that is, at this very moment, falling apart because the truth can't hide forever.

The earth's climate warms and cools CONSTANTLY; the climate is changing at all times. As the earth's oceans and atmosphere warm, the latter absorbs carbon dioxide; and as both cool, the former absorbs carbon dioxide. They conveniently failed to mention that, without the sun, the earth's surface temperature would likely be 0 degrees Kelvin, and there'd be no atmosphere.

Another news FAIL. What's new?

David, before you start talking, you should make sure you know what you are talking about...because that post shows that you clearly do not know the first thing about climate or the carbon cycle.

Actually, 2013 is the solar maximum for the current cycle. Further, the effect of the solar variability is too small to account for the current warming trend. Instead of parroting people with an agenda who refuse to face facts that might impact their own bottom line, get the facts yourself and learn some science.

No one denies that there has been change from the beginning of the earth, but the current change is far faster than any 'natural' change and is fully consistent with man made causes.

Science is constantly improving itself and refinements to predictions are very much in keeping with good science. The deniers jump on every adjustment as if the whole idea is suddenly wrong. It's like finding out that the distance to the moon is 10 miles different from the one reported previously and concludng that there is no moon and the scientists are all loony!

Learn some science, get the facts and and understand that the agenda of the petrochemical industry and the politicians they support is to confuse the issue as much as possible so they can keep the gravy train rolling.

Jim you are correct about the current solar maximum. However, this is only one cycle if you look over the last 200 years, you will see that there was a peak in Cycle 22. The current cycle is much less than any of the predictions made by current solar models. Simply put lower solar maximum lower solar energy imput to the eath. The "Climate Change" group has it all wrong.

R - I reiterate my statement that the solar variation is far too small to impact the current trend (Warming ! ! !). This argument is one of the red herrings that the greedy petrochemical industry throws out to obfuscate the issue. They are doing the same things the tobacco industry tried but the global impact of their activity will be far worse. Please study the science from all sides (as I have), consider the sources and make your own mind up. Stop regurgitating bad science and throwaway arguments that simply confuse the issue.

"The planet didn't heat up as much as scientists expected it to from 2000 to 2010"

Yeah, we've been aware of that...if you follow the real science. That's all you need to know. Making something up if the predictions don't pan out. They simply can't predict what the climate might do. Or not.

Jim you should review N.E. Lorenz Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, 1963. His work showed that the
climates' set of deterministic equations become non-deterministic or chaotic and hence there is no deterministic solution, hence you can not predict the future. The climate change crowd is using statics to calibrate there climate models. I cannot find any mathematical proof that a non-deterministic model can be calibrated by statically methods. “Climate change” has bet there hat on something that cannot be mathematically proved therefore are we to “bet the farm on someone guess”????

Anybody who has an opinion would do well to study the press releases that push global warming, as well as those who release them. Conveniently, the bulk of them are multi-national NGOs, the UN and massive banking interests; and their spokespersons are most often conveniently, simultaneously "economic experts" and "climate experts". Indeed, the love of money (power) is the root of all evil.

R, That's a lame argument. Models that predict future states are inherently deterministic. The fact that there is statistical uncertainty in the relationships that compose the model does not render the output irrelevant. The science demonstrating that human caused emissions from fossil fuels is accelerating the pace of climate change (along with a number of other deleterious effects on the environment) is broad based, and not merely based on predictions of models.

You are obviously free to live in your own fantasy, but don't blame it on science. Your political philosophy has taken over the portion of your mind normally devoted to reasoning. This leads to resort to ridiculous arguments to try to win debating points in support of your cause.

David, anyone who relies on press releases as the source of information is a fool. There are few journalists who are qualified to write on matters as complex as climate change. The science is watered down to make it seem comprehensible to the general public. That watering down process often results in a distorted version of the science behind it. Science is complicated. Understanding it takes a lot of study and hard work, which most people, including apparently you, are too lazy to tackle. It's easier to just repeat what you read on blogs without bothering to read the science.

R-738279, it might be of interest to you to look at NASA Science News. Article appeared recently about a double peak solar maximum.

It won't let me past the link here, but you can find it if you search Nasa science news, Solar Cycle Update: Twin Peaks.

When boiled down to where the rubber meets the road, one has to ask, do you believe that American government policy can change the climate of the entire planet? Do you? Because in the end, that's what it really boils down to. If you answer yes, based on all of the numbers, then logically, using those same numbers, one should also be able to determine exactly what actions should be taken, how much they will cost, what the result will be and how long it will take to achieve the desired result.

This is where the models prove themselves to be inaccurate, because just as you learn in school, if you have a formula where A+B=C, then C-B must equal A. Now obviously, the climate isn't linear in nature, so it's not as simple as that, but the point is that if the numbers proving global warming caused by man are accurate, then those same numbers can be used to answer every question I asked in the first paragraph. The fact that you NEVER get answers to those questions totally undermines the integrity of the numbers because it seems everyone who believes in man made global warming is willing to use the numbers as proof, but never willing to use the numbers to provide the answers to the questions.

Until they start answering the questions using the same numbers that they used to reach their conclusions to begin with, then it shows without question that they do not have the confidence in those numbers to put forth predictions to control global warming.

In other words, it's much easier to make assertions when you don't have to worry about sticking your neck out if your predictions are wrong. And that is what proves that the scientific community doesn't have nearly as much confidence in their numbers as they would have you believe.

CNR - People have been working on those questions for decades. You just choose to be unaware of it so you can stick to your own biases.

jock: Logic dictates that if the numbers they use to claim the warming is happening are accurate, then those exact same numbers can be used to answer the questions I asked. Logic does not have a bias.

For example: If I know that my car tire wears at a certain rate within given parameters, and I know how much a car tire will cost, give or take in the future, then I know what the rough cost will be to replace those tires at point X in the future if all the other information I have is accurate. The logic does NOT change when applied to climate if their numbers are accurate.

I wasn't aware that you actually gave any numbers. Or that you made clear what contradiction yuo were alluding to. The numbers say that we are increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmopshere. Do you have anything to contradict that.

"one should also be able to determine exactly what actions should be taken, how much they will cost, what the result will be and how long it will take to achieve the desired result."

Don't you think people are doing exactly that?

Conservative, probably Republican

do you believe that American government policy can change the climate of the entire planet?

Most of the rest of the world is willing to cooperate on solutions to the global climate change problem. The United States has been one of the few holdouts in the developed world. Is it doable? Maybe. After all, the recent reporting about the shrinkage of the hold in the ozone layer indicates that the global initiative to address that problem worked.

You may recall that when scientists were concerned about the deterioration of the ozone layer, including the increase in the size of the "hole" in the southern hemisphere, many of the same conservative media denied both that the problem existed and that international cooperation could solve the problem. Rush Limbaugh was a particularly obnoxious blowhard on this issue and he was proven wrong. We drastically reduced emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) through global cooperation .... and it worked!

Certainly this is a more difficult problem and politics being what they are it will probably be difficult to have true international cooperation in the near future. Maybe when the US and the rest of the world realizes that the world oil supply is running out and energy becomes very expensive, alternative sources rule.

jock: If the numbers are accurate...and those who are man made global warming promoters have no qualms about telling you they are, then it doesn't take additional decades of information to give you the answers to the questions. Now, as far as knowing what the actual numbers are, I don't have to have that information to validate my statement that the numbers, regardless of what they are, will still be valid for answering the questions I ask.

My contention, again, is that you NEVER see the answers to ANY of those questions because the scientific community does not want to make a public prediction on which long term government policy might be based, only to have it shown to be totally inaccurate a decade or two down the road. And when you're dealing with voting populations, it's going to be kind of difficult to tell them to wait half a lifetime and make lifestyle sacrifices just to see if the predictions are accurate.

I always find it amusing that the gurus of global warming never seem to have any problem living just as opulently as those they would deny that same lifestyle to. They have no problem parading all over the country in their limousines, flying their private jets, owning multiple homes, etc. Funny how that works. Just as in any country that begins with the prefix "The People's Republic of..."...the leaders of those countries live far better, and have access to products, services and technologies that they deny the very populations they claim to represent. Yes indeed, funny how that works.

But here is one of the biggest problems: You're talking about climate cycles that move in terms of hundreds or even thousands of years. And then to think that we can predict specific changes based on government policy that will change the climate of the entire planet in the course of a decade, or two, or three is ridiculous. Not to mention, that we have maybe a 150 years or so of questionably accurate climate data, some ice cores, a few other things, and we believe that we can use that small of a data sample to make predictions about something that may play out over eons in terms of the scale of the entire planet? One really has to be confident beyond belief to buy that, but yet, seemingly not quite so confident that they will put forth answers to the logical questions I ask.

The ONLY way it would be logical or necessary to have more information is that if there is not enough confidence in the original numbers to begin with. This is basic Statistics 101 stuff...confidence level, validity, bell curve etc. You can not logically claim the numbers you use to support your side are accurate if you can not use those same numbers to answer the questions I ask. Again, it's not bias, it's logic and common sense.

Don: If you would cite some of the sources that back up your claims, I'd love to read them, and then we'll go from there.

http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/12/16939373-shrinking-ozone-hole-is-smallest-in-10-years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Don: I looked at what you posted. I find it a bit ironic that in your post, when the I read the articles, that in this instance, they were at least willing, to give answers to some of the very types of questions I was talking about in regard to climate change. I view that as a positive.

For example: In regards to the ozone hole, they are projecting a 50 year time line to get the levels back to that of the 60's. At least that is a projection. But then one has to answer the question, what are normal levels, and over what period of time.? I'm not sure that is determinable with current data. Sure it can be estimated, but the technology to measure ozone is only about 100 years old and we have no idea what the characteristics of the ozone hole have been over a long period of time.

We also have to look at the other side...

The largest ozone hole on record was recorded in 2006. That was only 7 years ago. So, in order for your assertion to be correct..."that it worked"....then one has to believe that the vast majority of the replenishment has happened in only the last 7 years. If it worked, then there should never be a recurrence of that magnitude again. If you do see a recurrence of that magnitude, and the chlorofluorocarbons previously claimed to be responsible are no longer an applicable variable, then any future occurrence can only be attributed to some other cause. Now, that cause could possibly be some other human factor, but it may also very well be a natural occurrence. If it turns out to be a natural occurrence, and we see a return to depleted amounts of ozone, then it has to also be brought into question as to how accurate the original assertion was. Logic dictates that must be questioned.

At least in this case, we are talking about a much more confined type of event dealing with one element: Ozone, and a family of chemicals where the reactions are reasonably well documented. But, when comparing this to climate change on a much larger scale and time line, with infinitely more variables, at that point the comparison loses validity.

As to your assertion "that it worked"; given that as late as 2006, it has appeared that it, in fact, didn't work... I'd say your conclusion is a bit premature at the moment. I would submit that it might be another 20 years or more before a more definitive conclusion can be reached that rules out natural depletion and replenishment over periods of time. But at least in the case of the ozone layer, you're dealing with a much smaller event with far more defined variables.

In the case of the chemicals replaced, there were other viable alternatives that could be substituted at a similar cost. The same can't be said for the rest of our energy needs. Attempting to force higher prices for current fuels, as Obama wants to do, to make other sources appear less expensive can only be achieved at the cost of the elimination of a free market for energy. I have no doubt Obama would love to see that happen if he had the power.

Your last sentence, "I have no doubt Obama would love to see that happen if he had the power" reveals your bias. I prefer to believe that President Obama wishes to find the best possible solutions to our energy and environmental problems.

The need to reduce dependency on fossil fuels is based on two realities: (1) the world is depleting its reserves of fossil fuels and (2) the emissions from the use of fossil fuels is causing a climate crisis. Alternative energy such as solar, wind and, to some extent, nuclear (which is also based on a limited resource) is the long range solution to global energy needs, and the country (ies) that lead in the area of alternative energy technology have the best shot at economic prosperity in the coming decades.

We can complain about the high cost of alternative energy as we deal with the rising cost and scarcity of fossil fuels while we watch countries like Germany and China lead themselves into continued economic prosperity using alternative energy ...... or we can be smart and promote alternative energy in the US.

Don: I make no bones about my bias, so please don't think I was trying to hide anything. I've stated it quite openly and clearly on many posts.

The problem with Obama is that he is trying to force solutions that do not have the capability to solve the problem. For example, electric cars: Where does that electricity come from? For much of the country, it comes from coal. A fossil fuel. Then there are the problems of long recharging times, not to mention the waste caused by production of the batteries. The left is totally against nuclear electricity production, so that's out. There is not enough hydro capacity to provide for demand, and even if there was the capacity, the left would be against building the dams necessary to harness that power. Solar cars are not practical either.

So, the reality is that oil, is the only available practical solution that will meet demand at the present time. I have full confidence that when, in the natural course of events, oil becomes too expensive to meet demand, that a free market solution will emerge. In the meantime, government trying to force a solution is not the answer.

China has horrendous polution problems, and I am more than willing to see what they might be doing, but I am not willing to impose draconian government solutions on the freedom of people that they are not willing to accept. If the people of America are willing to have a choice and they freely choose some alternative, then I have no problem with that at all.

Where does the electricity come from? You realize of course that this administration also supports alternative electrical energy such as wind and solar .... maybe you don't realize that. President Obama also has supported a nationwide electrical grid to move that alternative electrical power to users throughout the US. Did you miss that too?

You are also wrong about the left being totally opposed to nuclear power .... many progressives support nuclear energy as part of a balanced solution to our future energy needs.

China has horrendous pollution problems .... they are also investing heavily in alternative energy because unlike conservatives in the United States they are looking to the future.

Just one further comment ...... I am totally bored with conservatives who claim that every move the government makes threatens their freedom. Based on your comment you are not at all well informed about this issue, and most of the "solutions" have not even been part of any serious legislation, yet you are crying about your loss of freedom. Give me a break!

Don: So, if I wish to keep driving the vehicle of my choice....and that's the key...."my choice", you, and more importantly, your peers, will have absolutely no problem with that, and will strongly object to any proposed fines, penalties, taxes or any other behavior modification tools that the government might want to impose on me, and others like me, if we choose to use a form of transportation not condoned by the government? You will object to any attempts by the government in that arena won't you? Won't you?

Just tell me that's exactly right....that the left wouldn't dream of using taxes and penalties to try and modify behaviors, and I'll drop the freedom aspect. The only problem you have, of course, is that the left has a long and well documented history of doing just that. Cash for clunkers, Obamacare, more gun control, the so called fairness doctrine, home buyer credits, tax payer funded subsidies for electric cars...just to name a few of the last several decades. I can come up with dozens more.

I'd say you have your work cut out for you in trying to defeat that argument. I value my freedom, and there have been far too many examples of the left using every means in the book to limit them where they think they can by using the environment as an excuse. As I said, the so called environmental gurus don't seem to have any guilty feelings about private jets for them, limousines for them, multiple homes for them....no, restrictions and condemnation for those types of lifestyles are only to be placed on those who don't accept the politically correct lies. Condemn those actions on other people, but not them. As I said, funny how that works.

So please, stop acting as if the left has no history of doing just as I've stated, or that because I am very aware of history and the actions of liberals, that it somehow makes me paranoid. You may be willing to give up your freedoms, I am not.

I don't need the Federal Government telling me how much water my toilet can flush (if there is a water shortage in a particular area, then that is the prerogative of the state under the 10th amendment, and I would have no problem with that), how many miles to the gallon my car must get, what kind of light bulb I can and can't use, what I should eat....and dozens of other things.

I may not be an alternative energy expert, but I am very well informed of the history of the left. So, to imply that my statements are somehow as being totally without merit is absolutely false. As I said, I make no bones about my bias. On the other hand, Don, you don't do a very good job of hiding yours either ;-)

Con

I will not support your right to be selfish. I will support vehicle mileage requirements and extra taxes on those of you who waste resources, preferably in the form of much higher gasoline taxes. I will not support your right to be anti-social.

Your childish opposition to community action is something I consider an obstacle to overcome in a democratic fashion.

Don:

But you see, I could say the same of many on the left. The left seems to define selfish as anyone who disagrees with them. But I wonder, do you define Al Gore as selfish? What about Michale Moore, Sean Penn, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or any of the others on the left who are so willing to impose rules on me, that they refuse to live by themselves. Are they selfish too? Or, do they get a pass because they say all of the politically correct statements, regardless of whether they actually live by them or not?

They get to have their private jets, limousines, mansions, houseboats and all of their other toys because they think the right way. Is that the way it works? That sure seems to be the way it works in the world of liberals. Just as long as you say the right things, it doesn't really matter if you actually live by what you say. Just put up appearances, and that's more than good enough. After all, those rules are really only going to apply to someone else.

Don, I do thank you for your honesty though. I just found it a bit ironic that in one post you say you are tired of conservatives claiming every move by the government as a threat against their freedom, and then in your next post, you confirm the exact point I was making when you fully admit that you will support means to limit the very freedoms I alluded to. So, you see, it is not some paranoid delusion on my part. You state flat out that you will employ means to limit that freedom if you can. Your excuse for doing so is your belief that, because I don't believe as you do, that I am being selfish, and since you don't think that I should be allowed that freedom, not to mention you seem to believe that you should also have the authority to set the definitions that I must live by, then you should have the power to force me to change behaviors, regardless of whether I agree with you or not. Those are not the principles upon which America was founded.

If you wish to be a servant to the government, that's fine, I would never try and stop you. But for me, I do not exist to serve the state. I am not the personal ATM of the Federal Government. I do not sit around worrying about whether the Federal Government is confiscating enough of what someone has earned. America is not the Federal Government.

I have no problem paying taxes for the legitimate constitutional functions of government, however, the tax code is to fund those function, and is not an income equality tool, nor a behavior modification tool to be used as a hammer to force the population into behavior patterns that the government deems to be acceptable and appropriate. If you wish to be used in that way, that's fine, but I will not relinquish my freedoms just because you will do so.

By the way, we have no oil shortage for the foreseeable future. None. In fact, we have so much oil that, if the current track is maintained, in less than five years we will surpass Saudi Arabia in terms of production. We may not even need oil from South America either in the next decade. Not for sure yet, mind you, but moving in that direction. When someone on the left talks about oil as limited resource, many times they talk about it in such a way as to imply that it's all going to be gone in less than 10 years. I guarantee you that their concern is not for the amount of oil, but for the effectiveness of whatever fear they can whip up to further their agenda.

Of course, the thing I always find most ironic is that if people voluntarily move to smaller vehicles and start saving all of that gas, cities like San Fransisco find out that because people are doing what the liberals desire to be the appropriate behavior, that they suddenly find out people aren't paying nearly as much in gas taxes. And so, the natural liberal response is, of course, to raise the taxes on the people who have just engaged in the behavior they wanted to see. Yeah, that's what I want; to be punished by higher taxes for doing what was deemed to be the appropriate behavior to begin with. Sometimes, there is just no satisfying those on the left.

Oil is not going to be gone in 10 years and you are exaggerating wildly to suggest that any credible person says any such thing. However, since oil was $10 per barrel 15 years ago and fluctuates near $100 per barrel now, you would be a bonehead to believe that the price of oil will not rise significantly during the next decade.

I have a feeling you are not big on recycling and you seem to be someone who is far more concerned with your own "freedom" than you are about community spirit or the fate of future generations.

Con

It appears that you and I view government completely differently. I see government mostly, not completely, as the way people get together to accomplish what it is difficult or impossible to do alone. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that you see government as an enemy. Frankly, I believe that most conservatives use their "freedoms" as a justification to act selfishly instead of acting in the community interest. I am much more concerned about the undue influence of money in our government system that allows a few wealthy people to become even wealthier at the expense of the general population than I am about the taxes or minor inconveniences in the interest of a more responsible energy policy. I am much more concerned about this country starting stupid wars like in Iraq than I am about limits on the types of firearm I am allowed to own.

Don: I would submit that I probably recycle more that most liberals. I make trips twice a month to drop off aluminum cans, steel cans, newspaper, mixed paper (junk mail, catalogs, paper food containers etc.), plastic, cardboard, scrap metal etc. I have no problem with recycling and will continue to do so.

Our charitable contributions this year totaled over twelve thousand dollars. Some of those contributions included $500 to the victims of hurricane Sandy, $600 to send care packages to our troops in foreign countries, several thousand dollars to my kids school, and many others.

I give blood on a regular basis.

I donate my time to various charitable causes on a regular basis. Last week, I assisted in helping to reorganize our community food pantry, I will be doing the same thing tomorrow night.

We send monthly donations to help support poor children in other countries as well as this one.

This is just some of what we do. Normally, I don't mention these types of things, but I will do so when someone tells me that I'm the selfish one because I don't agree with them.

I don't see government as an enemy except when that government attempts to violate the constitution. But, I do see government as being corrupt, inefficient, partisan and wasteful of much of the 80 thousand dollars we paid just in Federal income taxes alone last year. That doesn't include state, local, sales, property, fees, licenses and a host of other taxes that we also paid. And as far as the fate of future generations, I was not the one who put this country 17 trillion in debt, you can thank the government and the politicians for that. But, I do fear for the future generations because of the irresponsible monster the Federal Government has become.

You can personally limit, as much as you wish, any type of firearm you care to. All I ask is that you don't impose your rules on me. That right is clearly stated in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY one that has the statement "shall not be infringed" attached to it. That was not by accident. This country was founded on the principle of individual freedom, not forced collectivist participation.

So, now that you have become more informed, do you still care to tell me I'm selfish?

You are correct! The problem is when government start to make policy based on incomplete science.

Science is rarely complete. The theory of gravity is incomplete, the diameter of the proton has just been revised, etc., etc., etc. Do you want to wait until Florida is half covered with water before you decide that 99% complete is good enough to do something instead of waiting for 100%?

The real problem is getting the entire planet on board to work for solutions. I'm sadly sure (100%) that this will not happen and we can kiss that half of Florida Goodbye, along with the entire agricultural structure of the present. The dust bowls, famines, population displacements and other global crises as a result of our inaction will make the worst of our history look like the good 'ol days.

Jim, we just in good conscience cannot follow along with your wacky dooms day scenarios. Ain't gonna happen bro. Prove me wrong. Where do you come up with this stupid stuff.

Truth is, nothing can be done about climate change, there are no solutions that make any sense. If you can think of some, let us know.

I agree Rex. We just happen to be around for this cycle of climate change. The earth is doing what is has done since its birth. We can drive low-emission vehicles, put carbon scrubbers on smoke stacks, restrict wood burning, etc. yet we may only be helping climate change in the long run. We humans need to adapt instead of pointing fingers.

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 "Another Ice Age"- "The Earth has been cooling for three decades and could be the harbinger of another ice age."

Carl Sagan, 1980, "Cosmos"- "Our actions are lowering the surface of the temperature of our planet."

Carl Sagan, 1997, "Billions and Billions"- "We are being told that due to human interference, global warming and the "greenhouse effect" are occuring, and that Earth's temperature is increasing."

I wish Carl and others would get their minds made up and just tell us what we are supposed to think. I suppose that would make it a lot easier for us to prepare for the next "catastrophe" coming at us. Follow the money, it leads to the man behind the curtain.

As far as those climate change models go....garbage in equals garbage out. Not to mention the built in bias by those seeking a pre-defined outcome

Rex, the problem with your statement is that both sides of the argument have a built in bias. Do you not think that the petroleum industry has something to say about the other side of the climate change argument? Every argument made about any complex scientific study has people on both sides who will be biased. The problem here is that a vast majority of the scientific community believes that climate change is in fact real. The only questions still remaining are: Is it our fault, and if so, how much, how bad is it, and is it too late to do anything about it?

scientific fact: the hole in the ozone is closing.

most nations have been abiding by international agreements to phase out production of ozone-depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. But the atmosphere continues to surprise us, and some atmospheric scientists recently demonstrated a new spin on the ozone recovery story that may change its ending. P.S. Guess which nations have not?

The way it works is it is regenerative, holes are damaged areas because of the temperture and weather beneath them. If a hole opens above a city or terra firma it will take twice as long to heal.

The Stratosphere extends from the
tropopause up to 31 miles above the Earth's surface. This layer holds 19 percent
of the atmosphere's gases and but very little water vapor.

Temperature
increases with height as radiation is increasingly absorbed by oxygen molecules
which leads to the formation of Ozone. The temperature rises from an average
-76°F (-60°C) at tropopause to a maximum of about 5°F (-15°C) at the stratopause
due to this absorption of ultraviolet radiation. The increasing temperature also
makes it a calm layer with movements of the gases slow.

Information gathered at NASA site. I have them on my Rolodex and on binary data card.

Very large ozone losses have occurred in the Arctic recently, especially in the late 1990s. Ozone chemistry is very sensitive to temperature changes. Nasa. For lay people the loss of plant life leads to animal loss which leads to people.The Oceans also become acidic. P.S. it does get cooler at first. P.S.S. No more NASA also means no more independant research, all research will be profit driven.

I thought the problem was cow farts.....quit messing with the additives put in the food that cows eat that give them the "vapors"!

tom,

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Where did you get your information??? Why are conservatives so content to remain ignorant of facts?

I did not say only CO2, are you including chemical farming also and cows.

Modern coal plants have SO2 scrubbers which are very efficient.

scrubbers in the US.

"just one volcano can emit more "global warming" gasses into the atmosphere than all of mankind's emissions put together. This is a scientific fact acknowledged by the entire scientific community."

No, it is not. It is a lie being circulated by the denial industry for years, because they know that sheep like you will spread it without checking the facts for yourself.

Mike, you are confused because the echoes of right wing radio reverberating through your mind are drowning out everything else and blocking your ability to reason.

Yes, mike you are confused. Volcanoes and coal plants have many different kinds of emissions. Some lead to warming, and some to cooling. With volcanoes the cooling ones (aerosols) are dominant; with coal the warming ones (greehouse gasses) are dominant. But either way, the cooling ones drop out of the atmosphere first and leave the greenhouse gasses up ther for centuries.