So in that case my earlier point would stand, if you refuse to heed these warnings and instead choose to stick your head in the sand, then you are placing that extra burden on your fellow humans to pick up your slack. I dont care what you do quite honestly however is that fair? Probably not.

then you are placing that extra burden on your fellow humans to pick up your slack..

if they choose to...I thought Liberals were all about choice ?...like I've said before..." selective "...Freedom of Choice...when it comes to Liberals...not theres anything wrong with that !!!...LOL

I knew it!!!
Republican,,, ready to drill for more oil to achieve instant gratification at the cost of future generations, when the technology exists to rid ourselves of oil altogether.

I think I made of point of saying that I dont care what you do. Thats between yourself and your own conscious.

thank you...

Five of the ten hottest years in modern times occurred during the 1930's, including the hottest year.

If mankind is causing global warming, then why haven't we become hotter than the 1930's?

As far as the prior charts posted by another, it is interesting that the charts begin in the end of the Little Ice Age, and do not show the significantly warmer temps prior to that miniature ice age.

It is easy to create the appearance of warming when you begin your measurements at the coldest time in the past 200 years.

I know those who worship at the altar of global warming do not want to hear any claims to the contrary, but for those who are open to learning more about this issue, I recommend the following articles.

http://www.newsmax.com/metcalf/ice_age/2008/02/11/71736.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Global_Warming/2008/05/27/99158.html

Im not sure whos chart you are referring to but this was mine.

Vego here... nothing with feathers, fur of fins... or with eyes....why?

Cause I don't require it.... as a 'footprint' contributor? nope, although amazingly when one lives INSTINCTUALLY they 'plug' back into the natural world, and are much more aware of their place in it, and as a result become much more proficient in reducing their consumption... of everything.

It seems to me that even for the folks who simply choose to deny all of the scientific evidence that has been presented on this thread as it relates directly to the detrimental effect man has had on the environment and the current ecological crises, at the very least you can take responsibility for your self and your own personal impact.

When you fill in flood plains with new development, build cities below the water line, then fail to maintain the flood walls, you are going to have an increase in weather related disasters. But that doesn't have anything to do with Global Warming.

In fact many of the resources that are going towards the Global Warming myth would be better used to prevent such foolish ecological mistakes as mentioned above.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

I am still waiting for evidence of man made global warming. As far as my ability to effect solar output, and its impact on global temperatures, I don't think there is much I can do in my daily life.

Rather than wasting my time and money worrying about some mythological global warming, I would much rather deal with real pollution concerns like filling in flood planes along rivers, and mercury pollution from coal fired power plants.

I don't care if people want to make personal lifestyle choices that they think will reduce their carbon footprint, but I am very concerned about the massive socialist power grab that the global warming people are trying to force upon the American people.

I don't have any particular objection to living a vegan lifestyle, but I don't think that it is specifically instinctive. I have noticed that I not only have teeth designed to chew up plants, but I also have teeth that are designed to tear off a chunk of meat.

Scroll back. I and several others have posted relevant articles depicting just that information. Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that normally would exit into outer space. You sir, are quite capable of pulling your own weight and becoming a responsible member of society. Step one is understanding your effect on the environment.



Clearly this is based in reality and you are just refusing to receive this credible evidence. What makes you think that I would not be interested in reducing my impact on this planet? You are the one referring to Global Warming as a "myth". What do you think is actually causing part of the problem associated with these dramatic climatic events? Human use of fossil fuels is the main source of excess greenhouse gases. By driving cars, using electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heating our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Deforestation is another significant source of greenhouse gases, because fewer trees means less carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen. It is a chain of events.

The only problem with your theory is that the facts don't support it.

Global temperatures do not fluctuate with the increase in green house gasses.

The scientists who claim there is man made global warming have consistently been wrong with their predictions.

The only climate model that has accurately predicted global temperatures is that of Solar Activity.

31,000 independent scientists have signed a petition stating that they do not think man is causing global warming.

If greenhouse gasses are the problem then why are 5 of the 10 hottest years in the 1930's, including the hottest year on record?

If we are in the midst of massive global warming, then why are temperatures consistently colder than during the medieval warming period?

If mankind is causing the melting of the polar ice caps on Earth, then why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting at the same time?

If you want me to support laws that will dramatically reduce freedom in the US and cause billions to suffer from starvation because we aren't allowed to grow enough food, then I need proof. Not just conjecture, or a small percentage chance, but specific proof. I need to see predictions that actually happen. The effects of taking drastic action to reduce greenhouse gasses are so destructive that I need to know with certainty that the harm is going to be offset by a greater good. Until then I am going to choose freedom and food for the poor.

Ahem.....small disturbing newsflash!!!!

Last night at 7.00pm sea temperatures on the coastal strip of central Queensland, were 26 degrees celcius... and at 6.00 am they were 30 degrees celcius....

what does that mean? If the sea temperatures remain at those levels of 30 degrees celcius and above, our coastal ocean ecosystems are perkucked...all the soft corals are dead... all the critters of beeeeauuuuutiful tropical fish that we all love so much... ie. Nemo, gone, done and dusted!

And while you all sit there debating who's informed and who isn't....the sh*t has hit the fan, and just waiting for you all to get a whiff!

Irrespective of scientific data.... the facts are smacking you in the head... evidential...you want evidential? LOOK OUTSIDE YOUR BLOODY BOXES!

Sure I do. Have you read one article I have posted thus far? Be honest.



That would be wrong..Solar energy heats the earth’s surface. But the energy does not stay bound up in the earth’s environment forever. Instead, as the earth warms, it emits thermal radiation. This thermal radiation, which is largely in the form of long-wave infrared rays, eventually finds its way out into space, leaving the earth and allowing it to cool. However, not all of the infrared rays pass into space. Some of the infrared rays are absorbed by greenhouse gases and warm the atmosphere. So the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature of the atmosphere. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the atmosphere leading to the warming of the earth’s surface.



The results of studies using coupled models conclude that current climate models are quite accurate in terms of present climate, and can therefore act as valuable tools in predicting future trends. If so, that would mean that the models used for the recent IPCC report are realistic. Of course, unknown future variables, such as how we choose to respond to climate change, could change these projections, hopefully favorably. However, the data we have now is reliable, concludes the study. The research also found that most of the existing models project a global warming trend of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100-year period. Such a dramatic rise in temperature would likely have a devastating impact on many forms of life, including humans.



Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science. Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground. I'll thank you to keep your "spin " here to a minimum.



Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.

According to the government's National Climatic Data Center, the record-breaking warmth -- which caused daffodils and cherry trees to bloom throughout the East on New Year's Day -- was the result of both unusual regional weather patterns and the long-term effects of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.



There is actually no good evidence that the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.



According to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page they report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004. While there surely are some growing glaciers, studies like these above are designed to determine a global trend by ensuring glaciers from all regions of the globe are assessed. There are 67,000 glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory. Not all, or even most, have quality data for decades and decades, but there are enough that do have adequate data located in enough regions of the globe to know the average trend.

Global warming is not just an increase in temperature; it is a conglomerate of correlated physical, ecological and social changes caused by decades of unsustainable use of the earth’s resources. This is fuelled by the dominant neo-liberal economic model of unrestrained growth, exacerbated by globalisation, which has resulted in the over exploitation of both environmental resources and people, impoverishing billions in historically the most resource-rich countries of the Third World. There are increasingly vocal demands for corporate responsibility and accountability. But those who wish to really make poverty history must address the causes at the very source: the dominant model that is responsible for both climate change and poverty.

People who believe in global warming probably also bought the thousand dollar generators for the year 1999-2000 crisis.

About recycling...I used to recycle but since our glorious leaders made it a law in our state to recycle or get fined they lost my support.Seattle and Washington leads the country in recycling because people wanted to do the right thing.They rewarded us by going through our garbage looking for recyclables and writing us a ticket if they find any.That sounds alot like Communism and thanks to the liberals of Seattle I throw everything in the garbage now.My long years of recycling starting in 1985 came to a end because of idiotic laws like this and I have no intention of recycling anything ever again.

To all you tree hugging,hemp wearing,stinky,pimple faced pot smokers...God gave us pointed teeth for a reason.To eat meat.Nothing I like more then sitting down after a hard days work and eating a huge steak with a side of fries.

Every time I fart I know it pisses Al gore off so I try to do it often!

Why does anyone that cares about the environment have to be tree hugging,hemp wearing,stinky,pimple faced pot smokers? You are the most judgmental person I have ever seen. You are just plain bitter. No wonder you are single. You know red meat is linked to colon cancer, right? It would be a shame if that steak you eat rots your colon.