Point well taken - CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere. What I am trying to convey is that by the combustion of a large quantity of carbonaceous matter stored in the Earth's crust (via oil, coal, gas, oil sands, etc.), we are, without a doubt, changing the balance of CO2 in the biotic portion of the Earth (oceans, land surfaces, etc.). The degree to which this affects the planet's climate systems appears to be a subject of debate, but it seems self-evident that the mass balance between crustally-stored carbon and biotic zone carbon has been altered.

 

Here's something I ran across on energy storage:

Energy Densities of Selected Storage Mediums, MJ/L:

34.60 .. .. .. .. .. Gasoline

24.00 .. .. .. .. .. Ethanol

10.10 .. .. .. .. .. Liquid Hydrogen

5.67 .. .. .. .. EE Stor's Ultracapacitors

4.70 .. .. .. .. .. Compressed Hydrogen

0.90 .. .. .. .. Lithium Ion Batteries

0.17 .. .. .. .. Lead Acid Batteries

:smug:

 

But it's not proven that is bad. I say wait for enough evidence before acting. Know the facts before acting on a issue.

That's what the oil and gas industry wants us to do alright... Just wait, and wait, and wait.. In Science, there is no absolute proof of anything; just correlating evidence in support or in refutation of a hypothesis, which after gaining enough supporting evidence, becomes a theory.

Is there evidence? Yes. And there is still room for debate as to the extent of the effect on climate.

But consider all the other factors for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as well:

 

1. Ocean and lake acidity affecting aquatic & marine life

2. Oil spills (like the mess still damaging life along the Alaskan coast after the Exxon Valdez disaster)

3. Refinery releases, fires & explosions.

4. Reliance on oil from questionably governed states, such as Saudi Arabia

5. Increased dependence leaves us vulnerable to sudden production shortfalls, and the ensuing economic roller coaster rides.

6. Highway tanker accidents and rail tanker accidents, and resulting fires or releases

7. Huge areas of the Earth's surface devoted to mining the last large deposits (mountain top removal in the U.S., and Canadian oil-sands strip mining), and the environmental messes left by each

8. Lower air quality in cities and elsewhere from dependence on petroleum fuels.

9. Vehicle fires in accidents where fuel spills are involved (we just had one on the highway here..)

10. gasoline contact increases the risk of cancer

 

Lets use science and research not fads to decide our future. I'm an environmentalist but not a fad follower. It's ignorant to act without good reason backed by facts. When something is up in the air like this, we shouldn't act without knowing the facts.

 

I'm against using gas for many reason's just reason backed by hard evidence and facts.

 

Oil spills, waste of money, smog. I'm not pro fossil fuel, just anti bad science or acting without good reason.

 

I'm 100% for finding a good energy source.

 

There is just enough evidence saying it does not harm anything. Act on facts not fads.

Like I said, it appears we know there is an effect on climate from the combustion of fossil fuels, but the extent to which this has affected climate remains more of a mystery. Just based on common sense, how can it be then that the combustion of large quantities of fossil fuels has not had some influence on climate? Fads come and go, but the fact remains that we have changed the carbon balance on earth through our actions. How significant this is remains to be seen.

Like I said, it appears we know there is an effect on climate from the combustion of fossil fuels, but the extent to which this has affected climate remains more of a mystery. Just based on common sense, how can it be then that the combustion of large quantities of fossil fuels has not had some influence on climate? Fads come and go, but the fact remains that we have changed the carbon balance on earth through our actions. How significant this is remains to be seen.

 

That is still debatable, not proven, thus it would ignorant to act on unproven ideas.

 

Like I said there is a lot of evidence showing more CO2 helps the climate and should we act on that and make more CO2? No. So if we do not know if it effects the climate, how can we make policy based on that it does?

 

The fact that our carbon balance isn't even proven, a lot of research says we have no effected the climate at all, thus there isn't enough evidence to act on it yet.

 

It's common sense to wait for the facts before acting. Its so up in the air we could do more harm by trying to fix something that is not broken. Wisdom says to wait and follow the facts.

 

Don't try to fix something that is not broken. We don't have open heart surgery on someone unless we know to the fullest extent that they need it. Wait and see if it's broken before trying to fix it.

That is still debatable, not proven, thus it would ignorant to act on unproven ideas.

..I'm sure the people playing tennis on the Titanic had one opinion when the ship started to list just a little bit after feeling a "bump", and the men down in the boiler rooms had quite another opinion on the matter.. Proof in Science is not achievable. Only stronger or weaker support from the evidence, based on the logical argument(s), & backed by corroboration of certain empirical data sets. Prudence dictates that we act wisely - multiplying the odds of unfavorable circumstances by the range of risks being run might suggest acting on the matter, even if the action is proactive. To be an ignorant community is to lack knowledge or experience; our scientific community may be divided, but they are far from ignorant; however, it has been the case that widely held assumptions in the past turned out not to be true - I understand that, and I understand the risks individuals take in breaking rank with an established paradigm.. I will re-examine the arguments being made for and against the concepts put forth in climate change models.

 

Like I said there is a lot of evidence showing more CO2 helps the climate and should we act on that and make more CO2? No. So if we do not know if it effects the climate, how can we make policy based on that it does?

Well, if one scientist is correct, we may be in essence staving off a natural cooling trend that would normally be plunging us into a cold phase, so in that sense you may be correct. But assuming CO2 does not affect climate seems extreme to me - if the CO2 levels are elevated due to combustion of stored carbon from the crust, and if it holds true that CO2 reflects more of the long-wave infra-red, then it seems logical that the planet would get warmer on average. How significantly though is still a mystery to be solved..

 

The fact that our carbon balance isn't even proven, a lot of research says we have no effected the climate at all, thus there isn't enough evidence to act on it yet.

Cite your sources, Shakespeare.;)

 

It's common sense to wait for the facts before acting. Its so up in the air we could do more harm by trying to fix something that is not broken. Wisdom says to wait and follow the facts.

Wisdom to me suggests that by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we will be reducing many other risk factors, including the risks run from oil spills, money fueling terrorism, an economy tied to far-flung operations, the inevitable running out of oil, the risks from chemical exposures, etc. Efficiency is the elephant in the room - we can have what we want just by apply some brains and elbow grease; in fact, we will need to anyhow, and the sooner the better, since shock after shock to the economy will not feel good as the oil prices continue to spike.

 

Don't try to fix something that is not broken. We don't have open heart surgery on someone unless we know to the fullest extent that they need it. Wait and see if it's broken before trying to fix it.

I'm all for preventing the hardened arteries and the weakened heart! Why wait for the 3rd heart attack to do something?? A pro-active approach seems prudent, and we'll all be better off in the end.

Please examine the following: http://www.sciencemag.org

 

And search for the article: "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

Naomi Oreske

I'm all for preventing the hardened arteries and the weakened heart! Why wait for the 3rd heart attack to do something?? A pro-active approach seems prudent, and we'll all be better off in the end.

 

Why treat a third heart attack before the first? Treating something that may never exist can be as dangerous as the problem you fear, and that is not prudent.

 

Acting without the facts is always foolish, we don't fix broken bones because someone may fall someday and get hurt.

 

I've read scientific consensus on climate change and the majority don't believe it's man made.

That article of yours talks about the IPCC...that has been discredited many times.

 

The IPCC did not allow dissent from scientist, many refused to sign the petition they had saying global warming was real, and the IPCC added their names ANYWAYS. Then on top of that many of the people who signed the petition from the IPCC, were NOT even scientist but bureaucrat's paid to vote the way the IPCC wanted them too.

 

So much for science.:dozey::rolleyes

 

The fact is many scientist do not believe it's man made, many more aren't decided yet. With it up in the air still, we should not act while we risk doing more harm then good before we know what is going on.

Sources, Please..

 

Discredited by whom? Citations, please:rolleyes:.

Well, it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so I'm not surprised it was signed by bureaucrats - the Government part of Intergovernmental. Paid to vote the way the IPCC wanted them to? Once again, I would appreciate some citations - otherwise, if I mention this to anyone else, they'll just say I'm parroting radical jargon from the net..

 

Still, looking at the logic, as we are mining carboniferous matter stored in the Earth's crust, burning this matter in air, and in essence putting it into the biosphere (water, air, life), doesn't it seem likely that there would be some impact? I find it a bit incredulous to think this would have no significant effect - it just sounds so very unlikely..

Even if many scientists remain skeptical, and some do not believe the effects we are seeing are not man-made, there remains a number of scientists who do believe there is a significant effect.

And by acting now, we will not only reduce the effects of possible climate change, but will reduce the very real effects of fuel shortfalls, inflation, number of potential spills, money flowing to governments that may be sponsoring terrorists, and reducing the profits and hence influence of monopolies that control politics. So, how do you reason it would do more harm than good to cut back on our dependency on fossil fuels?? I am baffled by your logic.

The IPCC has been discredited by tons of people and scientist. I've presented tons of science to prove my point on this thread and others. You don't act until you know what is going on. I just listened to some people talk about pollution causing cooling around the world.

 

You don't act until there is a problem, we don't even know if we have a problem first of all. Second of all if we do have a problem we don't know what is causing it. You don't treat a patient if they're not sick, and if they're sick you find out what caused it to fix it. We don't know if there's a problem, let alone what is truly causing it.

 

Too often people act without intelligence and in the end more damage is done. There is not much science backing up your claim, thus making it foolish to act.

 

I've said this before, you're taking the focus away from real environmental issue's. The Co founder of Green Peace is attacking global warmest for scamming the world and taking the focus away from the real issue's at hand.

 

scientist scream global cooling, then global warming and now i'm hearing again of man made global cooling causing problems in the world.

 

We need to find out if were cooling the planet or warming it!:dozey:

 

*the amount of evidence against global warming being man made is huge. WIth such evidence it would be ignorant to ignore. Follow science not fads.

Before you cry fire, makes sure there is one or you end up in a lot of trouble.

 

 

An Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007.

 

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

 

Read about the IPCC.

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html

 

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

 

As far as C02, there is no real evidence that it is bad. Some studies show it's actually good.

 

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-4-skept.html

 

The IPCC has been disproven scientifically, and shown to have lied. IPCC scientist are speaking out against the so called "findings" of the report. And there were cases of scientist's signatures being forged on the report, later removed after they threatened to sue the IPCC. Talk about Pseudo-Science pushed by a government agenda! The IPCC is a prime example of false science and governments lying to get money and power.

 

Every where we look to find evidence of man made global warming the science is off, and the reports are falsified to fit a political agenda.

 

 

"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics

35 Inconvenient Truths

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

 

Gorey Truths

25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

 

Trenberth’s Twenty-Three Scientific Errors in One Short Article

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23errors.html

 

Errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

 

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/errors_in_al_gore_s_an_inconvenient_truth.html

 

More on the IPCC.

 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0704/S00023.htm

Argument by Monty Python

 

The IPCC has been discredited by tons of people and scientist. I've presented tons of science to prove my point on this thread and others.

Evidently a Weighty argument then:laugh3: All I see is hot air and smoke - the mirrors are just to double and redouble your effect.:P

You don't act until you know what is going on. I just listened to some people talk about pollution causing cooling around the world.

You Act to prevent disaster, just like we should have done in New Orleans. But then, maybe we should wait and see if we cook the earth in the frying pan experiment we're running, eh? Makes sense to anyone plying the north

atlantic without navigation equipment to not be careful around icebergs..

 

You don't act until there is a problem, we don't even know if we have a problem first of all.

Hmm.. said the famous volcanologists, as the they climbed to the summit, wondering why the volcano sat silent, but the ice on top began to melt..

Second of all if we do have a problem we don't know what is causing it. You don't treat a patient if they're not sick, and if they're sick you find out what caused it to fix it. We don't know if there's a problem, let alone what is truly causing it.

All the science thus conducted is inconclusive in every way?? You assume we are still in the dark...

 

Too often people act without intelligence and in the end more damage is done. There is not much science backing up your claim, thus making it foolish to act.

Or, more likely, they don't act until it's well past some midpoint, and there's serious damage ahead.. I see what typical human nature leads to. Ignore, wish away, take the evidence that makes it easier to not act in a timely manner..

 

I've said this before, you're taking the focus away from real environmental issue's. Bullshit! I think there are many important areas of concern, and to neglect any one of them is a shame. Are we not capable of handling more than one concern? Sure we are!!:cool:The Co founder of Green Peace is attacking global warmest for scamming the world and taking the focus away from the real issue's at hand. They haven't always been the most reliable, and are often out-of-date...:smug:

 

scientist scream global cooling, then global warming and now i'm hearing again of man made global cooling causing problems in the world.

IN BIG BOLD BRIGHT UNDERLINED BULLSHIT!:P Scientists had at one time a very limited view of things, and hadn't co-ordinated all the different factors. Actually, they may not have been wrong in predicting what would have happened had we not been mucking about in burning all the fossils. The human factor was under-represented.:P

We need to find out if were cooling the planet or warming it!:dozey: Warming it, thus masking a cooling trend, but it could turn cooler afterwards.

 

*the amount of evidence against global warming being man made is huge. Substantial might be a better word; but I still have skepticism for those who wish to wish it away - seems like the easy way out.. WIth such evidence it would be ignorant to ignore. Follow science not fads.

 

Yes, science, not fads. so you say, but your so fixated on it NOT existing at all, that you won't see the other side's arguments one damn bit.:P:P:P Truth cannot be found by dogmatic thinking either way.

An inconvenient fact: The first reference you cite is from the "Institute for Canadian Values", which already puts it in the camp of those limiting their views to those constrained by religious dogma. (where's the money for this group coming from, eh??). Separate science and religion - the facts and only the facts. I can see some independent research firm, composed of dissident scientists from academia, but I become highly skeptical when it's from a group trying to view things in science through the lens of "Judeo-Christian Values".. Galileo ran into similar problems a few years back, as I recall..

I've listened to your side, and seen the science. I will change my mind once real evidence is presented not falsified documents and reports to help the government get more power. I won't listen to fake science from a few desperate scientist who want money and governments who want more power. The majority of scientist do not believe in this bull shit because they are true to the science not money.

 

I follow the hard facts. THe majority of science I've seen has not come from religious sites, but what does it matter if they use science to prove their point? You clearly cannot separate government from science when it comes to this issue.