again this is off topic but check it out

[Arnell Castillo]

I signed up to join the Stop Global Warming Virtual March and I encourage you to add your voice as well. Global warming is the most urgent issue of our time and since we are all contributors to global warming pollution we must all be part of the solution. Joining the Virtual March is a first step to joining the movement to demand solutions now.

You can join by visiting: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org

StopGlobalWarming.org's mission is to use the strength of numbers to urge our government to address global warming, and urge businesses to start a new industrial revolution of clean energy that reduces our dependence on oil and helps stop global warming.

Together we can make a difference.

[Arnell Castillo]

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION

[amy kelly]

the science either way is not solid. it could be equally said that the earth follows cycles and that our actions are merely giving the schedule a barely noticable nudge. it is more likely that pollution does damage to beings living on the earth directly than to earth. also, it was found that plants give off methane, and in higher consentrations living then while rotten. methane has a greater effect than carbon dioxide.
http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane.html

[Mac Smith]

Yeah, I heard that cows farting (methane) is more of a danger to global warming than cars. Not trying to be funny, just listing what I heard.

[Matt Meinrod]

Global warming is happening, but so is nature taking it's course...

[Nikhil Rao]

Yeah, I heard that cows farting (methane) is more of a danger to global warming than cars. Not trying to be funny, just listing what I heard.

It's true. Among other things. Kyoto protocol is also crap. The biggest increases in global warming gases will come from developing nations not developed ones. Yet current doctrine is trying to reduce what WE use rather than help developing nations control THEIR pollution.

As a card-carrying conservationist (literally) I hate the global warming push. Because it distracts us from environmental problems that are more proven, more immediately threatening, and more easily solvable. Global warming theory isn't very sound compared to the work of Garret Hardin, or of David Pimentel. Pimentel's work in particular is magnificent.

I'm more worried about the explosive growth of hydropower in asia, which destroys important valley ecosystems. I'm more worried about the brazilian beef cattle boom, which is destroying rainforest left and right. I'm more worried about synthetic estrogens released into rivers. I'm more worried about overfishing. I'm more worried about California's refusal to let forests burn the way they're supposed to. I'm more worried about the fact that we arne't controlling the population in places that simply can't handle the people (Asia and Africa).

Thanks to the global warming push, a lot of people aren't even aware of these issues. As a libertarian, I see my political movement shoot itself in the foot much the same way. Guys wearing NORML shirts just to piss off Republicans, and others yeehawing about their guns to scare off the Democrats.

It's counterproductive. In fact, if I tried to design an environmental campaign that would produce the LEAST impact with the MOST amount of noise, I would make global warming the cornerstone.

[Arnell Castillo]

Fishing is changing the world's oceans in ways scientists can not fully understand. We may only learn about the nature and extent of the damage after it is too late to do anything to stop it.

A Fishy Story

Beneath the serene beauty of our ocean waters lurks a nightmare worse than any Jaws movie. You could compare it to alien abduction – massive numbers of fish are being snatched out of the water by high-tech factory fishing trawlers. This nightmare scenario is real, and the impacts on our ocean’s ecosystems are extensive. Entire populations of fish are being targeted and destroyed, disrupting the food chain from top to bottom.

A Tiny Example of an Enormous Problem

Throughout the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding Atlantic waters, there lives a fish near the bottom of the food chain: it’s called the menhaden. It’s not a glamorous or beautiful fish, but this tiny creature supports an entire food chain that leads all the way up to whales in the Atlantic Ocean. And it is disappearing.

This once abundant fish has become the symbol of overfishing, and its loss could have a dramatic impact on our oceans.

If the menhaden is the symbol of overfishing, the Omega Protein company has become the symbol of corporate greed and excess in the fishing community. Omega’s high-tech factory ships have been locating menhaden schools and literally vacuuming them out of the water.

The fishiest part of this story is that it is just one example of many in our oceans today.

This summer, Greenpeace is focussing on a tiny fish in the Chesapeake Bay, to demonstrate a worldwide problem facing our oceans. www.greenpeace.org

[Nikhil Rao]

exactly. THIS is the stuff that keeps me awake at night. Not global warming.

[Arnell Castillo]

exactly. THIS is the stuff that keeps me awake at night. Not global warming.
bro , don't let it keep you up at night . you need that energy to train. it bothers me as well, but i can only due my part and try and get the word out to as many people as possible. besides my training for strongman, this is the only thing that matters at the moment. we have one planet ! this may sound like hippie bs but oh well, so be it. as long as it gets to one person change is happening. TRAIN HARD AND LIVE STRONG !!!!!

[Josh Kamins]

the science either way is not solid. it could be equally said that the earth follows cycles and that our actions are merely giving the schedule a barely noticable nudge. it is more likely that pollution does damage to beings living on the earth directly than to earth. also, it was found that plants give off methane, and in higher consentrations living then while rotten. methane has a greater effect than carbon dioxide.
http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane.html


In reality very few if any actual scientists doubt the occurrence of global warming. Find me a peer reviewed article that provides solid evidence against it. On the other hand there are hundreds of peer reviewed articles published in favor. Stop believing the media that doesn't provide any data. Its not a political issue anymore, its a moral issue.

But you know, go ahead and keep doubting it, keep being stubborn and watch what happens to our planet. Though I have to say thats a lot that you're gambling with.

I can show you charts that correlate CO2 levels with earth's temperature over multiple millions of years of our planets history. Yes, its not causal, but it is highly correlative and highly likely to be true.

[Nikhil Rao]

Josh, you're right few scientists do doubt global warming. But we still don't know whether or how big of a role mankind itself is playing in global warming.

I'm not going to give you my whole spiel here, but in a recent article I read, they actually redefined a physical constant to get better numbers. REDEFINED! this went unremarked upon by the people who peer-reviewed said article. This would be equivalent to me saying "We all know gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 but my results are better if I make it 15. So that's what I did."

That kind of crap is fairly common among global warming research. I see the same thing in obesity research (spent a summer on that) and in other aspects of science as well.

But no matter how you slice it, global warming is a really stupid rallying tactic for environmental change. Most new damage is not being done in the developed world but in the developING world. Yet global warming and other tactics, along with their dubious emotional content, are directed mainly against the developed world.

The current environmentalism effort is akin to me going to Germany to yell at a bunch of old men for being former Nazis while ignoring the genocide in Africa.

[Josh Kamins]

If I show that CO2 levels are highly correlated with industrial development and that they are also highly correlative with raising earth temperatures, then doesn't that imply an effect of mankind?

As far as who has the largest affect, Americans still do. Yes, we need to concentrate on developing nations...specifically China and India, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on our own output, seeing as how we still consume the most.

[Richard Reynolds]

If I show that CO2 levels are highly correlated with industrial development and that they are also highly correlative with raising earth temperatures, then doesn't that imply an effect of mankind?


Not exactly. If team A can beat team B and team B can beat team C, it doesn't follow team A can beat team C. Or if cholesterol or salt causes high blood pressure, and eggs or other foods are high in cholesterol or salt, it doesn't necessarily follow that those foods will cause high blood pressure. Of course they might though. But systems such as the body or the ecosystem are pretty complex.

Is CO2 is a pollutant? Maybe plants will start to thrive and take some of that CO2 for us.

[Josh Kamins]

I agree causality is not the same as correlation, but please find me another plausible explanation then. If we know B goes up when A happens and C goes up when B happens, then won't A cause C to go up? We know that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas, and we know that the cycle within the ocean that our planet uses for exchanging carbonate and carbon dioxide can only handle so much as well as plants. So therefore, if CO2 causes increased world temperature (which is demonstratable) and CO2 levels are increasing due to human factors, then doesn't this mean humans are having an effect on the earth's temperature?

Lastly, both CO2 levels and world temp are higher than they've been in recordable history which is currently 6 million years.

Here's a nice little image to show you how greenhouse gases work in case you don't understand.

http://bio1152.nicerweb.com/med/Greenhouse_effect.gif

[amy kelly]

josh, where did i say that a warming pattern is not occuring? i did not, dont put words in my mouth. i said it could not be proven how much is us and how much is the earths natural cycle and that we are more likely poluting ourselves then the planet. stop focusing on co2 and look at the larger picture of everything and how it all works when combined. chemistry makes this subject far more interesting. studies have found that this is not the first time the caps melted. there have been numerous cycles of cold and heat throughout time. there is also a rise in methane from commercialised farming of animals and plants. developing nations with gold deposits have locals getting their hands on mercury to use for the purification of the gold (they mix the mercury and gold deposits on a shovel and burn it over a fire to separate the impurities from the gold, sending the mercury into the air). these areas also take in computer waste such as cell phone and pda batteries that leak into the ground water for a fee. to say industrialised nations are causing it only is to live in a college pamphlet handout dreamworld. if you look into who puts out a lot of data and running the movemnet, it is a lot of anarchists and socialists not scientists. do not read that to mean i am a neo con, i am registerd independant. i hunt, grow in my yard, and hate the abundance of waste, but i will not lie about 'facts' to clean things up. i would rather find truths that connect to promote conservation and proper recycling. read as much as you can from multiple sources, there is a lot out there.

[Ryan Rhodes]

If team A can beat team B and team B can beat team C, it doesn't follow team A can beat team C.


I happen to know that the A-Team can beat anything's ass; Even global warming.

[Josh Kamins]

Fair enough Amy, I apologize for making assumptions...though my last post wasn't actually targeted towards you. I also agree there are other aspects than CO2, but it is one of the problems that we have identified and can attack and do know that it is exacerbating the problem. And yes, it is clear that there are earth cycles that we don't fully understand yet, but we also know that the CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 650,000 years and temperature is on the rise. I believe we are outside of the natural curve, and I believe we can make some of it better for future generations.

[Will Irby]

I happen to know that the A-Team can beat anything's ass; Even global warming.


This is so true.... :EP:

[Eric Johnson]

... there is also a rise in methane from commercialised farming of animals and plants. ..

And there you have it, I think we should all help the environment and eat more Beef! :D

[Scott Kaiser]

"I believe we are outside of the natural curve"
Well that must make it true cause no one has ever munipulated data for political gain before.
Its all a cycle our puny minds can't possibly understand way to many variables
in the 70's they said we were going into another ice age just change the way you read the data to suit your soapbox.

[Josh Kamins]

Scott, this isn't a political issue, its a moral issue. Why would either side benefit from manipulating data? Please read the research and the data in peer reviewed science jounrals which have nothing to do with politics. The only articles disputing this evidence is in popular media. And extreme warming could definitely cause an ice age if it disrupts the currents by overflowing the carbonate cycle.


Nevermind I'm done. Debating on the internet is like, well insert your own cliche here.

[Nikhil Rao]

Fair enough Amy, I apologize for making assumptions...though my last post wasn't actually targeted towards you. I also agree there are other aspects than CO2, but it is one of the problems that we have identified and can attack and do know that it is exacerbating the problem. And yes, it is clear that there are earth cycles that we don't fully understand yet, but we also know that the CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 650,000 years and temperature is on the rise. I believe we are outside of the natural curve, and I believe we can make some of it better for future generations.

Josh, I don't think you understand the position I'm arguing from. Current environmentalism efforts amount to "make loud noises so we can feel good about ourselves, and then lets all smoke pot". Yes the US and Western Europe are the worst nations in polluting, but we are plateauing in our output. India and China on the other hand are building up their infrastructure right now. They are both cutting corners left and right and polluting LIKE MAD at the infrastructure level. If we pool our resources and focus on DEVELOPING nations to encourage them to use cleaner sources and manufacture cleaner, we can have a MUCH greater impact on CO2 emissions, per dollar.

As an example, emissions equipment on cars costs between 5-10% of the total cost of the car these days. But did you know that if we stripped EVERY bit of the emissions specific equipment away, these cars would STILL pollute only about 3% as much as a similar car from 1967, as opposed to about 1% with equipment in place?

That's a LOT of money being spent for relatively small reductions. Money that would better be spent elsewhere. Yet that is the general trend of the current environmentalist agenda, not to mention supporting pie in the sky developments like hydrogen (don't get me started), hybrids (even moreso), and raising CAFE standards (ARGH!!!!!!!!!) rather than right here right now Ethanol and biodiesel.

Not only that but I fear by putting all their eggs in one basket is preventing much more effective, immediate, and meaningful changes with regard to natural resource use being put into place. Especially because the basket we've chosen looks like it was woven by a blind monkey with cerebral palsy. I'm from India and I research South American monkeys. Which means that I am intimately connected to two of the most amazing biodiversity hotspots in the world. Unfortunately both of these areas are also burgeoning centers of infrastructure development. Every day, more and more Indian forest is lost. Same for south american rainforest.

My best friend (rest in peace buddy), had a way of getting me pissy in about 5 seconds flat. He'd send me a pic of deforestation in south america or asia. And immediately I'd be in a foul mood for an entire week. He was an asshole. But that's part of my point. There is an emotional connection to the forest, to furry little animals, to nature, that you simply can't have with the global warming mess.

I'm a trained ecologist, but even I find myself shrugging and saying 'so what' when they talk about a half degree difference in temperature. This despite the fact that I know just how gigantic an effect this can have on world ecosystems.

The more people yammer on about global warming, the less is being done on other issues such as overfishing, deforestation, and overpopulation. Even more frustratingly, the way these people want to attack global warming is simply not efficient or effective.

Conservation is an extremely personal issue with me. It's a part of my livelihood (how the hell do I study wild monkeys if there aren't any left?), and it's a part of my religion (Hinduism is at its root about a respect for nature). Hindus were the first to develop a concept of natural forests, and an Indian king (Asoka) was the first to establish specific protected species list, animal crossing zones along major roads, and forest corridors. All this hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus was born (some info here http://ignca.gov.in/cd_05016.htm).

I'm a big fan of Ducktales, and Uncle Scrooge had a great saying: "Work smarter, not harder." The modern environmentalism movement does neither.

[Nikhil Rao]

Please read the research and the data in peer reviewed science jounrals which have nothing to do with politics.

LOL. Josh, I hate to break it to you, but politics is RIFE within peer-reviewed science journals. I've seen shoddy work get published because it made a political point (about collectivism/socialism); stuff I would've been laughed out of grad school for suggesting/writing. And I've seen excellent work be denied because it made a point the mainstream disagreed with (about medication in psychiatry).

Not saying ALL global warming literature is crap, because it isn't. But a surprising amount of these authors get away with murder. I accept global warming, and on balance I give benefit of the doubt to the idea that it is mostly anthropogenic. But I nearly snorted milk all over my laptop with that.

[Brandon Campbell]

I dont really care, Nature will find a way to fix it self its been that way for millions of years. If it means everything on earth dies then so be it. Its happened before lol. Im not too worried bout it.

[Joe Brausch]

the first week of january in Ohio and it's 50 degrees. I'm all for global warming. If not for it, would we have ever come out of the last ice age?

[Josh Kamins]

Nikhil, many good points. I had felt you were implying trying to solve the problem in America was not worth it because the other nations were going to be causing more damage in the future. It is true, that China and India will be a major problem in the near future, thats a huge problem. China had the chance of switching to the cleaner coal choices with their new infrastructure that they're creating and they said screw that, its too expensive. On the other hand, I don't know if anyone has thought of a good way to make a change there from here (America), whereas I can attempt to make a change in my own country. Thats all I was saying.

As far as politics, I will concede politics can affect peer reviewed journals, but my point is still there. The only articles I've read that try to disprove or claim there exist problems with many of the global warming theories of today are popular press, which are greatly influenced by politics and have little to do with actual science. Also, its true there are journals I just don't trust out there, and maybe because I avoid some of them I don't catch all the crap filled articles.

As far as ethanol and biodiesel, yes they should be a major factor in the near future. Though if we could get off of carbon based fuels it would be better, no? Plus here in America the ethanol is still too expensive. In places like Brazil, its much more feasible. Why do you think that Hydrogen fuel cells are such a far stretch? It seems to me, its really just a matter of money at this point. If Bush did what Kennedy did for the space station and said we will dedicate x amount of money over the next 10 years to this purpose, it seems fairly reachable.

[Jay O'Neill]

Hey If global warming can make my Overhead press numbers go up... I'm all for it! ;)

[Josh Kamins]

At this point Jay, I'm going to have to agree with you there....my OH could use a miracle

[Jay O'Neill]

You da man Josh... ! we could all use a little help in the OHP dept.

[Rus Mandery]

I like the New Ice-Age version better than the Global Warming in environmental disaster theories. A significant cooling of the Earth would be much more damaging to people than global warming. Possibly leading to roving bands of thugs and warlords, and I feel I have what it takes to be a roving thug or even better, a warlord.