That environmental measures are simple good sense I do not wish to dispute. Global warming theory is sound, it's just certainly not happening the way it was first thought and uncertain if man can cause it at all.
But I have GREAT sympathy to the point of view that we cannot afford to waste billions of dollars on something which is just theory. This isn't about being Scrooge-like on saving the world- it is that millions of normal people are losing their jobs and, it seems, thousands are losing their lives, Mankind should not abandon the principle of only acting upon PROVEN information- it is the only logical way to go. If we go on theory, then we should also be preparing for the next ice age, which scientists also tell us is just around the corner.
Talking of ice ages... here is another discursive link...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-08-09&id=3395
just to back up USH here, Norwegian researchers have worked in the polar regions for years and have found no evidence of global warming. And theese dudes are THE BEST of their field, they are years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to this issue. But enviromentalist tend not to listen to them cause Norway is too small of a country to be recon with in their minds so the enviromentalist dont care if the facts are laid infront of them. And if the researchers where American they (enviromentalists)would claim they been paid off
Global warming is a fact. That’s not longer a debatable subject. Summers hotter than normal, swelling rivers due to ice-melting, the Arctic ice-caps are melting and the oceans have warmed up.
Please, do not confuse the issue of global warming with the debate of WHAT is causing it.
Ush> Manmade global warming is not proven due to the following fact. I had the pleasure of talking to a climate researcher last year, and I asked him. He told me, that since they’re scientists they cannot make unfounded allegations. They do not have enough data yet to make any conclusions. Meteorology as we know it hasn’t been making observations for a long enough time to rule out pollution. OR accuse it.
Temperatures have been rising, but the rise is not equally distributed through the levels of the atmosphere.
Okay, I’m a scientist, and I see where the climate researchers are coming from. We can’t discard the sun either, or the famed sunspot hypothesis. In the middle of the 17th century there were no sunpots. And it was freezing cold. Known as the Mauder Minimum (I think).
This hypothesis is not conclusive either, though.
Maybe the climate goes through long extended changes, that we haven’t been able to record yet. However, isn’t it peculiar that we experience global warming at the exact point in time, when humans lead billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
About 700 billion tons of CO2 are cycled through the atmosphere and it is generally believed that the amount of CO2 produced naturally is equal to the amount absorbed naturally via foliage, the oceans, and the earth. However, manmade production of CO2 accounts for approximately 24 billion tons of CO2, stemming mainly from fossil fuel use. Studies show that only half the amount of manmade CO2 is being absorbed and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 30 percent greater than it was 100 years ago.
Personally, I think it’s reasonable to assume both the sun and our CO2 contribute to global warming. We cannot do anything about the sun. We can, however, do something about CO2.
its hotter because of weather abnormalities such as el nino's, humans have only been recording temeptures for about a 100 years now and with a planet that is 100 million years old so you need a little more data than a hundred years of research. I know scientists can specualte with ice and rock what weather may have been like hundreds and or even thousands of years ago and they all agree that wheather fluctuations occur all the time and can last for hundreds of years.