Well I am a believer that we have affected the environment, but that is just an opinion. There are lot of studies which show the opposite of the above study. European reports show that our tempreture has infact increased and is continuing to do so.

To say we don't polute the atmosphere to the degree it is harmfull to us and around us is very incorrect. Just look at the smog over many major cities, that does not affect our health?

So I agree that global warming is mainly an opinion. But more countries recognise the problem than those that deny it.

You see it as a way to make the US economy go downwards, well thats maybe just paranoia. That argument could be turned around. Maybe the US administration realise what making the use of fossil fuels and being the largest poluter has done and is not prepared to face the financial consequenses.

It has been completely acknowledged outside of the US that the Earth is suffering from man made global warming for quite some time now, with the question of authenticity of global warming and the greenhouse not generally raised, as it's generally deemed common and obvious knowledge.

I personally think it is very arrogant to assume that the entire world has signed up to an environmental agreement solely to annoy the US, there are plenty of other and more effective ways that could be done in terms of trade restrictions, especially since the advent of the EU.

The idea of someone, especially a nation, simply not believing in global warming is considered, over here at least, a joke. I've seen it used in stand up routines and as anecdotes at parties.

And of course man can effect the environment. Who killed off the dodo? Who has #ed up the rainforests? It isn't even particularly difficult any more. I am not saying that this view is wrong, just that it is a factor which helps to make many American views laughable to the rest of the world.

The American Policy Center, where the article is from, want to do away with regulations that force big business not to pollute, well, as much as they do. It costs money to dispose of waste, produce cleaner emissions, and not belch poison from factories. This is about how to make more money, not what is actually happening to our environment. Some people don't believe in 'pay as you go' but would rather rape the world now, and let someone else worry about the burden later.

Even if the theories on gobal warming are not correct i would prefer to live in a cleaner world. There are some cities in the world where the air is barely breathable, in fact even Sydney is bad enough. It's a joy to go to less industrialized areas on vacations and breath sweet, pure fresh air for a change. Even if cars aren't doing long term damage to the environment they are doing damage to my lungs on a daily basis.

It is truly ignorant to say there is no such thing as global warming, I mean you can see it in major citys. Smog being an examole, also we control our enviroment to the point of destroying it.

Originally posted by edsingerIt will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs.

Are you kidding? That's £500-£2000 even at todays exchange rates. Compared with my annual total energy bill of around £300 per year here in England! How much energy do you yanks use?

I am a american and theres no doute in my mind at all that global warming is real and for the life of me I cant understand why people try to ignore it.
i have been keeping track of highlow temps around america including alaska now for well over 25 years and contrairy to what science has relised on the temp incress is MUCH worse .
25 years agaio in september it was snowing in alaska and even some of the lower states like wyoming and alaskas temp was already droping to down near 10% averge by the begining of october .
in the last ten years it stays over 45% untill december and even ABOVE the artic circle its still just bearly below 32% and this is in early DECEMBER when its sop to be -30 to -60.
what scientest dident relize 30 years agaio when they started studing global warming is that its a geometric progression event .
starts out realy slowly but once it gets going it picks up speed .These poeple spouting everthings fine will have there undeniable proff soon enough we are very close indeed to a major climet shift now. As to what this means no scientest can say because it has never happened this way on earth befor will it heat up to a point then collaps and get realy cold?Or just a massive mealt down that takes just years instead of the 100 we think its going to take? well eather way we are in for a bumpy ride.

I'd like to thank all those people who think global warming is something serious. Despite the fact that the original poost contradicted itself saying that studies were all wrong, then provided us with a nice one, global warming is evident in our daily lives. Why, all I have to do is look outside my window sometimes, and then I know something's not right. I don't need some over-paid scientist to tell me that, or tell me against it. What the eyes see is more than I'll ever need.

I am afraid to say that my generation will decide the worlds fate. We really have no other choice than to gather and DO something about it. That's why I created my forum here, and I hope someone will take the time to reply, because I always like critics too!

"Three words... "personal economical benefit" "

... yep ... 'affluent' but extinct - just great! oh yeah makes absolute sense ...... bury your head in the sand and stick stubbornly to the way things are, [ which really is not that great (take them blinkers off) ]. Keep consuming selfishly, keep getting fat - its all in the name of prosperity. Global warming is happening anyway so what the hell, might as well help it along. Pffft it will all be fine ... and you're willing to bet your children's and grandchildren's lives on it.



[edit on 19-12-2004 by c_au]

Well there is no doubt Global warming is happening but there is no proof that it is a result of humans and not a natural cycle. There has been 17 Ice Ages in the last 1.8 million years wild changes in earth's climate long before humans were effecting the enviroment in any significant way. The earth goes through climate changes all the time.

Earths climate is not static it changes all the time with human intervention or without it.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 19-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There has been 17 Ice Ages in the last 1.8 million years wild changes in earth's climate long before humans were effecting the enviroment in any significant way.

Yes. This is true!

However humans have sped up the process. Do the calculations yourself and see when the next ice age is supposed to be by NORMAL standards. You'll see it's FAR in the future, but we're hearing movies about ice ages, and all this media. Heck, we're talking about it right now. If I ask you the simple question of "what causes ice ages" then i could counter your statement with yur very own answer.

The climate MAY be getting warmer (seems to me it is, having 50 years of personal observations), but I very much doubt that it is man made. The earth's climate has had wild fluctuations many times in its history. In fact, for the vast majority of Earth' history, the Earth has been significantly warmer than now. We just happen to be in a cool period, and may simply be returning to average.

We have had 4 ice ages in the last 10 million years. The last one ended only 10,000 years ago. It only makes sense that we are getting warmer, and I would want a lot more proof than we have now that man is causing it. The Earth's climate can be affected by the Sun's variable output, geophysical cycles deep in the Earth, and long, slow cycles in atmospheric behaviour, many of which we are just starting to understand.

There is therefore a very high probability that Man's ascension and industrial revolution are simply coincidental to a natural cycle.

Unfortunately, there are any number of leftwing radical groups that want to use global warming as a scare tactic to further their causes. They make linkages to the hated corporations, globalization, false connections to other, genuine environmental concerns and so on. As a result, there is a lot of junk science being peddled, and our media are irresponsibly printing any "press release" these groups send out, and alarming a population that doesn't have the knowledge to filter the wheat from the chaff.

The real tragedy is that attention is being diverted from genuine concerns. In addition, there is a very real risk that, since we don't truly understand the Earth as a mechanism, that by taking man-made measures against a percieved threat, we could inadvertantly cause unintended consequences. In other words, tinkering with the climate to counter our other tinkering (assuming there's something to it) seems prima facie unwise.

I would like to propose a truce between right and left and making a common cause. I make the following assertions:

1. Pollution is a bad thing per se.
2. We are very wasteful in our inefficient use of energy.

I propose that if we battle both of the above, we will achieve economic savings and reduce (at least in the US and Europe) dependency on foreign energy sources, and of course make them last longer. It will also (according to global warming alarmists) reduce so-called greenhouse emissions. It seems to me that making this common cause will forward both the right and left wing agendas.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I would like to propose a truce between right and left and making a common cause. I make the following assertions:

1. Pollution is a bad thing per se.
2. We are very wasteful in our inefficient use of energy.

And that, my friend, is somehting I really want to happen, for if that happens, my side is pleased, and like you say, so are you. (even though I am annoyed at your use of politics in this, as I am right winged, it's much easier to deny and live on, then to stop the car, get out, and check the fuel.)

Not sure I completely understand your posting, humanoidcontent (I consider myself on the right, too), but I accept the criticism: getting buy-in to a common front while jabbing your putative partner is counter-productive.

Unfortunately, this subject is already badly compromised by politicization, partly because of the actions of special interest groups (those I alluded to, but admittedly also by those who profit from the status quo). Its also partly because it becomes a litmus test of fealty to one's ideology (left or right), leading people to reject good data and logic out of hand, and to embrace the bad because it is self-serving.