travis g

Ok, here is an idea, all sarcasm aside. My disagreement with the ENTIRE climate change debate is man's contribution to it. I know there are lots of people out there who feel differently, and I have absolutely no intent to change what you do because it doesn't affect me.

I do support other environmental causes and ideas for change. Making people pay extra won't do anything. A prime example is smoking. Cigarettes are outrageously expensive, but people still smoke.

Try a different approach, like investing the large amounts of money tied to climate research into advancements in technology and energy instead. Imagine an almost self sufficient nuclear reactor, or a more efficient alternative fuel vehicle (ethanol doesn't count because it requires lots of extra energy to produce the 95-97% purity required from azeotropic tendencies). This will decrease man made CO2 WHILE providing more useful technology, instead of just charts and graphs.

If you believe that man is significantly contributing to changes in global climate, you have every right. But if you want to have an action plan about it, calling skeptics stupid is the wrong approach. The most successful ideas are the ones that give a certain level of satisfaction to both sides. I am an aforementioned skeptic and I consider my self relatively well-educated, with a focus in chemistry.

So, the actual question is what would be wrong with this idea?

See the following two graphs

temperature change

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climate...

annual GDP

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PTOMch33YWk/S08i5wxWK8I/...

As it can plainly be seen, there is a sharp increase in both. This leads to the obvious conclusion that an increase in the gross domestic product of a country is linked to the increase in temperature change.

So, how will we deal with this issue?

I was trying to read the official report of the recent post from the Metoffice. The link doesn't seem to work, and I want to see if anyone else has this problem. (this is the website link, NOT the science paper, which is towards the bottom)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

The link is towards the bottom of the page.

How can people claim that global warming is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives?

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/09/6...

http://environment.about.com/b/2008/02/28/global-w...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090601-...

I like how the last one estimates more then twice the others. +/- 100%, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable margin of error, right?

Back to the topic. How can one side not only go so far as to state global warming as fact, but also state that it is resposible for hundreds of thousands of deaths per year?

My neighbor and I have a deal worked out where instead of paying to have internet installed in my apt, I give him my mac address and he will add me to his router. I was wondering if he could do anything malicious knowing my mac address?

Has anyone else noticed that half of the "solutions" to global warming involve purchasing something?

Anywhere from flourescent light bulbs to hybrid cars, a lot of ideas requires $$$$. (P.S. Flourescent lightbulbs contain mercury, which leads to a toxic pollutant when disposed of by the way) (P.S.S. trees do absorb carbon dioxide, but also rease a lot of it when they die and decompose)

I was just asking if anyone else noticed that apparently everyone needs to spend money in order to save the planet from this horrific global warming.

is what global warming has amounted to. A game of "he said, she said". "This scientist said", "Oh yeah? Well this scientist said..." Anybody can quote anything. Why are people arguing over this? Both sides have credited information. (Dont mention conspiracies, toyota stands to make as much profit as oil companies). What good is arguing if you arent going to change someones mind?

How can people say that ther are "____ thousands of deaths each year" due to global warming? It is a "butterfly effect" idea to say things like that.

"global warming will increase the temperature, which leads to drought, which leads to crop destruction, which leads to famine, which leads to disease, ..........." and so on. things are NEVER that cut and dry. There are thousands of other factors.

Hurricanes getting stronger? Try looking back in history. there have been multitudes of category 5 hurricanes. This is the first year in a long time that the area i live in has NOT experienced a drought.

If global warming is still debatable, how can people make statements that go that far in depth.

If scientists continually alter their predictions due to "unforeseen" factors, then why are they even making predictions in the first place.

I think the last article i saw said that the weather effects wont be felt for another 9 years due to "unforeseen events".

We devoted at least half as much time trying to fix something real as we did on something theoretical, like global warming? There is no proof that we will be dead in 20 years if we dont do anything about "global warming." Remember El Nino years ago? if that was happening today, it would be blamed on global warming.

Global warming is also more profitable then people like to think. Companies like Toyota and Honda are see record breaking years. Home manufacturing that specialize in Green building are skyrocketing. The price of an inconvenient truth movie is outrageous, especially since Al Gore "cares" so much.

To me, the funding for this research could be put towards something far more beneficial to society as a whole.