Global Warming-- do you think it is a problem?

[Anne/Ankara]

It's funny, my ds is taking an Environmental Science class at a university this term, studying global warming and other environmental issues. Yesterday in Pittsburgh it was 62 degrees, another record high for our area. And then my son started talking about his class to his homeschooled math club friends, and they all seemed to deny that there was any evidence of global warming and all. Amazing! This was a group of middle school kids who I would have thought were reasonably well-educated about current events. I wonder if they resist the idea of global warming as a problem, since many politicians (Al Gore) who talk about it are more liberal than they are...

[Friederike in Persia]

so, with clamy fingers, I'm telling you that I doubt global warning!!!!:rolleyes:
Seriously though, I get the impression a lot of people don't consider the evidence as much as who is presenting it, as well as what their own personal experice is.

Friederike

[Kathy in MD]

different parts of the earth will respond differently. For example, if the Gulf Stream is shut down because of melting ice caps, Ireland, England and Western Europe will lose the warm weather that the ocean current currently provides. Instead their climate will more closely resemble that of their latitude counterparts in Canada -- Labador and Newfoundland. So mislabeling the phenomena adds credibility to the naysayers, they can always point to this spot or that spot.

But I think the biggest problem is three-fold. 1) Most people don't like change and will fight it. By denying climate change some can deny their need to change their habits and lifestyle. 2) There is a distinctive anti-intellectual bent in many segments of the population so many won't accept scientists' findings and opinions if they go against the individual's wants (see #1) 3) As the evidence mounts, I think a lot of the denial is because it's associated as a liberal cause combined with "they're out to take my rights away"

The funny thing is, that now as the evidence mounts, the naysayers are starting to say that it's natural and nothing anyone does (ie not burning fossil fuels) will make an impact. Once again, they don't need to change.

[Anne/Ankara]

Certainly some areas might experience colder temperatures, some warmer, some stormier... not necessarily all warmer!

[jacqui in mo]

He doesn't think the data is that strong or well researched and besides, the earth is very old (even if you're a young earth creationist) and global warming is based on only about 50 years of data. We don't know all the cycles of earth's global climates. It does seem to have long term cycles of warming & cooling. So warming is most likely a normal earth global cycle. Seems like there are plenty of scientists out there who also don't go along with man made global warming theory: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html

My take is that meteorologists can't even quite accurately predict the weather a week in advance. The forecasts constantly change. How do we think we can predict global climate 100 years down the road? We were told in the 70's of the impending Ice Age...
Jacqui

[Mx5]

different parts of the earth will respond differently. For example, if the Gulf Stream is shut down because of melting ice caps, Ireland, England and Western Europe will lose the warm weather that the ocean current currently provides. Instead their climate will more closely resemble that of their latitude counterparts in Canada -- Labador and Newfoundland. So mislabeling the phenomena adds credibility to the naysayers, they can always point to this spot or that spot.

But I think the biggest problem is three-fold. 1) Most people don't like change and will fight it. By denying climate change some can deny their need to change their habits and lifestyle. 2) There is a distinctive anti-intellectual bent in many segments of the population so many won't accept scientists' findings and opinions if they go against the individual's wants (see #1) 3) As the evidence mounts, I think a lot of the denial is because it's associated as a liberal cause combined with "they're out to take my rights away"

The funny thing is, that now as the evidence mounts, the naysayers are starting to say that it's natural and nothing anyone does (ie not burning fossil fuels) will make an impact. Once again, they don't need to change.

There are many scientists who are experts in their fields who doubt the global warming hype. Read the brief article below:

UN Conference (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)

It's no wonder that people may be confused, but the great majority of the masses will believe the mainstream hype.

[GothicGyrl]

Ahem....

Yes. We are in some kind of mistake waiting to happen. February used to be so cold (for Florida) and I'm here to tell you that it is freakin 80** out right now--830 in the MORNING!!

Do I believe Al Gore's Global Warming(tm)? No...but well, all I can say while being nice is Yes, something is happening. I don't think most of us will be here to witness the afteraffects of it, but our kids will and that's enough for me.

[Holly IN]

The Farmers Almanac do not believe in Global Warming. They said it is Earth going through its cycles. Remember back in the 30's to 50's they thought there was going to be an ice age coming.

Remember who is presenting the Global Warming ideas. The very people that are presenting are wanting to tax us for breathing carbon dioxide into the air. I have heard some really wacky stuff from the global warming people on how they want to tax people due to global warming. YIKES!

My belief is Earth is going through cycles as it always have done. Let's let it take its course.

Holly

[Amy in MS]

RE:
Central Asia is hitting a record low this winter--is not evidence against "global warming"

Sticking your finger out the window and saying "it feels cooler this year than last year" is weather, not climate change.

There is a difference!

But, I tend to agree with you re: listening to the messenger and not the message. A majority of folks who pooh-pooh global warming are right-wingers and religious folks. A majority of "CC believers" are lefties believe in it. And I think this has to do with preconceptions and fear because there are intelligent people on both sides.

And, frankly, it's the reason I'm becoming less "religious" every day. And I used to be a conservative Christian missionary! But the response of the US Christian community to taking care of the world has me really down.

Amy

[GothicGyrl]

I don't doubt we are going through cycles, but even as early as 5 years ago, February was "colder" (being a relative term for Florida) than it is now.

I've had ONE day of COLD (30's) ONE... Cycles, maybe... Al Gore, he's a dumbarse... but that doesn't mean we arent' going through something.

We are all gas hogs, energy hogs, we waste, we don't recycle anything (we being the general and not necessarily anyone on this board). We drive big honking SUV's when there is no need to. We don't consolidate our trips, we waste everything. We spend on junk and then throw it out instead of recycling it.

Of course a lot of this is the governments fault--there's no education on how to do these things, no GOOD recycling programs, no incentive to not buy that big honkin' SUV. But we don't help the situation either.

But, I tend to agree with you re: listening to the messenger and not the message. A majority of folks who pooh-pooh global warming are right-wingers and religious folks. A majority of "CC believers" are lefties believe in it. And I think this has to do with preconceptions and fear because there are intelligent people on both sides.

And, frankly, it's the reason I'm becoming less "religious" every day. And I used to be a conservative Christian missionary! But the response of the US Christian community to taking care of the world has me really down.

Amy

I wanted to let you know, Amy, that you are not alone in this belief. I do believe and agree with you. I was just trying to avoid bringing those things up. :)

[jacqui in mo]

Yet we're still being bombarded with how we need to change... I'm all for decreasing pollution in localities where it is bad but to think humans can control the climate one way or the other seems unreasonable. We can't control the weather. We can't always accurately predict the weather. We have been told over 10 years ago how the oceans would be dead in 10 years. We were told that global warming would cause hurricanes seasons to be worse and more Katrinas would happen, but last year the hurricane season was mild. Now global warming theorists say that the warming may actually cause hurricanes to have the tops sheared off them so the seasons will be less severe. Okay... which is it?:confused::confused:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417182843.htm

I think rushing in to try to make huge changes to national economies & industries is a mistake when we DON'T have all the information straight nor do we know the effects of the changes we would make.
Not all scientists agree on global warming causes including my FIL, a respected atmospheric physicist:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

[Dot]

I've posted this site before, but is is fabulous, with tons of great articles by actual climate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org

[lynn]

No

[Michelle in GA]

No, I don't. The groups that are pushing the issue know that most people aren't buying it, hence the shift in language from"global warming" to "climate change". Remember, it wasn't long ago that global cooling was issue. I think the global warming craze will eventually go the way of phrenology. Please no tomatoes--I know this is a controversial issue, and I mean no disrespect to those who believe wholeheartedly in global warming;this is just my opinion.

[Melinda in VT]

I do tend to think global warming is a problem, but I also think that the things we can do to reduce global warming are good things to do anyway, both for the environment and to reduce our dependence on oil.

[Amy in MS]

You are a better person that I. ;)
Have a great one!
Amy

[Excelsior! Academy]

The Farmers Almanac do not believe in Global Warming. They said it is Earth going through its cycles. Remember back in the 30's to 50's they thought there was going to be an ice age coming.

Remember who is presenting the Global Warming ideas. The very people that are presenting are wanting to tax us for breathing carbon dioxide into the air. I have heard some really wacky stuff from the global warming people on how they want to tax people due to global warming. YIKES!

My belief is Earth is going through cycles as it always have done. Let's let it take its course.

Holly

Yeah, what she said!;)

[Sharon in SC]

There are many scientists who are experts in their fields who doubt the global warming hype.

My dh, a scientist through and through, would count himself in this number. In his mind (and the rest of our family's 'cause he's been our mentor on this subject!), the earth is just doing what it's been doing for a very long time - cycling.

FWIW,
Sharon

[Ellie]

nt

[Amy in NH]

I read many studies firsthand while at University, and I do believe there is manmade Global Climate Change going on. Of course the Earth goes through cycles, but not so quickly as we have seen in just our lifetime. There's tons of evidence for it, and lots of "scientists" being paid off by some groups :rolleyes: to say what people want them to say so the propaganda against is coming from "experts".

[Daisy]

I think it is a normal fluctuation. I'm not worried about it. You can also research the information on this topic at Answers in Genesis.

That said, I do reduce, reuse and recycle.

[Sharon in SC]

...lots of "scientists" being paid off by some groups :rolleyes: to say what people want them to say so the propaganda against is coming from "experts".

Well....fwiw, dh's opinion is based on his scientific interpretation of the facts and there is absolutely no one who has paid him to say it! :p

[readwithem]

Ditto.

[Mekanamom]

My FIL, who lives with us, (and is a scientist) has reached the same conclusion as your DH, Sharon. And no one is paying him to say it either.

He maintains that the prediction models are flawed.

I, personally, find a lot of it over my head... and while I can read and understand a research paper, I couldn't point out flaws in the research itself without more study. So I am deferring to my FIL on this one at this time.

[Kathy in MD]

not vs if we don't act and it is man induced. Unfortunately I can't do a formal decision tree here but I can do a pro-con chart.

Act to reduce greenhse but no effect on climate

PRO
walk & bike instead of using car - healthier people, less dependence on foreign oil, less particulate matter to breath in.

develop new industries (solar and wind) - can bring industry and income to less prosperous parts of the country

less money leaving the country for oil

CON
negative affect on auto industry, steel industry, oil industry and parts of the country and world where oil and steel are a large part of the economy

people give up the pleasure of auto travel and big vehicles.


You can add more to each side.

Don't act and human induced climate change is real

PRO

no major economic impact today

people don't need to change their habits today

CON

coastal areas possibly wiped out in the future

possible future problems with finding and developing new agricultural lands.

possible future problems with feeding and housing the world's population

Once again you can add more to each side.

To this you need to add a sheet on "we act, but it doesn't stop climate change" and "we don't act and the climate doesn't change" To further refine the process you can estimate the % chance of each scenario.

But for me, I look at the potential consequences of not acting if global warming is real vs the consequences of acting and it's not real. I think the potential danger is worth making the changes now. And I know that the some of these changes would benefit me now.

You can also draw an analogy to the Surgeon General's announcement in the 60's that smoking might be hazardous to your health. Many at that time said the science wasn't there yet. But what would happen if someone decided not to smoke because of the possibility and he was wrong? They wouldn't spend money on cigarettes, they wouldn't reek of cigarette smoke, they would reduce the chance of burn holes in their furniture, clothes and homes. The down side was many communities relied on the tobacco industry and state gov'ts relied on the taxes tobacco sales brought in. But if the Surgeon General was right, the non-smoker had also reduced his chances of developing lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses. At the same time, his family and the economy as a whole was saved a lot of money caring for tobacco related illnesses.

Sometimes we need to act before all the data is in. Personally I think that climate change is one of those issues.

[Cadam]

However I don't think it is a problem and I think it is a little silly to think that humans in the last 100 years could have had such an impact on this huge,complicated world. Since accurate weather reporting has really only been with us for a matter of decades I think our data is a statistically insignificant sample size, not enough info to prove anything one way or another. It does seem that we are in a warming trend but how do we know that's not normal? Couldn't we just be coming out of an ice age, and what about all the "global cooling" stuff from the 70's?

I think we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the world we have but environmentalism has become its own religion. It's gone way to far on to little data to really make long term projections.

[DollyM]

It's troubling to read on this board the oversimplified generalizations about this subject. I'm hesitant to embrace politically correct lifestyle changes in favor of a Global Warming world view. When I read the literature, the non-global warming scientists convince me. The global-warming scientists don't. BTW I am a conservative Christian. With a brain that I try to use from time to time.

Obviously, I have biases, too. I just wanted to tip-toe in here and remind some of you that some of your biases are coming thru a little too loud and clear. :D

[Sharon in SC]

[QUOTE=Cadam;39841]I think we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the world we have...QUOTE]

Yes. Let us not forget that we can believe the earth is simply going through another cycle of warming/cooling and still carry ourselves, environmentally, similarly to someone else who happens to believe that what we are experiencing is man induced. Irregardless of our views on "Global Warming", we definitely accept the responsibility of not being wasteful of our resources!

[Cricket]

and like others have said, I think some people have a strong feelings about the issue because of who is presenting it and what Al Gore's and other politicians' remedy for it is. And I believe there simply isn't enough data out there. I laugh when I hear meteorologists say "This is the warmest summer ever!!!" Sometimes they remember to add "uh, on record." Umm, haven't we only been keeping records for just over 100 years? If the Earth really is billions of years old (or even 10,000 years old), I think we need to keep records just a little longer to know what we are talking about.

If the climate is changing, and it probably is, I don't believe we can do much about it. I think it is natural cycles the Earth goes through and not man-made. There is evidence that the Vikings used to farm in Greenland, in many places that today are covered with ice. There are fossils of ocean animals found in the middle of Minnesota. We will always have hurricanes in the southeast and sometimes they will be severe. I tend to shrug my shoulders at it and figure future generations will deal with it by moving, changing their lifestyles and farming habits, whatever. Nothing ever remains the same. Isn't that the one constant in life?

[Kathy in MD]

Passenger pigeons were thought to be the most numerous bird in the world in the 1800's. I've read accounts about how one flock would take a day or longer to fly overhead. People would just massacre flocks and let the hogs eat them. When number's started dropping, a lot of theories were made to blame the drop on things other than human interference. (both hunting and habitat destruction) My favorite was that the passenger pigeons had flown to Australia and would be back next year. BTW, the last passenger pigeon died in 1914, less than a hundred years after they first started being shot in large numbers.

Wholesale cutting of trees alter the local climate, and possibly regional climates. If you take a tree in the middle of a field and measure the temperature and humidity day and night, you'll notice that under the tree it's cooler in the day and warmer at night. The humidity is higher around the clock under the tree. This is marked enough that scientists are urging the replanting or trees on the borders of the Sahara to stop the desert's growth. So imagine the effect if you cut down half a continent's forests.

There are many, many more examples of how man has changed the local and regional environment. I have no problem in visualizing how man could make global changes.

[ncmomo3]

He doesn't think the data is that strong or well researched and besides, the earth is very old (even if you're a young earth creationist) and global warming is based on only about 50 years of data. We don't know all the cycles of earth's global climates. It does seem to have long term cycles of warming & cooling. So warming is most likely a normal earth global cycle. Seems like there are plenty of scientists out there who also don't go along with man made global warming theory: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html

Jacqui

I second you Jacqui and your FIL.
My dh is a current chemist with a masters in atmospheric science. He has never encountered ANY other peer in his field that subscribes to man-made GW--including the PhD's he studied under.

[Anne/Ankara]

Wow, lots of interesting opinions and views! Fascinating subject that really deserves more in-depth analysis. Thanks for everyone's comments and links! My son will be heading to Switzerland next month over spring break to look at some of the disappearing glaciers there, so that will also be a very informative look at global climate changes in the past decades. Very interesting!

[PariSarah]

I don't need to agree with global warming theories (although I am inclined to believe at least some of it) to believe that our poor stewardship of the earth is devastating.

[Claire]

The Farmers Almanac do not believe in Global Warming. They said it is Earth going through its cycles. Remember back in the 30's to 50's they thought there was going to be an ice age coming.

Remember who is presenting the Global Warming ideas. The very people that are presenting are wanting to tax us for breathing carbon dioxide into the air. I have heard some really wacky stuff from the global warming people on how they want to tax people due to global warming. YIKES!

My belief is Earth is going through cycles as it always have done. Let's let it take its course.

Holly

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that these *rates* of change have occured before in the Earth's cycles. It is the *rate* of change, documented by scientists in a wide variety of areas, that is so alarming.

Global warming is not about a belief system. The trends in the *rate* of change that is taking place are well-documented in research articles that are accessible to even lay people. I just wonder how many people who don't believe in global warming have read even a few issues of Scientific American in the last three years.

[Mrs Mungo]

Do I think climate change is cyclical and inevitable? Yes.

Do I think one our nation's top priorities should be to reduce our reliance on coal and oil? Yes.

Do I think (particularly as a Christian) it's important to be good stewards of the earth? Yes.

[mcconnellboys]

I'd be interested to hear if folks can come up with statistics that bear out that all these wild thermometer swings are part of a "trend" that has happened before, 'cause I don't think they are. I know that some argue against the idea because they don't want to accept that we are doing anything to cause it. They want to believe that it is just part of a global climate trend that sweeps back and forth over time like a pendulum. But I don't think we can really continue to believe forever that we can dump the amount of toxic stuff we do into our air, water, and land and not suffer some consequences from it. As we continue to waste time arguing about whether or not we're causing it, it's getting worse.... Shouldn't we just try to DO something about it and at least SEE if that works? Can it really hurt? At the very least, we'd save money, better our own health, etc. Seems like a win/win, overall, to me. I think getting caught up in the politics of it is really dumb. Who cares who promotes it (I'm NOT a Gore fan, by the way, but....)? Continuing to Ignore the issue is like cutting off our nose just to spite our face....

Regena

[OH_Homeschooler]

It's no wonder that people may be confused, but the great majority of the masses will believe the mainstream hype.

Sorry, but I consider myself highly educated and well-informed on science issues and I believe the "mainstream hype". Not because it's hype but because from all the evidence I've encountered, it's based on sound science and not hype. And yes, I believe Al Gore but I've done a lot of my own research.

And I have a huge pet peeve with saying "well it's very cold here today" or "it's very hot here today" as evidence against/for global warming. The trends they review are much longer than a day, week, month, or year. There will always be minor variations, but the trends are real.

Now, can someone please tell me the motivation to deny that this is happening? That's honestly what I'm most confused about. I enjoyed the book "The Republican War on Science" that I read over a year ago, but I can't remember the main arguments presented for denying man-made global warming.

Let the negative rep points roll in!

[OH_Homeschooler]

I'd be interested to hear if folks can come up with statistics that bear out that all these wild thermometer swings are part of a "trend" that has happened before, 'cause I don't think they are. I know that some argue against the idea because they don't want to accept that we are doing anything to cause it. They want to believe that it is just part of a global climate trend that sweeps back and forth over time like a pendulum. But I don't think we can really continue to believe forever that we can dump the amount of toxic stuff we do into our air, water, and land and not suffer some consequences from it. As we continue to waste time arguing about whether or not we're causing it, it's getting worse.... Shouldn't we just try to DO something about it and at least SEE if that works? Can it really hurt? At the very least, we'd save money, better our own health, etc. Seems like a win/win, overall, to me. I think getting caught up in the politics of it is really dumb. Who cares who promotes it (I'm NOT a Gore fan, by the way, but....)? Continuing to Ignore the issue is like cutting off our nose just to spite our face....

Regena

Thank you thank you! This is what I was getting at with my last point...why the utter denial? Why NOT try to be a little earth friendly? Who does that hurt?

[Claire]

But for me, I look at the potential consequences of not acting if global warming is real vs the consequences of acting and it's not real. I think the potential danger is worth making the changes now. And I know that the sum of these changes would benefit me now.

You can also draw an analogy to the Surgeon General's announcement in the 60's that smoking might be hazardous to your health. Many at that time said the science wasn't there yet. But what would happen if someone decided not to smoke because of the possibility and he was wrong? They wouldn't spend money on cigarettes, they wouldn't reek of cigarette smoke, they would reduce the chance of burn holes in their furniture, clothes and homes. The down side was many communities relied on the tobacco industry and state gov'ts relied on the taxes tobacco sales brought in. But if the Surgeon General was right, the non-smoker had also reduced his chances of developing lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses. At the same time, his family and the economy as a whole was saved a lot of money caring for tobacco related illnesses.

Sometimes we need to act before all the data is in. Personally I think that climate change is one of those issues.

That is so well-stated!

[jacqui in mo]

been in the past. Where do we have the sophisticated equipment of the past to make the statement that ..."There is no scientific evidence to suggest that these *rates* of change have occured before in the Earth's cycles. It is the *rate* of change, documented by scientists in a wide variety of areas, that is so alarming."...?

Worldwide warming may have even stopped:
"Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004


The data that the last 10 years as being the hottest on record in the U.S. is faulty.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070816b.html

I just don't presume to think we know enough about the earth's atmosphere, the weather, and the interaction of the sun to make such dire predictions. We can't predict weather 10 years from now, we can't predict volcanoes or earthquakes reasonably, we can't predict global climate, & we can't predict what the results of any global changes we try to make would be.

[Colleen]

I think it is a little silly to think that humans in the last 100 years could have had such an impact on this huge,complicated world.

On the other hand, I find it a little silly to think we couldn't have had such an impact...

[Colleen]

I'm glad Kathy in MD has been posting to this thread so I can simply say, "Ditto" to her offerings. Global climate change, effected in large part by man, is a problem. I am not even going to couch that with "I think" because there is no question in my mind; that is, I don't consider it a matter of opinion.

[Colleen]

My son will be heading to Switzerland next month over spring break to look at some of the disappearing glaciers there, so that will also be a very informative look at global climate changes in the past decades.

It's stunning, how many Alpine ski areas now rely on snow-making machines (which themselves are of course environmental disasters). Where specifically will your son be going?

[Colleen]

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that these *rates* of change have occured before in the Earth's cycles. It is the *rate* of change, documented by scientists in a wide variety of areas, that is so alarming.

Bingo.

[melissel]

I don't need to agree with global warming theories (although I am inclined to believe at least some of it) to believe that our poor stewardship of the earth is devastating.

Ditto. Nicely said.

[melissel]

On the other hand, I find it a little silly to think we couldn't have had such an impact...

Oooh, I should have read the whole thread. Ditto again! LOL!

[GothicGyrl]

I'll just say that Mcconnellboys, OH Homeschooler and Colleen said it better than I could, especially the bit about finding it hard to believe that we couldn't make an impact.

And I also want to know why all the denial that something is happening? Is it a faith thing? What? I want to know why you honestly think we are not damaging our planet and why we shouldn't be doing something about it?

[nancypants]

I am not convinced. Sorry. :o This is not to say that I don't believe the planet goes through various phases and major changes. I just don't believe it's a world ending type of catastrophe that is taking place. My across the street neighbor who is a science teacher in a public school is unconvinced as well. This is *not* to say that I don't believe in taking superb care of the environment. I think it is our responsibility to take the best care of the earth as possible as we are stewards of it and were put here to tend the earth -- both to live off of it and to give back to it.

So, while I don't buy into the politicization of the environment, I believe we each are responsible to take care of it as best we can.

[OH_Homeschooler]

For all the criticisms of those who believe Al Gore, I think it's strange to see all the people who deny the existence of global warming based on the fact that it's Al Gore's pet cause. That's seems like politicizing the environment to me.

[GothicGyrl]

I don't believe in that "end of the world catastrophe" stuff, but I do believe we are heading there. Not soon, in fact, not within the next 100 yrs. But I would like to leave something for my kids and my kids kids and so on. The rate we are going now, there won't be much left.

Are we going to have a "Thundar the Barbarian" scenerio (or more recently, I am Legend--same concept), doubtful (especially if zombies are involved). But it's not going to be pretty either.

[GothicGyrl]

For all the criticisms of those who believe Al Gore, I think it's strange to see all the people who deny the existence of global warming based on the fact that it's Al Gore's pet cause. That's seems like politicizing the environment to me.
Unless the naysayers tell me otherwise, I think it is **because** it is Al Gore's pet cause that they don't believe it. Look at those who don't believe in it, I know of at least one of them that would never vote for Al Gore and based on past conversations, thinks he's an "idiot".

So maybe that's why some don't believe--simply because it's Al Gore?

[Kathy in MD]

I am not convinced. Sorry. :o This is not to say that I don't believe the planet goes through various phases and major changes. I just don't believe it's a world ending type of catastrophe that is taking place.

will be a major jolt to the status quo. It might even be a civilization destroyer. But it won't spell the end of the earth.

[Liz CA]

And I also want to know why all the denial that something is happening? Is it a faith thing? What? I want to know why you honestly think we are not damaging our planet and why we shouldn't be doing something about it?

I believe many mistakes were made and are being made, some because of true ignorance, ie. nobody at the time knew the ramifications or because we don't want to sacrifice our conveniences.

Also, there is a segment of GW believers that swing heavily (IMHO) to the extreme. I had people tell me in all seriousness that people are the cancer of the earth and that earth would be completely healthy if we could only get rid of the people. We should not reproduce at all because it increases the population and therefore makes the cancer tumor bigger.

This person did not even allow for the faint possibility that some - if not many people - can eventually sacrifice a little convenience, become more aware of pollution and other factors that contribute and that we can become good stewarts of the earth. There is also some confusion (again IMHO) among Christians regarding the verse that tells us that we are to *utilize the resources of the earth*. This may not mean we should exploit it to the point of devastating consequences. Many Christians read this verse and say that everything we are doing is fine then.

I don't believe everything I hear about GW but I am with PariSarah here, as most often is the case, there is likely some validity to some arguments but not to all.
Even if the GW scientists are completely wrong and we do not influence such cycles, wouldn't we be better off if we tried to take care of what's been entrusted to us?

[nancypants]

It's my opinion that everyone living in a climate that gets as cold as it does here in Canada, needs to move several hundred or thousand miles closer to the equator. This way we would not have to use all of this energy to merely survive the brutal winters!! :D

:p

(hopefully you know I'm just being silly now... though I sometimes do think this on these brutal winter days when everyone's furnaces are running around the clock.)

I do wish I saw a LOT more windmills here. (There are almost none to speak of that I've seen.) It is SO freakin' windy here so often... it seems bizarre that it's not being harnessed like crazy.

[Anne/Ankara]

We're working out the itinerary now, Colleen. Maybe you have a recommendation for us? My dh and ds will spend about 6 days in Switzerland, flying into Zurich and taking the train to Geneva, where they will stay in Montreaux. They have a bit of time for some sight-seeing, so they're developing this idea of tracking down the disappearing glaciers. We saw the Alestch Glacier on the internet as one possibility, but I'm not exactly sure where that is (funny Greenpeace photo about nude environmentalists posing in front of disappearing glacier, to illustrate the vulnerability of man and nature!). Anyway, maybe you have some suggestions for us?

[Mama Lynx]

Thank you thank you! This is what I was getting at with my last point...why the utter denial? Why NOT try to be a little earth friendly? Who does that hurt?

Global warming or no, I am *more than happy* to be a little earth-friendly. I bring my own shopping bags. I monitor my energy use. I recycle. I use biodegradable cleaners, etc. etc. etc.

However, I am always skeptical of any dire emergency where the answer is "more government, and fast!"

People work to expand their power base. I will happily work to reduce my impact on the earth, but I want cool heads and more thinking before the government finds another avenue in which to grow like crazy.

[Daisy]

Hmmm, I guess you could say that I believe all the chaos in the world is ultimately man's fault. I mean, I believe that Adam and Eve's choice in the garden resulted in a curse upon the earth and we are all suffering the consequences of that decision. I believe that disease, floods, earthquakes, and even possibily global warming are just another indication that the curse caused all of life to move towards decay, chaos and death. I do not think there is anything man can do to change that. One day, according to what I believe Scripture teaches, there will be a new heaven and a new earth and all will be restored. Does that mean I'm going to head into the local national forest and burn down 5,000 acres? NO. Does that mean I'm going to dump oil into the ocean? NO. It means that I'm going to be a good steward of the resources around me and then I'm not going to worry about it.

I don't know if global warming is happening or not. It just doesn't keep me up at night.

[Dot]

That it's just a Liberal vs Conservative thing, and we all know how popular Gore is with certain factions. But no matter how many Farmers Almanacs, scientist husbands, and school teachers disagree, I prefer to have more confidence in the works of thousands of climate scientists all over the world. I mean--this is basically accepted as fact in the rest of the world, and most other nations are really working to find solutions. Once corporations here realize(even Walmart's joining in) that they can go green and still rake in the bucks, then the good old USA will join the rest of the world.

[Mrs Mungo]

Global warming or no, I am *more than happy* to be a little earth-friendly. I bring my own shopping bags. I monitor my energy use. I recycle. I use biodegradable cleaners, etc. etc. etc.

However, I am always skeptical of any dire emergency where the answer is "more government, and fast!"

People work to expand their power base. I will happily work to reduce my impact on the earth, but I want cool heads and more thinking before the government finds another avenue in which to grow like crazy.

I'm curious what you mean by "more government" Was it wrong for California to have their zero emissions law?

It's my opinion that 9/11 should have been a wake up call. We cannot rely on oil, it's costing us in *many* ways. I think the government should be putting money toward alternative energy sources, cutting off the supply of money flowing into the region has to be cheaper than the military funding (and understand, I'm a military wife).

[Kelli in TN]

Global warming or no, I am *more than happy* to be a little earth-friendly. I bring my own shopping bags. I monitor my energy use. I recycle. I use biodegradable cleaners, etc. etc. etc.

However, I am always skeptical of any dire emergency where the answer is "more government, and fast!"

People work to expand their power base. I will happily work to reduce my impact on the earth, but I want cool heads and more thinking before the government finds another avenue in which to grow like crazy.

What she said!

I am steadily trying to improve how we live. I try to keep making steps towards a smaller ecological footprint. I cannot do as much as I wish I could, due to a lack of opportunity in my community, but I do what I can.

I am not a scientist and both sides say they are right, I am clueless as to how to sort it out without an advanced degree of my own. I just don't know. But I know that releasing toxins and using up resources and letting Wal-Mart bags hang from our trees (well, except for the ones we clear cut to make room for Wal-Mart) is bad. I don't need a governmental intervention to tell me this.





How I regret the last 24 hours of recklessly slinging rep at people randomly, someone give this woman some rep, I don't have any left!

[Doran]

But, before the curiosity question, let me just state outright (though it's pretty obvious, there in my profile) that I am a firm believer in global climate change/warming and, more to the point, in the need to act on that belief.

So, for the curiosity question -- with no intention of offense --

To those who are skeptical about the reality of man's impact on climate change but who also state that they believe it is their duty to be "good stewards" of the planet, what exactly does that look like in your life? Being a good steward, I mean? Not to pick on Daisy, but to say [paraphrasing] "I'm not going to burn down the trees in the local national forest or dump oil into the oceans" is thinking small-scale. Of course, I personally am not going to go and do any of those things either. I can't imagine anyone here would, whether they believe humans are impacting climate change or not. And, I also realize that I'm just one person, and that I can't tackle global issues all alone.

But, the bigger question to ask, in my mind, is whether our stewardship involves thinking beyond ourselves? Do we shop in ways that would send to the corporations the message that, "we don't want to be so dependent on oil" Or, "we don't believe in clear cutting rain forests because we understand their value to be far beyond the timber therein." We elect the officials, who support the corporations, the CEO's and the stockholders. And, it is these that resist the changes being suggested for global climate action because they fear it will affect their bottom line.

How do our personal choices for stewardship affect the larger picture?

Doran

[Plaid Dad]

I haven't read all the other responses, so forgive me if (many) other posters have said this.

I'm honestly not sure whether or not - or to what extent - humans are contributing to climate change, but I figure it can't hurt to be prudent with our resources. Then again, I also don't believe that everyone needs to live like Americans - including Americans. I don't think that perpetual economic growth is sustainable or even (culturally or spiritually) desirable. So I'd rather see figure out now, as a society, how to live within our means - environmental and otherwise. Keywords: Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism), subsidiarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity).

And those are my two coppers on the subject.

[JennifersLost]

A day filling in my time-line with all the stages the earth has gone through in the last 4.5 billion years it's hard for me to do anything but say "global warming? It's global cooling we should really worry about." Historically the earth has often been much warmer than it is now. And historically the earth has been much colder than it is now. We could still be in an inter-glacial period in just another cycle like the ones we've been going through for the last million years, or we could be heading out into an extended warm/wet period like we were in even before that. Or we could merrily be heading somewhere else entirely.

Evolutionarily speaking, a lot of the steps we had to go to before we became human depended on us having to deal with abrupt climate change - usually when we went from warmer and wet to suddenly cool and dry.

So, maybe if global climate change is coming, we'll evolve into something even more spectacular than we are today.

My best guess is that the climate our kids will deal with may be closer to the warm period a millenium ago than the mini-ice age we've just pulled out of in the last century. But if we could fast-forward 10,000 years from now that's all it will be - a little blip on the radar in the midst of huge long-term trends we don't live long enough to see.

[mcconnellboys]

My grandma, soon to be 100 years old, has always been the best composter and reuser, recycler I've ever known. But when she grew up, NO ONE, basically, had a wasteful mentality. Now, most everyone has a wasteful mentality. We, as a country, are the most wasteful people on earth. And I don't mean to bash us. It's just that our economy, based on consumerism, is wildly out of control. We're like the darling, spoiled children of the world and we have no idea, basically, how the rest of the world REALLY lives.

I've read recent statistics which indicate that of all the "stuff" we buy, almost 100% of it is trashed within 6 months. Not used up. Not recycled. Not reused or repurposed. Just put in the garbage to go to a landfill or incinerator. This is not a cyclical process and it can not go on indefinitely. It will not sustain us for all time....

When I read about local, organic farming practices, I am blown away. This is not some new fangled idea. This is the way farming was actually done from time immemorial. This is the way to live on the land without using up the land. It is the way to shepherd livestock without the use of massive amounts of antibiotics and chemicals. It is the way to grow healthy produce without use of massive amounts of chemicals. It is a way to live in harmony with our world and protect it, so that it can sustain us. And more than that, so that it can sustain humankind a hundred generations from now, if that is called for.

The majority of the human population once lived close to the land and understood how to be in harmony with that land. The vast majority of our population in the US today doesn't have a clue. What would we do tomorrow if our lines of commerce were severed throughout this country?

I think "being a good steward" sounds great, and we'd all like to say that we think we are such creatures. But I think that the reality of what it would take for us, as a people, to be truly good stewards might mean a lot of drastic lifestyle changes for the majority of us. And I'm not quite certain that I could do it, either, so don't think I'm casting dispersions on others, LOL.....

The year I read Poisonwood Bible, the contrast between that society and our own really resonated with me. It got me started thinking about all the material "stuff" that we so take for granted here. We've read many other books since then, and I wish I could now find one that was called something like "Global Feast", which showed families from all over the world with a week's groceries.....There's another where they show families from all over the world with all their wordly possessions pulled outside their house. The differences between the rest of the world and us are amazing.

I have traveled some, and whether in Canada, or on the Mexican border, or in the north of England, or throughout Scotland, I have never observed a general level of living that appears to approach what we have in the majority of America. I think we are greatly blessed here; I'm not sure that we really, truly understand how blessed. I'm not sure that we really understand what sort of sacrifices on our part would be needed in order to bring us more in with the rest of the world, either. I hope that we don't ever have to learn these lessons the hard way, during a time of crisis....

Someone here provided me with info recently about a guy who does regular "money purges", living for a day or longer without the use of any currency. I can think of other sorts of purges that might actually provide good instruction for us, too, and I think would certainly make us better prepared, as a people, for changes that may inevitably come if our climate conditions continue to worsen (for whatever reason)....

I don't think the government of our country needs to be involved in any of this at all. This is something that the people of the country can handle on their own, through the choices they make in their daily lives.

Regena

[Kris]

I wish we could ask the dinosaurs what they thought about global warming and climate change.

While I don't think it would hurt us to pay attention and live more responsibly -- for economic reasons, if nothing else -- I can't believe that mankind can realistically be blamed for the changes that people are noticing. I just don't think we're that important.

[Daisy]

I don't feel picked on. I suppose I could have been more specific. I'm accused of being a tree-hugger by my logging friends and wasteful by my environmental friends. I guess my point was that I fall somewhere in the middle. I do what I can personally to be responsible for how I use our God-given resources. Our family drives one compact car. We bike ride as a family to the grocery store. We reduce, reuse and recycle. We voluntarily recycle in a city that can't seem to find it important enough to actually offer those services. I use cloth shopping bags and we mow the lawn by hand (gasp). I could list other ways we are good stewards but I think we get the point. I also think our country needs to move away (and quickly) from it's dependance on oil.

That said, I'm not into protecting huge tracks of land so that a giraffe can have a place to live while the people pushed off the land are living in squallor. I think too many of these environmental groups place animals and land above people. So I probably have more than once blown someone off simply because they took a stance too far (IMO).

I wish we'd take all those politicans and actors and everyone else who has made global warming their pet cause and have them focus some energy on seeing something done in the Sudan and in other places where folks are being killed or starved. Just my 2 very small cents. :)

[Karin]

Not extremely. No one knows WHY it's happening, but it's certainly happened before. World climate was warmer when vikings settled Greenland. There was a mini ice age later when the Greenlander vikings died out because they refused to adopt the local way of living. Iceland saw many coolings and warmings--starvation often occured during cold times or after a large volcanic eruption. Everyone wonders how the arctic wildlife will survive, but it survived that warm era c. 1000 years ago.

[Karin]

Well, I wouldn't say it's all an anti-intellectual bent. Some of the people I know who accept this as natural are extremely intellectual. You can't expect everyone to react the same way. I, for one, do think we need to reduce our fossil fuel burning. It's a proven pollutant. Our global economy is really causing a lot more fossil fuels to be burned, btw, than if we had a more nationalistic economy. The 90,000 ocean liners shipping things are some of the largest polluters on the planet. Yet I see that many liberal politicians who are concerned about fossil fuel burning and global warming actively promote a global economy.

I also think that we've been keeping climatic information for a very tiny amount of time. How long have we been recording temperature changes in the ocean? And we have historical information to draw upon, as I did with the Greenlanders and the Icelanders. That's just one part--England and many other places have histories of different climates.

[Julpost]

He had prepared a speech on this very topic. The basic gist is that the earth is cycling, man has nothing to do with it, it's all a big scam, and our descendents are going to be shaking their heads at us in the future.

[PinkInTheBlue]

How can you not believe there is a naturally occurring cycle the earth goes through? The top of the Great Barrier Reef has remains of plants only found on land. At one time the oceans were so low that great portions of the Reef were dry land. Also, as someone else stated, fossils of ocean animals have been found on land. A big part of the Central and Southern Western States in the past were under water.

Now, saying that doesn't mean I don't believe humans can't have an impact. I make all the difference I can. Our decision to make a move to AZ soon is helped by the fact that out there they have more systems in place to recycle. Recycling in about non-existent in my area and it's very frustrating. Taking care of what you have always makes more sense than waste and destruction.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm with those who point to the cycles the earth *has already* gone through. No amount of research can PROVE the theories about "rates" in the past. Shoot- we think it takes millions of years to grow diamonds in the earth yet it takes a mere three days in a lab. Add in a few thousand years for the sake of uncontrolled variables, lol and it's STILL a guess as to how long things take in a natural state. Very good guesses, possibly, but it only takes one wrong tiny bit of info to muck up the whole theory. Such is science. THAT's why i doubt the claims of WHY we are experiencing climate change.

I'm w/ jenniferslost and mamlynx on this one --I'm sure we ARE experiencing climate change, but I am skeptical about the causes. Trees are only ONE variable in the world -there's a slew of others we aren't even aware of yet. I don't like Al Gore's style, but there are other valid reasons to NOT align w/ him on this issue.

i agree with the idea of being pro-active regardless, but as mamalynx pointed out --NOT at the gvt's demand. I believe gvt involvement tends to cause more problems than it purports to fix --if it really "fixes" anything at all in the long run.

I do agree that "dominion over the earth" is a direct command to exercise responsibility for our resources. And reasonable people differ on how best to do that too :-)

[Mekanamom]

Trees are only ONE variable in the world

Ok, this is really neither here nor there within this conversation... but near my area one neighbor is taking another to court because one's tree is shading the solar panels of the other.

It is likely that the solar panel owner will win, and the tree owner will be ordered to chop down his tree. I'm not sure, but I think the tree was there first.

FWIW, I, personally, like both trees and solar panels. It's an interesting case.

[cricket1178]

My dh is in the "normal cycling" group. However, we do recycle and as Christians, whole heartily believe in being good stewards over the earth.

[Bev in B'ville]

Is there global warming? Yes. Is it caused and/or exasperated by humans? We'll never know for sure. There are several factors here. First, we just came out of an ice age about 10,000 years ago, so we're still warming up. The ice is receding, which is what happens after an ice age. Second, there's documented proof that the sun's temperature has increased.

I don't think we'll ever be able to tell for sure what part, if any, humans played in this event. Sometimes I think the arrogance of man is astounding in assuming that we caused global warming, and, more importantly, that we can do anything about it.

JMHO.

[Karen sn]

Well - the eart gets warm, she gets cold, she gets warm....
It's been going on for a lot longer than we have been around.
There are palm tree fossils in Alaska. And oil too - had to be warm for those now dead dinasours.

A volcano puts out more Co2 than we ever could to affect the the climate.
It is happening - warming - but it will cool again too.

I think where humans have had the most impact on the earth is water quality. We have polluted the water, the "blood" of the earth.

I am thought of as "liberal" by my redneck friends and "conservative" by my hippie friends - I believe in global warming - but I am not afraid or worried. There is little we can do. The earth will continue to cycle through the warm and cool phases of her life regardless of our pollution. That knowledge comforts me when I see irresponsible companies adding to the air/water pollution.
We drive a hybrid, support organic farmers and local business. We try as best a human can to conserve and not waste.

I actually think it is sacriledge to waste water for toileting - so I feel better peeing in the woods when possible and not flushing the toilet every time I pee. It's a small thing, and certainly not one that gets much air time, but we all do what we can.

(Re: global warming....We may speed it up a SMALL bit - but this Earth will just shake us off like fleas as we continue our disrespect. That is already happening!)

[Bev in B'ville]

Arctic Researcher Says Warming Data Is Misquoted
http://barnesvilledispatch.com/clients/barnesvilledispatch/2-3-2008-12-16-25-AM-4369409.jpg

APPLETON, Wis. — February 1, 2008 — According to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, global warming data often quoted by the media and government officials should not be used to attribute global warming to man.

In an online exclusive for The New American magazine, Dr. Akasofu, one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," is "concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public eventually learns the correct information about climate change" and requests the IPCC to make an appropriate statement to clear up the confusion before the next G8 meeting being held in May.


The data from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius per 100 years since 1800 to present as being manmade from greenhouse gases. Dr. Akasofu claims this is misleading as the Earth is continuing to recover from the Little Ice Age and 0.5 degrees Celsius per 100 years can be attributed to natural warming, leaving a fraction of the warming trend to other causes. His article can be read at www.thenewamerican.com/node/6973 (http://www.jbs.org/modules/tinymce/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/www.thenewamerican.com/node/6973).
Dr. Akasofu was the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. He has been professor of geophysics since 1964 and has published more than 550 professional journal articles. His full paper on the Little Ice Age is available as a PDF download from a link in his article.
The New American is a bi-weekly news magazine that probes deep into today's news to discover the real stories. The magazine's editorial point of view is guided by its support of the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which the U.S. Constitution is based.
Twice a year, the magazine publishes a congressional scorecard called the Freedom Index that rates every member of the U.S. House and Senate on key issues. In addition to politics, the magazine also covers economics (from a free-enterprise perspective), culture and history, while also examining the goodness of America, the greatness of America's founding principles and offering realistic hope that America can be saved. Exclusive online content can be found at www.TheNewAmerican.com (http://www.thenewamerican.com/). The magazine is published by the John Birch Society

[Friederike in Persia]

and yet when this seriously weird discussion on "how often do you wash your towels" was going on a few weeks ago I didn't see anybody refer to it being bad for the environment??????? (The washing towels each day!)
That was the first thing that occured to me, but I tend to feel strongly on this, so I decided to wait a while and not wade in.:o
I believe we should all make life-changes to treat this world better, the sort of stuff like what cars we drive, how much we fly,...those are rather though though. So why not start with smaller stuff, like washing slightly less often (I mean towels, not bodies:)), taking laundry baskets to the supermarket rather than using disposable bags,....
Climate change or not, let's look after this earth better, please!!!

Friederike

[Virginia Dawn]

I think there is obviously something happening.:) However, I don't think a single politician or any environmental group can do a blasted thing about the course we are on now, except spend a lot of money.

Are certain things bad for the environment and the ozone layer? Of course.
Should we practice good stewardship of our earth's resources? Of course.
On the other hand I think our ability to purposefully change the direction of the earth's climate is a delusion.

Personally, I think more time and money should be directed towards figuring out how to deal with the inevitable changes when they come.

[Peek a Boo]

towels--
i would be in the "wash towels all the time" camp cuz w/ 5 kids [4 of 'em boys] i simply do not trust where my towels have been. Kids miss and pee on the floor. or drip on the floor.... towels fall off the rack onto the floor and GET PUT BACK UP. ew. hands get somewhat washed and dried on those towels. i have no problem washing our towels on a regular basis. In my and dh's bathroom the towels can go a bit longer. We also redirect washer water to the lawn and air dry a lot. I prefer towels and jeans to NOT feel like cardbaord so i run them thru teh dryer for about ten minutes w/ dryer sheet then airdry. I have a thing against liquid softener....

So for ME it's a personal health vs supposed energy crisis. I agree that we need to *take care* of our resources but I disagree on how MUCh of those resources are available. I'm more concerned about the pollution factor than the conserving factor. And while there's definite things that individuals do, the bulk of the pollution problem is w/ industrial concerns: the concrete plants in Midlothian TX and the polluted lake in Syracuse NY are two right off the top of my head that we deal/t with in the areas we live/d.

Did you match up exactly WHO was a daily towel washer w/ their responses here to make sure teh right ones match up? You might find that those most concerned about "man made" climate change actually ARE in the "wash towels minimally camp."

[Krista in LA]

The Farmers Almanac do not believe in Global Warming. They said it is Earth going through its cycles. Remember back in the 30's to 50's they thought there was going to be an ice age coming.

Remember who is presenting the Global Warming ideas. The very people that are presenting are wanting to tax us for breathing carbon dioxide into the air. I have heard some really wacky stuff from the global warming people on how they want to tax people due to global warming. YIKES!

My belief is Earth is going through cycles as it always have done. Let's let it take its course.

Holly

I think we are awfully vain to think that we alone can control such events. I'm not saying that we, as people, aren't contributing to it and perhaps making it worse, but I do believe that most of it is due to cycles that would happen with or without us.

[Dana in OR]

It talks about how the sun is the major agent of change rather than anything we're doing on earth, and that we may be headed for a major cooling period.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

[Claire]

There was an article in a recent Scientific American that examined this idea. Very interesting proposition. However, the article concluded that the research that supported the idea was seriously flawed. If I can find the SciAm article online, I will post it, but I won't have time to look until later today.

[Claire]

Okay, I had a few minutes to look. This is not the article I was thinking of, but it probably more closely corresponds to the article you posted in that both mention the 11-year cycle. Here is the SciAm article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=no-sunshine-for-global-wa).

[Doran]

and yet when this seriously weird discussion on "how often do you wash your towels" was going on a few weeks ago I didn't see anybody refer to it being bad for the environment??????? (The washing towels each day!)
That was the first thing that occured to me, but I tend to feel strongly on this, so I decided to wait a while and not wade in.:o
I believe we should all make life-changes to treat this world better, the sort of stuff like what cars we drive, how much we fly,...those are rather though though. So why not start with smaller stuff, like washing slightly less often (I mean towels, not bodies:)), taking laundry baskets to the supermarket rather than using disposable bags,....
Climate change or not, let's look after this earth better, please!!!

Friederike


This is where I was headed above. When I posted about what "good stewardship" looks like for those who believe stewardship is important but who say they don't really believe global climate change is at all impacted by man. Peek may be right (below). It may be that those who don't wash their towels as frequently are also in the man made climate change camp. So, does that mean that, generally, those in the stewardship camp feel equally concerned about their overall impact on the earth but have different motivation for their actions? Or does it mean that stewardship is something less tangible than washing towels less often, flushing less often, air drying clothes, and using cloth bags at the grocery. Not trying to speak through a bias here. Just wanting to understand.

Doran

[Mx5]

Sorry, but I consider myself highly educated and well-informed on science issues and I believe the "mainstream hype". Not because it's hype but because from all the evidence I've encountered, it's based on sound science and not hype. And yes, I believe Al Gore but I've done a lot of my own research.

And I have a huge pet peeve with saying "well it's very cold here today" or "it's very hot here today" as evidence against/for global warming. The trends they review are much longer than a day, week, month, or year. There will always be minor variations, but the trends are real.

Now, can someone please tell me the motivation to deny that this is happening? That's honestly what I'm most confused about. I enjoyed the book "The Republican War on Science" that I read over a year ago, but I can't remember the main arguments presented for denying man-made global warming.

Let the negative rep points roll in!

My point is that people who are experts in climate are not in agreement over climate change. They know more than you do and I do. And it's not just a couple of crackpot fringe scientists funded by Republicans ;) who feel that the climate change hysteria is not based on sound science.

You bring your experts, I bring mine. Bottom line isn't that I think you're uneducated, but rather that there are experts on both sides who are in complete disagreement.

In the meantime, the mainstream media portrays man-accelerated climate change as gospel - fact - when in fact, it is still doubtful.

[PariSarah]

. . . that I found really helpful, in terms of sifting through the political baggage that this conversation usually entails.

Her point was . . .

Okay, you know what? I'm just going to link. She said it better than I can:

Ragamuffin Studies on Global Climate Change and Politics (http://ragamuffinstudies.blogspot.com/2007/10/global-climate-change-science-politics.html)

[Tami]

I am not educated enough on this subject to give much of an opinion. I am not a scientist, but being careful stewards of the Earth that God created just makes good sense.

[Dot]

I think it's a good post on her blog, but i don't agree with her that there's 2 "camps" on one side and one o n the other, it's much more than that. Plus, she got her dig in about Al Gore.

[Grace is Sufficient]

... something about cycles of the sun. Frankly, I'd prefer warming!

[Karin]

Yes, I'm with you on this one. And how about buying white towels and bleaching them to keep them white? And the same with overbathing. Honestly, our pediatrican said to NOT bathe our children daily until they really needed it (when the hormones kick in.) And washing hair every day with petroleum based shampoo? Or any shampoo? There are a few who really do need to wash it daily. We've gone from one extreme (when kids weren't bathed until they were 7, and people rarely bathed, at least in much of Europe) to the other, IMO. And, yes, I shower daily most of the year. But only every other day when it's cold and winter and I don't sweat. Then I sponge bathe. But I don't wash my hair every day, and it doesn't stink or look dirty or my kids would be sure to tell me!

[Karin]

Well, none of us was alive to see how quickly or slowly changes happened in the past. Scientists who aver it was slow are basing this on the unprovable theory of uniformitarianism. There is very strong argument for cataclysmic changes, too. I've been on both sides of this and honestly, the evidence for the latter is much stronger and less easy to poke holes in, IMO. Carbon dating is notriously inaccurate, too. After studying the history of science I stopped thinking of sciencs as objective. It rarely is. But I enjoy science and think we've made some terrific advances. And paying a price. But none of us really knows what the cause of this climate change is. We see things and make hypotheses from our observations, then theories. No proof.

[Colleen]

To those who are skeptical about the reality of man's impact on climate change but who also state that they believe it is their duty to be "good stewards" of the planet, what exactly does that look like in your life?...(T)he bigger question to ask, in my mind, is whether our stewardship involves thinking beyond ourselves?...How do our personal choices for stewardship affect the larger picture?


Great questions ~ worthy of a whole new thread. Heck, maybe you started that thread already? I've been in and out today, so I'll have to double check...

[Jean in Wisc]

The ice in the arctic is melting and there are serious problems with that. Certainly some areas are experiencing warmer than usual temps. I can see that people would be very concerned about the wildlife & plant life that is endangered due to this climate change.

What I have read, though, seems to indicate that our part (the human's) of the climate change is so small. Caring for the environment is so important--don't get me wrong. I just don't see that the studies behind the causes for these climate changes indicates that what man does to the earth is the reason for the changes. We seem to be a small drop in the bucket.

I see that we need to do our best to support the polar bears. We need to look at how we can help those species that are losing their breeding ground. We need to see if there are any solutions to what is happening--but we should not jump into programs that hurt people rather than help the environment. For example, I have read that the increased price and regulations on freon have caused problems with the poor, esp. in the 3rd world countries, because they no longer can afford to refrigerate--and this adds to the number of people who die of dysentery. So...before we put these laws into place, we need to try and see the whole picture.

Yes, I'd say we are having warming issues in certain places on the globe. Can we do something about it? I'm not certain that eliminating mankind would change the fact that we have climate changes such as we are having now. Would removing all the cattle from the earth really impact the system enough? What about the changes that come from the oceans? Volcanoes? Etc, etc, etc....

Gotta go. Mom is back in the hospital. It is good to sit here and be philosophical for a few minutes, but now it is time to go heave the world upon my shoulders and care for everyone and everything again. Can you tell I'm weary?