I am on Mac and don't have any fail problems.

I haven't seen the UK documentary. I'll look it up. Who funded and produced it? This is always an import consideration when evaluating whether or not a source is biased.

I am well aware of the normal cyclic nature of atmospheric CO2 levels. Gore spent quite some time in his documentary addressing these normal patterns. You guys do understand that almost every developed country in the world, as well as the scientists who are members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences, agree that reducing CO2 emissions is a high priority. Why do you think this is? Those countries that have not supported this initiative (e.g., U.S.A) have done so for primarily financial reasons. Are you guys also ignoring that for the first time in the Earth's history, people are pumping massive amounts of green house gases into the atmosphere? By the way, I never said that the current global warming was 100% man-made. But I do believe that man is currently a major contributor to this trend.

 

Gotta go with Stu and RonJ.....Macs are tight, and Safari dominates internet explorer.....but neither Internet explorer or safari would let me look at pics on this site or upload any That's the only reason i use firefox..

 

well, Safari on a windows computer doesn't run so well... kinda has some compatibility issues. that might be why safari won't let you see pics.

 

x1000000000000

We all know that the earth goes through natural cycles, but man is enhancing the natural cycles.

Looking at the graphs of global temperature and the cycles it goes through will show you that over time the changes are getting more and more drastic. If you compare those graphs to graphs of CO2 emissions, you will see a similarity. The similarity is clear evidence of how our CO2 emissions are influencing the caliber of these natural global temperature cycles.

 

damn treehuggers.... btw both Mac and Windows suck.....linux FTMFW.

 

We're still well below the earth's median temp throughout history. I found Al Gore's film interesting, and there was a lot of sound science in it, but unfortunately it was taken completely out of context. Once I realized he was only looking at the past 500K years, I realized that it was leaning more towards an agenda based infomercial rather than a true documentary.

I agree, we should limit CO2 emissions for it's short term affects on our biosphere and food chain, but the earth will correct itself with or without us around. It's definitely something that warrants more study but we don't have enough empirical data to reach a conclusion yet.

IBTL.

 

Your last paragraph concedes that industrially produced green house gases affect our biosphere and food chain. I agree. Is it such a large leap to envision that continuation of this human activity might lead to long term effects? And how many years do you think that "short term effects" last? One hundred, five hundred, or five thousand years? Is your opinion not influenced by consideration of how this might affect your childrens' lives. Personally, I have grave concerns.

 

I don't think we give our earth, or it's species enough credit, it/they/us will adapt to whatever curve ***** get thrown our way. The earth has it's most diverse selection of species ever and there will be extinctions with or without any of our potential influence.

I think it's just in our nature to exaggerate our influence on our surroundings, the good and the bad. I'm a big supporter of responsible and reasonable conservation, it only makes sense to take care of our own back yard, but at the same time I think there are a lot of false alarm bells going off. Our first societies started forming as the massive ice sheets began retreating back towards the poles. In this sense it can be very easy to draw a correlation between us, and a warming planet, but it's only a snapshot.

Definitely a hard issue to reach consensus on, and there are too many factors involved to have one easy answer. Like most contentious issues the solution lies somewhere in the middle, extremists on either end of the spectrum only muddy the issue.

I think we're likely much closer to agreement than it may appear on the surface FWIW. It's interesting to see the turn this thread has taken

 

Nah i have a MacBook and a PC.....and sadly your right about safari on windows.

the problem is HOW to effectively limit CO2 and everything else efficiently enough so businesses will be able to do it and not lose money.

It's like the CAFE laws that are being passed......

 

I agree that our planet will naturally react by attempting to absorb the increased CO2 levels. Again, this is clearly evident in the Earth's history. My concern is that man-made CO2 production may tip the balance toward prolonging and exacerbating the high temperature part of the upcoming cycle with potentially disastrous effects. For example, might human effects on climate lead to our own extinction?

I think it's just the opposite. I believe that modern human nature has been to under-exaggerate our environmental influences because our emphasis is more on economics and progress.

On this issue, we agree.

Therein lies the $64,000 question.