Junkscience indeed...

thseng - your post is so full of misinformation I'm not sure where to start.

Here's an explanation from an article published this past week in "The Independent" in the UK, regarding scientific study of ice cores from Antarctica:



The changes we're seeing are unprecedented in all the data we can access. We do need to take note, regardless of what the source of the increase is.

I didn't dispute that the amount of CO2 in the air has increased. Your article refers evidence that it has increased. Fine.

I just dispute the conclusion it suddenly jumps to without presenting any evidence:
"...the Earth systems can't cope with it"
and
"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes..."

That's the "junk science" part.

I think the problem is that scientists are getting their theories and conclusions polluted (forgive the pun) by politics, and then reported by less-than-unbiased media. I remember past scares involving "Global Cooling" and "The Coming Population Bomb", both of which were apparently concocted to 1) Increase university funding, and 2) Sell newspapers and magazines. So you will forgive us sceptics who don't take as gospel everything shouted to the hilltops by Academia these days. Personally, I can think of half a dozen good reasons to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but "Global Warming" ain't one of them. I think we may be in the first stages of a climate change, but I see no reasonably conclusive evidence it is man made.

Plant tree species that are native to your local environment, if willing and possible. The hugging part is kinda weird.

Eh, I agree that's just alarmist pap.

On the other hand, the actual measurements and rates of change of CO2 and Methane and other gasses do concern me, and are undisputed by any mainstream scientists I'm aware of.

The majority agree something major is going on, regardless of whether we understand the source. We should pay attention.

As others have noted, no matter what, we need to be looking at alternative energy sources and treating the environment better - if nothing else, it's in our own self-interest for medium- and long-term survival.

This is also pretty scary: methane being released 5x faster than expected

I was sorta joking there... I think that the alarmist method is just as bad as the "everything's alright" method handling the situation. The only problem is that it gets us nowhere when everyone has blinders on to the other side of the equation (Stop ALL Consumption! vs Consume it all as Fast as you Want!). Just like in politics, we've gone too far to either extreme while the intelligent middle is abandoned.

As with almost every other human endeavor, this discussion would benefit from people and politicians *thinking* beyond their lifetimes. It might not matter a huge deal to me that the oceans rise several feet in 100 years, but it sure could affect my kids or grandkids. In a debt driven disposable society, where mortgaging the future is the norm, I doubt that mentality is going to change soon. It's a shame because I think that no matter how much people disagree with the alarmist "pap", there is solid science and evidence that we are currently contributing to our own long term demise. If not the weather or atmosphere there's also plenty of evidence we are over-consuming and poisoning our own water supplies (many say the next resource wars will be over fresh water).

Seriously, if people believe everything is all good and that we can't possibly effect the earth, go ahead, live out your days in ignorant bliss. Plenty of people do (we often lament their survival preparedness). I don't know if the turning point is in 10 years or 100 or 1000. Alarmists will say it's right now and the head in the sand folks will say never. I fall somewhere inbetween, leaning on the side of caution tells me that *if* it's possible we are ruining our atmosphere and that there are alternatives available that won't kill growth or convenience, we should make every effort to implement them.

I knew you were sorta joking, I just wanted to poke fun at the "tree hugging" part. I was reading recently that the Cumberland River in KY and TN has soil run-off as its main pollutant. That's a new one for me. I sure know that's not the case with some other rivers around here.

Now speaking of water supply: The area I originally come from has the highest rate of cancer per capita than about any other area in TN. Why? The water supply: TN River polluted by several corporations and the treated water is known to have around 800 different contaminants. Politicians just bow and pad their pockets from special interests.

Your assessment of the how man treats the environment is pretty much the same as mine. There is too much extremism and not enough rational thinking in the middle. Just like everything else in life, I reckon.

Guess the Saudis betterd start towing those Antarctic bergs northward while they still can! <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Remember when that was being seriously considered, back around the 70s or so? [color:"black"] [/color] [email]picard120[/email]

ah... I wasn't sure that came through as a joke. You'll find special interests all over pad politicians pockets, not just in TN. I live in Illinois where political corruption is something of a birthright. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

We have plenty of industry polluting the rivers here, but I hate to think about all the herbicides and pesticides that are in our drinking water. Not to mention the antibiotics and hormones used on animals. I think Iowa is way worse off than we are with their particular water system, but a lot of those chemicals don't break down and make it into our water.