Do you believe in Global Warming?

[MDM4AU 332]

Global Cooling Theory as recent as 1975

[AURaptor 1,122]

A better question to ask would be ' Do you believe in humanity initiated Global Warming ? ' .

The answer to that from me is - No.

Might the Earth be warming up ? Could be. It's warmed up and cooled off time and time again, over the millions of yrs. The sun and the Earth's own geological activity have far more to do w/ the Earth heating up than all of mankind's efforts.

[japantiger 4,051]

We actually discussed this when I was in high school; there were books written on the topic. Same people now predicting global warming.

We can't even predict next week very accurate, much less the next century.

I can't believe this stuff actually gets put forth as serious science. For one, the "models" that predict this are not accurate at any level (can't predict macro or micro climate or weather change). Also, Co2 is not a large enough component of atmospheric gases to explain these alleged greenhouse gas impacts....Not sure why we put any credibility in the output. They multiply assumptions X probabilities X what-ifs and then miraculously get an answer the pseudo scientist was trying to prove. That's not science.....that's literature.....

The ice caps in Greenland and the Antarctic are actually getting larger; not melting. Oops, minor detail.....The only ice that is melting is already in the ocean....so there will be no sea level rise from this...... oops, another minor detail ..... but, if you want there to be global warming bad enough....and if you want to scare people about sea level's rising.....and if you construct a model that supports it......forget whether it's accurate or not..... I guess Al Gore will write a book (another damn Gore book) about it......

[quietfan 233]

So who do you want to believe?

The US government?:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....ties.html#known

What's Known for Certain?

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

The National Academy of Science?:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/web...8e?OpenDocument

Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion, the report says.

Part of the debate over global warming centers on disparities between the surface temperature and upper-air temperature. While the Earth's surface temperature has risen, data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low-to mid- troposphere. The report concurs with a previous Research Council report that said despite these differences, "the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (World Meteorological Organization /United Nations Environment Program) ?:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...ic_evidence.htm

…the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The purpose of the IPCC was to objectively review existing and developing peer-reviewed scientific literature to form an objective evaluation about the risk of human-induced climate change.

After years of investigation and in consultation with thousands of scientists, the IPCC was able to write, in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, that climate has changed over the past century and that the twentieth century had a mean temperature “at least as warm as any other century since 1400 A.D.” Their report noted that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 376 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects and concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

....

The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC was released in 2001, incorporating new research undertaken in the five years since the Second Assessment Report. Increased confidence in evolving modeling techniques lent added weight to the linkage between rising temperatures and continued greenhouse accumulations. …the IPCC's 2001 report stated emphatically that "concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities."

(Get their full report at http://www.ipcc.ch/ )

The former administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

These gloomy findings and dire predictions are not the offerings of a gaggle of fringe scientists with an addiction to the film Apocalypse Now. Rather, these forecasts are put forth by the IPCC, the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. Formed by the United Nations in 1990 and composed of the top scientists from around the globe, the IPCC employs a decision-by-consensus approach. In fact, D. James Baker, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, has said about human contributions to global warming (Washington Post , 11/12/97) that "there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."

It is happening and we are significantly to blame--stop reading minority propaganda and listen to what the concensus of scientists is telling you. If you wish to debate the economic pros/cons and how changes might affect our pocketbooks, that's fine, and indeed a significant topic for debate. What can/should we do to weather this storm and what can our economy afford to do?

But let's get over the ostrich act and get our heads out of the sand regarding the scientific reality of global warming and greenhouse emission contributions to it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

It's warming up, but I believe the bigger threat is to ground water.

[AUJarhead 70]

I believe in global warming, I'm not sure about man's impact on it. Global Warming is occuring on Mars, and I don't think there are too many SUVs there.

Furthermore, I don't understand how "global warming" would cause these:

In New Zealand:

Dr Jim Salinger of NIWA said today that analysis of the aerial photographs shows the glaciers had gained much more ice than they had lost during the past glacier year.

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Link

In Alaska:

There is evidence that the McGinnis Glacier, a little-known tongue of ice in the central Alaska Range, has surged.

Link to Alaska Press release

In the East Antarctica:

Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.

Nature.com

Again, I'm no scientist, but it seems like you can find credible scientists on both sides of the issue.

[rexbo 104]

I just hope it continues; here in northwest Florida I am tired of my tropical plants dieing off in the winter. I hope to have 30 feet tall coconut palms by my pool when I retire in about 20 years...

[MDM4AU 332]

So who do you want to believe?...

Not sure. For every scientist and organization with doomsday claims there is a scientist and organization that refutes it. DO I think we are harming our environment with emissions and clearing of land w/o replenishing, etc. Yes. DO I think it is as bad as Green Peace and Al Gore would have us all believe? No.

...stop reading minority propaganda and listen to what the concensus of scientists is telling you. If you wish to debate the economic pros/cons and how changes might affect our pocketbooks, that's fine, and indeed a significant topic for debate.  What can/should we do to weather this storm and what can our economy afford to do?

But let's get over the ostrich act and get our heads out of the sand regarding the scientific reality of global warming and greenhouse emission contributions to it.

236845[/snapback]

Propaganda? Since when did Newsweek become "Minority Propaganda?" Do you see Al Gore's "documentary" as propaganda?

And again, I see and hear no "concensus" of scientists. You posted articles backing your position. Jarhead posted opposing viewpoints. I hear them on the News networks (CNN & MSNBC for instance) debating this with statistics to back each side.

Believe what you want, but just because I see it another way is in no way pretending I am an Ostrich.

[quietfan 233]

MDM4AU--I didn't mean to sound as if I was personally picking on you with the "ostrich" comment, but I do believe the most science and scientists accept the reality of global warming and human contributions to it.

But to respond to some of your specifics:

DO I think we are harming our environment with emissions and clearing of land w/o replenishing, etc. Yes. DO I think it is as bad as Green Peace and Al Gore would have us all believe? No.

I can accept this position as reasonable...you recognize it as a problem but wonder about the severity of the problem--a fair topic of debate.

For every scientist and organization with doomsday claims there is a scientist and organization that refutes it. ...And again, I see and hear no "concensus" of scientists.

This is where we disagree. I do not believe there is equal support for both sides. Many more scientists accept the reality of global warming than refute it. The preponderance of the evidence is clearly on the side of rising world temperatures and human greenhouse emission being a significant contributer. I accept the conclusions of the EPA ("human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect."), the National Academy of Science ( "the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century." ), and the IPCC ("concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.") as the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. I can't say it any better than James Baker: "these forecasts are put forth by ... the largest, most reputable peer-reviewed body of climate-change scientists in history. ...there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics." Yes, there are a few who disagree and their voices have the right to be heard, but the majority opinion says otherwise. As a civilization, I think we ignore the problem at great risk to our way of life.

Incidentally, I wouldn't put to much stock in the Newsweek article you linked at the beginning of this thread, however. It's thirty years old (1975) and thirty years may as well be an eternity at the pace of modern scientific growth. Note that the most noticable change has occured in the last 20 years:

...warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years...the warming trend in the global mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming in the 20th century."

(I haven't seen Gore's movie and probably won't. I sort of wish he hadn't gotten involved since his presence might actually impede efforts to combat the problem. His involvement will politicize what should be a pure scientific debate. A lot of people will be turned off just because it is Al Gore, and therefore be blinded to the science itself.)

[AUJarhead 70]

Quiet, I respect your opinoin, and think that debate is always a good thing. Like MDM, I think it's happening, but I'm unsure about man's role in it.

I much more respect the person who keeps an open mind regarding items such as this, and is willing it use scientific fact to change their mind.

Here's an article written to the Canadian Prime Minister, signed by 60 scientists, which further confuses me.

Open Kyoto to debate

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

(In effort to conserve space, I deleted the names of the scientists who signed this, but it's available on the link provided).

Again, I think this is a healthy debate, and I hope you don't think I'm attacking you.

[tigerfan1234 0]

Well, is the human race going to sit around and debate this issue until it is too late? I say whether you believe global warming is caused by us or not, it is time we move in a more environmentally friendly direction. I am not a tree hugger, but I do care about the environment. This is all we have, people! We are destroying the Earth. There should be no debate about that. What is wrong with using a combination of wind, solar, water, and other natural forms of energy to keep our societies running? In the long run, it means more profits for businesses, less expensive bills for citizens, and we get the satisfaction of contributing to a cause greater than ourselves. We have the technology already available to begin making the transition to cleaner energies. Why wait another ten or twenty years? Doesn't make sense to me.

[CCTAU 3,325]

We are not destoying the Earth simply because of what we are creating, building, or using. The problem arises from the fact that when 1 family lives in the house, you can control the amount of garbage. When 20 families live in that same house, the amount of garbage piles up and causes problems. We have too many people on Earth. If you care for nothing but the environment, the only way to change this is to kill off more than half of the population of Earth. There are more people living on the Earth today than has ever existed (or so they say). Throughout time, we have not had these issues due to disease and plague keeping the Earth in balance. Man has skewed that balance and the Earth is trying to compensate.

[tigerfan1234 0]

The large waste management companies need to start recycling all that waste. Why do we just let it pile up in a landfill? That seems really dumb and lazy. There are plenty of smart people out there who can design a machine that could seperate the trash when it comes to the dump and send it to a recycle company. There is your trash problem solved. Another thing I have always wondered is why we pee and #2 in the water that we ultimately drink. I think that is dumb too.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Well, is the human race going to sit around and debate this issue until it is too late?  I say whether you believe global warming is caused by us or not, it is time we move in a more environmentally friendly direction.  I am not a tree hugger, but I do care about the environment.  This is all we have, people!  We are destroying the Earth.  There should be no debate about that.  What is wrong with using a combination of wind, solar, water, and other natural forms of energy to keep our societies running?  In the long run, it means more profits for businesses, less expensive bills for citizens, and we get the satisfaction of contributing to a cause greater than ourselves.  We have the technology already available to begin making the transition to cleaner energies.  Why wait another ten or twenty years?  Doesn't make sense to me.

236957[/snapback]

We aren't destroying the Earth. Don't be silly. And we are making cleaner burning engines and using cleaner fuels. But it' mostly the rest of the world that is living in 19th century ( at best ) level of technology. There's far more clear cutting and destruction of forest going on elsewhere, ( S. America/ Africa , etc.. ) than here in the US.

Relax. It's not anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

[japantiger 4,051]

Most scientists do not agree that humans are causing climate change.......those that don't don't have a political axe to grind because they are not looking for a crisis to drive funding to their "climate modeling" programs and to sell their books. Here is a very sane example....hardly a crackpot or right winger; I also don't think that the 17,000 scientists that support this position are right wingers....

This is from the National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States; Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Fred Singer. I am Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in Fairfax, Virginia, a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists. We work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization. SEPP does not solicit support from either government or industry but relies on contributions from individuals and foundations.

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."

Others try to discredit scientific skeptics by lumping them together with fringe political groups. Such ad hominem attacks are deplorable and have no place in a scientific debate.

To counter such misrepresentations, I list here qualifications relevant to today's hearing.

link follows.....http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

I live in an area of North America that was covered by glaciers in the last ice age about 15,000 years ago. In fact, where I live the ice was over a mile high. Think about that for a moment. I'm pretty sure the "global warming" that occurred to melt all that ice away wasn't caused by 150-odd years of man-made industrial pollution or because of humans driving SUVs. Offhand, I suspect some natural influences were responsible for the warming then. ( ) I don't know for sure because I can't prove it.

I also suspect there are some natural influences causing some of the warming today. I can't prove it either. I do know these kind of climate changes are cyclical over geologic time and no one has really explained exactly what triggers an ice age and what brings on the warming period between ice ages.

For all of you that think "we have to do something before it's too late," I have just one question for you ... What should we do and how will you prove that specific course of action will stop whatever bad thing you think is going to happen?

[Tigermike 3,027]

Proof of Global Warming!

[japantiger 4,051]

TigerMike, at last someone articulates a benefit of global warming...........

[vatz22au 142]

I live in an area of North America that was covered by glaciers in the last ice age about 15,000 years ago.  In fact, where I live the ice was over a mile high.  Think about that for a moment.  I'm pretty sure the "global warming" that occurred to melt all that ice away wasn't caused by 150-odd years of man-made industrial pollution or because of humans driving SUVs.  Offhand, I suspect some natural influences were responsible for the warming then.  ( )  I don't know for sure because I can't prove it. 

I also suspect there are some natural influences causing some of the warming today.  I can't prove it either.  I do know these kind of climate changes are cyclical over geologic time and no one has really explained exactly what triggers an ice age and what brings on the warming period between ice ages. 

For all of you that think "we have to do something before it's too late," I have just one question for you ... What should we do and how will you prove that specific course of action will stop whatever bad thing you think is going to happen?

237034[/snapback]

To be fair, the melting of the glaciers took course over a period of hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.... some are still standing today. The rate of change through just the past 150 years is equivalent to more years of natural warmth than should be present.

So yes, I think it is a cause for alarm. Do I think we're all going to die tomorrow? No. I honestly believe it will probably take 150-300 more years of the same rate of pollution, etc for their to be even a small effect. As for your question, I'd rather have a scientist answer it than an internet message board fan

[japantiger 4,051]

They can't Loggerhead, any more than they can provide actual evidence that humans are causing global warming...... the only proof they have is a "model" that predicts global warming.....essentially a video game.....I can prove that you can jump thru your own butt in a computer model if i give it the right inputs.....that doesn't make it so.....

These are the same alarmists that say we live in an unsafe world and are all obese and want to protect us from spilling McDonald's coffee on ourselves....

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

To be fair, the melting of the glaciers took course over a period of hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.... some are still standing today.  The rate of change through just the past 150 years is equivalent to more years of natural warmth than should be present.

So yes, I think it is a cause for alarm.  Do I think we're all going to die tomorrow?  No.  I honestly believe it will probably take 150-300 more years of the same rate of pollution, etc for their to be even a small effect.  As for your question, I'd rather have a scientist answer it than an internet message board fan 

237231[/snapback]

The point is ... natural forces are at work here and they are capable of melting glaciers a mile thick with precious little input from mankind. Whatever influence man is contributing to global warming today, no one can say with any certainty how much it is. And if they can't quantify it over and above "natural" warming then they can't prescibe any specific fix. It's all speculation and guesswork. No one knows for certain that a warming Earth & higher concentrations of CO2 is even going to be all bad. The media is all hysterical about any global warming scenario. Why? Logic tells me that plants would thrive in such an environment. Higher temps should lead to more evaporation & more cloud formation. More clouds would prevent more sunlight from reaching the Earth & may contribute to a cooling effect. So, you see ... nobody knows for sure, including the scientists. Whenever I hear someone tout that the "consensus" of scientists believe this or that about global warming, I know they are just trying to stifle any debate with their argument. Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, Einstein & many others all acted on their own without the "consensus" of the scientists of their day. A consensus that believes a theory does not make the theory a fact.

[quietfan 233]

Why?  Logic tells me that plants would thrive in such an environment.  Higher temps should lead to more evaporation & more cloud formation.  More clouds would prevent more sunlight from reaching the Earth & may contribute to a cooling effect. 

237292[/snapback]

Since I've already stated my views on the reality of the situation, I won't bore anyone by repeating myself on those views. But I thought I'd throw in a scientific point:

While greater cloud cover is a possibility, there is also the possibility that increasing temperatures will cause a release of even more carbon dioxide currently trapped in the oceans, leading to a runaway greenhouse efffect. To see the extreme ramifications of such a scenario, all we have to do is look at Venus. It was once hypothesized as a lush, tropical swamp-like planet because of it's dense clouds and high CO2 levels. Now we know the true story: Heaviest cloud cover of the inner planets, yet surface temperatures above the melting point of lead!

Not saying the earth is headed to that extreme, but just pointing out that more clouds does not necessaily mean more plants or cooler temperatures.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Here are several interesting web pages, if you are interested. All three deal with volcanoes and global warming.

Volcanoes & Climate

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.

http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html

Volcanoes and Global Cooling

link

Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global Warming

A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not accounted for in the computer models scientists currently use to predict the future of the world’s temperature. The researchers, David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, professors of physics, plotted data from satellite measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere in the months and years following the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The results, published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters (and now online), show that global temperatures dropped more and rebounded to normal significantly faster than conventional climate models could have predicted.

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

[... While greater cloud cover is a possibility, there is also the possibility that increasing temperatures will cause a release of even more carbon dioxide currently trapped in the oceans, leading to a runaway greenhouse efffect.  To see the extreme ramifications of such a scenario, all we have to do is look at Venus.  It was once hypothesized as a lush, tropical swamp-like planet because of it's dense clouds and high CO2 levels. Now we know the true story: Heaviest cloud cover of the inner planets, yet surface temperatures above the melting point of lead!

Not saying the earth is headed to that extreme, but just pointing out that more clouds does not necessaily mean more plants or cooler temperatures.

237326[/snapback]

More scientific points:

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2

Earthling-type humanoids have never visited Venus, so they could not have contributed to the NATURAL forces at work on that planet.

Earth's atmosphere is made up of approximately:

Nitrogen -- 78.084%

Oxygen -- 20.946%

Argon -- 0.934%

All other gases -- 0.038% (in this all other gases category, CO2 makes up over 90%)

The late astronomer, Carl Sagan, hypothesized about a phenomenon he called Nuclear Winter. In that scenario, a massive nuclear exchange between the old USSR & US would throw up so much dust into the atmosphere it would be all carried aloft by the jet stream around the world and reflect increasingly more sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface. The Earth would be plunged into a runaway cooling effect as a result and would experience a man-made ice age.

So, ... all you Chicken Littles out there need to just relax. If global warming ever gets to the runaway stage, we can always pop off a few nukes here & there to counteract the runaway warming. Not too many, mind you, otherwise runaway global cooling will result. But, we have the perfect antidote if that were to happen: the UN could just mandate more fossil fuel consumption around the globe to slow down the runaway cooling. Thus, mankind could regulate extreme temperatures in either direction. Take that, Nature. We own you. You are Mankind's byotch!

[quietfan 233]

So, ... all you Chicken Littles out there need to just relax.  If global warming ever gets to the runaway stage, we can always pop off a few nukes here & there to counteract the runaway warming.  Not too many, mind you, otherwise runaway global cooling will result.  But, we have the perfect antidote if that were to happen:  the UN could just mandate more fossil fuel consumption around the globe to slow down the runaway cooling.  Thus, mankind could regulate extreme temperatures in either direction.  Take that, Nature.  We own you.  You are Mankind's byotch! 

237335[/snapback]

...and of course, the increase in airborne radioactivity/fallout will help reduce the over-population/crowding problem as well.