Global Warming - is it real? Is it man?

[nthfinity]

Man - caused Global warming is not science.

To be science, it must follow the scientific meathod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
in essence,
to observe a condition
develop a hypothesis
to prove the hypothesis

Global warming caused by man is nothing more then 100-150 years of circumstantial evidence without a provable link... anywhere.

Myth- Global warming is caused by pumping of additional CO2 into the atmosphere that was not previously there; as created to a vast amount since the industrial revolution.

Fact - C02 is a large part of the earth's, and Martian atmosphere (95% Mars)
Mars itself has had a sustainable and repeatable value of C02 in its atmosphere wholey and completley absent of the controls of Man, minus a rover, or two, and a few Viking landers. Yet, Mars is experiencing it's own global warming!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman said. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."

Which I find interesting in that We have no relation whatsoever in what happens there! I find myself wondering what both Earth, and Mars have in common? What could be causing these temperature increases on our planet, and our celestial neighbor?

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/wi...unclimate.html
The sun in fact does affect the Earth directly... as do the Sun's conditions and patterns... which can clearlly be seen as an increasing ferocity of Solar activity here

But although the Sun is known to be a variable star, its total output of radiation is often assumed to be so stable that we can neglect any possible impacts on climate. Testimony to this assumption is the term that has been employed for more than a century to describe the radiation in all wavelengths received from the Sun: the so-called "solar constant," whose value at the mean Sun-Earth distance is a little over 1 1/3 kilowatts per square meter of surface. In truth, the solar "constant" varies. Historical attempts to detect possible changes from the ground were thwarted by variable absorption in the air overhead. Measurements from spacecraft avoid this problem, and the most precise of these, made continuously since 1979 (Fig. 2a, b), have revealed changes on all time scales--from minutes to decades--including a pronounced cycle of roughly eleven years. ......... New insights into the variable nature of the Sun have almost always been followed by efforts to find possible impacts on the Earth--chiefly through comparisons with weather and climate records. Initially the quest was not so much a detached inquiry as a determined effort to demonstrate a long-sought hope: that keys found in the cyclic nature of solar behavior might open the doors of down-to-Earth predictions. In the latter part of the 19th century, there were many claims of new-found connections between sunspots and climate. It began with the announcement by the amateur astronomer Heinrich Schwabe, in 1843, that sunspots come and go in an apparently regular eleven-year cycle. What followed was a flood of reported correlations, not only with local and regional weather but with crop yields, human health, and economic trends. These purported connections-- that frequently broke down under closer statistical scrutiny--lacked the buttress of physical explanation and were in time forgotten or abandoned.

"We're in the maximum phase of the solar cycle now," says Dr. David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, "and it will probably persist for another year or more. This one is somewhat smaller than the last two maxima in 1989 and 1979, but it's definitely bigger than average."

we also find perhaps the reason for our recently frigid temperatures? We are dipping into a Solar low period after a traditionally very intense Solar Max! Maybe this is why so few Hurricanes hit this year? Maybe this is why Glaciers in the southern poles are expanding, while sea levels are falling?
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

What it means Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.

and yes, the seas' are falling, not rising!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
[quote]Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters.

A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe's ERS-2 satellite.

It is well known that the world's oceans do not share a uniform height; but even so, the scientists are somewhat puzzled by their results.

Global sea level is expected to keep on climbing as the Earth's climate warms.[/qoute]
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html

In the early 1990s, scientists forecast that the coral atoll of nine islands - which is only 12ft above sea level at its highest point - would vanish within decades because the sea was rising by up to 1.5in a year. However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in

further information on global sea levels rising
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...evelglobal.jsp

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...55658425108013

The consensus of global warming scientists is that the sea level won't rise by 20 feet, or even 5 feet. Instead, they predict seas will rise by at most 23 inches, and as little as 7 inches. And even that will take 100 years to occur. That's not nothing, but it's hardly the sort of thing that would suddenly displace millions of people. [reference to Al Gore's film] In the late 1970s, scientists were predicting a 25-foot sea level rise from global warming. By the mid-1980s, the consensus had dropped to about 3 feet. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 1990 put its "best estimate" for sea level rise at 25 inches. By 1995, that dropped to 19 inches. And if you take the midpoint from the latest U.N. report, the prediction now rests at 15 inches between now and 2100.

As we see, when the Global Warming supporters put a date on anything where we can actually see feel, and notice results, they will fail each time... so now they have extruded something that may be beyond our lifetimes!

So, let us now delv into the history books, and look at the events that allowed the Vikings to inhabit Greenland, and the English to grow vinyards for wine; and the later stunt in growth, drop in world population, and storied winters...
Global Warming: CA 950-1100 AD, and the mini-ice-age 1300-1900 AD
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...1-weather.html

Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find By William J. Cromie Gazette Staff The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability? .... They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather. ...... From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age. To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

If anything, we may be aiding in the slow-down of Global warming via the particulates released...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

In conclusion.... might we find it ironic that there is so much hype when so much data shows us that we are in continual flux, and that we have little to no affect on the weather, and we are in fact quite insignificant?

I am not sure anybody could believe in Global warming after all this... but thatts just my opinion. Sorry for the OT

[philip]

"Global warming- warmer world temperatures, increase of habitable land area due to moderating climate, increases in organic production (food), animal populations (including humans) and diversity of species.

Global cooling- cooler world temperatures, decrease of habitable land area due to increase in glacier formation, decreases in organic production (food), animal populations (including humans) and diversity of species. Mass extinctions. During the ice age previous to the last one, the human population (found through DNA testing) declined to only about 1000 people. (Al will make sure he survives, but will you)

Given the choice, I like Global Warming.

The previous warming and cooling spells were prior to the 1900's where human intervention was not suspected, do we now feel the warming period we may be experiencing today is the result of human intervention or is it just weather.

Were the terrible hurricanes in 2005 Geroge Bush's fault and because Al Gore made a movie about global warming, he saved us from hurricanes in 2006?

In 1989, it was extremely and unusually cold in Houston. Was that due to global warming, or has global warming only occured since then? Or was it all just the weather and really what this is all about is trying to get me to ride the bus to work and not drive my Porsche? They can't stop me from driving my Porsche, but Al and his friends certainly can make it more expensive by raising taxes.

I really think Global Warming is all about raising taxes."

This was my previous post about the subject. Nothing has changed except it has gotten really cold in Chicago, New York and Minneapolis in the last few days. Global cooling? Global Warming? No its just the weather.

[philip]

Its Germany vs France and Italy.

"Porsche Rails at Emissions Caps That Favor Ghosn's Smaller Cars

By Alan Katz and Jeremy van Loon

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche AG is under threat from the drive to combat global warming, Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking says.

Wiedeking has joined with other German luxury-car makers to protest a mandatory European Union cap on carbon-dioxide emissions that he says favors companies such as Renault SA and Fiat SpA that produce smaller vehicles.

``This is a business war in Europe,'' Wiedeking, 54, told shareholders at Stuttgart's Porsche Arena on Jan. 26. ``It's the French and Italians up against the Germans.''

The European Commission is proposing binding limits because carmakers risk missing voluntary targets. The commission plans to outline a preliminary proposal tomorrow in Brussels. Carlos Ghosn of France's Renault says it's time the industry did more to protect the environment. Renault, PSA Peugeot Citroen and Turin, Italy-based Fiat each have several models with limited emissions.

Cars account for more than a 10th of the EU's emissions of CO2, the main gas blamed for global warming.

``Jobs are not lost when you proactively embrace change, but if you reactively resist it,'' said Johannes Laitenberger, the spokesman for Commission President Jose Barroso. The goal is to limit climate change while preserving competitiveness, he said.

``The key to meeting both objectives is to be ahead of the game, not sticking our heads in the sand, not standing still,'' Laitenberger told reporters in Brussels on Jan. 29.

120 Grams

Passenger cars in the EU emit an average 161 grams of CO2 a kilometer (9.14 ounces a mile), according to the EU.

The European industry's non-binding goal is to reduce emissions to 140 grams in 2008. EU regulators have discussed a mandatory cap of 120 grams a kilometer in 2012, said Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. Porsche's least-emitting vehicles are versions of the Boxster and Cayman sports cars, which each produce 222 grams of CO2 per kilometer.

It will cost carmakers an average 2,532 euros ($3,297) a vehicle to meet both targets, according to an October 2006 report for the commission. The cost to Porsche may average 4,650 euros a car, said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, head of the Center for Automotive Research at the University of Gelsenkirchen near Dusseldorf in Germany. He was once an executive at the company.

Paris-based Peugeot may say Feb. 7 that second-half net income fell 23 percent to 269 million euros as demand for its vehicles declined in Western Europe, according to the median estimate of 11 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Renault, which reports earnings on Feb. 8, will probably say profit dropped 13 percent to 1.04 billion euros, according to a survey of 10 analysts. Renault is also being hurt by shrinking earnings at Nissan Motor Co. Renault owns 44.3 percent of Japan's third-biggest carmaker.

Tug of War

Tomorrow's proposal will start a tug of war among companies, countries and the commission, the EU's regulatory arm, to determine how to attain the target and how to penalize carmakers for failing to work toward the industry average. A draft law is expected later this year. It will need the backing of national governments and the European Parliament to take effect.

``How would they make binding targets?'' Ivan Hodac, secretary general of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association in Brussels, said. ``We don't know. No one knows.''

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has vowed to protect her country's carmakers, saying on Jan. 30 in Berlin that the government of Europe's largest economy will block any attempt to introduce a blanket emissions reduction for all cars and will instead push for limits to be set by type of vehicle.

Changing Habits

The cap may change the landscape of the European car market, pushing people to buy smaller cars with smaller profit margins, said Tadashi Arashima, head of Toyota Motor Corp.'s European unit, which is based in Brussels.

``We need to figure out how to grow sales and profitability anyway,'' he said.

Toyota's Aygo subcompact and Prius hybrid cars already emit less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer. Other models below that level include versions of Stuttgart-based DaimlerChrysler AG's Smart ForTwo, Peugeot's 107 and 207, as well as Fiat's Panda and Grande Punto hatchbacks.

Renault has some Megane compact hatchbacks that fall in that category.

``There is a point in time when society has to set what it wants,'' Renault's Ghosn, 52, said in a Jan. 25 interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``I consider that it's the time. We're just going to have to deliver the best, and we have the technology to do it.''

German carmakers don't want Europe's efforts to come at their expense.

`Jobs Will Migrate'

Wiedeking, DaimlerChrysler's Dieter Zetsche and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG CEO Norbert Reithofer, along with the heads of the local units of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., signed a Jan. 26 letter to the commission saying the new rules would be ``technically infeasible.''

``Auto exports will suffer, imports will increase, the sale of upper- and mid-range vehicles will fall dramatically and jobs will migrate from the EU,'' they wrote, citing the commission's own study of the regulation.

About 15 million cars are sold annually in the EU, where about 2 million people are employed making vehicles and their parts. That represents 7 percent of all EU manufacturing jobs.

Porsche boasts the car industry's highest profit margin, with operating profit representing 29 percent of sales in fiscal 2006. That compares with 4 percent at Fiat and Renault's estimate of 2.5 percent.

Cayenne SUV

``If legislation makes it very expensive for German cars to reach emissions limits, it could make them less attractive compared with smaller French and Italian cars,'' said Peter Braendle, a fund manager at Swisscanto Asset Management in Zurich, which manages $44 billion including DaimlerChrysler and Peugeot shares. ``That could shift investment decisions.''

Porsche shares rose 59 percent last year to 964.06 euros, compared with a 32 percent gain for Renault, 9 percent for DaimlerChrysler, 8 percent for BMW and 3 percent for PSA Peugeot Citroen.

Wiedeking told Porsche shareholders that sports cars and sport utility vehicles such as Porsche's should be exempt from any new rules or subject to different regulations based on horsepower or fuel efficiency.

Porsche's most powerful vehicle, the Cayenne Turbo S SUV, seats five and generates 520 horsepower, more than twice as much as some 18-ton delivery trucks. With a price tag that starts at $111,600, it also produces 378 grams of CO2 a kilometer.

``Why does an SUV need 500 horsepower?'' Wiedeking said, reading a question from a shareholder. ``Because it's a blast.''

The University of Gelsenkirchen's Dudenhoeffer said customers for bigger, more expensive models wouldn't balk at paying a bit extra to gun their engines.

``For the premium car manufacturers, they will simply pass the extra costs on to their customers, who are not especially price sensitive,'' he said. ``This shouldn't hurt their profit.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Katz in Paris at [email protected] and Jeremy van Loon in Berlin at [email protected]

Last Updated: February 5, 2007 21:04 EST"

Go ahead EU strangle the most profitable car company in the world, just to make Al Gore happy.

[Mattk]

Good post, nthfinity, and I agree. In fact, I'm familiar with pretty much all those arguments and examples. Unfortunately, not many people seem to see it the same way as us, i.e., that global warming cannot be conclusively proven to be caused by human activity, and riding on waves of populism, politicians are forced to use climate control platforms to get elected.

[ae86_16v]

Good research. I had to do a bunch too to look at some of your points.

I am going to take a stab at it. Agreed that this is more or less a relative new field of research so that much more research and discovery will have to be done before anything conclusive is out.

I am going to go down the list you have made and offer counter points.

Maybe planetologist or astronomer could offer some points here, but I think comparing Earth's climate and CO2 concentrations to Mars isn't very conclusive. Much like I will point out later, and what you would called circumstantial evidence. Two planets that are completely different from the meteorology and developmental stand point. As you pointed out, Mars has 95% Carbon Dixiode and Earth only has 0.0383% (383ppmv), that single variable alone would make comparison point less. Also to note that Mars' orbit sits on a off set circle around the Sun, which makes its termperature variance greatly depending on which point in the year (orbit) it is. Mars' perihelic distance is 204 million kilometers and aphelic distance is 247 million kilometer. Unlike Earth that sits on a relatively consistent orbit about 150 million kilometer from the Sun. (Note, Mars is also like Earth where the planet is tilted at around 25 degrees, so Mars experience seasons as well.)

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...ars_orbit.html
http://cmex.ihmc.us/SiteCat/sitecat2/mars.htm

You are completely correct that the Sun has cycles of 11 years. Some scientist argue that it might be 22 year cycles. Again, since we have only recently begun monitoring the Sun with Satellites it is hard to have any conclusive evidence except that we know it is cyclical. So with only a few decades of data from Satellites we can not be sure what and how it attributes to Global Warming.

Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies even went as far as saying that Sun cycles can not be responsible and these increases in temperature must be attributed to greenhouse gases.

Originally Posted by NASA Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

And in regards to the Sea levels, the article you quoted states that Sea Levels Arctic Sea levels dropped by 2mms but Globally they have risen.

Originally Posted by BBC . . .ocean waters are shown to have gone up across the planet by 3.2mm per year for the period 1992 to the present.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm

And . . .

Originally Posted by NOAA Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q9

These figures are clear, there is no ambiguity about that:

Originally Posted by C&EN Analyses of trapped air show current CO2 at highest level in 650,000 years . . . The data indicate that the current concentration of CO2, at 380 ppm, is 27% higher than the preindustrial level and higher than any level attained during the past 650,000 years.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html

Originally Posted by BBC BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average. The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

Originally Posted by NOAA Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years.

Now, I agree with you that the data definitely shows that Earth's eco-system is very dynamic. We definitely do not know what all this data sums up too. As with most of these articles indicted from "experts" and scientist, all are in agreement that more research is necessary.

Maybe Earth's ecosystem could handle up to 1 Trillion tons of CO2 and other gases before it become irreversible. Maybe it could only handle 500 million tons. I don't know, we don't know.

But I believe that the jury is still out, are we "in fact quite insignificant"? As you asked? I believe in that this isn't a free ticket ride. Better to be guarded than "1 buck short and 2 days late".

Thus in this case, personally I choose to follow the Precautionary principle.

[Mattk]

^I also believe in precautions, but if we're talking about emissions, why is there less fuss about CO, sulphur and other more harmful toxins? And even when we're talking about carbon dioxide, it is inequivocal that carbon dioxide is necessary for the survival of the planet.

[TopGearNL]

Quite interesting Nth!

Ill give it a thorough look when Im back!

[nthfinity]

"most c02 in 650,000 years" which indicates there has been more, and would coinsicide with the last eruption of Yellowstone... yet the earth manipulated itself back to normal.

"Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years. "

might it be possible it has anything to do with the presicion, and accuracy of the tools used to measure temperature?

[coombsie66]

I am very sceptical as well, all it takes is a quick deduction of the scales involved here and to me, mans effects cannot be considered significant enough that we can somehow control the climate of our planet through manipulation of our own personal emissions. To me that seems ridiculous anyway.
As for the arguments, i am with the 'see what happens and adapt (as we have done for many many years!) to suit' train of thought. But you will always have the 'what iff's' of the global warming fanatics so they'll never stop arguing.
Maybee the money being piled into this reseach would be better spend saving the lives of those currently inhabiting the planet, ie aids, cancer cures etc. Its quite some debate! Interesting nontheless.

[Mattk]

Maybee the money being piled into this reseach would be better spend saving the lives of those currently inhabiting the planet, ie aids, cancer cures etc.

Maybe the greenies should focus solely on emissions which actually cause immediate harm, if they want to focus on emissions at all.

[blinkmeat]

Originally Posted by Mattk Maybe the greenies should focus solely on emissions which actually cause immediate harm, if they want to focus on emissions at all.

right - and maybe this is the boost thats needed
it seems that burocracy needs this kind of thing to get anything done ... and for gods sake whats wrong with a cleaner environment? i mean really

[RC45]

Originally Posted by blinkmeat and for gods sake whats wrong with a cleaner environment? i mean really

Nothing, except the "western" world will be the only countries sacrificing to meet the clean requirments, while the rest fot he world will continue entering their "industrial age" and simply continue to pollute and exploit and trash the planet with impunity and embolden themselves to the point of superiority.

Meanwhile the "clean air" west will weaken themselves into PC green-ness and wither up and die

[silentm]

some good points were made in this thread. the temp. diagrams are surely interesting, i am pretty sure that the human being is contributing to a higher CO2 level than normal, but the car being solely responsible for this? oh please we have far bigger industrial machines that produce more CO2 overall than all the cars could do.

[TNT]

you know that the earth has been around for billions of years. who is to say that this just isn't a normal phase of the earth? now i know we are having an effect but come on how can you even begin to understand the "life" cycle of some thing that is billions of years old.

[ae86_16v]

Originally Posted by nthfinity "most c02 in 650,000 years" which indicates there has been more, and would coinsicide with the last eruption of Yellowstone... yet the earth manipulated itself back to normal. "Although Stanford's researchers with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that even with the the account of the Sun Cycles, it still does not account for the average 0.6 C Degree raise in temperature in the past 100 years and 0.4 C in the past 25 years. " might it be possible it has anything to do with the presicion, and accuracy of the tools used to measure temperature?

As you pointed out Earth's ecosystem is cyclical. Unfortunately, they do not have ice core samples any older than that so it would be extremely hard to extrapolate any additional data without some other advances else where.

As far as the measurements are concerned, I have seen a few website with independent measurements. Some have it as high as 1.0 C degrees, and others have it as low as 0.5 C degrees, within this century. I believe Stanford and NOAA just took the average. There is no doubt that Earth has been warming from 1900-2000. Again, is it because it coincided with the Industrial Revolution? More research is needed.

Originally Posted by Mattk Maybee the money being piled into this reseach would be better spend saving the lives of those currently inhabiting the planet, ie aids, cancer cures etc. Maybe the greenies should focus solely on emissions which actually cause immediate harm, if they want to focus on emissions at all.

In the US and most of the other western countries, we have already have toxic dumping laws which restrict where and how you treat immediate toxins. And California would be the first state to introduce legislation that will curb Green house gases by 25% by 2020.

Originally Posted by silentm some good points were made in this thread. the temp. diagrams are surely interesting, i am pretty sure that the human being is contributing to a higher CO2 level than normal, but the car being solely responsible for this? oh please we have far bigger industrial machines that produce more CO2 overall than all the cars could do.

Originally Posted by TNT you know that the earth has been around for billions of years. who is to say that this just isn't a normal phase of the earth? now i know we are having an effect but come on how can you even begin to understand the "life" cycle of some thing that is billions of years old.

No one is saying it is only from Cars, I am saying that it coincides with the entire Industrial Revolution during the mid-19th century.

Of course we know that Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years old, again as I pointed out before, it might be the normal phase, it might be not. How do we know where the tolerance and the breaking point is? We do not, like I pointed out earlier, it might be 10 trillion tons of CO or it might be only 500 million tons. And what about other gases as Mattk pointed out? What about a combination of gases? Should we worry about? We are not so either way, in which I believe we should take the Precautionary Principle stance.

Originally Posted by RC45 Originally Posted by blinkmeat and for gods sake whats wrong with a cleaner environment? i mean really Nothing, except the "western" world will be the only countries sacrificing to meet the clean requirments, while the rest fot he world will continue entering their "industrial age" and simply continue to pollute and exploit and trash the planet with impunity and embolden themselves to the point of superiority. Meanwhile the "clean air" west will weaken themselves into PC green-ness and wither up and die

That is the greatest problem right now. Because if we are to take measures to curb this, we do need global effort. China and India are two of the countries right now producing the heaviest damage to the enivornment in general. And I believe that you could solve this problem via Economics.

There are a couple of factors in this. One, United States' economy (I do not know much about Western Europe), now is based on a service economy. We have shifted from an agriculture to a manufacturing and finally to service. Which means that in general legislation will be affecting fewer firms and the economy should be able to withstand the additional burden. No doubt that it would hurt our manufacturing base.

Secondly, we have already started a scheme of Environmental credits. Firms are offered credits in which they have an allowance to release gases. Firms that are more efficient could sell or trade their credits to other manufacturers that are not as efficient. This type of market would encourage more development to be cleaner in the long run.