A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[v3n0mat3]

Of course Global warming is a real occurrence. I don't deny it. I do deny that humans are the major cause of it. Because, really? Do you think a bunch of humans can beat out a gigantic ball of fire floating above our heads? Do you think we have a greater impact on the Earth than, say, the way the atmosphere is? Very doubtful.

 

[Heronblade]

And if you want other systems that are "economically viable," well they're all economically viable, perhaps with the exception of solar (that said, the rate of decline in the price of solar energy means that it's currently economical to install a solar panel and have it in use for 20 years, and it'll be even more economical a few years down the line.) Wind power has been a perfectly economical alternative to traditional power for some time now, as seen by the massive development of wind power in places like Texas and the North Sea. Geothermal power, while more limited in scope, is as well (just for heating your house: I did the math, and with current energy cost, it'd only take 15 years for the average seasonal american household to recover all its costs from geothermal energy.) The issue is that non-renewable energy companies have a far firmer footing, meaning better existing infrastructure, and more capital to expand on non-renewable enterprise.

An example of a novel idea that combines everything: There's an initiative that's been going on in Brazil for some time now, that takes the depleted husks of sugarcane, breaks the unusable cellulose down into ethanol for use in biofuel, burns what organic material is left over to power the entire process, and then ships out the ash left from the burning as organic fertilizer for use on those same sugarcane fields. But of course, I'm not sure why exactly they'd do it; there's obviously no possible economic opportunity in that system which would turn otherwise waste sugarcane husks into biofuel and fertilizer, right?

But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.

Several things:
First, most obviously, is that electricity provides the possibility for 100% renewable energy in automobiles. Just have those electric cars hooked up to a wind, geothermal, solar, or hydroelectric grid, and the GHG emissions while in use are basically zero. And even if not, depending on how far you are from the closest power plant, the efficiency of energy conversion in even a large-scale coal power plant to electricity and to the car will likely end up being less than in an internal combustion engine, which are notoriously inefficient.
Secondly is that, again, it's all about the existing infrastructure. Once you get the proper infrastructure for electric cars (which really isn't that hard when compared to the infrastructure that went into making gas-powered automobiles,) it's all benefit. And you might as well start now, as we're going to run out of oil sometime. The question is when; is it going to be now, where we can transition in an organized fashion towards a post-oil economy, or is it going to be 20 years down the road when we're in a rush to convert our infrastructure to renewable resources, and have essentially released all the carbon deposits that we can? That 5-10% may not be worth it in 5 years, or even 20, but it will eventually make up its cost, and it's something that we'll need to do anyways.

Of course, the novel thing to do would say "we just don't need this many cars," and instead build better public transport systems, so we could cut the number of cars in total (meaning less energy consumed,) and face lower costs when transitioning from oil to electricity.

Base energy cost increase for these systems as compared with Nuclear:25 percent higher with wind power, 61 percent higher with offshore wind power, and 333 percent higher with solar photovoltaic.

Basic wind power costs a great deal in upkeep and maintenance. In addition, only a few places in the US have a constant enough wind to offset the cost, most of those are already in use or not viable for other reasons. Try building one in my state for instance and the company will go bankrupt very quickly, even if a hurricane doesn't come along and rip into everything.

The cost for standard solar is so far off the charts I won't bother going into it. It also has similar problems that wind has with placement and constant need for productivity.

Geothermal systems can sometimes cost nearly as much to build as the house it is going to supply, and as mentioned is limited to areas where a constant supply of clean water is available. In addition, since users must be careful about how they return the used water to the ecosystem, expect to deal with the consequences of people being themselves.

Biofuel is responsible for at least two separate food crises that I am aware of. Since the advent of the corn ethanol program, food prices around the world have increased by a great deal. It is responsible for a 400% increase in the price of corn flour in Mexico. Corn flour is the staple for the poor in that country. Prior to the price hike, they would pay as much as a third of their wages for it year round. In addition, ethanol fuel is not usable on its own. Attempting to run an engine on straight ethanol will result in an engine that is worth less than its weight in scrap metal thanks to the corrosion. It is only viable as a supplement, most fuels labeled as biofuel are 85-90% regular gasoline, 8-13% ethanol, and 2% stabilizer so the crap doesn't evaporate and leave water in your tank.

Again, I have no problem with cutting corners on consumption, and make no argument that there is a time and place to do such without significantly causing problems for us.

 

[TheRealCJ]

A couple tings: YES the climate is changing, YES it happens naturally, YES people are helping it happen faster, A LOT.
I have done RESEARCH on this, my sources are from all over the place, NASA, a whole bunch of .edu sites (school sites that would have NO REASON to make money or ANYTHING like that, just experiments run by STUDENTS)and a whole bunch of other places too. I even know some REAL SCIENTISTS that were skeptical of the "climate change" thing, and then turned their view around when they started doing their own research as well. Pre-industrial revolution CO2 in the atmosphere was 0.27% (I think around there, maybe 0.29...) NOW it's 0.39% those seem like small numbers yes, but you have to realize ALL LIFE ON EARTH EVOLVED LIKING THAT 0.27% add an extra ~50% to that, and I can tell you that's bad news, imagine adding another 50% oxygen to the atmosphere, we'd all DIE. And that 50% increase in CO2 was just for what countries industrialized THEN, guess what CHINA and INDIA are doing right now? You know, those places that account for almost HALF OF THE WORLDS POPULATION? Ya they are industrializing. So if America is ~4% of the world pop... and we emit 25% of the WORLDS CO2.. China and India are 50% of the worlds population... some basic math tells you that's bad, VERY bad.

Also, the scariest part about rising CO2 emissions, is the acidity of the oceans. I think it's at like 7.3 (and NO I'm not going to get into what the numbers mean, just go google it if you want to know) It used to be at 7.2, and if it gets to 7.5, that means that there will no longer be any shelled organisms in the ocean, like crab, lobster all that. That ALSO means no more coral reefs. Now, if you don't think that's bad, you got some serious reading to do.
EDIT: Bigger numbers = more acidity.

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

Oh also, I have NO idea where this climate change is taking us, for I haven't done my research that far, but either it's
A) going to burn us all to death or
B) cause an Ice age. So for everyone saying "It's a natural cycle of the Earth" yes, yes it is. SO SHOULDN'T WE FIND A WAY TO STOP THAT SO WE DON'T FREEZE TO DEATH?! Because I can GUARANTEE you, that you WILL NOT like an ice age.

One last thing: (I don't know if it already has been said BUT)

There have been 6 major extinctions wherein the majority of the Earth's life died that we humans know of. All of them happened before we were here and all of them happened due to massive climate change. The ice age was the most recent.

Humans do not affect the climate.​

The Earth will cool and warm long, long after we go extinct and the cycle of life and death will be unaffected.

The hippies are wrong. The science is right.

Of course! Because No one's EVER offered any SCIENTIFIC evidence of Global Warming!
I suppose you think that hole in the ozone layer just willed itself into existence.

Your a little miss-informed, The hole in the Ozone layer IS NOT effected by CO2 emissions, that was the whole Choral Floral Carbons thing, which was dealt with in the 90's I believe. It doesn't have anything to do with the current issue of climate change. Not trying to sound mean or anything, just informing.

And feel free to correct me on anything I missed or failed at.

Well, they're called CHLOROFLUROCarbons to begin with.

 

[MrA]

I think the world is constantly changing and the effect the human race is having on it is greatly exaggerated by those who have a vested intrest. Take Al Gore as an example. Man has invested millions into green and environmentally friendly products, of course he's going to make "An Inconvenient Truth" trying to scare people into buying his stuff. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. It's just propaganda, in my opinon. Hasn't this planet been through two ice ages already? seems like a pretty drastic global change not brought about by humans.

But that's just my two cents, I might be spouting completely ignorant points, but let me know if so, if you're better informed than me

 

[Nouw]

Call me biased but I had a term of learning about climate change and I think, yes climate change is partly our fault.

 

[cantgetaname]

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

The crap we dump is a tiny fraction of the crap nature actually dumps into its own atmosphere. The argument is that humans are maybe possibly "upsetting the balance", which is vague and unscientific, so people obfuscate that logical leap with scary facts about what are probably natural weather cycles (which we've only been recording accurately for about 150 years, so how the hell would we know what's "normal" as far as the earth is concerned?). It's supported by the higher ups as a way for governments to justify tax hikes to support a "war on global warming". Bleh. And it's caught on because of people's desperate desire to believe that they aren't just an insignificant speck on a planet that will keep on turning no matter what they do.

All we do is change the pace. And not very much on a global scale...
Earth takes care of everything. It's been that way for a few billion years.

^ That would be a more succinct way of putting it...

Umm, no? The crap we dump into the atmosphere is A LOT more then natural? Haven't you seen like the 4876159347815694783561943 graphs that show that pre-industrial there is a steady CO2, but when the industrial revolution hit, BAM! HUGE skyrocket in Co2. And no, the argument isn't "that we are possibly upsettting the balance" and we have ways of telling how the atmosphere was like 10,000 years ago. And I TOTALY agree with you that the plaent will keep turning and be perfectly fine, but my argument ISN'T about the PLANET, it's about Humanity living on it. If there was a way to save Humanity by blowing up the planet, I for one wouldn't hesitate to push that Death Star button.
Oh and please tell me where you get your facts that "the crap we pump is only a tiny fraction" cause I would really like to know.
And don't say Fox news or I will stab you.

 

[Kikyoo]

First: Talk to the major countries that don't have pollution caps. Just because a few people are doing it, doesn't mean everyone is, and doesn't mean anything if a bunch of nations are still doing it.
Second: I heard that there is this thing, call Volcanoes, and I heard that they can release absolutely obscene amounts of pollution all at once. So much so that it makes the amount that we humans have put out, amount to nothing.
Third: The sun. Ya know it's not just static up there, the sun has an ebb and flow all it's own, it's just much slower than anything we are used too. And there is nothing we can do about the sun.
Finally: to me it seems like arrogance to think that we matter that much on this planet to think that the whole world is going to end because we are stupid. Nuclear war is about as close as we can get to a total planetary holocaust, and even that might not wipe out everything.
Final stance: The world changes, with, or without humans. We have to accept and adapt to that. Even if we do something about it, The world can still change without us. Frankly in my experience nothing we do matters. Every time we change what we do, we don't fix the problem, we just change the nature of it, or just change how we affect it. If we worry about just ourselves we'll rape nature. If we worry about nature, we will suffer for it. Frankly I'd rather prepare for trouble, and be ready for it, rather than try to fight futilely against anything and everything that can change in the world.

We can shape the world, but ultimately the world is a much bigger place than we often realize. Actions have consequences but I think you need to look around you, and really drink in the reality of how small we are.

There is one point I'm willing to concede... The dead sea. That is not at all cool, and that is completely on our heads, and if we are careless we can expect to see a lot more of that... so let's focus on fixing that, instead of something we may or may not be able to do anything about, like Global warming.

 

[Epifols]

Science has agreed that the earth has

 

[Blemontea]

Live where i live and then tell me that global warming is happening. See what ive seen then tell me its happening. But just because i dont believe global warming is happening doesn't mean ill do what i can to help the environment because their are worse things that can happen if we let the world go to shit. Like an ICE AGE which news reports also saying were going into. This to is false but science has smacked me around saying the world gets colder the more its polluted more than it gets hotter.

 

[cantgetaname]

Ok the volcano thing is kinda annoying me, how can (what max 10 major eruptions a year?) be more then the constant burning of fossil fuels that humans do? Yes volcanoes may put out a lot all at once, but just basic estimation can tell that people put out more DURING A YEAR.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2

Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value into the atmosphere every yea
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/


Comon some BASIC Goolging AT LEAST before you say something
that took me like 5 minutes

 

[cantgetaname]

Live where i live and then tell me that global warming is happening. See what ive seen then tell me its happening. But just because i dont believe global warming is happening doesn't mean ill do what i can to help the environment because their are worse things that can happen if we let the world go to shit. Like an ICE AGE which news reports also saying were going into. This to is false but science has smacked me around saying the world gets colder the more its polluted more than it gets hotter.

How I understand it:
Rise in global temperatures = melting icecaps and less snow (taht means not as much light is reflected back into space because we all know that white reflects light)= less sun reflecting into space = more light (thus heat) on Earth = more water evaporation = more clouds (clouds are white)= A LOT more light being reflected into space (less light, colder Earth) = Ice Age. And when the clouds finally turn in precipitation (most likely snow) there are HUGE parts of the world that are white.

 

[TheTutonicDrone]

I find it hilarious reading all these nay-sayers' replies in this thread, basically talking like they're experts on the subject and none of them presenting any evidence for their claims.

If you are actually interested in learning about global warming, I recommend going to Skeptical science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/] and checking out some of the facts like 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans [http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html].

Also worth checking out is a little documentary called The Denial Machine [http://documentaryheaven.com/the-denial-machine/] to learn where a lot of the propaganda regarding climate skepticism is coming from.

First I would like to say that the science of climates, if it can even be called that, is not like normal science. The side that believe in man-made Global Warming have no more proof than the scientists who don't. There is no control version of the earth with no humans on it we can look at and say: Hey that earth isn't heating up! I guess its humans that are causing this.

Second I would like to point out that the poll you linked was answered by 30% of the climatologists they contacted. 97% of which did as you say respond in the positive concerning the question are humans a significant factor. I don't feel any scientist would ever say humans aren't a large factor. There are a whole lot of us. The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.


Finally you wanted supporting documents here you go. This is a link to a climatologist's report to the senate: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
I can link more but I figure you won't bother reading it so there is no point. Ask me and I will though. There is plenty of other research information from this side. The mass media just isn't spoon feeding it to everyone.

Edit:
I would also like to add that another reason this information isn't out there is the amount of donations to climatologist's research has increased drastically since this first started. Many scientists try and keep their findings quiet because as soon as people find out donations will go way down.

 

[Devil's Due]

Global warming is obvious to anyone with eyes.

Yeah, no, it's not. Anyone with eyes can see it's normal. Earth will always change regardless of what we do. Scientists theorize that Earth's North and South pole were switched millions of years ago, maybe more. Did man cause that? No. Earth does whatever the hell it wants, we can't remove nor add anything to the planet, as all the atoms are already there, unless we start launching things into space.

As for the thread. Sure, taking care of the environment is good. Hell, I just did an hour and a half of cleaning up the streets with my Air Force JROTC Wing today. But there's one big reason why many companies refuse to "change," and no matter how many people complain or cry, it won't change because of one simple constant that ruins everything:

Greed.

Why spend money adding recycling plants, buying special and expensive recyclable materials when the other is far cheaper and a higher annual profit? There is no reason to. People need to "simm'er down now" and relax.

 

[cantgetaname]

Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?

EDIT: I feel that people are taking "global warming" point slightly too literally. I'm also talking about pollution in general. But that doesn't have as many obsessive back-and-forthers.

the problem is two fold: first of all, I'm all for the transition, but not at the cost of economic growth and freedom. Second of all, people don't understand how complicated it is. To be honest, the strives we've made are astronomical in last 40 years. However, to really make a difference you'd have to undo the last 150 years of human history... EVERYTHING we do is based on oil; and not just transportation. Plastics, fundamental chemistry, fertilizers, preservatives, alloys, carbon based substances, etc. are all based chemically on oil. What's worse is that there is no alternative besides oil to produce the majority of things created from oil. So you can blabber all you want about getting off of "needing oil", but if you really want that, than you're gonna have to take us back to the Age of Enlightenment. It can't and won't happen.

I agree with you on most of this, especially the thing about oil, but if we can get at least our cars onto something other than oil, that at least saves the oil for all the other things that need it until we find a replacement for oil/for the things that need oil. I don't know the statistics, but I'm betting on that transportation uses most of the oil.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

It's funny because geologists are actually the ones that mostly oppose the idea of us causing global warming.

We've got bigger problems than fucking global warming anyways, stop watching Fox news.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

First off, here's a source:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Read the comments as well as the article (the site is a bit biased and the article itself is full of cherry-picked data, but that happens on all sides)

Secondly,

my argument ISN'T about the PLANET, it's about Humanity living on it. If there was a way to save Humanity by blowing up the planet, I for one wouldn't hesitate to push that Death Star button.

Man, don't kid yourself. Humanity won't last another 1000 years, tops. If it isn't weapons of mass destruction or an incurable pandemic, it'll be a random asteroid collision or an alien race that wants to build an intergalactic highway right where earth is. Taxing people for their 'carbon footprint' and crap like that won't make any difference.

 

[Heronblade]

I agree with you on most of this, especially the thing about oil, but if we can get at least our cars onto something other than oil, that at least saves the oil for all the other things that need it until we find a replacement for oil/for the things that need oil. I don't know the statistics, but I'm betting on that transportation uses most of the oil.

All right then, we get cars onto something other than oil. That is actually a good plan, and I personally endorse it. But it is also incomplete, let me explain.

At the time being, we have two good options to use as an alternative fuel in our vehicles. Straight electric power, and hydrogen power. Electric power is fairly self explanatory. Hydrogen, when it burns, forms water, not carbon gases. However in order to make enough hydrogen to do this, we need to use a significant amount of electricity at an electrolysis plant.

Whichever you choose, you have successfully eliminated greenhouse gases emitted directly by our cars. HOWEVER, you have also increased power grid consumption by a proportional amount. X fewer gallons burned in the gas tank means Y more pounds of coal burned in the power plant. Without also finding an alternate energy source for electrical production, doing so for our vehicles is almost meaningless. It would reduce overall emissions by a not insignificant amount, but would not solve the problem. Nuclear power plants just might be our only hope for efficiently eliminating this problem, but recent events suggest that may now be a political impossibility.

 

[cantgetaname]

I agree with you on most of this, especially the thing about oil, but if we can get at least our cars onto something other than oil, that at least saves the oil for all the other things that need it until we find a replacement for oil/for the things that need oil. I don't know the statistics, but I'm betting on that transportation uses most of the oil.

All right then, we get cars onto something other than oil. That is actually a good plan, and I personally endorse it. But it is also incomplete, let me explain.

At the time being, we have two good options to use as an alternative fuel in our vehicles. Straight electric power, and hydrogen power. Electric power is fairly self explanatory. Hydrogen, when it burns, forms water, not carbon gases. However in order to make enough hydrogen to do this, we need to use a significant amount of electricity at an electrolysis plant.

Whichever you choose, you have successfully eliminated greenhouse gases emitted directly by our cars. HOWEVER, you have also increased power grid consumption by a proportional amount. X fewer gallons burned in the gas tank means Y more pounds of coal burned in the power plant. Without also finding an alternate energy source for electrical production, doing so for our vehicles is almost meaningless. Nuclear power plants just might be our only hope for efficiently eliminating this problem, but recent events suggest that may now be a political impossibility.

Ya, but also, the power efficiency in that coal power plant is probably 1000% efficiency more then in my car. Because they WANT all the power they can get out of the coal, where as cars need gas, and if we need more gas, we need to BUY more gas, see where I'm going here?

 

[Itsthatguy]

Hey just to put it out, has anybody ever factored in an approaching ice age when considering environmental changes and their relation to what we are doing

Because as far as i know we are overdue for an ice age - the last three were 60 000, 40 000 and 20 000 years ago.
Even that guy in inconvinient truth was looking at the large ice pack in greenland, and how if "global warming" continues it could result in an ice age. Global warming, or just the earth's natural cycle

Just putting it out there

 

[cantgetaname]

Ok the volcano thing is kinda annoying me, how can (what max 10 major eruptions a year?) be more then the constant burning of fossil fuels that humans do? Yes volcanoes may put out a lot all at once, but just basic estimation can tell that people put out more DURING A YEAR.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2

Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value into the atmosphere every yea
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm
Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/


Comon some BASIC Goolging AT LEAST before you say something
that took me like 5 minutes

but there's two problems with the "yearls average temperature" thing. The problem is that each new "spike" in average temperatures coincides with more accurate ways to measure temperatures. Case in point: the greatest leap in history of global temperatures was in the 1970's. the 1970's was also the decade we began to launch weather satellites which could take more detailed readings of the global temperature of the earth. Not only was it far more accurate, but it also allowed us to gather information from the oceans, an area that was vaguely studied in terms of temperatures. It was then discovered that oceans were vastly more warm than previously thought, and since oceans make up roughly 3 quarters of the world, by implication the world is vastly warmer.

Further proof of climate change being wrong is looking at it climatologically, over the course of thousands of years. When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that we've been going through natural cycles (this would also explain why, 40 years ago, the majority of scientists thought we were going through global cooling). It is not in dispute whether or not humans are altering the climate; the dispute is how fast. the majority of scientists believe that drastic changes won't occur for another 100-500 years. How does that account for things like the polar ice caps melting? They melt due to other factors, such as a rise in CO2 in the oceans, and arctic plate instability.

it's also worth noting that in the last decade, when more carbon dioxide was released than in any previous decade, the global temperature has actually gone down almost as much as it rose in the 30 years prior (leading many to conclude that the idea of the earths climate as cyclical to be correct).

Lastly, it is also interesting to note that CO2, the greatest pollutant, is also the weakest in terms of green house effect. The reality is that global warming activist do not actually believe themselves that CO2 raises temperatures, but rather that CO2 can have adverse effects on things like the ocean, where too much CO2 can disrupt natural ocean currents; if these currents collapsed, no warm water would reach the poles, causing the ice caps to grow - sparking a new ice age. Further proof of CO2's inability to effect the climate can be found in the fact that the vast majority gets absorbed into the oceans. If CO2 is all under water, how is it that it can raise atmospheric temperatures? Put simply, it can't.

What people don't realize is almost everything global warming activists throw at them is either simply a half truth or an oversimplification of the real problem. Frankly, I don't disagree with their methods because having to explain that "CO2 doesn't cause air to warm but fucks up the ocean!" is a lot harder than saying, "CO2 WILL FRY YOUR MUFFIN TOPS RIGHT OFF YOUR JEANS IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL!" Who cares about the ocean? but when everything from storms to droughts to increased asthmatics can be explained by increased temperatures and "green house gases", it's a much easier ploy.

The problem I have is with the histeria around it. Global warming exists, yes; Florida, however, will not be under water in a few decades. Try a few Centuries. and I'm hoping by then I'll be a brain in a floating vesicle living in a brain-retirement-home somewhere on the Citadel. heheh.

Oh oh I see what your saying, took me a sec, I'm not really arguing the fact that the TEMPERATURE is rising or not, but that CO2 is rising, and there are plenty of things that scare me about that. Like dead oceans. And dead plant life. And I'm not too worried about rising oceans, at least what I know about it, but I am worried about the melting ice caps. Ya, I'm not on about Global Warming, just about CO2 Being VERY BAD