LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Some still debate whether global warming is a reality or not, and influenced by humans. Just another piece of evidence here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_ ... NlYwM3NTM-

Here's Bush's response to the report.......Can't trust anyone that uses "facts"!

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder. ... ID=2966768

Oh come on... I'm just one person. What can I do about global warming?

(Dan says this as he throws a Quarter Pounder with Cheese package out the window, turns on some more lights, idles his range rover in the driveway, freshens his living room with febreeze spray and dumps out his fondue pot into the natural spring in the backyard)

Didn't you read State of Fear? Global Warming is a myth!

Major study confirming Global Warming being released 1rst quarter 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

If the study is as Cnn reports, time to remove the "?" from this topic title.

global warming and cooling (ice ages) are part of the natural cycles of the earth.

Global warming is a myth. If you disagree, the terrorists win.

uwec_attack wrote:Didn't you read State of Fear? Global Warming is a myth!

Though dry land is a myth, unfortunately global warming is?

Cylaxkeeper:

What you say is accurate - but it's irrelevant in the curent discussion of global warming. And, in fact, it's really a diversionary tactic.

Go check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming for a discussion.

PBS also has a great documentary, which can be purchased at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CPHAAG/ref=pd_thx_sims_2/104-3361943-9331102

Finally, 10 of the CEO's of the largest corporations in the world are calling for action:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/22/ceos.climate.ap/index.html

(note - it should not be a surprise that the US SOTU address will have a proposal on this topic, although I'm curious if it is a diversionary "too little, too late" type of remedy)

Just ask all of the NASA scientists that were censored about global warming what they think.

On a more interesting note: 45,000 evangelical churches have aligned themselves with scientists on this debate.

Again, I pose this question. and this isn't being debated often. What if global warming isn't real (I 100% don't agree with this due to the mountains of professionals that I've spoken with and the documentation that I've seen) should we continue down the same path of destruction and degradation? Should we continue to treat our planet as a dumpster? Should we continue to poison ourselves because it's "legal" and due to the perceived perception that it would impact the economy in a way that we can't afford?

Stryker,

Contribute knowledge please.

Good call Rob.

"President Bush will use his sixth State of the Union address to reveal new proposals on health care and the environment, White House spokesman Tony Snow said. Bush also will talk about a plan to cut gas usage by 20 percent, according to two Republicans with close ties to the White House."

Zeuslax wrote:Again, I pose this question. and this isn't being debated often. What if global warming isn't real (I 100% don't agree with this due to the mountains of professionals that I've spoken with and the documentation that I've seen) should we continue down the same path of destruction and degradation? Should we continue to treat our planet as a dumpster? Should we continue to poison ourselves because it's "legal" and due to the perceived perception that it would impact the economy in a way that we can't afford?

That is my problem with the whole global warming debate. Regardless of whether it is true or not, the fact is, we are depleting resources through overuse and pollution. Global warming has just gotten at the center of it as a political issue, so if you believe in global warming then you are a tree hugging bleeding heart liberal, and if you don't then you are a right wing corporate eco-villain. I work as an environmental consultant and get to see first hand both the destruction and protection of our natural resources. The key thing is we need proactive regulation to prevent the slow erosion of our resources, and the Bush administration has not really been on top of this. One thing is certain, without a unified, global initiative aimed at protecting our natural environment, we as a world will destroy it.

Campbell wrote:

One thing is certain, without a unified, global initiative aimed at protecting our natural environment, we as a world will destroy it.

Good post, I would be interested to hear more of you thoughts on this subject. Just to add to your statement, without the US leading these types of initiatives, they just don't carry the weight that they should/could. Especially with the voracious appetite that we have for resources in this country and the amount of polluting that we contribute.

A lot of this has already been covered:http://forums.collegelax.us/viewtopic.php?t=5120&highlight=

Yes, the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles as a result of changes in its orbit that occur on time scales of a 100,000 years, 41,000 years, and 22,000 years. At no time in the Earth's history has there been as drastic an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, man made or otherwise, as we have seen in the last 150 years. There is no debate as to the physical characteristics of the carbon dioxide molecule (or methane for that matter) that cause the retention of heat in the atmosphere. The science is there.

I strongly encourage everyone to do what they can on a personal basis to curb energy use. Buy the new fluorescent lights, get a water heater blanket, set your thermostat at 68 in the winter and 78 in the summer. At the very least you will save some money.

I almost hate to write this, but I guess it couldn't hurt. If anyone ever wants anything related to home performance and how to save energy or even for that matter make there house operate better and more efficient. Drop me a line.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/

Stryker is 100% correct. One of the easiest things we can do is change out incandescent bulbs to screw in compact fluorescents. They have been around for ever, but have rapidly improved over the past few years. The newer ones on the market place have a warmer color temperature and huge decrease in the "blue" light that everyone hated. Many people aren't aware of the advances and have a reluctance to buy these lights because of this. Fixtures are still a little bit more expensive up front, but many are just as costly as incandescent fixtures and the life cycle costs are great. If anyone is interested the LED market is really amazing and interesting.