OK, I've been good as long as I could.....

 

I bet that left six hundred frozen ice holes.

 

Did you know sitting on the ice will give you polaroids?

 

I can't tell from the photo if the glacier is melting, but it does have 600 cracks.

 

Frozen nuts or just frosted flakes?

 

Nice. :jump: :lol:

And yet, here we are, on another continent looking at a picture of a shrinking glacier. Not my cup of tea, but it sounds as if it worked.

Hopefully.

I fail to see how the inevitiblity of global warming diminishes the responsibility we have to leave the world as much a better place for our future generations as we possibly can.

:ylsuper:

I fail to see how the inevitiblity of global warming diminishes the responsibility we have to leave the world as much a better place for our future generations as we possibly can.

:sleep:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully.

 

Quit falling for that junk!

"Quit falling for that junk!"

...the church said to Galileo.

...the church said to Galileo.

Sucker! :lol:

...the church said to Galileo.

BF I love science. I have studied it for nearly 40 years now. I absolutely love the truth. I have no doubt that global warming could be occuring. What I do dispute is the role humanity has played in what I fully believe is a natural cycle. Scientists are split on whether global warming is happening, and even more divided over what may be causing it.

 

If and when it can ever be established that global warming is taking place, and that it is a direct result of man using fossil fuels to power our homes, factories and vehicles I'll be among the first to go Amish. Until then, I see this as nothing more than another political football that guys like Al Gore have latched onto to stir undue panic, and try to stake out a position of power for themselves.

 

I don't buy it.

 

The best news would be that we are causing it, because if we're causing it, we-at least conceptually-can stop it. If we are not causing it, and it is merely a lengthy natural cycle of the sun, etc. we're hosed.

BF I love science. I have studied it for nearly 40 years now. I absolutely love the truth. I have no doubt that global warming could be occuring. What I do dispute is the role humanity has played in what I fully believe is a natural cycle. Scientists are split on whether global warming is happening, and even more divided over what may be causing it.

 

If and when it can ever be established that global warming is taking place, and that it is a direct result of man using fossil fuels to power our homes, factories and vehicles I'll be among the first to go Amish. Until then, I see this as nothing more than another political football that guys like Al Gore have latched onto to stir undue panic, and try to stake out a position of power for themselves.

 

I don't buy it.

 

The best news would be that we are causing it, because if we're causing it, we-at least conceptually-can stop it. If we are not causing it, and it is merely a lengthy natural cycle of the sun, etc. we're hosed.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

The best news would be that we are causing it, because if we're causing it, we-at least conceptually-can stop it. If we are not causing it, and it is merely a lengthy natural cycle of the sun, etc. we're hosed.

FB - I don't think there's much doubt that "something" is happening. But I don't understand why some people just want to toss aside any responsibility we might have for the situation. That's like seeing smoke outside your window, and deciding it must be coming from someone else's house. It couldn't possibly be the result of something we are doing in or around our own house. I just don't see this as responsible, or very wise.

 

Whether or not global warming is caused in whole or in part by mankind's activities, we have to live on this little planet. Shouldn't we do the responsible thing, and keep that possibility on the table long enough to find out for sure? And shouldn't we start taking actions that will reduce our impact, should we find out that it is partly our fault?

 

Global warming is just one part of the environmental puzzle. It cannot possibly be argued that man is not harming our environment in various ways. global warming is but a symptom. The disease is far more complicated than that.

I fail to see how the inevitiblity of global warming diminishes the responsibility we have to leave the world as much a better place for our future generations as we possibly can.

 

As wise a thought as we have had here on BGP in a while.

BF I love science. I have studied it for nearly 40 years now. I absolutely love the truth. I have no doubt that global warming could be occuring. What I do dispute is the role humanity has played in what I fully believe is a natural cycle. Scientists are split on whether global warming is happening, and even more divided over what may be causing it.

 

If and when it can ever be established that global warming is taking place, and that it is a direct result of man using fossil fuels to power our homes, factories and vehicles I'll be among the first to go Amish. Until then, I see this as nothing more than another political football that guys like Al Gore have latched onto to stir undue panic, and try to stake out a position of power for themselves.

 

I don't buy it.

 

The best news would be that we are causing it, because if we're causing it, we-at least conceptually-can stop it. If we are not causing it, and it is merely a lengthy natural cycle of the sun, etc. we're hosed.

I have also spent many years studying science and a large part of my career was spent doing computer simulations of environmental systems. As such, I know what such models can do, and more importantly, what they can't. I'm not an expert on climate, but everything I've read would lead me to believe that human action is a portion of what seems to be happening. Is a portion of it also natural cycle? That also appears likely. I've also been involved in enough projects to know that a solution that requires everyone to "go Amish" is a non-starter. That leaves us with starting to work the edges. I not only think that the US should take the lead, I think there is money to be made. We should not cede technology leadership in "green" technology to others. As long as this is presented as a political fight between nuts on both sides, little will be done. There is also a national defense aspect. We fund both sides in the war on terrorists. Energy use and alternative sources are key to our long term success in the war against terrorists. Cut off their funding.

I've also been involved in enough projects to know that a solution that requires everyone to "go Amish" is a non-starter. That leaves us with starting to work the edges. I not only think that the US should take the lead, I think there is money to be made. We should not cede technology leadership in "green" technology to others. As long as this is presented as a political fight between nuts on both sides, little will be done. There is also a national defense aspect. We fund both sides in the war on terrorists. Energy use and alternative sources are key to our long term success in the war against terrorists. Cut off their funding.

I like the way you've framed this as an economic and strategic issue! This may be the approach we need to break through the political inertia and get things started in the right direction. :thumb:

Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'll accept that the world has warmed a fraction of a degree. Although I truly believe that this is 95% due to natural cycles of the sun and the relation of the earth's orbit to the sun, 4% due to volcanic activity dumping massive tons of soot, ash and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that exceed all the coal burned by man over the past 100 years... I'll accept (for the purpose of discussion) that perhaps man has contributed 1% of the stuff that has caused our thermostat to nudge up a fraction of a degree.

 

We have thousands of scientists around the world crunching numbers and studying the problem already.

 

What does a group of 600 naked, shivering activists exposing themselves on a glacier, (and quite likely expediting the melting of the glacier) for a photo-op have to do with fixing the problem?

 

How does Al Gore setting up a company to sell carbon offset credits do one fiddly bit to truly mitigate the fact that his mansion in Nashville uses more fossil fueled electricity in one month than most homes use in a year, or that his big private jet burns more in an hour than most SUVs burn in a year?

 

Al can offer all the guilt trips he wants, I don't need a travel agent.

 

It is nothing more than symbolism over substance.

I know that I am going to sound extraordinarily naive here.

 

Does anyone think that, while there seems to be (geological, for example) evidence that the Earth goes through cycles of "hot and cold", that mankind's influence, however small, might be just enough to push things past where they've ever been; and that at the current rate of burning fossil fuels and bulldozing rain forests, a point of "critical mass" could be reached?

 

Sorry to sound like a third-grader.

 

PS - It probably would be instructive to see where the funding for studies on both sides of the issue comes from. A wise person once told me that if you "follow the money" you will learn a lot.