NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/18/global.warming.ap/index.html

They were among six former EPA heads -- five Republicans and one Democrat -- who accused the Bush administrations of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.

Darn those...er...Republicans. They just hate Bush!

But Lee Thomas, Ruckelshaus' successor in the Reagan administration, said "if the United States doesn't deal with those kinds of issues in a leadership role, they're not going to get dealt with. So I'm very concerned about this country and this agency."

But as no one looks to Bush for leadership and he isn't responsible for anything, this is just a partisan attack by an appointee of the notoriously liberal Reagan.

Christie Whitman, the first of three EPA administrators in the current Bush administration, said people obviously are having "an enormous impact" on the earth's warming.

"You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."

How could she backstab Bush like that? And the way she used the phrase "You'd need to be in a hole somewhere," as a metaphore...it's like she's comparing Bush to Saddam!

Whenever I hear people say that we can't effect the enviroment I always want to ask, "You know that the sky is supposed to be blue, right?" Go to an urban center or LA, look up. It's not supposed to be that way. Days where people are advised to not go outside if they can avoid it becuase of the air doesn't come from trees unless they're on fire.

Whatever else you believe, that's hard to deny.

Whenever I hear people say that we can't effect the enviroment I always want to ask, "You know that the sky is supposed to be blue, right?" Go to an urban center or LA, look up. It's not supposed to be that way. Days where people are advised to not go outside if they can avoid it becuase of the air doesn't come from trees unless they're on fire.

Whatever else you believe, that's hard to deny.

Oh come on... We all know that the so-called "harmful efffects" of photochemical smog are a liberal distortion of facts! ;)

Ironically though, the most threatening pollution to people occurs inside.

Quite frankly anyone who believes that global climate change is a 'partisan tree-hugger issue' has abdicated reasonable thought.

obviously we humans can impact the environment. I find it hard to believe, however, that humans are responsible for global warming when there is so much evidense to the contrary. I mean, come on people, We're only a few hundred years coming out of a Little Ice Age, the temperature will be going up for at least a couple hundred more before it stabilises. That's just the way things work. Every two thousand years or so (Not sure exactly) We get to our Perigee. A thousand year later and we're at Apogee. Its planetary physics one oh one!!

Hmmm much ado about nothing.

It's easy to bitch about the problems but what "significant" effort has the goverment ever taken? What effort has the people taken to make the goverment do something about it?

It is rather easy to complain about it with talk or posting on boards ;)

Anybody remember Regan and how cow farting was the real reason? ;)

Oh come on... We all know that the so-called "harmful efffects" of photochemical smog are a liberal distortion of facts! ;)

Ironically though, the most threatening pollution to people occurs inside.
Sharper Image to the rescue!!!

I-if you have like $400 bucks...

The real answer is to just build flying cities. Circumvent the smog.

Quite frankly anyone who believes that global climate change is a 'partisan tree-hugger issue' has abdicated reasonable thought.

See the post directly below yours.

Re: that post: Even accouting for the amount of warming that would be expected after the "little ice age" we're still have warming that's unaccounted for. Contrary to what Mondoth says, the great majority of scientific evidence points to man-made global warming piled on top of a natural warming trend.

Mondoth, answer me this. Would a natural warming trend make the earth more or less easily influenced by artificial warming? Take your time.

obviously we humans can impact the environment. I find it hard to believe, however, that humans are responsible for global warming when there is so much evidense to the contrary. I mean, come on people, We're only a few hundred years coming out of a Little Ice Age, the temperature will be going up for at least a couple hundred more before it stabilises. That's just the way things work. Every two thousand years or so (Not sure exactly) We get to our Perigee. A thousand year later and we're at Apogee. Its planetary physics one oh one!!

Not buying it.

Snowfall in Michigan. Barely a foot as my uncle told me and when I was a kid(a couple decades ago ;) ) you could be snow bound. I remember my mom opening the door and it was a wall of snow.....

Not buying it.

Snowfall in Michigan. Barely a foot as my uncle told me and when I was a kid(a couple decades ago ;) ) you could be snow bound. I remember my mom opening the door and it was a wall of snow.....
Global warming does not mean that every single place on earth will become warmer.

It's -28C here at the moment. And I can't go to work because my car won't start (damn that makes me mad -not) :D

obviously we humans can impact the environment. I find it hard to believe, however, that humans are responsible for global warming when there is so much evidense to the contrary. I mean, come on people, We're only a few hundred years coming out of a Little Ice Age, the temperature will be going up for at least a couple hundred more before it stabilises. That's just the way things work. Every two thousand years or so (Not sure exactly) We get to our Perigee. A thousand year later and we're at Apogee. Its planetary physics one oh one!!


Except that according to experts, we're going many, many times too fast for this to be a natural trend. If that's not enough, look at the other facts presented. El Nino's have broken from their normal cycle, considerably speeding up. This level of CO2 concentration hasn't been present on earth in over 600,000 years (something like that).

In all honesty, there are no respectable scientists who don't accept the greenhouse effect and global climate shift to be true. Hell, for a senate hearing on the issue, the robber-baron-types had to conjur up a FICTION writer to support their side (Michael Chrichton... Or however you spell the man's name). That's pretty damn pathetic.

Global warming does not mean that every single place on earth will become warmer.
As I am both from Michigan and living in Finland, that is true. However, due to the butt end of the Atlantic Gulf Stream sweeping over Finland and the whole of Scandinavia for that matter, the snowfall here is actually less than Michigan. I think The Black Forest is just complaining about winter sports and whatnot.

But it is really annoying. I'm 20 degrees at a more Northerly latitude than I am back home and theres only about 2cm of snow here, which is a little less than 1". But on the mainland, where I'm almost sure you are, you should have more snow than where I am (due to the "warm" Baltic surrounding us)! ;)

But you are correct, it is much colder here. But I find it strange as the water levels are supposed to rise globally with the melting of the ice caps, that Finland's actually growing by the water receeding. Heh, funny that.

About global warming though. Sure, there may be a natural warming trend. But we sure are not helping in any way.

But it is really annoying. I'm 20 degrees at a more Northerly latitude than I am back home and theres only about 2cm of snow here, which is a little less than 1". But on the mainland, where I'm almost sure you are, you should have more snow than where I am (due to the "warm" Baltic surrounding us)! ;)


Winter on southern Finland generally sucks. Windy, rainy, dark and miserable. Here in central Finland it's quite different (as you know). We have about 40cm snow (which is less than usually.)

damn, my boss is coming to pick me up :( No extra free after all.

I think it's a combination of human acitivty and the fact that it's a cycle the earth is going through that's causing this. While I agree that humans have had an impact on the earth enviorment. With our landfills, overcrowding of cities etc. We must also realize that Nature is a cycle. Everything in nature goes in a cycle, and thus we will have a hot period, then a cold period and it goes back and forth like that. Also, the earth is alive and it does have a way to wash itself of pollution. Why do you think it's been raining in Seattle for the last 30 days? The earth is trying to stabalize itself.

Damn, my boss is coming to pick me up. No extra free after all.
Quick, dumb buckets of water all over the road in front of your place and they'll think twice!

I think it's a combination of human acitivty and the fact that it's a cycle the earth is going through that's causing this. While I agree that humans have had an impact on the earth enviorment. With our landfills, overcrowding of cities etc. We must also realize that Nature is a cycle. Everything in nature goes in a cycle, and thus we will have a hot period, then a cold period and it goes back and forth like that. Also, the earth is alive and it does have a way to wash itself of pollution. Why do you think it's been raining in Seattle for the last 30 days? The earth is trying to stabalize itself.

The Earth will be fine. People living in areas that become arid, or inundated with water or that actually get colder because of the shutting down of the atlantic conveyor? Not so much.

Also, there seems to be an industry vs. industry battle looming on the horizon as insurance companies realize that unstable and shifting weather patterns could put a dent in their profits.

Interesting times ahead.

It's funny that certain economists try to make the global economy sound clear-cut while poiting out that the climate is too chaotic to understand completely...smacks of hypocrisy.

I think The Black Forest is just complaining about winter sports and whatnot.


I'll never tell! :p

The Earth will be fine. People living in areas that become arid, or inundated with water or that actually get colder because of the shutting down of the atlantic conveyor? Not so much.

Also, there seems to be an industry vs. industry battle looming on the horizon as insurance companies realize that unstable and shifting weather patterns could put a dent in their profits.

Interesting times ahead.

It's funny that certain economists try to make the global economy sound clear-cut while poiting out that the climate is too chaotic to understand completely...smacks of hypocrisy.
Its sad that people worry about global warming when there a FUCKING HOLE IN THE OZONE AHHHH! oh wait ozone is a pollutant that can cause global warming. HMMMM anyone see a contradiction?

Its sad that people worry about global warming when there a FUCKING HOLE IN THE OZONE AHHHH! oh wait ozone is a pollutant that can cause global warming. HMMMM anyone see a contradiction?

What?

Its sad that people worry about global warming when there a FUCKING HOLE IN THE OZONE AHHHH! oh wait ozone is a pollutant that can cause global warming. HMMMM anyone see a contradiction?

No contradiction. Ozone in the upper atmosphere (where 90% of the world's ozone is located,) produced naturally and destroyed by CFCs, acts as a shield against harmful radiation. Ozone in the lower atmposphere, produced by chemical reaction with pollutants, is bad.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

You COULD have googled this easily, if you actually were interested in the subject. Instead, you spouted half-truths engendered by a lack of knowledge or by propaganda.

http://www.healthpolitics.com/program_transcript.asp?p=ozone

What?

See my response.

Its sad that people worry about global warming when there a FUCKING HOLE IN THE OZONE AHHHH! oh wait ozone is a pollutant that can cause global warming. HMMMM anyone see a contradiction?

...Yeah...If you don't know a lot...don't talk...it hurts my brain cells...

One thing that bugs me about global warming is how it demonstrates how little knowledge the general populace has of weather systems. A lot of people say one of two things: 1) "There can't be global warming, because it's colder outside than normal!" 2) "Wait, temperatures are supposed to increase by 1 degree every century? Big deal!" (Notably, this rate of increase has been revised to be much higher recently)

What both responses fail to take into account is the fact that weather is the epitome of a chaotic system. They think of it as a linear system- small changes in input result in small changes in output. This is what happens with, say, cannons- change the angle of the cannon a little, the cannonball lands in a slightly different spot. However, chaotic systems are much different- small changes produce huge differences in output (the butterfly effect).

Thus, slight changes of half a degree in average world temperature (which can translate to several degrees in some areas) can have huge affects- desertification, alterations of glaciers and ice caps (some parts growing, most parts shrinking), and increased hurricane intensity.

Oh, how I wish the scientifically ignorant would just let scientists do their jobs...

Oh, how I wish the scientifically ignorant would just let scientists do their jobs...

Yeah, but then they won't have anything to yell or write slogans on signs about, and then the bowling alleys will be too crowded with bored college kids.

It's funny that certain economists try to make the global economy sound clear-cut while poiting out that the climate is too chaotic to understand completely...smacks of hypocrisy.
Real economists are by definition scientists, who will respect whatever the scientists in other disciplines find out.

You're thinking of business people.

obviously we humans can impact the environment. I find it hard to believe, however, that humans are responsible for global warming when there is so much evidense to the contrary. I mean, come on people, We're only a few hundred years coming out of a Little Ice Age, the temperature will be going up for at least a couple hundred more before it stabilises. That's just the way things work. Every two thousand years or so (Not sure exactly) We get to our Perigee. A thousand year later and we're at Apogee. Its planetary physics one oh one!!


I can't believe no one called Mondoth on his apogee and perigee comments. We hit apogee every year, and perigee six months later. Apogee is the earth's furthest distance in its orbit from the Sun. Perigee is the closest approach. As Mondoth said "planetary physics one oh one!!"


Also, to XxxMenxxX,
Ozone is not a greenhouse gas. CFCs, which destroy ozone and are responsible for the hole, are extremely potent greenhouse gases. A hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs is probably an indicator of more warming, not less. I'll give you a minute or two to let that sink in.


...some people's kids...:rolleyes:

Still think global warming is a partisan tree-hugger issue? YES! Yes, I do. I believe it's real. I believe it's a problem. I believe it's our fault. But I also believe your globalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBush RANT also makes it a partisan tree-hugger issue. The best of both worlds! AIN'T IT GREAT? :D

YES! Yes, I do. I believe it's real. I believe it's a problem. I believe it's our fault. But I also believe your globalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBushglobalwarmingBush RANT also makes it a partisan tree-hugger issue. The best of both worlds! AIN'T IT GREAT? :D

You'd probably tell a man who was getting stabbed to shut up about knives.

I could also point out that this RANT was inspired by, in part, BUSH's OWN APPOINTMENTS to the EPA.

obviously we humans can impact the environment. I find it hard to believe, however, that humans are responsible for global warming when there is so much evidense to the contrary. I mean, come on people, We're only a few hundred years coming out of a Little Ice Age, the temperature will be going up for at least a couple hundred more before it stabilises. That's just the way things work. Every two thousand years or so (Not sure exactly) We get to our Perigee. A thousand year later and we're at Apogee. Its planetary physics one oh one!!

So.. what ARE we going to do about it ? Regardless if it was caused by humans or that is just natural, it is still a bad thing[tm] for humanity.

I can't believe no one called Mondoth on his apogee and perigee comments. We hit apogee every year, and perigee six months later. Apogee is the earth's furthest distance in its orbit from the Sun. Perigee is the closest approach. As Mondoth said "planetary physics one oh one!!"


Also, to XxxMenxxX,
Ozone is not a greenhouse gas. CFCs, which destroy ozone and are responsible for the hole, are extremely potent greenhouse gases. A hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs is probably an indicator of more warming, not less. I'll give you a minute or two to let that sink in.


...some people's kids...:rolleyes:

Actually, ozone in the lower atmosphere, which is almost exclusively caused by chemical reactions with pollutants, IS a greenhouse gas.

Kinda like Cholesterol, there's good ozone and bad ozone (depending on where it's located in the atmosphere.)

You'd probably tell a man who was getting stabbed to shut up about knives.

I could also point out that this RANT was inspired by, in part, BUSH's OWN APPOINTMENTS to the EPA.
Your missing my point. The reason that environmentalism is having such a hard time is that no one wants to be associated with the tree hugging hippy Greenpeace assholes who blame everyone but themselves, and never look at opposing views without screaming "TREE KILLER".

Also, if I were to say "Hey, I have this problem, and I think we need to fix it" I'd get way more support from people than if I said "Hey, I have this problem, it's all your fucking fault, and I demand you fix it, asshole!"

How can you complain about something, be a condescending asshole to the people you are trying to convince, and expect anyone to give a shit about what you say?

See, here we are arguing, and it seems we are both worried about global warming, but you have to make it a political issue (read-partisan), when the ones who are screwing it up are politicians. See the problem here?

So.. what ARE we going to do about it ? Regardless if it was caused by humans or that is just natural, it is still a bad thing[tm] for humanity.

There's not much that we can do; thankfully, emissions in the US and EU are pretty much flat in terms of growth. However, India and China need to be brought under these treaties, or else the problem's only going to worsen.

China's especially bad, since it's using more and more dirty coal power (as opposed to clean coal or natural gas/nuclear/renewables) and their flashfire industrialization is totally in disregard of environmental damages.

Just to amuse Gymoor, I've been working on an argument that global warming is NOT a real effect, nor is it caused by human activity.

I'm almost done, so expect a post in the next few days. I'm sure Gymoor will be amused.

There's not much that we can do; thankfully, emissions in the US and EU are pretty much flat in terms of growth. However, India and China need to be brought under these treaties, or else the problem's only going to worsen.

China's especially bad, since it's using more and more dirty coal power (as opposed to clean coal or natural gas/nuclear/renewables) and their flashfire industrialization is totally in disregard of environmental damages.

Or we could politely ask the US to sign up to the Kyoto treaty. Again.

And perhaps ask them to pay 4 times what they currently pay for petrol, to bring prices in line with those in Europe. I can't believe they're still complaining about a dollar a gallon when we've been hit for a euro a litre at the pumps for over a year.

But seriously: yes, there's a problem, and yes humanity's exacerbating it. The only thing that consoles me is that while we can easily make the Earth uninhabitable for puny lifeforms such as ourselves, Terra herself will sail serenely on through the cosmos after we're dust. Not a helluva lot we can do to destroy the planet.

Anyone read Stark by Ben Elton? Funny sh!t about global warming..

Or we could politely ask the US to sign up to the Kyoto treaty. Again.

And perhaps ask them to pay 4 times what they currently pay for petrol, to bring prices in line with those in Europe. I can't believe they're still complaining about a dollar a gallon when we've been hit for a euro a litre at the pumps for over a year.

But seriously: yes, there's a problem, and yes humanity's exacerbating it. The only thing that consoles me is that while we can easily make the Earth uninhabitable for puny lifeforms such as ourselves, Terra herself will sail serenely on through the cosmos after we're dust. Not a helluva lot we can do to destroy the planet.

Anyone read Stark by Ben Elton? Funny sh!t about global warming..

I can't believe you have no idea what gas costs in the US.

It's around 2.45 a gallon in the US. Briefly, it was about 3.20 in my neighborhood right after Katrina.

I can't believe you have no idea what gas costs in the US.

It's around 2.45 a gallon in the US. Briefly, it was about 3.20 in my neighborhood right after Katrina.

How could I, being 3000+ miles away? What else do I have to go on besides what's posted in the international media?

I can't believe you have no idea what gas costs in the US.

It's around 2.45 a gallon in the US. Briefly, it was about 3.20 in my neighborhood right after Katrina.
Its still much cheaper than Europe.

There's four liters in a gallon. Here, with the excange rate, it would be roughly 8.75 US dollars for a gallon. And if the US govenment taxed the gas more, you wouldn't be complaining, as they should just ease up on the tax when economic shocks bump up on the price.

Doesn't really have anything to do with global warming though.

Global warming..... on MARS
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Damn martians with their CO2 emissions! Or are humans the cause of warming on mars too?

If both the Earth and the planet mars are experiencing warming, perhaps the warming occuring is due to factors other than human activity?

Up until 1975: scientists were actually worried about global cooling (not warming). http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

From 1940 - 1975, the world experienced a period of cooling. If human industrial activity causes global warming, then how could there have been this period of cooling in the middle of the 20th century at a time when smoke-stack factories billowed pollution into the air with no environmental regulations, no Green parties, and no tree huggers to stop them.

Its still much cheaper than Europe.

There's four liters in a gallon. Here, with the excange rate, it would be roughly 8.75 US dollars for a gallon. And if the US govenment taxed the gas more, you wouldn't be complaining, as they should just ease up on the tax when economic shocks bump up on the price.

Doesn't really have anything to do with global warming though.

Well, not directly to do with global warming, but if they upped petrol prices and implemented car tax based on engine size like in Europe then US cars would stop being such oversized, inefficient gas-guzzling monsters, thereby cutting down on carbon emissions and saving the environment. In a roundabout way.

To paraphrase South Park, Blame America!

Global Warming may or may not be natural. What is certain though is that cities have far worse atmospheres for heat and pollutants which needs changing anyway.

Reducing emissions is the only way the urban environment's gong to improve and hey, it might just help the rest of the world too...

Me? I'm gonna stock up on factor 50, I burn way too easily as it is.

And perhaps ask them to pay 4 times what they currently pay for petrol, to bring prices in line with those in Europe. I can't believe they're still complaining about a dollar a gallon when we've been hit for a euro a litre at the pumps for over a year.

We don't need that; what we need is a massive hike in the gas efficency standards to reduce consumption of the stuff. Plus, we need to accelerate the switchover to low-sulfur diesel fuel.

I have great disdain for any scientist who claims to understand the mechanics of climate change based on the mere century of accurate weather data we have.

I know that human beings have been generating far larger amounts of greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide than in previous centuries.

I know these have an impact on global temperature increases. But I still question the severity of that impact as compared to other impact factors.

Most importantly, I question whether it's a 'problem'. Or more specifically, I question the idea that scientists can make it 'better'. The vast majority of experiences with man trying to alter or even 'preserve' nature has shown that we don't know what the hell we're doing. At best, we have gotten completely unexpected results and at worst, we have caused far greater environmental harm than would have occurred otherwise.

I have seen no reason to believe that we have the scientific tools to accurately predict our current impact on climate, nevermind what trying to alter that impact will accomplish.

On the other hand, there ARE environmental issues that can be addressed. There are steps we can take to reduce our impact on the environment and to live more symbiotically with nature. But we're too busy directing the world's attention to climate change. Are we really so arrogant that we think we're ready to control the weather?!?

Global warming..... on MARS
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Damn martians with their CO2 emissions! Or are humans the cause of warming on mars too?

If both the Earth and the planet mars are experiencing warming, perhaps the warming occuring is due to factors other than human activity?

Please read this:

Global Warming on Mars? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)

Up until 1975: scientists were actually worried about global cooling (not warming). http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

From 1940 - 1975, the world experienced a period of cooling. If human industrial activity causes global warming, then how could there have been this period of cooling in the middle of the 20th century at a time when smoke-stack factories billowed pollution into the air with no environmental regulations, no Green parties, and no tree huggers to stop them.

And this:

The Global Cooling Myth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

-snip-
Agreed.

Give Gaia some slack and let her get herself together.

Winter on southern Finland generally sucks. Windy, rainy, dark and miserable. Here in central Finland it's quite different (as you know). We have about 40cm snow (which is less than usually.)

damn, my boss is coming to pick me up :( No extra free after all.



You're about 15 degrees further north than I am, but Maine is snowier, as we don't get the Gulf Stream. At least, it should be snowier. Normally we'd have 3' to 4' (somewhere in excess of a meter) of snow on the ground by now. This year, we have NO snow at all on the ground. I don't think we've had more than a foot (0.3 m) all winter. It has, however, been raining like hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car

This invention could be solution. Wind power could be used to produce the electricity needed.

I have also wondered, if this works: First water would be produced from water with wind power would. Then hydrogen would be stockpiled and used when needed. Stockpiles could be refreshed when it's windy. Other power sources could be used as backup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car

This invention could be solution. Wind power could be used to produce the electricity needed.

I have also wondered, if this works: First water would be produced from water with wind power would. Then hydrogen would be stockpiled and used when needed. Stockpiles could be refreshed when it's windy. Other power sources could be used as backup.

Fun stuff. I see one small fly in the ointment; A crash could puncture the air tank. That would be... um... well, let me put it this way; It'd be a hell of a show. :)

But I think it's a groovy idea and worth developing. *nod*

Here's the REAL answer.

http://www.sergioleone.net/dm-94.jpg

Assuming you have the requisite 1.21 Jiggawatts.

Fun stuff. I see one small fly in the ointment; A crash could puncture the air tank. That would be... um... well, let me put it this way; It'd be a hell of a show. :)


Well, punctured fuel tank is equally dangerous, whole vehicle could be engulfed in flames.

Give Gaia some slack and let her get herself together.

Whoopi Goldberg is going to need more than a little slack to get herself together [/Captain Planet]. :p

Please read this:

Global Warming on Mars? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)



And this:

The Global Cooling Myth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)


Your second link states :
"Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's"

I don't know if any of you saw the new POPsci but a wave power machine is being planned for operation of off the coast of Rhode Island, able to power 1200 homes and requiring minimal upkeep. There's renewable energy for you.

Well, punctured fuel tank is equally dangerous, whole vehicle could be engulfed in flames.
To have enough hydroden to power a car say, it would need to be in liquid form. That means under extremely high pressure, something a gas tank is not. So stupid question, but which one do you think will have more of an explosion?

I am actually VERY interested in the second link Lazy Otakus provided.
In the "Comments" section, someone posted the following:

There was a recent Horizon programme on television in the UK. It concerned a phenomenon labelled "global dimming". Some of the precursors of this are mentioned in the article above. However, more work has been done recently and it's potentially scary stuff. Around the world, the amount of sunlight reaching the earth has dropped by between 10% and a staggering 22%, since the 1950s. The results of research into measuring the effect have largely been ignored by the scientific community until recently.

Global dimming has, apparently been lessening the effects of global wraming. The scary thing is that our attempts to clean up the microscopic particles that we emit in burning fossil fuels (for health reasons) could drastically cut down the global dimming effect, allowing global warming to race off. Some estimates suggest that the point of no return is only 25 years away.

I've been trying to find scientific articles on the subject, but recent ones have eluded me so far. Here is a link to the transcript of the programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

And in response:

Response: The horizon programme perhaps overestimates the degree of knowledge on this subject. "Global dimming" is not well known and somewhat mysterious. The figures I have seen are more like 2-3%/decade, with a probable reversal more recently, rather than the 22% you quote.

It is a partisan issue - both treehuggers and anti-global warmists probably have a weak understanding of it. So the facts end up getting lost in the partisanship. I bet if you go to one of those hippie rallies and asked them about global warming, their answers would be shitty. Same thing if you asked the anti-globbies.

To have enough hydroden to power a car say, it would need to be in liquid form. That means under extremely high pressure, something a gas tank is not. So stupid question, but which one do you think will have more of an explosion?

"The air engine is an emission-free piston engine using compressed air as fuel"

Air, not hydrogen.

Please read this:

Global Warming on Mars? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192)



And this:

The Global Cooling Myth. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

And yet, the anti-global warming crowd will keep repeating their talking-points ad nauseum.

Why? Because they put more faith on WHO is telling them things rather than the strength of the evidence itself.

"The air engine is an emission-free piston engine using compressed air as fuel"

Air, not hydrogen.

I've done a lot of research. In many cases, the very scientists who did studies that called into question global warming either reversed themselves as they conducted new studies with more complete data sets, or conceded that someone else's research/results were better/more precise.

In other cases, the studies were funded extensively by thinktanks and projects heavily funded by oil concerns. Universally, these studies make conclusions founded on half-truths and distortions that have been thoroughly debunked by the great majority of the scientific community.

This doesn't stop people from using these discredited and outdated talking points over and over again.

The scientific evidence, if one attemts to make an honest assesment of the information out there, is quite damning. Any other assessment is dishonest.

I look forward to destroying Kimchi's argument. I already can anticipate some of his "evidence" and am well prepared to shoot it down.

It is a partisan issue - both treehuggers and anti-global warmists probably have a weak understanding of it. So the facts end up getting lost in the partisanship. I bet if you go to one of those hippie rallies and asked them about global warming, their answers would be shitty. Same thing if you asked the anti-globbies.
You got anything other than your own opinion to guide you here?
This seems like an EXCELLENT time to show some stats and empirical evidence.
Ante up!

I look forward to destroying Kimchi's argument. I already can anticipate some of his "evidence" and am well prepared to shoot it down.
Kinda makes ya warm & fuzzy all over .... ;)

DK's busy defending his argument on a different thread - whether or not he was subject to bias in college over a paper entitled "Communism is Wrong" that he penned.
Or so he says.