whats your opinion on Global Warming...

[Jay2TheRescue]

[RANT]

Not to get too political, and just a warning that I refuse to participate in any flame war over this, but if one searches the geologic record they will see that the earth naturally heats up and cools down. We've only been keeping accurate records of surface temperatures for a little over 100 years. The Earth is billions of years old. The amount of detailed data we have is statistically insignifigant. That's like looking at the temperature readings of a lightbulb in its first 1/2 second of operation. If you extrapolate that data you can say that after an hour the lightbulb will be 100,000 degrees. If global warming is human caused, then we're doing a fantastic job. We're doing so well that our SUV's are heating up Venus, Mars, and Jupiter as well. Especially Jupiter. Some new red spots formed on Jupiter, and they were attributed to global warming on Jupiter. Global warming is happening on many, if not all planets in our solar system. I reject the notion that its a natural cycle everywhere else, but here its our fault.

People now complain that the internal combustion engine creates pollution, but at the turn of the last century it was hailed as being responsible for helping clean up the cities. There was no longer horse waste rotting in the streets, greatly improving sanitation.

Now should we explore other energy alternatives? Sure, but not primarily for the environment. We should be doing it to be energy independent. If we were energy independent we could tell OPEC where to stick it. Being energy independent would be a great boost to our economy as the dollars now going overseas to the middle east would stay right here, helping our economy, not buying some arab a solid gold toilet. The reduced environmental impact of switching to a renewable, alternative fuel is a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels - an added bonus.

We live in a Capitalist society, and these changes are not going to be made until someone figures out a way to make it cheaper than what we're doing right now. Even then it will take years to build the infrastructure necessary to manufacture and distribute whatever alternative energy the market decides on. (And then you still have to buy it.) Right now we need to work on several things: Cut consumption, increase efficiencies, and increase production of domestically produced oil and gasoline to ease the pain we are feeling right now, reducing the amount of fuel we need to purchase from overseas.

[/RANT]

[civic_matic_00]

Now should we explore other energy alternatives? Sure, but not primarily for the environment. We should be doing it to be energy independent. If we were energy independent we could tell OPEC where to stick it. Being energy independent would be a great boost to our economy as the dollars now going overseas to the middle east would stay right here, helping our economy, not buying some arab a solid gold toilet. The reduced environmental impact of switching to a renewable, alternative fuel is a byproduct of switching from fossil fuels - an added bonus.

We live in a Capitalist society, and these changes are not going to be made until someone figures out a way to make it cheaper than what we're doing right now. Even then it will take years to build the infrastructure necessary to manufacture and distribute whatever alternative energy the market decides on. (And then you still have to buy it.) Right now we need to work on several things: Cut consumption, increase efficiencies, and increase production of domestically produced oil and gasoline to ease the pain we are feeling right now, reducing the amount of fuel we need to purchase from overseas.

that's what many environmental activists can't accept for reasons only understood by them. there's no middle ground for them. it's either we turn off the oil or just force new technology to everyone even for those who can't afford it.

keep the dollars here, seek more alternatives, in time all new alternatives will be implemented BUT only when the techology becomes affordable. until people can afford solar panels only those who have the money can put it on their roof. environmental activists can't deny the fact that solar panels have been around for decades yet only those with a higher income can afford to install them. they don't see that keeping oil dollar profits here could even boost environmental efforts by using some of those profits to fund research instead of funding terrorists.

I've been a member of WWF, Sierra Club, Arbor Day foundation, and many other environmental organizations since the late eighties, but one fact remains, if people's livelihood are threatened, many will not be able to do anything for the envirenment.

people's economic well being has to be healthy so that they can partake in the new technology. WWF has conceded years ago that their efforts in saving endangered species can not be done unless the local population where those species are found are economically healthy and many of their programs aim to give people alternative livelihood instead of just cramming environmental conservation down people's throats like many other organizations do.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by civic_matic_00

that's what many environmental activists can't accept for reasons only understood by them. there's no middle ground for them. it's either we turn off the oil or just force new technology to everyone even for those who can't afford it.

keep the dollars here, seek more alternatives, in time all new alternatives will be implemented BUT only when the techology becomes affordable. until people can afford solar panels only those who have the money can put it on their roof. environmental activists can't deny the fact that solar panels have been around for decades yet only those with a higher income can afford to install them. they don't see that keeping oil dollar profits here could even boost environmental efforts by using some of those profits to fund research instead of funding terrorists.

I've been a member of WWF, Sierra Club, Arbor Day foundation, and many other environmental organizations since the late eighties, but one fact remains, if people's livelihood are threatened, many will not be able to do anything for the envirenment.

people's economic well being has to be healthy so that they can partake in the new technology. WWF has conceded years ago that their efforts in saving endangered species can not be done unless the local population where those species are found are economically healthy and many of their programs aim to give people alternative livelihood instead of just cramming environmental conservation down people's throats like many other organizations do.

Yes, I totally agree. Its hard walk in and tell a native population to not hunt & eat a certain animal because its endangered. When your family is starving you do what you need to survive. You need to make their local economy strong enough so they are not dependent on that animal as a source of food. Just as its easy for us to just drop in and say don't burn the rainforest. Most of the people doing this are clearing land so they can plant crops to feed their families. They are starving. They could care less about the rare tree they just cut down because they can't eat it.

-Jay

[DrivenByNothing]

I feel that this planet has had 4.6 billion years of experience and it knows how to regulate things.

If we are in a period of warming or cooling, it's cyclical. People just haven't been around long enough to experience these cycles (at least not people who like to measure everything).

Despite the fact that I don't believe human beings have as much to do with climate as some are saying, I've never been one for dumping toxins into the environment. I'm all for the 'go green' stuff, but only under certain conditions. I believe that if we're going to change how we live in order to make things 'better' we should do a little bit of research first so we can do it once and do it right. I feel that 'go green' is currently the latest marketing ploy that businesses have latched onto. There is so much misinformation running rampant as a result. If I'm going to change the products I buy and how I live my life, I hope to god the facts are known because I'm changing once and only once. Of course, I change things in my life all the time, but it's usually to benefit myself in the present, not my surroundings in the (possibly distant) future.

I also feel that $4 a gallon here in the states and close to $10 overseas will fuel some research. I, like most of you, have been talking about fuel efficiency and alternative energy forever. Only now are people actually listening and taking note. Most of the large middle class in the country has been living lavishly. We're undoubtedly a very wasteful people and I feel that this needs to change and I'm hoping the recent fuel price spike will provide the motivation for doing so.

In summary, humans are probably causing some changes in specific geographic regions' climates, but the planet will heal itself given enough time. Polar bear populations have exploded over the last 50 years and, even if they didn't, I don't see them contributing that much to society. haha. Pollution bad, efficiency good. Who cares what the motivation is, if there's a proven, better way of doing something, why not do it?

[dkjones96]

Originally Posted by white90crxhf

I want to stop real pollution and destruction of our environment. i don't 'believe' in global warming.

I feel the same exact way.