One more question...where did the $1000 figure come from, how often is it to be collected, and by whom?

Personally, I would rather spend the $1000 on my family and making our living more efficient. :D

Anyway...

I said 1000 because it is more than quite a large amount of the world will make in a year, :p

Ok...and how is that money supposed to help the millions and billions of people live better? Is $1000 enough? Why not $10,000?

Why not 10,000? This isn't an ethical discussion though, it's sposed to be about global warming. If you want to bicker about our obligation to help others, start another thread, :p

obligation to help = ethical discussion. :p

Thanks for the links:( . Great converstion. I know global warming and pollution are not the same thing but don't those that are committed to global warming blame pollution from man as the cause? If we take care of the pollution that will in effect slow down the effects of GW and anyone living with smog and ozone action days can see the the need to accomplish that. All countries need to take this into account we don't live in a vaccum and what happens in India, China or Russia will make it this way or vice versa. I also think that we need to start looking at our oil dependance as an issue of national security and not one of convenience.

I go with the general scientific view that the earth is warming. There is plenty of graphs on the internet showing a correlation between co2 and temps. Several large chunks of antarctica broke off fairly recently too.

As for change. If peak oil is for real then I think people will have to stop driving and shipping good far distances and the earth will basically auto-correct itself.

Actually, smog/ozone are unrelated to the global warming issue. Smog is particulate matter, and not the stuff we call GHGs. Carbon emissions are not poisonous in the least, and don't really stick around the earth's surface. The ozone problem is actually the opposite of global warming (an oversimplification by a lot), because it is eliminating the stuff keeping uv out and heat in. If we got rid of the ozone, stuff would cool. So what's the issue with ozone? It lets too much bad stuff in, and a depleted ozone would cause cancer rates to soar.

This is why things like smog laws and the montreal protocol are so effective. You can breath smog and cough, see a hole in the ozone open up during certain days. Also, the things causing these issues are much easier to correct. Eliminating CFCs is easy compared to eliminating all fossil fuels.

I spend too much time on this site and not writing my papers, :)

Hello -

Good thread. From what I have read, the current media model for Global Warming is the same as the media model for smoking and cancer. Create doubt and plausible deniability for as long as you can. In peer-reviewed scientific journals, the only debate is the extent of global warming, not whether or not it is happening. On the other hand, in the conventional media that you and I consume, the argument is maybe 50/50 as to whether or not it is happening.

Based on my information, there really isn't any doubt. We're just in ostrich mode, which is pretty normal for people. We'll change when we have to, but not before.

CarloSW2

?!!
 

Arctic perennial sea ice has been decreasing at a rate of 9% per decade. The first image shows the minimum sea ice concentration for the year 1979, and the second image shows the minimum sea ice concentration in 2003. The data used to create these images and the following animation were collected by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSMI). Credit: NASA


https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...023esuice.html

Check it out. show your dad. I would say NASA is a fairly reliable source...