On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:23:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:

This thread has already had far too much politics and political name
calling in it. I personally HATE politics, politicians, and most of
all, people who turn every goddamn thing into a political discussion on
the internet.

Forgot about all the politics for one moment and look at the facts. We
as humans are dumping a lot of crap into the environment and many of
them are not natural substances. burning wood or paper is fairly
natural, but plastics and manmade chemicals are not. Although oil itself
is natural, it's buried deep in the ground and would not be burnt if we
did not pump it out. Burning as much oil as we use daily, MUST have an
impact on our planet.

If I light a match, flush a toilet, or buy a sofa, it MUST
have an impact on our planet. Having an effect is not the issue.
The question is what the effect is, what's the extent of it,
does it require more immediate action.




Anyone who can not understand this is either
stupid or very foolish, or they spend too much time listening to
politicians who are nothing but a bunch of liars, and who dont have a
clue what is really happening. I'll listen to scientists who get their
facts from actual science, not those who kiss ass to the government.

See above.



Initially, the phrase "global warming" was not exactly accurate, because
when one part of the planet gets warmer, another part gets colder.
Climate change is a far more accurate phrase.

Oh please. It was perfectly clear what global warming meant.
It was changed to climate change because it's more dramatic and
easier to instill fear in people. And because the global temp has
been going sideways now for 15 years.


And it's obvious we are
changing the climate with all the crap we are dumping into the air,
water, landfills, and so on.

Really, exactly how is this climate change cause and effect obvious to you?
Where you alive in say 1900 and have a great memory for comparison?
Even the big climate change proponents say the earth has warmed about
1 deg in the last century. And the temp has been going sideways now
for the last 15 years.


It's just a matter of HOW MUCH impact we
are causing. After all, there is really nothing to base the changes on.

Then how did you just say that the fact that we're changing
the climate is obvious?


Our recorded history of weather and climate changes mostly only go back
to the late 1800's. However scientists can determine weather and
climate impacts based on carbon, layers of ice, rings on trees, and much
more.


That's true, to some extent. Some of it is sound science. Some
of it is more like tea leave reading. For example, do you really
think typical thermometers in the late 1800s that were recording the
temperature in central park were accurate to .01 deg? The
typical one today isn't that accurate. Do you think anyone was
recording the temperature all over the globe then, or even 50 years
ago. So, to make up for all that, you have to make "adjustments"
to create a continuous data stream for comparison. How you do the
adjustments varies and you don't think personal bias, the fact that
your funding is coming from govts that say global climate change is
real, can bias the outcome?

If you find global climate change is occurring fast, you get more
money, promotions, accolades. If you publish a paper that casts
doubt on it, even doubt about how fast it's occurring, you get
Congressmen demanding all your emails, records, contacts, ie a
witchhunt. And you don't get promoted or get fired. Think that
might have an effect?


I've seen several of those PBS documentaries on global warming, and I
will tend to believe then before any politicians, since there are real
scientists involved.

There are real scientists on the other side too. BTW, who funds
PBS? Think about that.


According to them, we are seeing the glaciers
melting faster than they were in the past. Yet, even they admit it's not
100% certain if these changes are caused by human related pollution or
just another change in the earth's "cycles". Apparently there have been
other major changes in the earth's environment going back hundreds or
thousands of years. But we dont know enough from way back in history to
really know the actual patterns.


It's obvious that there have been major changes ever since the earth
began, but how much is natural patterns of change and how much is caused
by humans, is the question which is not fully answered.

Now it sounds like you're saying there is merit to the arguments
that you spent the last 5 paragraphs disparaging.



Although humans have existed on earth for many years, so have other
species. All living creatures create waste products, and all of them
create methane gas as a byproduct. But this is a natural process, as
well as the burning of wood and other vegetation.

It's our industrial age that has existed for less than 200 years, which
is the concern. Never before was oil pumped from the ground, burned in
massive amounts, and turned into plastics and unstable or even harmful
chemicals. Since we dont have thousand of years of history to base our
change, no one really knows exactly how much change we are causing to
the planet.

But one thing that is obvious, is that we are dumping a lot of
pollution, and must of it has never occurred on earth. That makes it
pretty apparent that we are having a negative impact to some degree.

You do realize that global warming is attributed to CO2, which
is a natural component of the atmosphere? It's only recently that
the EPA managed to call it a pollutant. It's kind of like saying
if I produced pure water and released it into the atmosphere that
it's a pollutant.



Therefore, it only makes sense to do as much as possible to eliminate as
much pollution as possible. It's aparent how badly air pollution once
affected Los Angeles, and none of that is good for us, and for the
planet.


Again your conflating CO2 with pollutants like NO2, CO, particulates,
which are toxic.




A big part of the problem is that we're going about much of this all
wrong. We want to control and eliminate this pollution, yet we are
producing more of it than ever. We are supposed to recycle, and that is
a good thing, but MORE than half of the problem is to STOP MAKING
GARBAGE, before we have to recycle it. Packaging is one of the biggest
problems. Every goddamn thing we buy in the store is encased in plastic
and has paper tags, labels, and so much more. Most of that packaging is
NOT needed. Worse yet, we consumers are paying for all that garbage, and
then we pay again, to get rid of it.

For example, I used to go to a store to buy a plumbing washer. It was
in bulk containers and the price was about half a dollar. Now, they are
wrapped in a clamshell, with a cardboard insert which has a picture of
it and some words. Final cost $2.00, for the same items that used to
cost 50 cents. That's $1.50 for the package. Then we have to spend 10
minutes fighting to open the ****ing thing, and finally have to dispose
of it, and are supposed to recycle it, which often requires 20 pages of
information to determine if it's recyclable plastic or not, and then we
may have to either pay to get it removed by garbage collectors, or we
have to burn gas to drive to a recycling place.

If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never
go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage,
especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only
concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid
of. They got it all wrong.

They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs,
the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient
furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage
washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated
laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot
that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is
shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are
you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal?