Story Tags What are Tags?

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 18

• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Tennyson

  Sept. 8, 2006, 2:41 p.m.

  Who wrote this sexist heading? It should say "humanity," not "man." Try switching out "man" for "woman" and hopefully you'll see the light.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  wings042

  Sept. 8, 2006, 4:10 p.m.

  Considering that nearly all men of science agree that the Earth is cooling, as well as the Sun; and that solar flareups or lack of them causes tremedous natural changes in temperature, the talk about changing climate by men or women seems to this writer as ridiculous. In the first place, enforcement of these rules that everyone who things something can be done about climate change are totally unrealistic in believing they can be enforced, anymore than drug, gun, or immigration laws are enforced.

  The only people who will benefit will be policians who sell the idea that climate can be changed, and the scientists and underemployed lawyers who see job protection in the form of government agencies that will be generated.

  As an Historian, and not a scientist, I know that climate has changed the map of human endeavor within the span of the last 2000 years, and before the Industrial Revolution. Greenland, the American Southwest, the Sahara to name a few.
• 
  Avg rating: (+6/-0 6)

  Sublimelight

  Sept. 8, 2006, 4:43 p.m.

  I agree with you Tennyson regarding the sexist heading. It should read "Hue-manity".

  Even if climate change is naturally a process of Sun and Earth changes (ebb/flow), human-kind in its quest to control and "subdue" nature has had a terrible impact on the biological system we call Earth. We like to dam up lakes and streams, create artifical waterfronts, dump chemicals and toxins all over the Earth and basically abuse the whole system and even ourselves in the process. The fact of climate change "sinking in" this year as the article states leaves a lot to be discussed within the world. We cannot and should not be attempting to "control" Earth biological systems. We will find out who will win at this game and my bet is on the Earth and not hue-mans.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  dlsawyer

  Sept. 8, 2006, 5:20 p.m.

  Global warming theory is POPPYCOCK.

  The liberals and environmentalists have become expert disinformation propagandists. After all an outrageous lie ( and in the less extreme form- extreme exagerations of fact) will generate more emotion than the truth. Emotion generates either private contributions to environmentalist groups or public funding for research and new science than can buoy up the pack of lies.

  In either case environmentalists and earth scientists gain $$$$ millions directly from their lies and their use of disinformation in the mass media.

  It is a con game.
• 
  Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)

  LOVEpanicatthedisco

  Sept. 8, 2006, 5:36 p.m.

  we keep waiting to see if global warming will happen and it will. we pollute SOO much! just MEN AND WOMEN need to stop wasting away and the planet will be cleaner and stop getting so hot i can really feel it im in freaking texas.yall just need to realize this is real stuff and we could be killed from the heat..the ice caps have melted.

  love panic!at the disco
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)

  lady_ducky

  Sept. 8, 2006, 7:02 p.m.

  Tennyson, I hope you're being sarcastic...if not you need to cool it. 'Man' is an acceptable synonym for humanity. It is equally acceptable to write 'he' or 'him' in reference to an unspecified person instead of this cumbersome 'him or her' stuff.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  simonsez

  Sept. 8, 2006, 8:10 p.m.

  Calm down love ... tell me what we are doing to cause weather change. I drive where I need to go, I use electricity, I grow grass and trees. You probably do much the same.

  What do we quit doing?

  Weather may be changing, but we're not causing it.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  colon-pow

  Sept. 8, 2006, 8:30 p.m.

  DOC J

  You really need to READ why and WHEN plants are considered contributors to carbion dioxide emissions. LIVE plants are carbon dioxide SINKS (remove it from atmosphere). When plants DIE then DECAY, carbon dioxide is realeased into the atmosphere. So, your suggestion of cutting them down might not work. Of course...you were just being facetious, right?

  I'm inclined to accept the theory that our activities are increasing greenhouse emissions. This does not mean, however, that I discount the possibility of the earth's natural cycles. So, maybe they are BOTH happening. The swing is swinging....but we're giving it a very big push as well. Answer this: Are WE emitting greenhouse gases (cars factories, etc.)? Should WE control that?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  colon-pow

  Sept. 8, 2006, 8:30 p.m.

  Before you label me a "liberal"..."tree hugger"...."conspiracy theororist"...or the "anti-Christ"...please DON'T. I'm none of those...contrary to my biology students on the latter (especially after today's AP exam).
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  colon-pow

  Sept. 8, 2006, 8:39 p.m.

  I would rather ACCEPT that we are contributing to greenhouse gas emissons and funnel millions or BILLIONS into the research rather than NOT ACCEPT IT ...DO NOTHING...then find out that we were wrong. I have a hard time accepting that the scientists are wrong and driven by money. They get FUNDING for research and typically don't see increases in PAY (other than through student emrollment fees -- which is a crime in itself).

  You know... we've funneled BILLIONS into the war with Iraq which has gotten us a lot of things...none of those being INTERNATIONAL RESPECT. Evidently we have a bit of money to "burn", so let's spend it proving that "we were wrong" about global warming. *shrugs*
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Hunter68

  Sept. 8, 2006, 9:32 p.m.

  For all you climate change nay-sayers, you might want to actually read the article before posting. (it's not about global warming) If you actually read articles, you might undrstand.

  Just the same, the debate is over. It's real, it's happening, and you are the few whose heads remain firmly planted in the sand. See historic (500,000 year) CO2 and methane level from the Vostok ice core - that is if you believe in scientific evidence.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  farmerman

  Sept. 8, 2006, 9:49 p.m.

  Hunter68

  If you look at the subheading it says " Just because man screwed up the climate ......." So it is preaching climate change. The same as the experts may very well be wrong as to the cause of the demise of large animals, I believe we will find that these global warming experts will be found wrong about their THEORY.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  mmcl

  Sept. 8, 2006, 10:20 p.m.

  farmerman

  (The same as the experts may very well be wrong as to the cause of the demise of large animals)

  In the argument the writers point out human destruction of the large mammals is not proven by kill sites. They do note however the timing is on the side of those that hold this view. Whether or not the theory developed five years after Silent Spring may or may not be relevant to its legitimacy.

  Personally, I believe that human agents were the cause of the destruction of the large mammal populations, it is not just in North Africa or North America, but in Australia and Southern Asia as well.

  I suspect Malthusian forces were at work. Humans developed the technology to tackle the large mammals, their diet improved and population increased. The decimation of the large mammals sped up, once achieved, the food source was eliminated and population levels fell back. The lack of finding of kill sites may be a case of lack of evidence not evidence of absence.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Eagle_Eye

  Sept. 8, 2006, 11:36 p.m.

  There is another article under science about another gas being emitted that no one bothers to mention:

  Scientists Find New Global Warming 'Time Bomb

  . Methane - a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide - is being released from the permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study being published today in the journal Nature. The findings are based on new, more accurate measuring techniques.

  ''The effects can be huge,'' said lead author Katey Walter of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks said. ''It's coming out a lot and there's a lot more to come out.''

  Imagine if there is also different strains of bacteria and viruses we have never seen in our life time emerging.

The first 14 comments are shown. Show all 18 comments »