DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:Are they all in agreement that we are to blame for global warming?!? I thought they were all in agreement that we are contributing to global warming.

The science is now pretty convincing that most to all of the recent warming is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions. AFAIK there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that there would be a natural warming if it wasn't for us, if anything we should be in a slight cooling period. Here is something just from the top of my head (Don't have time to find better links because I'm at work --- edit: here's a write-up about what natural causes have already ruled out, was already posted on the first page of this thread ).

If you wonder why thatt distinction means so much to me it's because if we are to blame for it then we probably should listen to the radical enviromentalists. If, on the other hand, we are just contributing to something that we couldn't stop even if we did follow the radical enviromentalists then perhaps it's a good thing we are not jumping through every hoop they hold up *cough*Kyoto*cough*....

This reasoning makes sense, of course. However, the problem seems to be that if we don't act now and decisively we might not be able to change it any longer, even though we are to blame.

I dont know if we are to blame or just a contributor, but the problem exists. I have lived in St. Paul Minnesota for 12 years now. The first couple of years snow was around 3 or 4 feet deep all over the place. Now it is lucky to cover the ground for a week or so before melting off.

I personally believe we should not be so worried about WHO or WHAT is to be blamed. We should be upset that we can do something about it and we are not doing it.

That's an interesting perspective on the movie Genghis. I guess he went in there with higher expectations than I did. I think the 45 minutes dedicated to convincing "non-believers" was actually good, because not everybody, including myself, is fully up to speed on the subject.

I don't really know which part was about convincing the world that Al Gore was "nifty."

I did find that some of the visuals were out of place, but, as far as I could tell, most had a very specific context in his argument.

Also, I don't think Jumbo Jets use JP-4. JP-4 was a jet fuel used by the Airforce that was phased out in 1996 for something called JP-8. There's a fuel similar to JP-4 that's used in commercial aircraft called JetB, but its use is restricted to cold-weather areas where the standard JetA fuel doesn't work. Here's the wikipedia page:

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

Either way, I don't remember seeing many scenes with jumbo jets or swanky limos... but I saw the movie over a month ago. Regardless, why does it matter what means Al Gore uses to travel around? Just because he's a contributor to global warming (it's kind of hard not to be) doesn't mean that the stuff he's saying is wrong.

I agree with your friend that the parts about other industrialized nations having stricter emissions laws (even China) was fascinating. When he compared the greenhouse gas contributions from the various countries, it really put everything into perspective.

I don't remember Al Gore saying anything like "There's drought in Africa therefore there's global warming." I think his main argument was that there has been a measured increase in global atmospheric temperature therefore there's global warming.

Genghis's Friend wrote:Al didn’t go into measuring how much CO2 is from human endeavors. I think it’s an important point to consider.

I do too. I think it directly affects the degree to which we will be able to help correct this situation. But I also think Al Gore did get into the fact that this CO2 is from human endeavors.

Genghis's Friend wrote:The most f’ed up thing is that global warming, regardless of the cause, is a serious problem that gets brushed under the carpet by the politicians.

Yep. Al Gore talked about this a bunch too.

Cuda68 wrote:I personally believe we should not be so worried about WHO or WHAT is to be blamed. We should be upset that we can do something about it and we are not doing it.

Well Cuda, figuring out the cause was a big part of figuring out whether a solution would be necessary and what that solution would be. Also, if the global warming had been determined to be a natural event, then there'd be reason to believe that things would naturally balance out again.

But I think the cause has already been determined to be humans and there are a bunch of ways we can do something about it. I agree that we should be upset that we can do something about it and aren't.

Cuda68 wrote:I dont know if we are to blame or just a contributor, but the problem exists. I have lived in St. Paul Minnesota for 12 years now. The first couple of years snow was around 3 or 4 feet deep all over the place. Now it is lucky to cover the ground for a week or so before melting off.

I hate to say this, Cuda, but your situation is *NOT* evidence of global climate change. It's only evidence of local climate change in St. Paul Minnesota. In fact, global warming can result in some areas experiencing more severe winters.

haha, novel solution to melting icecaps: drink them


Global warming beer made from melting ice-caps
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5234194.stm
(from boingboing.net)