u2drvr

Don't confuse weather with climate...they are different animals. Weather goes in cycles with short periods and is effected by many factors. There have always been years with very bad weather and some with good weather. I can remember many far worse storm seasons 20-25 years ago. Climate is on a much longer/larger scale. There is a lot of debate on global warming's effect on current weather patterns, but little conclusive evidence.

Well, the majority of "greenhouse gasses" on the planet comes from natural sources like volcanoes and from animals like cattle. If we use your logic and go after the big producers, we should spend billions to research shutting down volcanoes and all become vegitarians.


I like the planet too, and while I will probably not be on it as long as you, my kids will be here longer than you and I want them to have a good futur too. The trouble is, you have a niave view of science and technology. Everything has tradeoffs. Trading in all of our cars for electric cars would require an massive increase in production of batteries. The manufacturing and disposal of these batteries would produce huge amounts of toxic waste that may well do more harm to the environment. Other technologies that you mention are being researched and many have been researched for decades. It's not simply a matter of throwing money at scientists, there are very difficult and perhaps impossible barriers to overcome to some of these and funding alone will not solve them.

The big problem with this whole global warming debate is that it is no longer a scientific debate, it's a political one. You're primary source of information that you are basing your arguments on is a film produced by a politician with no real scientific training. It's difficult and time consuming to objectively look into this subject because so many in the scientific community have been influenced by the politics and policy (i.e. money and power) effects of the argument that they are no longer objective. The clear evidence that this is a political (not scientific) debate is the fact that scientists that disagree are not debate with logically, but are attacked personally.

While I don't have a PhD in climatology, I do have a degree in Physics and am a former Physics teacher, so I at least know how to read research and look at things from a objective science standpoint. I have looked into some of the actual scientific research (not just media/politcal debate) and have found that there are a lot of serious flaws with global warming theory. I don't think the theory should be dismissed outright, it is far too uncertain to be the basis for major policy decisions.

If you are really interested in this subject, step back from any preconceived conclusions and do your own research. Avoid anything that advocates some kind of policy change or offers a "solution" to the "problem" and stick to real scientific research. Science is all about learning and understanding, not finding slolutions to unproved problems. Also, keep in mind that many scientists are influenced by power, money, and politics just like anyone else. Truly objective research on this topic is hard to find in the pile of biased BS that has grown around the debeate, but it is out there.

Cheers