Climate Change

[Andy]

I was stunned today to find evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with the cause of global warming and the most prolific Greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The climate change is governed by the activity of the Sun and the clouds in the sky and our impact on the climate via CO2 emissions is insignificant compared to the oceans, the animals and volcanoes.

This video series features scientists more than politicians to explain what is really going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related

[Menard]

Keep in mind that there is probably tampering with the evidence on both sides, but those most likely to profit from labeling global warming as a hoax are the ones responsible for the most emissions, and scientists, like anybody else, have among their numbers those who will form an opinion based on who pays them what; and the majority of scientists who would be consulted on this...guess what...also work for the companies most responsible for emissions.

The simple fact of the matter is that anything which goes into the atmosphere can affect atmospheric warming and cooling. I can break it down to the ridiculous to say that the amount of gases released into the atmosphere in one day, one month, or one year would have a negligible affect; but what kind of affect does that have over the next 100 years, and would my argument be very valid if my paycheck were signed by a company which profits from a lack of restrictions on emissions?

Here's a few questions with regard to these scientists' claims of affectation:

How do animals which do not produce artificial emissions affect the atmosphere more than humans who do?

Can a volcano really produce more emissions than humans? There are billions of humans on the planet...uh...7-8 billion (I don't know the numbers at present).

If every single one of us, billions of us, started a bonfire in our backyards, what kind of affect would that have on our atmosphere? I'd imagine that the ash content alone would be greater than a single volcano could produce. We could not only imagine in one day what kind of potential affect this could have, but how ridiculous the premise is of having billions of sources of emissions in one day. However, how much time would it take us to produce that equivalent of billions of emissions?

Being that oxygen gets used with the production of emissions, and plant life replenishes that oxygen, the same people claiming that global warming is a hoax are the same people who are trying to destroy plant life....again...for profit.

If we increase emissions and decrease plant life, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere decreases, but it has to be replaced by something; that something is either nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and/or water vapor, and it will affect atmospheric warming and cooling.

Though the history of our planet is filled with wars, famines, and other tragedies (among those...the republican party), our history is filled more with those things our ancestors did which advanced civilization to make a better life for us. I don't want generations of the future to look back upon us and rather than saying "look what our ancestors did for us", end up saying "look what they did to us".

[Andy]

It seems that volcanoes produce 1/10th of the emissions that we do.

[Manu]

Well they made (youtube videos) look like that 9/11 was the brain child of Bush but the kind of names that video featured are credible and intelligent enough to make a prediction like it.

This thing was told me to me by my cousin who is a scientist and works for India's environmental ministry about two years ago. They came with a report yesterday that the UN's prediction about the melting of Himalayan glaciers are wrong and exaggerated. And in some cases they found that the glaciers are forming again contradicting the UN's report. That is also backed by a NASA report.

Not to be surprised, this was instantly rejected by IPCC.

Not to forget that Indian environmental ministry also received huge funding for research on climate change.

Personally I feel we are nothing in front of nature. The earth's climate has changed a number of times in the past and the climate change happening now could be natural.

However it is a matter of scientists to discuss and debate on. But as far as using less petrol and other smaller things are concerned, I can do that everyday without consideration to this.

[Andy]

"carbon emissions" as a phrase in the context of environmental protection should be banned IMO since all humans, and animals emit carbon compound gases in abundance with every breath.

Power and greed by men in suits should be more of a worry IMO.