Now, we must 'cure' global warming?  Rotsa ruck on that one.  You savage Palin for stating the commonsense obvious and then make some very specious arguments defending that savaging.

I appreciate the hug but you're not gaining ground here.

So you agree that the bailout chaps your hide.  Now you are gaining ground.  Just a slight change and your statement would perfectly apply to the Democrats approach to our financial crisis:

"It just chaps my hide that people can be satisfied with trying to 'fix' something without ever wanting to know why it began in the first place."

All our hides should be so chapped.

I was still in the medical analogy.

That statement works for me.

So they should.

~Zoo

It's a good thing even if it causes massive increases in poverty and wrecks economies?

CO2 isn't a pollutant. There's a lot of other things that have a more negative impact on our environment than CO2 (trees are quite fond of CO2 btw).

Has it done this?  If so, please link me to something.  I'd be very interested in hearing it.

ALL plants, several bacteria, and several protista are fond of it as well.  However, too much of something isn't necessarily good.  We're quite fond of O2 if I recall...too much will kill us- hyperoxia.

~Zoo

So if someone shoots you and your lying in the street bleeding, it's obviously a gunshot wound, the medic's should wait to find out who did it and why did they do it before they start treat you? Seems to me Palin has come to the conclusion (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) without second guessing groups of scientists. If you like your judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one then I'm sure you'll like Biden's response better. So what is the Democrats solution to climate change (i.e. formerly known as global warming, until the weather turned cooler), reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I guess there should be no fried chicken or omelets until we figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg, maybe we should put Biden on case.

You're really trying to stretch this aren't you?  I don't really think climate change relates to getting shot or a philosophical question.   The cause in the medic example is a gunshot, the solution is to patch it up...but it's a single, solitary incident.

This is about solving an ongoing issue.  Using your medic example:  If you keep getting shot every weekend and have to go to the hospital, you might want to figure out why people keep shooting you instead of just having your wounds treated. 

The chicken or the egg thing doesn't really fit in here...that's not a problem that needs solving...just some thinking question. 

~Zoo

I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Nicely done!

Actually, our actions globally, industrially, are very much connected to global warming, and scientists worldwide are in agreement about that. There isn't a single peer reviewed scientific article that would contradict that position. It is a very well funded misinformation campaign by industries that stand to lose money that have given the public this bizarre idea that global warming is like a religion you can believe in or not. It's empirically tested science, plain and simple. If you don't agree with me, you can write and tell the nice people at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change how wrong they are:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Here we go again -

Nabble, I don't get a dime from any industry to conduct a disinformation campaign.  This 'don't believe the nay-sayers 'cause they're in the tank for Exxon-Mobile' shit is really old.  'Scientists worldwide' are not in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is the problem, as opposed to global warming in general.  Never mind that we're actually in the midst of a period of global cooling.  There are so many threads on this topic, most of them very good (if spirited), I'd strongly suggest you do a simple search for them & study up.  There is lots of information with lots of links to good information which contradict the IPCC's take on things.

Happy reading.

I didn't say anything about anyone getting paid, nor did I say anything about anyone being "in the tank with Exxon-Mobile." I do apologize for putting my point in a disrespectful tone though. It is an emotional topic for me and I wrote from a less rational and more emotional standpoint.

I was incorrect however, and I take your point. While the IPCC does state that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal*, human contribution is listed as 'very likely' and not definite.

*Quoting the IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2007

Daiwa,

I read your debate on the 'Environment' section. It is a very lively debate indeed!

I will simply say this: it is my opinion that human beings should be responsible with what we put back into the environment by our methods of transportation and manufacture. If there is even a remote chance that our actions could harm ourselves in the future we should consider what we do now carefully.

Actually, it hasn't wreaked any economy or caused massive increase in poverty. On the opposite, it creates a new industry, and makes some project economically viable because of their increase rentability due to carbon credit creation.

Actually, in that, she sounds like a bunch of the GW zealots.  And if she was serious, that would scare me. 

Nabble -

Thanks for your clarifications and welcome to the war zone.

And I agree with you that reasonable measures to minimize our impact on the environment are desirable.  We just shouldn't bet the farm on anything right now, especially if it has the potential to transfer wealth to countries which don't share our goals (Kyoto) for highly dubious benefit.