President Bush is a genius??

[JTWood]

FWIW, I took an applied chemisty class in college. I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not putting myself out as one, but I'm probably one of the few people here who have actually done the math in a manner as instructed by someone with PhD.

The math/science behind global warming is air-tight. If we keep pumping the so-called "greenhouse" gases into our atmosphere, we will experience global warming. There is absolutely no debating that.

What's not certain is the rate at which these gases are absorbed or broken down by natural means. What's also not certain is what amount of the gases is exactly required to have an impact. On top of that, no one can still prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current warming trends are directly related to the greenhouse gas quantities in our atmosphere (as opposed to this trend being natural in nature).

Now, I'm not saying we should pollute, pollute, pollute until the cows drop dead. What I'm saying is that we need to approach this with a little bit of rational thought on both sides. Yes, we need to take steps to control greenhouse emissions - now. However, we also don't need to shoot ourselves in the economic foot by strangling all business that put out the slightest bit of pollution. The process needs to be diliberate and methodical, keeping the best interests of both the planet and human life in mind.

Anyone who takes an extreme stance, imo, is wearing blinders.

[acsguitar]

FWIW, I took an applied chemisty class in college. I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not putting myself out as one, but I'm probably one of the few people here who have actually done the math in a manner as instructed by someone with PhD.

The math/science behind global warming is air-tight. If we keep pumping the so-called "greenhouse" gases into our atmosphere, we will experience global warming. There is absolutely no debating that.

What's not certain is the rate at which these gases are absorbed or broken down by natural means. What's also not certain is what amount of the gases is exactly required to have an impact. On top of that, no one can still prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current warming trends are directly related to the greenhouse gas quantities in our atmosphere (as opposed to this trend being natural in nature).

Now, I'm not saying we should pollute, pollute, pollute until the cows drop dead. What I'm saying is that we need to approach this with a little bit of rational thought on both sides. Yes, we need to take steps to control greenhouse emissions - now. However, we also don't need to shoot ourselves in the economic foot by strangling all business that put out the slightest bit of pollution. The process needs to be diliberate and methodical, keeping the best interests of both the planet and human life in mind.

Anyone who takes an extreme stance, imo, is wearing blinders.

Right I'm not for an extreme stance but I think we should do something and bringing awareness is a good start

[Fireball Express]

FWIW, I took an applied chemisty class in college. I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not putting myself out as one, but I'm probably one of the few people here who have actually done the math in a manner as instructed by someone with PhD.

The math/science behind global warming is air-tight. If we keep pumping the so-called "greenhouse" gases into our atmosphere, we will experience global warming. There is absolutely no debating that.

What's not certain is the rate at which these gases are absorbed or broken down by natural means. What's also not certain is what amount of the gases is exactly required to have an impact. On top of that, no one can still prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current warming trends are directly related to the greenhouse gas quantities in our atmosphere (as opposed to this trend being natural in nature).

Now, I'm not saying we should pollute, pollute, pollute until the cows drop dead. What I'm saying is that we need to approach this with a little bit of rational thought on both sides. Yes, we need to take steps to control greenhouse emissions - now. However, we also don't need to shoot ourselves in the economic foot by strangling all business that put out the slightest bit of pollution. The process needs to be diliberate and methodical, keeping the best interests of both the planet and human life in mind.

Anyone who takes an extreme stance, imo, is wearing blinders.

Right I'm not for an extreme stance but I think we should do something and bringing awareness is a good start

Awareness is one thing. Then there's Al Gore and his scare mongering tatics.

The real burning question here is how WMD in Iraq contribute to global warming.

[acsguitar]

FWIW, I took an applied chemisty class in college. I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not putting myself out as one, but I'm probably one of the few people here who have actually done the math in a manner as instructed by someone with PhD.

The math/science behind global warming is air-tight. If we keep pumping the so-called "greenhouse" gases into our atmosphere, we will experience global warming. There is absolutely no debating that.

What's not certain is the rate at which these gases are absorbed or broken down by natural means. What's also not certain is what amount of the gases is exactly required to have an impact. On top of that, no one can still prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current warming trends are directly related to the greenhouse gas quantities in our atmosphere (as opposed to this trend being natural in nature).

Now, I'm not saying we should pollute, pollute, pollute until the cows drop dead. What I'm saying is that we need to approach this with a little bit of rational thought on both sides. Yes, we need to take steps to control greenhouse emissions - now. However, we also don't need to shoot ourselves in the economic foot by strangling all business that put out the slightest bit of pollution. The process needs to be diliberate and methodical, keeping the best interests of both the planet and human life in mind.

Anyone who takes an extreme stance, imo, is wearing blinders.

Right I'm not for an extreme stance but I think we should do something and bringing awareness is a good start

Awareness is one thing. Then there's Al Gore and his scare mongering tatics.

The real burning question here is how WMD in Iraq contribute to global warming.

Well those bug spray bottles/terrorist chemical weapons, have CFC's in them

[Coppermine]

FWIW, I took an applied chemisty class in college. I'm certainly no expert, and I'm not putting myself out as one, but I'm probably one of the few people here who have actually done the math in a manner as instructed by someone with PhD.

The math/science behind global warming is air-tight. If we keep pumping the so-called "greenhouse" gases into our atmosphere, we will experience global warming. There is absolutely no debating that.

What's not certain is the rate at which these gases are absorbed or broken down by natural means. What's also not certain is what amount of the gases is exactly required to have an impact. On top of that, no one can still prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current warming trends are directly related to the greenhouse gas quantities in our atmosphere (as opposed to this trend being natural in nature).

Now, I'm not saying we should pollute, pollute, pollute until the cows drop dead. What I'm saying is that we need to approach this with a little bit of rational thought on both sides. Yes, we need to take steps to control greenhouse emissions - now. However, we also don't need to shoot ourselves in the economic foot by strangling all business that put out the slightest bit of pollution. The process needs to be diliberate and methodical, keeping the best interests of both the planet and human life in mind.

Anyone who takes an extreme stance, imo, is wearing blinders.

Well stated JT; and that's exactly how I've seen this problem described everywhere I have researched it. Science is a tricky thing; and there are times when using common sense isn't sound science. Things need to be experimented and proven.

As for Al Gore's "scare tactics," I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that 1.) Most, if not all, conservatives and right-wingers will disregard this movie without a second thought or a single viewing as Fireball has, which is fine, 2.) That your everyday, Joe and Jane Schmo, who do not identify themselves in any political affiliation will also not see this film, simply because it's a small market documentary, and well, average people typically don't watch them.

That pretty much leaves just left/center intellectuals seeing this movie. So who cares? What's the big deal? Scare tactics, I mean come on, Al Gore's kind of preaching to the choir here, we all know about global warming to some degree. I'm not "scared" of the possibility of the ice caps melting, but I don't see a problem in putting things in perspective and at least generating a discussion, positive or negative, on the causes and possible prevention of this sort of thing.