Global warming, a different point of view

[PickerelHunter]

Much has been said opposing global warming...although I'm not totally sold on one side or the other, I think it is crucial for all the readers to get both sides of the story. Here are some interesting things (scientifically backed) about the topic.

Before anyone can or should ever make an opinion on the subject, it is essential to understand WHY scientists consider pointing the finger at our CO2 emissions. I will try to explain a natural earth process called the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect which is a natural earth process that has always been around. In a nutshell...Suns rays enter earths atmosphere, some are absorbed be the planet, some are reflected back into the solar system, and some are reflected and naturally trapped by the atmosphere which allows earth to be inhabitable by providing suitable temperatures for life to exist. This is where the word Greenhouse comes into play because the atmospheric layer acts as the roof of a greenhouse does. Of the different molecules in the atmosphere, CO2, Methane (CH4), and Water Vapour (don't know the scientific name for it) are the only ones capable of blocking reflected rays from getting back into the solar system. CH4 is the most potent reflector, about 100 times stronger then CO2, but there is so little of it compared to CO2. If we emitted CH4 instead of CO2 things would be very bad. The more CO2, methane or water vapour...the more energy (heat) will be blocked from entering the solar system (and being released from the atmosphere). This explanation is at it's most simplistic form. CO2 is essential for all living things, plants inhale it, we exhale it, it's a beautiful relationship. Since the industrial revolution humans have created CO2 (aside from the natural process), through cars, electricity etc. etc. That of course is a scientific fact, when I drive to Barrie I emit CO2 which would not have been emitted had I rode a horse for example. This CO2 goes into the atmosphere and joins the natural CO2. But with this man made CO2, the levels in the atmosphere have increased beyond their natural cycle, they must have because where else would they go? Now since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and we know that CO2 as a chemical compound (proven scientific law, look it up anywhere) acts as a reflector of specific sun rays, by the law of mathematics, more CO2 results in more energy rays being reflected back to earth. More energy (heat) rays reflected unnaturally back to the earth, the more unnaturally the earth will be heated. if 1+1=2...then why wouldn't 1 natural CO2 molecule, and 1 manmade CO2 molecule, not equal 2 CO2 molecules? And if you agree with that, then now there are twice as many CO2 molecules reflecting heat back to the earth. That is by no means the ratio of natural to manmade CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, just using a point that 1 manmade CO2 molecule is 1 more than would have been there naturally.

I apologize for the simplicity of that but I've always had a much easier understanding of science if someone made it simpler and more logical. I do not have a scientific mind and I do much better with models, visuals, or simple explanations. I went cross-eyed reading about CO2 in one of my text books.

The Greenhouse Effect is a natural earth process that is taught to high school students in science, and again briefly in university Earth Science. This natural process is not disputed, nor is it disputed that CO2 is a molecule that reflects heat (hence why it is called a greenhouse gas, along with methane and water vapour). Without CO2 in our atmosphere the earth's average temperature would be well below freezing and uninhabitable. The above is your scientific proof that infact CO2 DOES cause global warming, it's chemical compound (by scientific law) and presence in the atmosphere causes it. It's not alone of course, but how does that support an argument? So what that it's not alone, anyone who has ever been taught the Greenhouse Effect model knows this. Methane causes it, as does water vapour. But just because it's not alone doesn't mean that it's irrelevant. Less CO2 would cause global cooling because less heat is trapped, this is all scientific fact. So I hope you now understand CO2's role in influencing the temperature of a planet.

...but here's the BIG QUESTION....Do we as humans contribute enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause or even have an effect to having the globe warm up beyond natural levels???? I have no idea...that's for you to decide. But at least understand the natural mechanics of earth as to WHY scientists feel that it MIGHT be. Looking at one winter compared to another is too narrow-sighted...last year it was global warming, this winter it's the beginning of an ice age. Ice ages have lasted for 10's of thousands of years...we live for 80 if we're lucky enough!! That's 0.8% of that time frame! There's no way to decipher if this is a natural occurrence. Here's a link to average earth temperature since the late 1800's http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/index.htm ...no one can tell me that looking at that graph doesn't show that the average temperature on earth is not increasing. I found the exact same graph but with different timeframes throughout the internet from different sources. I am NOT saying this is an unnatural warming, but it is warming no doubt.

Here's some more facts.

----CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about 278 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution....as of January 2007 it is now 383 ppm...that is an increase of over 37% in about 250 years time (but more significantly, since man began emitting CO2 in large quantities). This is found through many different sources, here's a link to one of them http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Tem...8_data.htm#fig2 and it credits three different institutes for the same findings. You will find similar graphs throughout the internet, in textbooks, and academic journals as well. Here's a more narrowed graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...bon_Dioxide.png and a brief write up of this ongoing scientific explanation http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

----Methane (which is 100 times a better reflector than CO2) has increased by 150% since that same time!!! but it's concentration is only 1,757 parts per billion so the effects are nowhere near as bad.

----Plants "inhale" CO2, deforestation kills and does not replace those plants in order to absorb the same amount of CO2, thus more CO2 is left in the atmosphere.

----The average temperature on earth has increased from just over 13.4 degrees Celsius in 1890, to the official 2007 data of 14.7 degrees celcius....or more recently, from about 13.8 degrees in 1975ish, to 14.7 last year.

Also...Here are some links to "scientific" comments supporting global warming, these comments are on the same line and same credibility as others have been posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change Yes I know it's wikipedia, but I made sure it provided credible sources/organizations of this information. Non of those should convince anyone of anything, but it is wrong to say that professionals and academics do not support this.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a closed topic, that is why they are called THEORIES. When theories are proven they become laws (e.g. The Laws of Gravity). The only thing that is scientifically disputed is whether or not WE contribute enough CO2 to influence the warming of our planet. I don't think that we will know that in our lifetime unless something very drastic happens temperature-wise that we can pinpoint global warming on. CO2 reflects heat, but does our CO2 play a role in that? Through scientific explanation it CAN happen.

Long read but I hope you enjoyed it and makes you think a bit.

I will post another topic with a written piece by a climate scientist to further strengthen this stuff.

[knightfisher]

Big read for sure Pete.

...but here's the BIG QUESTION....Do we as humans contribute enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause or even have an effect to having the globe warm up beyond natural levels???? I have no idea...that's for you to decide. But at least understand the natural mechanics of earth as to WHY scientists feel that it MIGHT be.

Some scientist feel this way. Some scientist feel the other way.

But as posted in my other thread

''Still no scientific proof that CO2 causes global warming,''

The various web sites with the many scientists that disagree

with CO2 levels be the main cause, and it contributes more to

pollution than warming

put forth a great if not a better arguement for climate change

being caused by the activity and inactivity of the sun, the natural

heating and warming of the earth, and that a six various times,

the 1700s the last one carbon dated, the earth was as warm if

not warmer than today.

Many of these scientist with the webs sites I post have also

stated that mankind could cut the CO2 emissions down to zero,

and it would not affect the global warming to any significant degree,

but would definitely help with pollution.

Good views Pete, but for whatever reason, the scientist that go

against the flow, sometimes don't get the acknowledgements they

should.

I believed that happened many time in the past, until proven by the

mass majority. You know, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around

the earth, ad infinitum.

[PickerelHunter]

I am still not convinced that just because it is not the sole cause of global warming that it is an absurd or insignificant idea. This is one factor that can contribute to global warming, and one that we as humans can limit. We have no influence over the sun, or the natural heating and cooling of earth...but we CAN control how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere which by scientific measures can increase the warming of the earth since more molecules are present to reflect heat back onto earth which would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere had they not been there. The significance of that influence is unknown, but the influence is there. When it comes to this stuff I would rather err on the side of caution, than on the side of possible negative environmental effects.

and that a six various times,

the 1700s the last one carbon dated, the earth was as warm if

not warmer than today.

100% true and an excellent point....but don't forget to add that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was also significantly higher at those times..

This graph only goes to 1950, but please notice that CO2 levels have NEVER gone past 300 parts per million from 1950 to 400,000 years ago. They are now at 383 ppm in that short amount of time. Tell me one reason aside from human influence that is scientifically backed for this sharp, unnatural increase? If temperature pattern rises as CO2 levels rise, why would it be any different now? For 400,000 years temperature rise has coincided with a rise in CO2 concentration (from whatever source, CO2 is CO2). Why just because we have now contributed to an unprecedented rise in CO2 will the temperature NOT be effected? Because we want to believe that? Because it's more convenient or cheaper to think that? You will not convince me that this 30%+ rise in CO2 concentration over the last 60 years is natural because 400,000 years of CO2 concentration show the natural course of the earths cycles, jumping 30% in 0.015% of the time is clearly unnatural.

This is what has happened since that first graph leaves off in terms of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Here is also what has happened to temperature since that graph (just skip to the 1950 mark). Just to note, ALL of these graphs are readily available from other sources in different colours, shapes etc. But all have the same findings. Just google "CO2 concentrations" and then click on "images" at the top...same for the temp "average global temperature". These images come from government websites, university websites, scientific websites, news media websites, and personal websites...the whole range and all basically show the same thing.

So you can clearly see that temperature and CO2 concentrations are still acting they way they always have been and are directly related and have been for at least 400,000 years...so why would they not be related after today? I feel like I'm doing the Al Gore movie all over again without the high budget and fancy animations. I have spent WAY too much time today finding and constructing this argument, but it's actually quite interesting.

Pollution is a whole different thing but is connected as well, and I've always felt that although this hoopla about Global Warming may be exaggerated, it will at least lead to better environmental conservation and hopefully a cleaner source of energy.

I believed that happened many time in the past, until proven by the

mass majority. You know, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around

the earth, ad infinitum.

Sure, but science was nowhere near what it is today. One trip to outer space would have proved the earth was round. The only way to prove that wrong back then was to go for a sail and hope you didn't fall off the edge. We have the records, the scientific instruments and measures to show these links today, much different then just pure speculation of the past. Remember, the original idea (I'm talking mid 1900's to late 1900's) was that CO2 levels and thus emissions had no influence on global temperatures (as the original idea was that the world was flat, or that cigarettes were harmless to you health.) But science is now showing that there is a direct correlation between the two...as it proved that the world was round, and that cigarette smoke contains many carcinogens.

***anyone posting in this thread PLEASE keep it respectable...WE have had at least two threads close (stupidly I contributed to one) and have been warned of future ones if things go the way they did before. I took a risk posting this again but ensured it was factual and to the point at hand...so please do the same***

[bigugli]

PH, you mentioned the difference between natural levels of CO2 and increases created by human activity.

Here is one simple scientific fact we all keep forgetting. There is a finite, if unmeasured, quantity of both carbon and oxygen on this planet. Through processes of respiration and combustion we combine the two elements to produce CO2. Basic grade 9 chemistry.

The main process for breaking down CO2 back to two elements is photosynthesis. A natural process that maintains, in theory, a natural balance. After 200 years of industrialization and clear cutting where are we? Where are the great forests that filtered the air and maintained that balance? They are but a fraction of what they once were.We were beginning to destabilize atmospheric levels of CO2 100 years ago. Green plants, shrubs, trees are the worlds great bio-filter that break down CO2 and return fresh oxygen to the atmosphere.

The more we destroy our forests, the more greenery we destroy, the less oxygen to breathe, the more the earth's levels of atmospheric CO2 rise. This in turn helps produce the greenhouse effect.

Even if we could reduce industrial CO2 by 50%, it would not be enough unless there was a real and substantial effort to replant sizeable tracts of the great forests. The world's population has grown over 300% in 100 years while stripping the planet clean. Whether we want to believe it or not, we are capable of suffocating the entire human race.

[knightfisher]

***anyone posting in this thread PLEASE keep it respectable...WE have had at least two threads close (stupidly I contributed to one) and have been warned of future ones if things go the way they did before. I took a risk posting this again but ensured it was factual and to the point at hand...so please do the same***

The past is just that.

With the conflicting, yet mind questioning intelligent information

submitted from both sides it will at least give pause to the various

possibilities of what's happening to our planet.

A good debate should occur.

My rebuttal to be submitted hopefully after work, probably after supper.

[Pope29]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...Lj950lc1-_dhE7Q

I read this article in the last couple days along with a couple of others that talked about mans encroachment on the Amazon rain forest. It is some scary stuff if even half true.

I want to apologize for what I posted last night. Things got a little personal in pm and my first reaction is to get my back up.

[PickerelHunter]

Good insight Bigugli, and I have no doubt that deforestation is a significant contributor to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If there was much of the same levels of forest as there was say 200 years ago, I have no doubt that CO2 levels would be lower then todays, logically they would have to be because more CO2 would be "inhaled" by plants.

But the fact is, we don't have those same levels of forest. ANd this brings up a question about a solution. Is it better to try to replant and re-establish forests as they were (which is quite unrealistic with so much urbanization and need for land)? Or is it better to limit our CO2 emissions into the air (which also doesn't seem very realistic because we rely so much on machinery that uses it)? A healthy bit of both would probably be a good relationship...but while we are increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere through combustion of fossil fuels, we are ALSO polluting the earth through this same process. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but other compounds that are also released simultaneously through combustion, are pollutants (such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, heavy metals etc.). In it's most simplistic form, kill two birds with one stone? I am by no means defending deforestation or feel it's ok because it is not and has, as Bigulgi mentioned, no doubt contributed to the high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Here is a link to an excellent a breakdown of CO2 emissions by source http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/dat...s/cli3_2005.pdf . It goes through every single country, but the first line is the world as a whole. Take what you will from it, but some key points....Land-use change (I believe this to be deforestation) is significant, as are the fuels (liquid, solid, and gas)....Land-use change has stayed stable over last decade (even slightly decreased), solid fuel has decreased, but the others have increased...in the charts I provided in my previous post (as well as this pdf) CO2 emissions are still going up even though land use has stayed relatively stable. This is not completely convincing enough for me, I would like to see these studies 30 years from now, but the information is still there.

[knightfisher]

Taking a look from the perspective of logic.

I will tone down on the number of adjectives I use for buttons.

I will not, however, refrain from using ""sheeple"".

It is used to indicate how the masses

are quietly being herded to the pens of requirement.

I here submit factors that require being made public and investigated.

I do not deny the information brought forth. If a graph is backed

by evidence and shows CO2 is rising, since the start of the industrial revolution,

then good.

And I am sure with that it could be extrapolated that it is the main cause of

global warming. However empirical generaliztions don't cut it in the books

of the free thinker.

The factor of CO2 is very much suspect in the larger picture of events

affecting planet earth.

For your consideration.

A red herring about this carbon tax, is that big pollluting companies can buy

credits from small polluting companies. Scam ?

How do you think that came to be. Big companies with their big money

were/are able to influence whoever are the policy makers of this tax.

Just imagine the politics and back room meeting going on.

If it was proven CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming/climate change

then all companies and peoples get taxed fairly.

The goal would be to get all contributors to get their emissons down, not

buy off some country to get a tax break.

Data is available that shows the US military is the single largest

consumer of oil in the world.

Would Russia be number two, China number three, and then there

are the rest of the various militarys

around the world including Canada's tiny military by comparison.

Then there is the space shuttle and various rockets around the

world to get satelites and other paraphernalia into space, which use huge

amounts of energy and fuel and puts huge amounts

of CO2 in the air. Then there is air travel corporations who's bottom line

again is to make a dollar, and at any given time, there are thousands

of planes in the air.

Yet the little common man is penalized for these other

entities.

Where is the logic in that.

As shown through out history, $$$$ is power, and the powerful can

alter the climate of the masses any way they see fit to achieve their agenda.

And look around the planet. There's an agenda.

Again way to many holes in this concept of global warming and how it is

being put on the little guy.

Yes the above enties are contributing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere,

as well as the common man ''who needs to'', in order to survive.

But as stated in past threads, because researchers and scientists are divided on

the effects of CO2, a non toxic gas, and there is no substantial evidence

that CO2 is the main contributing factor.

Why is it put to the little guy ?

This factor of the unknown, alone supports the justification of milking

the hard earned $$$ of the little guy.

What a simplistic way of amassing money. We think CO2 is......

Canadians are going to start paying yet another bogus tax ( carbon ) Yet the US

which has over ten times the population of Canada is not paying this.

By the by, the tough emission standards in Califorina have to do with pollution

not just CO2. Due to the mountains the air is very stagnant.

So here the little country of Canada, making up such an insignificant

percentage of the population of the world is going to have an effect of the

total CO2 emissions world wide.

I think not.

But Canada is considered by many as the template for a well controlled

society, and, as been witnessed, Canadians are an extremely passive people.

And where is this new blood sucking money grab tax going to go ?

As mentioned earlier, the effects of sun flare up activities, the natural progression

of the earth heating and cooling and the solar storms that occur, all affect the earth.

All kind of elements have been released into the atmosphere over the last fifty or

so years to try and affect weather, let alone other reasons....

Some of them are barium and aluminum just to name two.

What effects are these causing.

We all know metal reflects heat.

China has stated they will be trying to modify the weather to try and ensure

no rainfall during the olympics.

What chemicals they will be putting in our skys and what the long term

affects will be.

The military is constantly testing new weapons. Spraying chemicals and such.

And these are just the ones that have made it to the main stream media.

What else are they doing that we don't know about. Plenty. Witness the release

of some documents over the years of the clandistine spraying of areas of the planet

back in the 50s and 60s. The military is being more secretive now.

No one knows the effects of the hundreds, probably thousands, of nuclear bombs

that were tested above ground during the forties to present, or when ever above

ground tests stopped.

As is known when the atoms in a nuclear bomb split they give off heat and radiation

and are very effective at burning and destroying life. Witness Japan.

The fallout from these nuclear bombs now float around the world in our atmosphere.

Another unnatural element floating around collecting heat from the sun, or perhaps

reflecting heat back to earth ?

Perhaps continuing to give off heat in very trace amounts.

Or perhaps melding with other elements in our atmosphere to create who knows what.

No one know the effects of the underground and ocean testing of nuclear bombs

and what was released in these areas.

As this now unnatural nuclear radiation starts to pervade underground,

what effects is it having ?

And as everythng else buried in the earth this new man made matter slowly starts

to make it's way to the surface.

As a result the air, land and oceans are now affected and polluted and

has also terribly/verily affected the matrix of this planet.

The common man has no way of knowing how this excess nuclear radiation fallout

and other elements are affecting known natural elements.

Much of this of course would be on a molecular level.

Digressing a bit, various studies have been done, and collaberating evidence

shows the cancer rate among humans increased a hundred fold, after the testing

of nuclear weapons. This radiation that takes millions of years to become inert,

is and has been floating in our atmosphere for years and years. Now depleted

uraniun is being used in warfare because of its hardness and ability to pierce

most metals of resistance and this also entering our atmosphere.

Being that this data is pretty self evident, it behoves one to take a look at what

other aspects of life and matter this nuclear fall out is causing.

The world is definitely predisposed to all kind of factors that we have yet discovered.

Oh, here is another aspect that is so close to us it's not even mentioned in

anything I have read.

Smerchly ( Bill ) brought this up in my other thread.

The heat given off by man made structures is phenomenal.

Have a brick house. Touch those bricks in the summer time at 10 pm.

They are still giving off heat. Man made heat. What would you perfer to

walk on in the summer, cooler grass, or the hotter sidewalk.

The asphalt roads and huge parking lots in our small city, give off

tremendous amounts of heat.

All the asphalt roofs covering all these structures in our city give off

unbelievable amounts of heat. I know, I use to do roofing.

And as Bill said about his ice hut, dark colours in the winter still

give off heat.

So you now have some reality of the heat given off by various man

made sturctures in our little city....yep, what kind of heat is Toronto

or NewYork, Toyko to name a few giving off.

We have all these super hiways all over the world giving off super heat.

All these man made structures that absorb heat from the sun and at the

same time release the heat back into the atmosphere is definitely

have a huge affect on climate changes.

This unnatural heat that is releasing from man made structures is

occuring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

And who knows what chemicals are also released from these man

made heat sources into the atmosphere.

And has been going on for how long ?

Thanks for that one Bill. Such a simple observation, with astronomical

effects.

These various aspects are refused and not even looked at.

Kind of hard to tax people for the heat given off of asphalt.

So with the few considerations brought up, the government is going to focus

on one questionable aspect. There are actually hundreds.

Regardless, because this one aspect is most easily digested by the masses, the

manipulation of the masses can continue.

If the powers that be, had some semblence of intelligence in public relations, they could

decree this is being done for pollution reduction for the health of mankind.

At least that would of been more digestable then this bogus CO2 global warming

fiasco.

Articles written in journals that claim CO2 is contributing to global warming could be

accurate. Again is this 5,10,15 percent.

They didn't say it is causing because they can't go on that limb. They don't have proof.

So contributing is the sound and safest way to proceed. And until all scientist and researchers

all get on the same page, (and that will only happen with irrefutable proof ) all this documentation

is just suppostion.

Until someone can prove these factors listed above have no serious effect on our climate,

let alone the illnesses that now plague man and animal, I am not convinced one lonely

aspect CO2 as pushed by the governments is causing all this havoc.

Contributing to some small measure yes.

Responsible for, no way.

There are many other aspects of human manipulation I could cite, but at

this time, these few will do.

Here I am just a bricklayer. I sometimes wish I had a proper education and involved in

the sciences as to explore more of the physics of life and factors affecting it.

But I don't, so I will look at things from the logical view point...

does it make sense.

People on this planet need to wake up ( sheeple ) and govern themselves accordingly.

Other wise they will be told to stop eating beans because they produce gas and

contibute to global warming. Let alone the odd tear.

[PickerelHunter]

Good points brought up about other factors that have contributed to the heating of the planet. Many of which I didn't even consider before Bill or Dan had mentioned them.

I understand your stance and views about the government, and making money off this stuff. It's sad that they don't mention this other stuff to inform everyone about it, because it is a contributor. I don't know enough (or anything really) about this new proposed tax, and I 100% agree that it's sad that the every day man will get hit, while the major contributors to CO2 emissions are the ones who are sitting back. I don't know if companies like that pay a tax or something like that but to tax citizens who don't even come close to emitting the same amount of CO2 is ludicrous. This could start a whole different debate and should. This tax will do VERY little if anything in terms of overall CO2 concentrations unless it becomes a worldwide tax and includes the major contributors in a very significant way. Canada is small, just over 33 million, when compared to US, many European countries, Asian countries etc. I don't know what the other countries have in place, but to think that to tax our citizens is going to change global warming is in fact quite naive. A global push to reduce greenhouse emissions is what should be focused on (for both health and global warming reasons), but that has been attempted at Kyoto. I don't know much about the Kyoto Protocol aside from the basics of limiting greenhouse gases worldwide. Australia just signed in December, which leaves the US as the last industrialized country not to sign. Could all these governments be conspiring together to push this global warming hoax for the sole reason of making money from it? Unlikely. I somewhat disagree with Kyoto's flexibility that Dan touched on in terms of Countries "buying" emissions allowances from other countries...it gives the big guys an easy way out....however there is some logic to it, this is a worldwide protocol where the goal is to lower emissions as a whole, thus as long as in the end the emissions add up to what the projections are, then I guess the goal has been reached. As well, it gives nations that are doing very well in limiting emissions some financial gains because they've done so well, as other countries will pay them. But as I said, it's just an easy way out for the big guy. The US government would lose/spend ALOT of money to have to rebuild and restructure their emissions output. As Dan said, the US military is the largest consumer of oil, not sure if military would factor into Kyoto restrictions, but if it did they'd have a HUGE monetary problem on their hands...hence why they don't want to sign.

Back to the original idea though, none of this though proves anything about CO2 not affecting the warming of the planet. If all these things are contributing...AND...CO2 levels are 30+% higher then they've been in half a million years, then it will only cause a more significant rise. CO2's effectiveness as an insulator does not decrease just because there are other factors, it stays the same. With more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat will be radiated back...and then add in the heat that all the things you mentioned give off. There's possibilities of some serious stuff that could happen in the next century.

[smerchly]

Bigugli must have been in my class Photosynthesis was very interesting to learn in school ( 1960) .....but that sticks in my mind today when I see the things happening on a global scale from huge forest fires , forests rapidly disappearing & urban sprawl locally . Most of my old hunting grounds are now subdivsions and shopping malls ........We should be building highrise condos in existing cities & keep the farmlands .........farmlands ! What a concept ! With satelite images I'm sure the politicos know what's happening but are no match for the powerful multi national corporations who can stuff enough $$ down their throats to keep the quiet . This whole global warming /changing climate thing is talked about world wide & debated every day with so much disagreement ,I cannot pick a definate side , but being very cynical towards the worldly powers that control the media , I have to think they have an agenda to pry more $$ from us using fear tactics & bombarding us with media hype until they "get us on board" .

I found this link which is from a credited writer in Britain ......seems the same debates are a hot item there as well .......

http://ads.adviva.net/click/v=4;m=2;l=3765...=20080228013940

click on to David Whitehouse , global warming

[bigugli]

Bigugli must have been in my class Photosynthesis was very interesting to learn in school ( 1960) .....but that sticks in my mind today when I see the things happening on a global scale from huge forest fires , forests rapidly disappearing & urban sprawl locally . Most of my old hunting grounds are now subdivsions and shopping malls ........We should be building highrise condos in existing cities & keep the farmlands .........farmlands ! What a concept ! With satelite images I'm sure the politicos know what's happening but are no match for the powerful multi national corporations who can stuff enough $$ down their throats to keep the quiet . This whole global warming /changing climate thing is talked about world wide & debated every day with so much disagreement ,I cannot pick a definate side , but being very cynical towards the worldly powers that control the media , I have to think they have an agenda to pry more $$ from us using fear tactics & bombarding us with media hype until they "get us on board" .

I found this link which is from a credited writer in Britain ......seems the same debates are a hot item there as well .......

http://ads.adviva.net/click/v=4;m=2;l=3765...=20080228013940

click on to David Whitehouse , global warming

Remember Bill, Japan, Britain, Europe all experienced the killer smogs, and it is still remembered by many. We on the other side of the oceans escaped that nastiness. Just as most here in Ontario don't remember the days when everything in towns like Hamilton, Sudbury and the Sault were covered in a layer of grey soot. The land around Sudbury looked more like the moon than anything earthly. Discussions on pollution hit a raw nerve in these places.

[Dan Andrews]

I didn't read it all because I don't have that much time so please forgive me if this is redundant.

One of Earths incredible abilities is how it can heal itself. Like any living thing it's body reacts to unfavorable conditions such as deforestation and chemical imbalances. Two of such reactions have been documented and at least one we are quite familiar with.

The Boreal forest has started growing at a much faster pace. Whether this be caused by rising temperatures or increasing carbon levels I don't know but the change in atmosphere is either favorable for the trees or they are reacting by trying to absorb more C.O.

The other thing that is happening is a dramatic increase in algae growth which now accounts for a significant amount of the Worlds oxygen. As the rain forest disappears and CO levels rise, the Earths own flesh reacts with antibodies. Another reaction that happens naturally to balance things out is disease. When too many of them virally misplaced humans start eating themselves out of a host, diseases are generated but fortunately for us and not the natural order, we have doctors and yes.....scientists who come up with a solution and defeat it and it looks like it is at the earths and eventually our own expense.

OK who sounds whacky now eh?

[bigugli]

I didn't read it all because I don't have that much time so please forgive me if this is redundant.

One of Earths incredible abilities is how it can heal itself. Like any living thing it's body reacts to unfavorable conditions such as deforestation and chemical imbalances. Two of such reactions have been documented and at least one we are quite familiar with.

The Boreal forest has started growing at a much faster pace. Whether this be caused by rising temperatures or increasing carbon levels I don't know but the change in atmosphere is either favorable for the trees or they are reacting by trying to absorb more C.O.

The other thing that is happening is a dramatic increase in algae growth which now accounts for a significant amount of the Worlds oxygen. As the rain forest disappears and CO levels rise, the Earths own flesh reacts with antibodies. Another reaction that happens naturally to balance things out is disease. When too many of them virally misplaced humans start eating themselves out of a host, diseases are generated but fortunately for us and not the natural order, we have doctors and yes.....scientists who come up with a solution and defeat it and it looks like it is at the earths and eventually our own expense.

OK who sounds whacky now eh?

Quite a good analogy. The earth is, in many respects, one giant organism. Just like our own body, it can sustain injury and disease, and heal itself. Where we differ, as organisms, is that when we really get ill we have doctors. The planet does not have a physician.

The harsher similarity is death. We can only sustain so much damage, disease, or poison before the body can no longer recover. We have a pretty good idea about human limitations. We have no clue as to the earth's limitations. As for the human race playing doctor for the earth, we're not much better than a 3rd rate witch doctor.

[PickerelHunter]

That's true, it's silly to think that the earth wouldn't try to heal it self....just as our bodies heal themselves from "changes". I think that people overreact because the earth takes thousands of years to adjust itself to changes, and we only have 60-100 in a lifetime to see the changes, so we expect rapid change but there's no way it will naturally happen before our eyes, and of course we are not a patient species.

Bigugli brought up a good point too, we can heal ourselves from colds and other viruses naturally without seeing a doctor or getting meds...but Cancer, Aids, and other diseases, without meds would kill us (some even with treatment). Where does the earth stand now? Is it just a common cold or is it something more serious?

[Tom Chopin]

They say the fish bite the least with wind from the East. what do you guys think? I've had some great days with an east wind......................................................................

[knightfisher]

They say the fish bite the least with wind from the East. what do you guys think? I've had some great days with an east wind......................................................................

Well Tom, according to scientists and researchers, and various other

scientific data I have uncovered, the best............