I agree, personally. After reading the definitions of "troglodyte," I think I definitely qualify.

In fact, I think I will get myself a troglodyte T-shirt. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Seems obvious to me, Martians don’t care about their environment

Right, and look what happened with them. Not many left to tell the story <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

How do you know? I mean, that there are none left? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

actually I should re-phrase my post...

I belive that is has happened in the past, I don't believe that it had a man-made driver. I don't know how much longer it will continue if at all. I'm worried that we're about to see a serious cooling in the not too distant future (i.e. 10 or so years).

Will you are definately an uneducated troglodyte if you believe that this global warming is part of a universal cycle perhaps caused by the earth not spinning like a perfect top, around a perfect sun that radiates its energy in a perfectly even way over the millenia
regards

To describe a troglodyte as uneducated is a tautology.

Just in on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) site an article titled "Antarctic ice shelf 'hanging by a thread'". (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/26/2199350.htm?section=justin). The article describes the collapse of an ice shelf 415 km2 in area.

The lead scientist involved with monitoring project was quoted as saying: "The warming that's going on in the (Antarctic) peninsula is pretty clearly tied to greenhouse gas increases and the change that they have in the atmospheric circulation around the Antarctic".

Evidence such as this linking climate change and its associated impact to atmospheric greenhouse gas increases is continually mounting. As an engineer/scientist I have the utmost confidence in the methodology used to establish these links.

I used to believe in MAN MADE global warming. Then Al Gore got on the band wagon and said it was happening. Then he won a nobel peace prize over it. That was when I said bullsh*t. This is the same guy that created the internet? The same guy that said he voted for the passing of a bill (sorry forget which one) that went through congress before he was even there? I don't claim the democrats or republicans, but if Al Gore says it true, then it is probably a load of sh*t. Funny, I am starting to feel that way about Bush too. Where are those weapons of mass distruction anyways? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Scientists like Bell, Eienstein, Newton spent years in developing proof ( not their hypothesis ) of their theorys and ideas, which won them fame and continued admiration. In contrast to the above quoted scientist that it is " pretty clearly tied " with no cooberating evidence then it gets quoted by you Phile as definative evidence for us lesser mortals to accept as proof.
regards

To quote my high school football coach:

"now I don't know nothin' about nothin'", but the way I see it is that putting all of that man made crap into the air . . . well . . it can't be good. Is it worse than what Krakatoa did, or Mount St. Helens . . . I don't know.

I remember the good ol' days when people just littered everywhere. Remember those "litterbug" commercials. We actually needed TV commercials to tell us that we shouldn't throw our trash in the streets. I guess I kind of view "an inconvenient truth" stuff as today's litterbug commercials.

Would it really be all that bad to hvae better emission controls?


If war can boost an economy, so can "going green". The only difference is that the oil companies aren't going to be the ones to get rich . . . and . . . well . . . I guess they don't like that very much.

Now, don't go lumpin' me in with all the green freaks out there. I'm 3 beers deep here. I have no intention of selling my 8 cyl. Jeep Grand Cherokee . . . but will I look to buy something a bit "greener" the next time around . . . perhaps . . . If the price is right (I'm an American, afterall).

Back to the original post on this thread:
If it is impossible to prove or disprove the theory of manmade global warming, why are you asking what "evidence" would convince skeptics?

Also, it bothers me that the word "impossible" would be in a scientist's vocabulary. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I really don't have an opinion about the issue overall, but regarding the report you cite, I have to point out that the same scientist stated that "this ice shelf has been in place for at least a few hundred years" - which implies that there has previously been a situation (more than a few hundred years ago) in which the shelf didn't exist and its non-existence could not be attributed to recent human activity.

Agreed. The Antarctic ice cap is never static.

However, what is concerning climate scientists is the comparitively very rapid change in both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps that is occurring now.

I am not suggesting that the reported melting of this part of the Antarctic ice cap is definitive proof that elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas levels is responsible for global climate change. It is however further evidence added to a huge body of data and computer modelling that does indicate that a strong link exists.

Whether human activity (burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) is the primary or secondary driver behind global climate change is even more difficult to prove, as the original post stated. But even if there is only a small probability, say less than 30%, that humankind is the main driver behind climate change, then surely there is still sufficient justification for all governments, organisations and individuals to take measures. The consequences of denial are too scary to contemplate.

Australia's new government has accepted that the risks of denial are very real. One of its first moves was to ratify the Kyoto Agreement, and make a long term commitment to reduce national greenhouse emissions by 60% (of 1990 levels) by 2050. It is also planning on introducing a carbon trading scheme in 2010. Australia has a high per capita greenhouse emission, although in absolute terms we contribute less than 2% of global greenhouse emissions.

We are in this together, in the one life boat, and the future looks pretty rough.

Which would be tougher, global warming or global cooling? Just curious.

Shooting or hanging..
Both are equally bad and proportional to how large the changes are. We had a "mini" ice age in medevial times, and that was bad enough. If the change is large enough..

There is a small study on the "mini" ice age here: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

It dont matter if it heats up or cools down, both are equally bad in my opinion.

In the discussion in this post the US and Australia have been described as high emmission because were soft targets if you look beyond the carbon bit Asia is slaughtering its rivers and its air with very little control even the peasants burn very polluting substances to cook and heat. Australia signing Kyoto was just a popularist move by Labour to win Govt, how can shifting dirty manufacturing from Australia with its environmental controls to China with its obvious attitude save the world.

Just wondering why anyone cares?
I mean, it is clear to any non brain-dead person that we can't seriously stop it, so deal with it and stop all the whittering already.

I mean bio-fuel and carbon credits....Pllleease! Talk about p***ing in the wind.

I say drive big cars and use all the oil you can making much stronger homes and infrastructure in communities expecting to survive in a very non globalized way.

The tigers will die and so will 4-5 billion humans, get used to it and lean into it.

The zoos will be as endangered by the weather events as everything else so, really if we want to preserve species just gather the relevant DNA and set them free.

I know those with kids have a different perspective but as a terminal organism with maybe thirty years to live I think I might have a good standard of sailing to days lived ratio and that is what matters as 2050 seems to be a major measuring point.
So I will keep a weather eye on mast up storage possibilities if the ice caps do indeed melt.

It happens that for the first time since a few hundreds of years the Icelandic people can have cattle.....ironically belching up more hot house effect. So,.....

sail now.

I'm just not sure how much effect humans have in the eqution. The finger lake I sail on was formed by a glacier, long before man could have had an effect on melting the glacier away. I do think we should respect the environment, not be wasteful, and recycle as much as practicle.
Personally, I've got things covered. If it ends up being global cooling, than I have more time in my iceboat. If it's global warming, then thats a longer wet water sailing
season. If the ocean levels rise due to the icepacks melting, then hopefully I'm looking at my home in central NY becoming beachfront property!
Rob
PS-Four inches of new snow today

Interestingly enough I read two articles a/b the potential collapse of an ice sheet in Antarctica the other day. The one on Fox news said it might collapse and this was GW rearing it's ugly head. The other was much more scientific and said that Antarctica is experiencing rapid ice/snow growth and will be on track for a record year even before winter starts there.

And I still think everyone should at least try to read this:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

I found this on a website, yahoo I think:

'SYDNEY (AFP) - Twenty-six major cities around the world are expected to turn off the lights on major landmarks, plunging millions of people into darkness to raise awareness about global warming, organisers said.

I love the 'plunging millions into darkness' thing. As if they'll be underater or something.
What a load of leftist crap.

This should really do something, probably lower the global temp at least three degrees- LOL.