"If global warming is CO based, should be trying to stop volcanoes..."

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Perhaps you should actually look at the website.

"Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism.

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

I was judging a book by its cover I suppose.

It's ok. Just remember that all science is skeptical, by definition. Nothing is believed "just because." Science requires evidence, and even then it is challenged and tested. What makes it through will then be accepted.

 

[Matthew3590]

I am just going to say this. If we put what we have now at the end of the last ice age what would scientists be saying? Most likely the earth is warming at a substantial rate because of our dependency on fossil fuels. Am I right or am I right? The earth is warming but not because I am driving my car to work instead of riding a bike or a cow.

 

[cassie]

Cork a volcano? Good idea!! If the one under Yellowstone blows, which it will someday, we won't have to worry about global warming, the federal deficit, or anything else. Of course it would be interesting to know just how this could be accomplished and what the consequences would be if it were.

 

[AquaEyes]

The rate of change now is greater than the rate of change at the end of the last ice age.

 

[Matthew3590]

Quote:
Can't be because the average heat would be in the hundreds for my area.

 

[centrarchid]

I suspect we already passed tipping point and considerable warming inevitable. Efforts to limit further increases in total and rate of change are not to be stopped but more should be invested in how we shall respond to changes, especially in respect to food supply and diseases normally considered to be of concern only at lower latitudes. We also have made so wild life and plants will have a more difficult time responding to changes which could really be hard on some species in the not too distant future. I am not talking polar bears but rather species that occur in continental US.

 

[PortugalBreeder]

Quote:
I believe that if we start using energy produced in a way that doesn't emit green house effect gases, if we stop deforesting and start planting more trees than very probably there would be a significant change. But I admit it's very hard to make people do this, since many of this things would make them loose some life quality and nobody (in developed countries, but specially in U.S.) accepts that (only when consequences are felt in their yard there will be some sort of effort to change, by now most of the problems resulting from environmental irresponsibility are being felt in Africa, so, sadly "nobody cares").

 

[Matthew3590]

Quote:
I believe that if we start using energy produced in a way that doesn't emit green house effect gases, if we stop deforesting and start planting more trees than very probably there would be a significant change. But I admit it's very hard to make people do this, since many of this things would make them loose some life quality and nobody (in developed countries, but specially in U.S.) accepts that (only when consequences are felt in their yard there will be some sort of effort to change, by now most of the problems resulting from environmental irresponsibility are being felt in Africa, so, sadly "nobody cares").

USA does more planting than chopping. 1 tree equal 3 more planted.

 

[centrarchid]

On paper at least, the planting of trees is only a drop in the bucket. CO2 sequestered by trees can only compensate for that coming from trees lost in past. CO2 has got to be stored in more long-term deposits in soil and rocks to make a real impact. Simply injecting CO2 into geologic formations may not be enough and may cause ground water problems.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I believe that if we start using energy produced in a way that doesn't emit green house effect gases, if we stop deforesting and start planting more trees than very probably there would be a significant change. But I admit it's very hard to make people do this, since many of this things would make them loose some life quality and nobody (in developed countries, but specially in U.S.) accepts that (only when consequences are felt in their yard there will be some sort of effort to change, by now most of the problems resulting from environmental irresponsibility are being felt in Africa, so, sadly "nobody cares").

USA does more planting than chopping. 1 tree equal 3 more planted.

Yes, but the bulk of that planting is not to restore heterogeneous wild forests, but on monoculture tree farms.