Yes, manufacturing plant do produce more greenhouse gases than vehicles, but I was comparing them to cows instead.

And we've had our fridge for a good 10 years, and it's still going strong. It's nice to know that i'm helping the environment a little. :)

Actually you're completely wrong. Livestock produce far more greenhouse gases then all the cars combined. You would be better off driving a hummer and being a vegetarian then driving a small toyota and eating lots of meat. Learn the facts first before you try to argue with common sense.

But these are different chemicals. Where methane only clouds the sky, CO2 and CO3 cloud and rip apart the ozone. So driving a Hummer, although my produce less mass of gases, actually does more damage.

CO2 does not rip apart ozone, and I personally have never heard of carbonate gas.

Ozone is ripped apart by radicals, such as CFC's, nost often

Methane does NOT only cloud the sky. It is a greenhouse gas that is over 20 times more effective than CO2. So... Those who believe in CO2 causing temperature climbs wet themselves over Methane. It only has a life of 10 years or so in the atmosphere, but it was present near several temperature climbs. If methane caused a haze or clouded up the sky, then farms and wetlands would look worse than LA.

Peruse this thread for a spell.

CO2 is never a worry. CO3 is the killer. Cows do not produce CO3, only the burning of fossil fuels. Politicians don't talk about CO3, because it would mean their downfall. CO3 is an unstable molecule and the extra oxygen rips apart other stable molecules. It has the same effect as ozone (O3) except ozone wont rip apart other ozones. CO3 does rip apart ozones. It rips the extra O of an O3 and puts it on a CO2, making another CO3 and an Oxygen. This is what is responsible for the damage to the ozone and this alone.

But really, it's not what does the worst damage that counts, it's that nobody is doing anything useful about any of them.

Any sort of linkage to back up that claim? I can't manage to find anything that says CO3 can even exist as a gas. Not to mention I'm not quite sure when CO3 molecules will form in a combustion engine.

Also, oh god, read this page I got on Yahoo Answers while looking for stuff on CO3: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1070335AAG4EK6

I agree...in that I've never heard of carbonate gas!

It disobeys valence rules, that's for sure

Actually it's weather that changes. Climate is the average of the weather in an area over a long period of time.

I do believe that humans have a significant effect on their environment, especially the United States which consumes more than its fair share of resources on this planet. I mean we could all do well with probably one car, take the bus and train now and again. Spend money on solar power which pays back after a certain amount of time.

But what gets me is that people are arguing whether it's humanity's fault or not. Umm....who cares? I don't like playing the Blame Game. But when OUR existence is in jeopardy, whether it's imagined or real, I would rather err on the side of caution than commit Type 1 errors by not doing something. If global warming is occurring, then using alcohol fuels instead of oil will help with the CO2 emissions. If global warming is not happening, then using alcohol fuels will clear up all this shit in the air that's getting into our lungs. Win- win anyone?

If it were that simple then there wouldn't be an argument.

Except that despite what the leftists would have you believe, there is no real conclusive evidence that Global Warming is man-made or as catastrophic as they claim it to be.

When you tell people to drastically alter the way they live their lives, you had better goddamn well prove the case. Thus far, that hasn't happened.

First of all, the Scientific Community has been looking into this for a LONG time. The only deniers are extremist neocons, not scientists.

Second, let's look at the options: One, global warming is fake and we try and prevent it. So we wasted a few billion bucks. Oh well, that's just another week of the war effort. Two, global warming is real and we ignore it. The world ends.

I don't know about you, but I'll pick erring on the safe side.

You don't know the world would end...this isn't nuclear winter we're talking about. The earth tends to be quite good at balancing itself, as per the entire science of chemistry.

By the way, I'm somewhat of a denier and well on the road to becoming a scientist.

And I'm not an extremist neo-con.

No one is gonna sit here and tell you that the Earth isn't warmer, but it's a single degree warmer over the last century.

It's the motherfuckas that sit here and tell us that the events of the movie The Day After Tomorrow are going to occur in short order that are full of shit. You don't have to be a neo-conservative to believe that, it's goddamn common sense.

I love how folks blow into the whole neo-con name-calling spiel if you don't buy into Global Warming being caused by man. Just goes to show their maturity on this matter...

This whole thing is science that has been politicized, bottom line. What I see on TV and with some folks around here falls into the "sheeples" category.

Global Warming and Cows.... link for those who haven't see this before, here

There are a bunch of websites that have this information, a simple Google search brought up 415,000 hits.

Does this mean that because I like Mexican food and it gives me loads of gas that I am responsible for global warming?!?

CO3?!? WTF... where do people get these "ideas", geez.

Neo-conz lol.

Also how is "global warming" going to cause the world to end? Is the planet going to metal away because it got too warm? Is it going to catch on fire because the animals were too fart happy?

I believe the official statistic is 18 trillion to prevent global warming. (do a google search if you don't believe me) Thats 45% of the worlds GDP. I'd rather not gamble that.

I doubt the world will end, but who the fuck cares? We'll all be dead regardless anyways.

Another possibility: the increase in the earth's temperature is naturally caused. That leaves us with a number of sub-possibilities:
1) We spend money on abating CO2 emissions only to get our asses flooded out anyway.
2) We don't spend money abating CO2 emissions and get flooded.
3) We spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth and hopefully make a difference
4) We don't spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth and get our asses flooded.
5) We spend money on technologies to cope with a naturally warming earth, it turns out it was caused by CO2, and we're alright anyway because we're ready for the warming earth.

"One, global warming is fake and we try and prevent it. So we wasted a few billion bucks."

As xen0phobia alluded, you clearly need to read legitimate proposed budgets for such activities. Obviously, not everything on said budgets would need to be enacted, but anything truly substantial would cripple quite a few nations.

You've probably never read God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert then. It's not about people dying, it's about the rest of humanity surviving. I don't care if a few countries completely go bankrupt. But if people really don't care, even if there is a slight possiblity, then we deserve to be wiped out. And to the people who are saying that the earth will be wiped out, no it won't. The earth will still be here, we probably won't.

I fail to see how a few degrees change over 100s of years would equate to human apocalypse.

See, that's what always confused me. What about those minor "warming" periods or "cooling" periods that we tend to get, or experienced in the past. For all we know, it could just be nature's way, and before we know it, we could be blaming car emissions for causing global cooling.

We're definitely not helping the cause, but a few degrees here and there is probably not much to fret about in the long term.

Because of the few degrees in increase of the oceans, moist air is condensing over the oceans instead of the rainforests which desperately need them. The amazon right now is experiencing it's lowest levels and desertification is occurring. Unless you also have another reason for the increase of frequency and intensity of the storms that have been going on, the damage alone of Hurricane Katrina was worth at an estimate of 81 billion dollars.

Whatever people may believe, we are a host organism of our planet. We evolved with our planet and our bodies are designed for a narrow range of environmental factors. A drop in O2 levels from deforestation, an increase of CO2 emissions. THAT kind of rings of alarm bells in my head.

I don't think you understand what global warming would realistically cause if it continued like this... The tropics would widen. A healthy amount of the northern and southern hemispheres would turn into rainforest-type regions. If polar ice caps melt, then you would have drastically increased precipitation worldwide.

As the ice caps melt, the gulf stream will shut down, as the current flows due to differences in water temperature and salinity. A rush of fresh water from the poles will drastically change lots of these mechanisms, but such things have happened many times before.

Increased intensity of storms? Howsabout that horrid hurricane season we had this year? Oh, wait. We didn't have one. In regards to Katrina & Rita, those simply occurred in a bad year -- such things aren't unheard of. Plus, hurricanes are caused by temperature anomalies. The gulf stream is ideal for such formations. If the glaciers melted, and the stream shut down, we would have less clashings of different temperatures. As a result, you have less storm formations and much less accumulation of hurricanes.

I believe you mean that we are parasites on our planet. Any good parasite adapts. Our ancestors lasted through horribly cold temperatures in the ice age (100,000+ years before present if you just prefer homo sapiens) as well as hot climbs within the past few thousand years.

In regards to the rain forest, deforestation should be the main blame at present...

There isn't a drop in O2 going on at present. CO2 has been in the atmosphere in much, MUCH larger amounts than it is now, yet we've experienced some of our colder temperatures during such times. Nitrogen takes up 74% of the atmosphere, Oxygen taking up 25%, and CO2 taking up 0.03%. I'd hardly say we're flooded with CO2 or lacking in Oxygen. The rainforest may be a diverse collection of plants & animals, but it's hardly our main source of oxygen. You can't label something as copious as oxygen as having any one main source in one spot. It forms from photosynthesizers all around the world as well as from acid rain accumulation upon exposed oxides.

We have humans living in the coldest reaches of Russia & Canada to the hottest, most desolate regions of the deserts of the world. I'd hardly label mankind as "designed for a narrow range".

Even if I concede that maybe global warming does not exist etal we've only been on this planet for a very short time. The effect we have from our actions are not yet known, and that's what makes me very anxious, because instead of being cautious and at least minimizing what we are doing until we know a little bit more of why the events are happening the way they are, we're still going full blast and avoiding any sort of warning signs.

Experiment to test global warming theory:

Scientist 1: Ok, we need to test global warming. What are our variables?
Scientist 2: Oh, that would be everything on the entire earth and everyone on the entire earth and everything that happens every second of every day on the entire earth. So, basically, the entire earth. Over a time period of, oh let's say 20,000 years ago to the present.
Scientist 1: So... firing up my copy of "The Sims" and leaving the stove on in their house probably won't get the job done eh?

Do we really have computer models that can basically account for the variable "everything and everyone on the face of the earth every second for the last 20,000+ years"?? Or, is it just "there are more humans now than before, the earth is warmer now than before, therefore humans are making the earth warm?" I'm open to the "theory" of "global warming" and don't doubt objective climate data, but remain skeptical that scientists can point to John Smith SUV owner and say, "This guy is producing .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of greenhouse gases and needs to get 5mpg more from his SUV or else the world's temperature will go up by .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees. :rolleyes:

I heard about an interesting text on this subject the other day. I don't know if it's good but I like cover. :D http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...juniorbooks-20