We could focus on the hysterical headlines - or pay attention to Watson's 'hope for the best but plan for the worst' advice. His job is to present the best scientific information he can to the British government

Nevermind the fact that sea temperatures haven't measurably risen, I think that we should prepare for the worst. This is why I drive a hybrid car.

my question is this: by when? 20 years? 50? 200?

I guess anything is possible, but I don't think this would be coming for HUNDREDS of years.

yup. I'm not expecting us to be around in the next decade. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think we have much time left. I wish this gave me a seize the day mentality, but instead I get panic attacks about the end of the world (or rather, the end of humanity). I try really hard not to think about it (while still trying to live responsibly to avoid it), because I get extremely depressed.

It's not like a meteor will hit Earth in the very near future, but in a way a gradual change is more dangerous than a sudden, catastrophic change (because people tend to let things fade from their conscious thought after a long period of time). Even a "very gradual" change from our perspective, though, can be a blink of an eye in terms of geologic time, and to think that it's taken people hundreds of years to create what effectively took nature tens or hundreds of thousands of years to create is pretty scary.

The notion of human extinction is a bit extreme, but we have to keep in mind that in order to ensure the long-term survival of our species (and others), we've got to respect and protect the environment. Everything adds up, and sooner or later it'll become impossible to ignore the effects of human activities on climate; it could then be too late to make restitution.

Let's keep predicting catastrophic things with little or no proof that they are about to happen. Eventually, one of these predictions is bound to come true

there's proof dave. read the article.

The article states that the temperature coincides with the increased CO2. The problem is that there isn't any proof that the CO2 caused the increase in temperature, and in fact came after the increased temperature. Why are we not seeing an increase in temperatures now? WI has experienced the coldest summer in 20 years, and the 4th coldest in recorded history. There isn't any warming going on.

If Wisconsin isn't warming then the scientists must be wrong? Not all science is personal.

But it isn't just Wisconsin. Do you know of any states that are warmer this year than last? Where are the intense hurricanes? Where is the severe weather? The signs of the approaching climate catastrophe aren't happening. The weather people have it wrong. In a couple decades we'll look back at this and laugh at Gore's army.

Measures to watch aren't necessarily to be found in your backyard and changes are being recorded in enough places to warrant concern. You seem to be waiting for one catastrophic event.

ok the climate of the earth has been changing drasticly for millions of years... CLIMATE CHANGE IS A NATURAL OCCURANCE... also I think its funny that in the 80s everyone was afraid a second ice age was comming and now, we're all going to be extinct because the temp will rise 30 some odd degrees...

Tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes are natural too, but they still can ruin your day.

"Measures to watch aren't necessarily to be found in your backyard and changes are being recorded in enough places to warrant concern." Stephley is right and I'm sure she could produce lots of these, even though temperatures in rural areas of the U.S. have dropped slightly in the last few decades.

I'm waiting for any one of the major events that the "experts" had predicted be a yearly occurence would happen since 2001. I don't understand how the ebb and flow of the glaciers, which is also a natural phenomenon is considered an omen of things to come.

>Do you know of any states that are warmer this year than last?

Yep. Colorado. My friend lives there, and they've just had a three week long record breaking heat wave.

But single states and single years aren't evidence of trends generally.

I honestly never understand why people get so incensed about climate change if they haven't been convinced it's real yet. It's not like doing good things for the environment causes any harm.

But "doing things for the environment" usually ends up costing us taxpayers money. That's the problem.

Take your frustration out on a corporation not paying taxes to help, not the environment.

"Take your frustration out on a corporation not paying taxes to help, not the environment."

that's a great and inspiring point, & if i may add,
when you feel that your little efforts are futile when compared to all the damage that corporations do, do something about it (them)

awareness is so important. it is basically advertising for the cause. in recent years my efforts have been steadily increasing, because of things like al gore's movie (and i havent even watched it-am scared to)

my ideas: (which i try very hard to do)
transit
live in an area where you can work and shop
DONT live in the suburbs if you are planning to drive to work, it probably is not cheaper anyways when you factor gas in
bring containers (tupperware) to where you get takeout
shopping bag reduction
paperless billing
efficient vehicles, NO gas guzzlers please!
eat meat only for special occasions if you love certain meat dishes, otherwise just stop eating it!
stop buying plastic junk and synthetic clothing

*sigh* its so depressing how many of our habits are destroying the earth

"Take your frustration out on a corporation not paying taxes to help, not the environment." Agreed. Corporate taxes are only the second highest in the world here in America.

"But "doing things for the environment" usually ends up costing us taxpayers money. That's the problem."

Dave, i am not trying to have an argument or anything, but i would like to point out that according to your profile you have children AND you make a fair living. would it kill you to use some of your income to preserve a place for your children, and their children etc, to live in the future? just curious...

Wow. If UnDave works hard to earn money, I think HE should decide how that money will best help his children. He doesn't need the government taking it from him by force and directing it to programs that may or may not help a problem that may or may not exist!

If UnDave is seriously concerned about global warming (which I guess he is not) he can voluntarily spend his hard earned money helping that cause. Otherwise, he should have the right to keep his own money and use it how he sees fit.

Mich!

I'm not trying to be challenging, just curious. What has the government spent tax dollars on that you don't support? Don't most green initiatives also end up saving mney since most of them are aimed at saving energy which is expensive? And even if ecological catastrophe isn't headed our way, I think we all still have an interest in clean air and water.

Subsidies for ethanol. Recycling. Any "green initiatives" in general, because I don't think it's their place. And nobody has given me any money back from green initiatives, so I don't know where this money has supposedly been saved.

I hope this doesn't come out as rude, but you're really opposed to city recycling programs?

That's not a rude question. But, yes. Recycling is somewhat of a myth. People say that recycling saves resources, but this isn't really the case. For example, paper recycling isn't necessary because there is 3. 5 times more forestland in America today than there was in 1920. In fact, 87 percent of our paper stock comes from trees that are grown as a crop specifically for paper production.
Recycling also supposedly saves energy, but this is an easy myth to dispel because recycling and recycled materials are still more expensive than new goods. That's because the energy cost of transporting and re-manufacturing waste materials into newly used materials is so high. Furthermore, the recycling process can leave behind dangerous waste. For example, paper recycling produces 22 pounds of toxic sludge for every 100 pounds of paper recycled. Finally, people think that there is limited landfill space, but that simply isn't the case. All of the trash America will produce over the next 1,000 years could fit into a landfill 15 square miles in size. And landfills aren't dangerous, they're profitable because they can be used to produce methane. According to the EPA, based on ultra-conservative, worst-case assumptions, 83 percent of America's solid waste landfills pose a lifetime cancer risk of less than one in one million (about the same risk inherent in drinking a glass of tap water). And new EPA regulations are making them even less dangerous. And after landfill space has been filled, the land can safely be converted into parks and green space. Google 'Shoreline at Mountain View Park'. It's a beautiful 700 acre park in California with recreation space, a lake, and is home to a rare species of owl. And just happens to be built over a landfill.

Sorry that's so long... I'm just fairly interested in this topic.

I am pro- recycling aluminum because it is cost-efficient (and this energy-efficient) to recycle aluminum. However, I think people should to it voluntarily rather than spending city funds for collection trucks and collection facilities. Because it is actually profitable, the private sector can deal with this.

How do you feel about glass?

I have less facts about glass on hand But I will point out that the raw material used to make glass (sand) is fairly plentiful.

Hmmm. It still just seems like recycling is better than creating new, and I know I would be way less likely to recycle (and most people just wouldn't at all) if I didn't have my nice big recycle bin that my city collects every week.

I did know that recycling plastic bottles is...not that great. From what I understand they can't be made into new plastic bottles, they're just shredded and the demand for shredded plastic is not very high. Perhaps I should put it on my long list of Things I'd Like To Know More About.

"It still just seems like recycling is better than creating new"
It SEEMS that way, until you realize that recycling causes more pollution and uses more fossil fuels. For example, new paper factories will often burn excess wood from their paper trees to fuel their machinery, whereas recycled paper factories use only fossil fuels.

I just wish manufacturers would create containers/packaging that can be reused by the individual consumer. I also think we need to switch to paperless record keeping whenever possible. Creating less waste on the whole is a much better solution that recycling or throwing things away.

But paper recycling isn't very common is it? Aren't most city recycling programs focusd on collecting cans and bottles?

And Amen to less packaging. I always try to (nicely) remind people that "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" is a prioritized list.

"I just wish manufacturers would create containers/packaging that can be reused by the individual consumer."

EXACTLY!

We have paper recycling here in Boulder, Co.

I don't know about other places, but they have paper recycling in Austin, Texas. You said yourself recycling plastic is not so good, so that just leaves glass. I just don't think it adds up. But I'm glad we can all agree that Reduce and Reuse are the most important steps in that list

Why is it that when Republicans say you should be aware that a terrorist threat is possible and in the words of liberals use "scare tactics" to insinuate that Democrats are unfit to lead the nation when it comes to defense it's fear mongering but when Al Gore and his cronies say that the world is going to end in a big ball of fire because we use our air conditioners it's taken serious and it's OK?

That's a very good point kh. I think both parties use scare tactics, just in different avenues. Republicans have terrorists, and democrats think the world is going to end.

It would be a better point, I think, if Al Gore actually said anything like 'the world is going to end in a big ball of fire because we use our air conditioners'. But he hasn't.

So the "the oceans will rise 20 feet by 2020, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions" doesn't fit that bill?

No it doesn't. The world ending in a fireball is very different from people having to live with the changes caused by rising oceans.

I would just like to point out that about thirty years ago, humanity was in danger of dying off by ice age. Climate change is a natural occurence, and I think it's always smart to be a good steward of our environment, but is all this hysteria really necessary?

although i don't think this is gonna happen now, i think within the next 20 years we'll find out.

this summer has been so hot .. doesn't seem like there will be an end to the rising temperature unless drastic measures are taken.

Ebb and flow. It was hot in the 30's, cooled off in the late 70's and 80's, and it's warmer in the early turn of the century.