Let's Be Sensible Please

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

Scientist don't really understand why hurricanes form, but they do know where they get their power from. Warm water adds energy to hurricanes. The global average temperature rise caused the mexican gulf to be above normal when it comes to temperature. This led to Katrina beeing extremely powerfull, so in a way, global warming was the cause of the extent of the destruction.

LOL BS statements galore. Here on the gulf we have some summers that are hotter than others, just like everywhere else in the world. Some years we have colder winters than usual. When we had our big freeze in the 80s and had a massive fish kill along the coast was that from global warming too? LOL It's called nature. When we have a hot summer the gulf water heats a little above normal, and when we have a cold winter the temperature falls below normal. And get over Katrina, it was just another hurricane. Most of the damage being blamed on Katrina had nothing to do with the power of the storm. Bad planning and failure to properly prepare caused more damage than the storm did. The New Orleans disaster happened after the storm had passed. But let's not bring that up because it's not helpful to your global warming theory right?Oh, and the scientists at NOAA know exactly why hurricanes form. What orifice of your body did you pull the statement that they don't from? I would suggest you research before you spew.

[All_In 0]

I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested."From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."

oh man, where do i start?

[offset 0]

oh man, where do i start?

First, unplug your modem...

[YouLoveIt 0]

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out

[Balloon guy 158]

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out

I like this guy already

[Zeatrix 0]

I fear that you have bolded the wrong portion of my argument. Focus on the word 'explicitly.' Gore is technically correct when he says what he does because there is no one paper that disproves global warming. However, a conglomeration of them do cast doubt on this 'proven' idea:"From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D. M., Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. H., McKay, C. P., and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response.” Nature 415: 517-20."The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979." Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40."Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years."Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.As one may infer from my citations, all three of these articles, and many more, have been published in reputable journals. These directly contradict the notion that Antarctica is experiencing a continent-wide glacial melt. Gore is correct when he talks about one particular peninsula, but what he does not reveal is the miniscule percentage of Antarctica's actual landmass this one peninsula constitutes. These papers, as a whole, indirectly cast doubt on the idea of global warming. One must simply do some searching to find them.

No, they don't. What they show is that the temperatures have fallen in those parts of Antarctica, that in itself does not "cast doubt on the idea of global warming". The notion of global warming is that the temperature, on average, is steadily increasing on earth. This does not in any way say that every part of the world will see a increase in temperature. There will be parts that will become colder and there will be parts that will become warmer, but on average, the temperature will increase. "Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)The scientific community agrees that the increase of greenhouse gases is human related. What they don't agree fully on, and can't, is what exactly this will mean to the earths ecosystem. They can't agree because frankly, you can't see into the future. They can only make predictions and very complex simulations, but even the most advanced simulations can't fully predict the future. So I acknowledge that there is a chance that global warming won't affect the earth in a observable way, but what I also realize when I read the scientific studies is that the risk of global warming causing significant changes to the earths ecosystem is much much greater. Will the earth explode and every human die? Nope. Will the climate change in a way that can potantially be catastrophic to parts of the human race, not to mention nature. Probably unless we make a change in the way we live.

LOL BS statements galore. Here on the gulf we have some summers that are hotter than others, just like everywhere else in the world. Some years we have colder winters than usual. When we had our big freeze in the 80s and had a massive fish kill along the coast was that from global warming too? LOL It's called nature. When we have a hot summer the gulf water heats a little above normal, and when we have a cold winter the temperature falls below normal. And get over Katrina, it was just another hurricane. Most of the damage being blamed on Katrina had nothing to do with the power of the storm. Bad planning and failure to properly prepare caused more damage than the storm did. The New Orleans disaster happened after the storm had passed. But let's not bring that up because it's not helpful to your global warming theory right?Oh, and the scientists at NOAA know exactly why hurricanes form. What orifice of your body did you pull the statement that they don't from? I would suggest you research before you spew.

No, actually it is not bulls**t. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HurricaneI did however phrase it badly, they do understand some of it, but they don't understand it all. One thing they do understand is where the power comes from. Warm water. That's why hurricane Katrina was "third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina). The strongest, Hurricane Wilma, struck southern florida in 2005. Beacuse of this you can't say that global warming is the cause of the increase in hurricanes, but it is the cause of the increase in power the hurricanes develop, since on avearge ocean temperatures have increased.

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out

I'm an atheist. If there is a god of any kind (or kinds) I really doubt any religion has gotten it right. Also, you assume that if you don't believe in the god, you will not be apart of a "afterlife". What if there is a god and everyones invited no matter what belief they have? If there is a god that is almighty and wise he surely wouldn't exclude a majority of the population from heaven, or whatever you'd want to call it. Remember, christianity only consists of about 2/3 of the worlds population.Anyways, the whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous, even if there is one humans can't possibly have gotten it right. The notion of an afterlife was invented by humans thousands of years ago for a purpose: Man should not fear death. In a world where 40 was considered very old and war and death was much more common than it is today it gave humanity hope that when they die, often young, they would come to a better place and therefore didn't fear death. People who don't fear death are more usefull than the scared, and not only in war.These last two paragraphs are just my opinion.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

No, actually it is not bulls**t. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HurricaneI did however phrase it badly, they do understand some of it, but they don't understand it all. One thing they do understand is where the power comes from. Warm water. That's why hurricane Katrina was "third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina). The strongest, Hurricane Wilma, struck southern florida in 2005. Beacuse of this you can't say that global warming is the cause of the increase in hurricanes, but it is the cause of the increase in power the hurricanes develop, since on avearge ocean temperatures have increased.

You need to get better at reading comprehension. Katrina was not the 3rd strongest hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. It was the 3rd strongest recorded while still at sea. Before it made landfall it had downgraded to a category 3. There have been three category 5 hurricanes that came ashore as category 5, and many category 4 hurricanes that made landfall and recorded as such...... way before Katrina. Being the 3rd largest recorded at sea doesn't mean it was the 3rd strongest ever. Up until just a few years ago there wasn't any way for them to record how strong they actually were at sea. Hurricanes like Camille and Carla came ashore as powerful hurricanes in the 1960s, and how strong they actually were at sea is unknown. Again, go do some research, and actually read up on the subject before you post.

[akoff 0]

You can’t argue with a zealot. Nothing will change the mind of young and dumb. It is just the way of life, with experience they will learn (unless you’re AL Gore)…take some scientific paper written by a couple quacks with an agenda, hold it as golden and argue to your last breath.Give it 20 years and you’ll be panicking about global temps dropping and the rare spotted fish of the tropics is on the verge of extension due colder water…then you will clamor for smoke stacks to cool things down.Think before you jump!!

[YouLoveIt 0]

I'm an atheist. If there is a god of any kind (or kinds) I really doubt any religion has gotten it right. Also, you assume that if you don't believe in the god, you will not be apart of a "afterlife". What if there is a god and everyones invited no matter what belief they have? If there is a god that is almighty and wise he surely wouldn't exclude a majority of the population from heaven, or whatever you'd want to call it. Remember, Christianity only consists of about 2/3 of the worlds population.Anyways, the whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous, even if there is one humans can't possibly have gotten it right. The notion of an afterlife was invented by humans thousands of years ago for a purpose: Man should not fear death. In a world where 40 was considered very old and war and death was much more common than it is today it gave humanity hope that when they die, often young, they would come to a better place and therefore didn't fear death. People who don't fear death are more useful than the scared, and not only in war.These last two paragraphs are just my opinion.

Of course thats your opinion or being an atheist might seem a little more metaphysically masochistic. I'm not here to get into a religious debate anyhow <however stating the 'whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous' is ridiculous in itself>. People are gonna believe in whatever fits their lifestyle anyhow and usually deviate from that on top of it all. Like I said earlier, I kind of think a world wide catastrophe would be a-ok. This whole planet is corrupted by power. Not like that has changed much. However if you take into account technology and military capabilities what they are today, I don't foresee a realistic revolution on the part of us peons even IF enough of us figured out that we're being sucked into some hidden authoritarian government. I like the idea of hitting the reset button on a goofy planet robbing the evil people of any ill gotten gains and taking the suffering and easing them of it. If there is no afterlife then it wouldn't matter anyhow how long the charade of our existence continues would it? Besides, now that I think of it. You don't really believe there is no afterlife anyhow with your back door afterlife theory. Sounds like your probably afraid of facing a crappy afterlife for a poorly executed life, which would make it a neat little logical package to cling onto just like the religious people right? At least they have convictions. Seriously though, I hope everyone does end up in some cool afterlife and everyone gets along hunky dory. Just in case though, I'll do my thing and you do yours. We'll see who comes crawling to who for spiritual advice when the Kennedy's get Arnold as Commander in Chief.BTW good looking out Balloon Guy. Now I don't have come after your colorful midget voice activators with my rubber ball sharp wit and butter knife like keen intellect.Peace OxideWhat was I saying

[All_In 0]

You can’t argue with a zealot. Nothing will change the mind of young and dumb. It is just the way of life, with experience they will learn (unless you’re AL Gore)…take some scientific paper written by a couple quacks with an agenda, hold it as golden and argue to your last breath.Give it 20 years and you’ll be panicking about global temps dropping and the rare spotted fish of the tropics is on the verge of extension due colder water…then you will clamor for smoke stacks to cool things down.Think before you jump!!

the bolded part actually describes the people who deny global warming is occurring, and man-made.and again, why are people so angry about this? because it might force them to make difficult decisions? guilt? it is very funny.

[Atremis 0]

No, they don't. What they show is that the temperatures have fallen in those parts of Antarctica, that in itself does not "cast doubt on the idea of global warming". The notion of global warming is that the temperature, on average, is steadily increasing on earth. This does not in any way say that every part of the world will see a increase in temperature. There will be parts that will become colder and there will be parts that will become warmer, but on average, the temperature will increase. "Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

First of all, when I have quoted scholarly peer-reviewed articles for you, please don't respond by quoting the Wikipedia. It's a great resource, but not for this kind of debate.What I was attempting to explain via those three articles is that many global warming believers who claim that Antarctica is melting are wrong. If I cast doubt on all of the alleged symptoms of global warming, the argument itself seems much weaker. I don't buy into the global average temperature argument. How precisely does one determine this? Cities increase the average temperature of the area around them by a significant margin. And, the average temperature of the entire southern hemisphere hasn't increased by a statistically significant amount, even if the northern hemisphere has. Shouldn't it be called Northern Hemisphere Warming?

[hblask 1]

Anyone who doesn't think humans have caused global warming should just look at this temperature graph of Greenland. Look at the big spike near the end:If that doesn't prove it, I don't know what will...Oh wait, what is that scale on the x-axis? Thousands of years? Oh, never mind.

[Zeatrix 0]

You need to get better at reading comprehension. Katrina was not the 3rd strongest hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. It was the 3rd strongest recorded while still at sea. Before it made landfall it had downgraded to a category 3. There have been three category 5 hurricanes that came ashore as category 5, and many category 4 hurricanes that made landfall and recorded as such...... way before Katrina. Being the 3rd largest recorded at sea doesn't mean it was the 3rd strongest ever. Up until just a few years ago there wasn't any way for them to record how strong they actually were at sea. Hurricanes like Camille and Carla came ashore as powerful hurricanes in the 1960s, and how strong they actually were at sea is unknown. Again, go do some research, and actually read up on the subject before you post.

You ask me to read up on the subject, and that's exactly what I had done. I put the statement in quotation marks and italic to point out that it wasn't me saying that, it was a quote from another source, I didn't make it up. Anyways, that's beside the point. My point was that the warm water in the gulf made Katrina what it was.

First of all, when I have quoted scholarly peer-reviewed articles for you, please don't respond by quoting the Wikipedia. It's a great resource, but not for this kind of debate.

I do agree that Wikipedia isn't the best reference. But it is a decent reference and the strength lies in that it is easily accesible for everyone. You have quoted three articles by title and one sentenace which makes it hard for someone else to easily read the whole article, that's why I link to Wikipedia, 'cause anyone can read what's on there and the contents are a good sumation of current knowledge.

[akoff 0]

"My point was that the warm water in the gulf made Katrina what it was."I certainly am not a meteorologist but isn’t that was causes a hurricane? Granted I have only been to gulf several times but it basically is a tropical body of water…right? LOL who would have thought to find warm water there.The global warming theory is no different then poker results that some of you are so fond of. VarianceShort termNot enough hands You’re playing outside of your bankroll newbie.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

"My point was that the warm water in the gulf made Katrina what it was."I certainly am not a meteorologist but isn’t that was causes a hurricane? Granted I have only been to gulf several times but it basically is a tropical body of water…right? LOL who would have thought to find warm water there.The global warming theory is no different then poker results that some of you are so fond of. VarianceShort termNot enough hands You’re playing outside of your bankroll newbie.

You are right my friend. The Gulf is a body of warm water. The circulation of the Gulf ensures warm waters as it circulates from south to north along the coasts of Mexico up to the U.S. By mid summer the water gets very warm. Glad someone has the brains to see beyond the BS. I find you to have good common sense and hope I never play you on any poker table.

[All_In 0]

You are right my friend. The Gulf is a body of warm water. The circulation of the Gulf ensures warm waters as it circulates from south to north along the coasts of Mexico up to the U.S. By mid summer the water gets very warm. Glad someone has the brains to see beyond the BS. I find you to have good common sense and hope I never play you on any poker table.

please, all those who deny global warming and that it is currently caused by man-made activities, how did YOU become the authority on this, overriding the VAST MAJORITY, if not ALL reputable scientists? what qualifications do you posses that would cause ANYONE to believe you, and not the people who have studies these things, and been educated in these things?please answer these questions, it may shed some light on this whole argument.

[Kwest4chipz 0]

None of this discussion really matters, the sheep quoting wikipedia and other ridiculous sources for validity to their global warming panic button. If i was to believe everything i read and saw on tv, we only got 5 years left anyways before some cataclysmic event wipes us from the face of the earth. The Mayan calendar ends in 2012, mysteriously. There is a group of people tracking a asteroid that is said to make close contact with the earth in 2012. Cherokee Indian calendars predict the end on December 11th, 2012. John Haddington discovered a 12 year pattern within Crop circles known as a twelvefold geometrical progression. The next would be 2012. It is his belief that something or someone is trying to warn us about that year. Seneca Indians: Grandmother Twylah Nitsch passes down the legend of Grandfather Moses Shongo (died 1925) predicts a 25-year period of purification (or peace), lasting until the year 2012, which the Earth will completely rid itself of impurities.Hopi Indians of Arizona: Very similar to Mayans, they believe we are living in the fourth world. They have 9 prophecies, of which all has happened except the last one. *Prophecy #8 was of white men and guns, which is the Hippie era.* The last prophecy is the appearance of a new star. They also say that from the alignment of planets, it is a purification until the last day of the Fourth World. The first day of the 5th world is December 23, 2012.Capturing of Jerusalem by the Israelis in the six-day war of 1967: a key date encoded in the words of Jesus, that starts off a 45-year period ending in 2012.My point being that global warming may or may not be a valid problem. You can find all sorts of information supporting or disproving any argument or theory at any given time. There is no irrefutable evidence either way on this subject, but, because there are many reputable claims and references to the end of the world in 2012? Am i gonna go buy some Nikes and drink some cyanide-laced Koolaid and await the mothership? No. The Earth has been around for millions of years, if we think we can influence the natural course the Earth takes, we are alot more out of touch with reality than i previously thought we were. When its time for me to leave the poker table of life, I shall do so, without a tantrum or a bad beat story.

[All_In 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_sc/climate_report"The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries...""For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.""TheUnited Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries."

[Kwest4chipz 0]

well there ya have it, nothing can be done, warming will continue for centuries....well past my expiration date. Maybe you should be more worried about the scale that carbon dioxide converting rain forests and such are being decimated. How are they being decimated? Uh, by burning them. No harmful effect from that. Or maybe you should buy some grape Kool-aid and some Nikes cuz in 5 years it won't matter anyways.

[All_In 0]

well there ya have it, nothing can be done, warming will continue for centuries....well past my expiration date. Maybe you should be more worried about the scale that carbon dioxide converting rain forests and such are being decimated. How are they being decimated? Uh, by burning them. No harmful effect from that. Or maybe you should buy some grape Kool-aid and some Nikes cuz in 5 years it won't matter anyways.

like a previous post of mine, what qualifies you to make judgments and statements on this issue? what is your background education on this?rainforests are being both cut and burned...30% of carbon emissions are from the burning, and man is responsible for more of it than nature. not sure why u would bring up kool-aid and nikes, but i think i know what u are grasping at.

[Muck, You Suckers! 0]

like a previous post of mine, what qualifies you to make judgments and statements on this issue? what is your background education on this?rainforests are being both cut and burned...30% of carbon emissions are from the burning, and man is responsible for more of it than nature. not sure why u would bring up kool-aid and nikes, but i think i know what u are grasping at.

What qualifies us to be able to make statements and debate this issue is the same thing that qualifies you to make judgement and make statements like the one above. So get off your high horse there Albert Greenpeace. We all know what you are grasping at. And after 42 years of living on the Gulf Coast and experiencing hurricanes first hand and having been all over that body of water from the Yucatan back to Texas and over to the Florida keys many times over, I don't think I'll be taking any opinions on the climate of the Gulf or opinions on hurricanes from a Canadian with no experience in this part of the world. Take care of your own backyard there neighbor.

[akoff 0]

QUOTE(All_In @ Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 11:15 PM) like a previous post of mine, what qualifies you to make judgments and statements on this issue? what is your background education on this?I look at a situation, consider the options and use my head....go back to school

[All_In 0]

What qualifies us to be able to make statements and debate this issue is the same thing that qualifies you to make judgement and make statements like the one above. So get off your high horse there Albert Greenpeace. We all know what you are grasping at. And after 42 years of living on the Gulf Coast and experiencing hurricanes first hand and having been all over that body of water from the Yucatan back to Texas and over to the Florida keys many times over, I don't think I'll be taking any opinions on the climate of the Gulf or opinions on hurricanes from a Canadian with no experience in this part of the world. Take care of your own backyard there neighbor.

i feel i am more qualified than u.i have a BSc in biology environmental science, u? what are your qualifications? what have u read that goes against the CONSENSUS of ALL reputable scientists on this matter? news reports? half of all news reports on this issue over the last 10 yrs sow doubt about global warming and its being man-made. yet ZERO of all peer-reviewed science articles cast any doubt. think u have been played by groups who have it in their best interest to confuse people like u?i bet u also denied that cigarettes can cause cancer back in your day too, eh? or u believed the white house when they said there was no health danger from the crumbling buildings in 9/11?why believe people who dedicate their lives to these issues, when u can sleep at night believing elected officials who have no qualifications on the matter?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

i feel i am more qualified than u.i have a BSc in biology environmental science, u? what are your qualifications? what have u read that goes against the CONSENSUS of ALL reputable scientists on this matter? news reports? half of all news reports on this issue over the last 10 yrs sow doubt about global warming and its being man-made. yet ZERO of all peer-reviewed science articles cast any doubt. think u have been played by groups who have it in their best interest to confuse people like u?i bet u also denied that cigarettes can cause cancer back in your day too, eh? or u believed the white house when they said there was no health danger from the crumbling buildings in 9/11?why believe people who dedicate their lives to these issues, when u can sleep at night believing elected officials who have no qualifications on the matter?

Ooooohhh.... a BSc... Wow. An expert in our Midst. With just two more credits you could have gotten your choice of free floor mats, extra crispy, or a Minor in Forestry.News Flash - if there was a CONSENSUS then there would be no debate. What do you think, that those of us on the other side do not have to drink the same water of breathe the same air that you do? Get over yourself. Some of us are pretty smart too and have INFORMED opinions that actually lead us to DIFFERENT conclusions. ..and yes I have an advanced degree from a (non-Canadian) University. Wanna know my IQ too (I'll bet it is higher than yours)?

[Kwest4chipz 0]

I wasn't debating whether or not pollution was man-made. That is kind of a no-brainer, the day i see a tree driving a car around..well that would be interesting. As far as "believing the white house when they said there was no danger from the crumbling buildings in 9/11" well, as a general rule, i avoid crumbling buildings. As a graduate you really know how to get yer point across with clarity. I think you probably meant there was no health risk from the particles generated from the collapse of the buildings. People seem to think nowadays that having a degree in something makes them a leading expert in it. I graduated from the school of common sense. The wheel is already in motion, to think you are that influential on Mother Earth, is ridiculous. If in fact the earth is warming and it isn't a natural cycle, what makes you think that we can reverse that trend? We're talking about 100s of years of "man-made" pollution. In order to reverse that, you would need every country and individual to jump on the global warming panic wagon. Even then, how do you get ranchers to stop raising cattle? One of the leading producers of methane? How do you get indigenous people to stop burning thousands of acres of rain forest? How do you get the average joe to drive alternative fuel vehicles if they can barely afford the payments on their Ford Festiva. Finally how do you get everyone to do all the "green" things at the same time, on a scale that would reverse this "huge" impact we are having on the global climate, if in fact it is something to freak about. The bottom line is this, earth will always fix itself, barring any planetary collisions or the sun imploding. We are just along for the ride. Humans are just a blip on the historical radar. I'm just betting that although i'm sure humans have contributed to some climate change, I think the earth is in one of its cycles. Maybe its even switching its polar axis, and if it is switching axis, that means climate changes that are significant in some areas, and not so significant in others. They have found tropical coral reef(extinct) underneath the North Polar ice. Which suggests that at one time the north pole was a tropical climate. I firmly claim my seat on the "Prove It" bus. No, it is not bio-diesel either.