for a little different spin
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1997/Dec/hour1_120597.html
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6493634.html?industryid=43656 this link is great, written by someone on the California air resources boarad CARB and has a link to michael crighton's web page about global warming.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6772.html notice comment in this one about belief, not the scientific method where you fail to disprove, not believe.
the american public is a bunch of parishiners with absolutely no ability to think for themselves as evidenced by this link where 6 in 10 think we aren't smart enough to make decsisons for ourselves. of course let's let al gore decide everything, he's a scientist who uses the scientific method. only a fool, 60% apparently would believe that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/20071107/ts_pew/57decliningconfidenceinpoliticalwisdomofamericans
we can reverse the process. limit immigration to a lifestyle which produces 25% of global warming. consume less, particularly items which require manufacturing for delivery of product each time, ie drinks. limit purchases during christmas of essentially disposable toys, the entire economy of america and china essentially revolve around christmas. this credit card debt fosters a belief system in children that they are entitled to too much without even working for any of it. simply converting to actively doing something, ie learning music, participating in sports etc, rather than being a spectator which encourages mass marketing is achievable. our parents and grandparents did it, but somehow the hippie generation became everything they claimed they hated.
one of the greatest ways to fix carbon is to use trees and replant them instead of allowing them to burn. protesters at the university of santa cruz protested the other day when the university wanted to cut down TWO, yes just TWO redwood trees to build a new science building. they said there wasn't enough public invovlvement in the process. the university said the need to expand to absorb all the students from increasing population which of course these protesters are against limiting, remember, to them, there is no such thing as an illegal. perhaps these students would attend classes around the koombyyah campfire while they work in the fields to feed are ever increasing population. of course they won't, they will only decry industry for creating global warming. not that it's any great consolation, but i have planted over 250 trees on my property. this still doesn't offset my carbon footprint form my honda hybrid. some of these trees are redwoods and they easily tap moisture from the heavy clay soil about 3 feet under my topsoil. below this is a rock bed, under which is a water source not available to pasture grasses. i wonder how many trees these student protesters have planted. they complained about rubber bullets and pepper spray and have stated that hugo chavez is their hero, unaware perhaps that he has enacted changes to make himself dictator for life and that he authorized live bullets on student protestors. of course the santa cruz protestors will not reimburse the university for security, which much be offset with lower quality of education as the university must pay for it. it's pretty clear these mental giants know nothing about offsets.
we deride china for trying to limit population, while we do all we can to increase it. the population curve and subsequent reeducation of peoples around the globe to convert to our consumer mentality is the greatest contribution to global warming. entire societies and religions, both catholic and islam, are centered around maximizing their population by any means necessary and are not even worried about our time here on earth.
just think if we didn't have to waste resources, both mental and physical, on housing and our population was static. of course eveyone would panic that social security needs an ever increasing poupulation so we won't do it. the natural cycle is war. population is the issue, always has been, always will be.
the reason agriculture needs to be worried the most is because our population is the least. consumers won't regulate themselves, EVER, why would they, 40% rely on governement assisstance, and the government only knows how to penalize not reward, thus rasising prices on everything.
where should we grow cotton? china, which they are, i think they are either 1st or 2nd. the only reason not to grow cotton or lettuce, for that matter in the desert, is evapotranspiration losses and water use inefficiency. solve that, and there is no reason not to use marginal land for a non-food crop. there are lots of opportunities, but as long as we focus on no child left behind, rather than science, which bascially is not even taught in k-8 in california, we are doomed.
i agree with chambero, this is easy.
here's a good summary on methane sources. so, with landfills the number one source, will the public do more to reduce it by reducing their consumption which drives the largest source? some is being done to sort trash, which pays about 10-12 dollars an hour in CA. we even have a methane pipe to release it and it is inventoried. converting it to water vapor would be a good thing, but then, water vapor is a green house gas. think about the toys you buy such as fisher price, they are oil and we are importing it from china using ships that burn massive amounts of diesel fuel while they sit with their engines on idle in the docks while they unload and we haven't done a good enough job mandating they change. some progress has been made, but more needs to happen.
blah blah blah
kids, keep reading
