Actually, the birth rate in Western nations is well below replacement level in some countries, and certainly has decreased significantly in just a century. And its fairly likely that with Western influence and contraception, birth rates will drop in Africa and Asia too. Also, those doomsday prediction are based on computer models, not historic observation.

And look at temperatures in the Cambrian, before land plants, whn the CO2 level was huge. Bad. We do not want that much CO2.

Then regulate it by culling cows and planting trees.

Which would cost huge amounts of money, screw up our lifestyle and create huge amounts of pollution in order to heal a small amount. It seems to me it would be more efficient just not to create as much pollution in the first place.

*anticipates PV ignoring this post also*

So what if some idiot has to pay $3.00 more for a Big Mac? It would be far more effective to concentrate on the problem itself and one of its major contributors than one of its minor contributors. Also, sorry about the ignoring of one post, I just was trying to primarily respond to magic9mushrooms post. My response to your post on the problems with the tree farms is this;

Cutting down carbon dioxide emissions will have little effect on global warming. Humans contribute a tiny amount to it. My evidence for this is the previously higher Cambrian temperatures before apes even existed, much less evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, became sapient, developed a sophisticated civilization, and had an Industrial Revolution. Historically, the burning of medieval forests resulted in HIGHER air pollution levels than today. I am not denying the possibility that a sapient species can have significant effects upon its homeworld, but are merely skeptical of doomsday predictions demanding hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on but one aspect of the problem, or politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and publicity hounds attaching themselves to said doomsayers to enhance their careers.

EDIT: Also, many, many people, including reputable scientists, climatologists, news sources, and organizations believed that Terra was in danger of global COOLING (http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf) only 30 years ago. They too offered charts, doomsday predictions, and scaremongering. And ultimately, it turned out to be a "Chicken Little" case.

But how do you convince McDonalds to charge $3.00 more?

Cut out an important source of income. Children, for example.

Threaten higher taxes on them.

But then the corporations threaten to stop funding the political parties.

I can't really say anything here that hasn't been said already, but something off-topic but kind of related - They're now saying Global Warming is the biggest threat to mankind ever, and if we don't do something about it now, it'll cost us a lot more to sort out in the future. They say the damage to the planet will be irriversable in 10 years.

But then, we all value the War on Terror more then Global Warming. We spend more in Iraq then on cutting down our human impact.

Anyone else feel like we have our priorities messed? Anyone else feel like we're about to kill ourselves?

Still, it'll be the end of humanity - The earth has apparently had heat changes throughout its history. Many wildlife and other species will die too, but some will survive. Unlike us. Maybe we'll just get what we deserve. Compared to the other species, we don't balance with the planet anyway. . . Everything we do has a harmful impact, even if individauls are as "green" as they can be.

EDIT:
Equally they say that there's supposed to be an Ice Age soon. Maybe that'll balance it out by some fluke and we stay as we are. :P lol. Would be funny.

Yes. But it's more aking to killing ourselves with alcohol.

Or bring it about by the decreasing salinity of the Atlantic ocean (due to the ice melting) stopping the Gulf Stream, causing rapid climate change, and increased snow cover, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth and cooling it further.

Egad! Not the funding!

I say its a good thing to eat meat, your killing animals that produce methane.

(Except the animals wouldn't be bred at the same numbers if you didn't eat them)

Well, there is the factor that not eating meat is unhealthy and can even cause severe problems in some people. Look at human teeth, and examine the evolution of the incisor and its purpose. The absurd vegetarian revisionism on "shredding leaves" reminds me of a similar and equally absurd hypothesis put forward by creationist "scientists" like Kent Hovind. Humans evolved to be omnivores, and probably will remain omnivores for the rest of their existence, as it is disadvantegous for a species to restrict its diet.

Anyway, cows produce far more methane than humans do, and this is largely due to their vegetarian diet. Vegetarians produce more methane than omnivores due to the effect their diet has on their digestive system. Cut back excess cows, which will, by the way, force Macdonalds and other burger chains to have to raise their prices due to the lower supply and high demand, which in turn makes them richer, the environment better, and the air a little cleaner.

Or alternatively, create regulations requiring methane collectors in every pasture. This will also create clean, waste free energy, which should also help the environment, at least as a secondary route. Once an effective method of nuclear waste disposal is found, start a large scale replacement of coal and oil power plants with nuclear ones, which will generate much more power for the world, and cut down pollution. Use the extra energy to help fuel rockets so that they are able to make faster trips to the Moon. Plant tree farms there, and collect some of the oxygen they produce into a fleet of supertankers. Then bring them down to Terra and release the oxygen, counteracting carbon dioxide the balance the air.

EDIT: Also, on the War on Terror thing, the problems from the War on Terror are the fault of humans and possibly powerful beings. Generally, if something can be stopped, its creator is one of the people who can stop it. Global warming, on the other hand, is certainly not mutually anthropogenic, and only a tiny percentage of it is caused by human activities.

A coupla problems. One, nuclear = non-renewable :. power debate when runout.

Two. You are wrong that only a tiny percentage is human. Stop making stupid generalisations, will ya, ya kiwi?

Everything is non renewable in the (absurdly) long term. However, atoms will be around decillions of years longer than humans or cows. So explain to me how energy gained from splitting the atom is non renewable. Also, A: Show me a direct correlation in a peer reviewed journal based on neutral, blindly funded research conducted by two or more seperate teams that proves that global warming is majority anthropogenic. And B: for the record, I'm actually a Scotsman. My residence in Aotearoa/New Zealand/Leftopia/Godzone is temporary.

Well, here's the thing. You keep coming back to the fact that in Cambrain times CO2 levels were much higher. And they were, for purely natural reasons. Now they are much lower. Ever wondered where it all went?

The answer is underground. As I have said, in the Carboniferous alot of trees grew in swamps, and when they die they fall into the mud. Usually a dead organism would rot away, and the Carbon would return to the atmosphere, but in the anaerobic conditions in the mud, that could not happened. So they were fossilised, and the result is what we call coal, and substance that is mostly carbon.

We burn it. Combustion. The molecules are combining with oxygen in the atmosphere, and as it is mostly carbon, the result is CO2 (and some carbon monoxide). It goes back into the atmosphere. Now we know that Cabon Dioxide andhane (and to a lesser extent, water vapour) are greenhouse gasses: Their presence in the upper atmosphere increases the amount of heat that is reflected off of the Earth that is reflected again back to the ground.

Now tell me that burning fossil fuels is not a major contributing factor to Gobal Wrming.

Even so, the conditions in the Cambrian were extremely good for life, and helped it back on its legs after a mass extinction. So its perfectly possible global warming, even if it is anthropogenic, is good for the planet.

Extemely good for MAJOR diversification of life... not to keep the status quo. At those sort of temperatures and concentrations, humans and just about everything else on the planet would be wiped. Start over. This may be good for the final state of the world, but it sure as hell ain't good for us.

BM: A lot of it isn't underground, it's in living or decomposing plant matter, so burning forests adds to said thing.

Yes, but I didn't include living matter, because it it still a regular part of the cycle. When things die, their carbon returns to the atmosphere. Oil and coal are in it for the long haul.

And the consequences of global warming will cure the problem, and the planet will recover. Unfortunately we, and so many other species, won't be around to enjoy it.

But its extremely unlikely that the vast majority of Carnobiferan beings fossilized and became fossil fuels. The problem will sort itself out after, in 50-100 years time, coal and oil runs out. By then, its fairly likely that 1. Solar/hydro/wind was made efficient and cheap 2. A good nuclear waste disposal method was found 3. A new source of energy was discovered. Leave the rest to human ingenuity, and vala. Problem solved.

I agree completely. But that is going to take all the money and support from governments that we have been saying is needed for this entire thread.

But once that happens, the problem is not going to be solved unless we clean up industry as well.

The vast majority weren't fossilised, and the carbon in their structure returned to the atmosphere, where it might be taken into another tree that was. Whatever, enough were that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreased by that much.

A large amount did fossilise and the CO2 content of the atmosphere decreased by maybe 99%. Running out of fossil fuels will not be a problem for a while.

Can you provide a source for that? Already there is a well sourced and documented crisis with oil, although that may be delayed by 50-100 years with Russia and Iraq. If you took all of the fossils EVER found, you could put all of them in a large truck. Fossilization is not a common process.

No it's not. But luckily, there has been a sh*t load of life in the past to be fossilised. Do you know how many thousands of species we have identified from fossils? I doubt you'd fit them in any sized truck. Especially with the Brachiosaurus and other sauropods.

There is a ****ing hell of a lot of coal and oil left. It is just deep. 99% (at least) of the carbon in the world is locked up as coal, oil, and gas. The reason? In the Carboniferous, there were land plants, but no land animals, so all the extra plant matter got stored, as it was not eaten. This created our coal and oil fields. True, fossilisation is not common normally, but in this case, a lot of it happened. By the time we use up our fossil fuels, there will not be a habitable Earth.

And that's a good thing, is it?

Well, if you are correct, after all of the fossil fuels have been used up, then carbon dioxide will return to Cambrian levels. The only unfortunate side effect is that mammals will cease to exist. Although, you might see a few Gorn evolving in a few million years...

But anyway, that's based on the assumption that there is a lot of coal and oil left, as opposed to only 50-100 years worth. Which is what the whole peak oil thing is all about.

I'm not saying all of the Cambrian CO2 is in our oil and coal reserves. But a lot is, and any change to the environment will cause mass extinction. This is just the first time it has been caused by a single species in such a short anount of time, and since we know about it, it is our duty to rememedy it as moral beings, instead of sticking our proverbial heads in the sand and hope it goes away by itself.