The eruption of Krakatoa also put lots of sulfur in the atmosphere and this has a cooling effect that counteracts the effects of C02

People HAVE some up with solutions, but you cannot tax solar power and wind power so people arent interested.

Speaking of apocalypses, have you guys seen the trailer for 2012? It has mass floods, meteor strikes, alien attacks, etc

And this apocalyps is happening 3 years from now, not 20!

think about this, what if there was an apocalypse. and you survived. only one though. now what? that would suck;

think about it

Just to prove you wrong, I'm going to go out a build some sort of Earth destroying device. I'm thinking black hole generator. I don't care if I have to defy the laws of physics! I will prove you wrong! I will irreparably damage the planet!

also, did you notice his poor grammar in the video? i mean, ok on a forum, but a video? please

i agree, i mean im all for the survival of the human race casue well......im human....but honestly we're the biggest pests on this planet. The saddest part of us all being killed would be the fact that their would be no one here to appreciate the beauty it actually holds, no one to think about it or question anything. The world and the universe would go on and not miss us for a second but their would be know one to appreciate the universe like humans can, at least not on this planet

IQofSpam, check this link out:

http://www.takepart.com/2008/04/07/top-10-global-warming-myths-debunked/

It actually addresses many of the points brought up in the links you posted.

EDIT:

And here's an interesting one I found about Global Cooling

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/global-cooling-myth-gets-fried/

As for the whole apocalypse idea, I personally would be more worried about someone creating a giant magnet and moving Earth closer to the sun (or the sun closer to Earth).  Or we could invent a machine to destroy the nitrogen bonds in the atmosphere so that the sun's gamma radiation can roast us all like the Hulk.  We could put a geosyncronized mirror into orbit and create a miniature Antarctica in the middle of New York.  We could eat all of the fish in the ocean so that the world's sushi lovers start World War III.  We could destroy all of the CO2 in the atmosphere so that all of the plants die and the environmentalists decide to throw Bambi in front of a bus.  We could invent a way to turn uranium into the next illegal drug craze, then drop a few Junkies on Hiroshima.  We could invent the Yor.  We could weaponize the Babel Fish.  We could hit Tom Cruise in the face and then be assaulted by aliens.  I'm just saying, there's a lot more we could do than overheat the earth.

That was my post, but it was not my conclusion. Soviet and NASA scientists discovered that fact that C02 DOES cause greenhouse effects by studying Venus.

The are protests in Africa because of the environmenttal damage cause by oil. Oil drilling caused a devastating mud volcano in Java. This caused millions worth of damage and 30000 people were displaced. Oil spill have caused enormous amounts of damage in the Nigerian delta. There is heavy pollution in Labanon due to oil. People's water supply have become undrinkable in northern Soith America.In one African country, women are stripping nude in protest because of the environmental damage caused by the oil companies.

Oil causes huge amounts of environmental damage wether climate change is real or not. Oil is running out faster then most think. The oil that is left is no longer profitible as it is too difficult to access.

If you want a good device to destroy the planet look no further than your Avatar. (which is still awesome!)

Samurye.

Kyogre's Death Star, I would guess.

Good... goood!

EDIT: Actually watching the video it's complete BS.

Well, first of all, the statement "I trust more in physics than in people" seems oddly to ignore that you are receiving your knowledge of physics from, y'know, people. Interestingly enough, this particular interpretation of physics comes almost exclusively, not from something like the jornals of meteorology or climatology, whome I would give a great deal of leeway to, but from people who, if they are trained scientists, are geologists, working for the petrochemical industry.

If I am a scientist, however personally honest, receiving my money from an industry that makes billions of dollars from a practice, you should nonetheless give me a fair hearing when I state that, to the best of our knowledge, that practice is safe. 98% of the scientists not receiving money from that industy say "No - it's not.", then you may want to consider the possibility my viewpoint is biased. If I'm still shouting off about it, and the subject is verifiable outside my field of expertise, then you should definitely consider the possibility that my viewpoint has moved from viased to flat out dishonest.

But unless you happen to be a trained climatologist, then your knowledge of physics, as it is applied to the worldwide climate, is no more advanced than mine is. We're both smart people, but we have to rely on the opinions of people that are trained in the way physics interacts with the world wide climate. Those people are called climatologists.

Climatologist have journals. Their journals show, quite clearly, that the theory of man made global climate change is accepted by such a large majority that the dissent is a matter of statistical irrlevance.

Then we get to rationalization #2: The cyclical nature of the climate shows the earth is cooling - ie - "The cyclical nature of the warming cooling cycle shows we're entering a cooling cycle, therefore global warming in wrong!".

Well, yes, there are issues with the Earths orbit and axial tilt that show we should be entering a cooling cycle. Yet the objective measurements show quite definitively that we are not.

Which means, to me, that we are not only not in a cooling cycle, but that the amount of warming we have induced is overwhelming not only the natural compensation mechanisms, it's overwhelming them despite the active effects of long term mechanisms that would tend to give them extra weight and power.

Yet, for some people, this seems to be interpreted in the same light as "Sure, the thermometer shows the temperature on my floor of the apartment building is 140 degrees and rising, and there may be some smoke. But we know, for a *fact* it is in fact winter outside, which *proves* that the building *can't* be on fire. So, I'm unplugging the fire alarm and going back to bed."

Jonnan

Hah, good one.

I'd a fire alarm yesterday and can tell you that extinguishing a fire at night by -10° C is not very fun, though it makes you appreciate the heat of the fire in a wierd way...