@Dogs Rule interesting question about religious doctrine. It definitely might make a difference, however since people already seem to pick and choose which tenants of their religion they want to follow, I suppose they could always just ignore that whole "Thou shalt not drive an SUV" clause.

I hope people just bread less. There is no reason for people to have more than 2 or 3 chilren. Just that would at least slow/halt population growth.

"Global warming" or not, the peak food production may be what winds up deciding who lives and who doesn't.

there's also the scripture in revelation that states that "to those who fear thy name, small and great; and to destroy those that destroy the earth"

though stuff like carbon footprints and global warming wasn't much a problem 2000 years ago. It started around the 1800's, corresponding exactly with the industrial revolution

Don't worry Dogs Rule, it'll come to world war 3 long before large-scale starvation occurs. As resources become scarce, countries will fight over what's left. Though I guess the end-result in "decreasing the population" is the same :)

Well, a super virus that would wipe out 1/3 or the population in an indiscriminate way would be the most fair way to quickly correct the population.

(not that I am advocating a mad scientist to do it, but it seems like a more pleasant scenario than SuperDave's or the famine scenario)

Got to go, my car pool is here. :)

FYI China is number one emmitter of pollution now and then US then India, it is called global effort and blame on one or a couple countries never solves anything. All the ice will not melt by the end of the century. I am an evnironmentalist and a realist please combine the two for yourself.

I blame wii fit

Help!!! The earth is gonna fry in just a couple of years. We're all gonna die. Please do something!! Now!!

My thoughts: It looks like your just ripped the 1st three sentences from somewhere without showing the source and the last 3 sentences are just nutty. Greenland cannot melt away as it is an island.

About saving the Earth, good idea. I suggest never buying an SUV as that is one the the easiest things to do (cars tend to cost much less and do much less damage).

Not only does this statement smack of ignorance at what the GHE is but I'm also pretty sure China passed the US in raw emissions already, and if you go per capita the US falls back a ways also.

Just since the start of 2008 there has been 2 or 3 three news stories that have put chinks in the armor of the GW alarm bell. First and foremost the NASA deep sea study which showed over the past 5 years the oceans have actually cooled a small amount. Something to keep in mind is that water holds its temperature very well and even minor changes in such a large body of water...particularly when this was specifically deep sea testing is quite significant, it takes a large cooling on the surface to get cooling in the deep sea in only 5 years.

What makes that story amusing to me is the authors supposition that NASA scientists "aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them." I suppose its feasible that a team of engineers who built the things might not know how to use them.....no...nm...not really. The article is filled with explanations which in itself is amusing since I doubt even he thinks they're all right...a case of "lets hope we can make one of these band-aids stick". I've come to understand they've actually created a model to explain this, Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder wrote a response about this new model:

I am sure that this is an excellent paper by world class scientists. But when I look at the broader significance of the paper what I see is that there is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun.

This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won't mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that.

Then there was the recent change of heart from a leading producer of GW FUD, in which he has now built a new model and it tells him that maybe global warming doesn't cause hurricanes. Which he obediently agrees with because the model told him so.

The point I'm getting at here and that many people have gotten at is that this entire idea is built on models..the same models that predicted cooling in the past and are now beginning to waffle again. The only thing we know is that GHGs are up (there are still no studies on the overall impact of the GHE on the environment within the context of the entire atmosphere) and that when you take into account how much of an impact each has in terms of actual warming we find that carbon is actually a small portion of GHGs and mankind's contribution even smaller.

Does this mean we shouldn't treat our planet better? Nope, we can do a lot of things to keep the place we live clean..its the same as doing your dishes and mowing your lawn. You take care of the place you live. I'm all for green solutions/ideas that don't require us to kill our economy, but I'm not OK with the FUD that people spread about GW and the unsubstantiated blame they place on mankind in the name of models.