It is too late to do anything about global warming. Global warming will trigger the next Ice Age before we know it. The next Ice Age is due to occur any time within the next 1000 years. The Last Ice Age occurred 12000 years ago and lasted for 1000 years.

Because intellegent people need to be proven something rather then take someone elses word with no proof.

It's simple. Explain why global warming is man made when less then .5% of Co2 in the air is Man-made.

Explain why pollution has risen exponentially yet global warming has occured at a steady pase.

You can't, not because the data is hidden. (Which it shouldn't be.)

It's because it doesn't exist. The climate models used to prove global warming are so flawed anyone who looks can see.

The problem is "The common joe" is by large too stupid to look and to easy to take peoples word for stuff insted of actually use the brain they were given.

They would rather read the conclusion of a scientific article... or even worse... the media article on a conclusion then read through the methodology section. Most probably don't know what a methodology sectiion is!

To call people uninformed when you haven't done any actual research on the subject is highly laughable. The info that your talking about is by and large out there. You just have to look for it... and read through it because it's LONG because that's what scientific articles are.

Even the UN documents on climate change your talking about... if you'd do the research you'd note that a number of scintists quit and refused to have their names on the documents because "A few extremists were misrepresenting and overstating the possible human effects on global warming in the conclusion."

The problem is that Climate change science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with poltics.  Like a number of sciences.  Just like when they have "overwhelming" scintific support showing things like videogames make kids kill people.

What does ethanol being bad have to do with my post which mentions CELLULOSE ETHANOL (made from waste products of food production such as the useless stems of corn, etc)?

Cellulose ethanol still takes Oil to make. It also lowers Engine performance both short and long term, causing you to burn more gas to get where you are going.

Ethanol as a whole is just bad burning fuel. Ethanol studies never take into account the miles per gallon lost overtime.

It's still way better then current Ethanol which holds no benefit even when you don't count the damage done to the engine but more research needs to be done with how it effects miles per galon and engine performance over it's lifetime.

It shouldn't take more then a year if someone was actually funded the money to study it.

Which would be good if people would support it... but I'm not sure either candidate in the US does. Obama i know is pro-starch ethanol since he's from Illnois and that really helps out Illonois, he's not going to be willing to research celluistic and will likely focus on the non gas areas of stopping greenhouse emissions.

While McCain... I don't know. He's pro nuclear power right now... since it's the cleanest mass market energy available... using that to hold us over while we fund alternative research, but i'm not sure which fuels he supports.

What's with Europe and this stuff anyway?  I know why the US is held back in such things... but what about Europe?  I know some people are working with solar roofs but that's about it.

@Kasz

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_ethanol#Economics

In June 2006, a U.S. Senate hearing was told that the current cost of producing cellulosic ethanol is US $2.25 per US gallon (US $0.59/litre). This is primarily due to the current poor conversion efficiency.^{[citation needed]} At that price it would cost about $120 to substitute a barrel of oil (42 gallons), taking into account the lower energy content of ethanol. However, the Department of Energy is optimistic and has requested a doubling of research funding. The same Senate hearing was told that the research target was to reduce the cost of production to US $1.07 per US gallon (US $0.28/litre) by 2012. "The production of cellulosic ethanol represents not only a step toward true energy diversity for the country, but a very cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels. It is advanced weaponry in the war on oil,” said Vinod Khosla, managing partner of Khosla Ventures, who recently told a Reuters Global Biofuels Summit that he could see cellulosic fuel prices sinking to $1 per gallon within ten years.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_ethanol#Environmental_effects:_corn-based_vs._grass-based

It takes 0.76 J of energy from fossil fuels to produce 1 J worth of ethanol from corn.^[53] This total includes the use of fossil fuels used for fertilizer, tractor fuel, ethanol plant operation, etc. Research has shown that 1 gallon of fossil fuel can produce over 5 gallons of ethanol from prairie grasses, according to Terry Riley, President of Policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. The United States Department of Energy concludes that corn-based ethanol provides 26 percent more energy than it requires for production, while cellulosic ethanol provides 80 percent more energy.^[48] Cellulosic ethanol yields 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.^[54] The process of turning corn into ethanol requires about 1,700 gallons of water for every 1 gallon of ethanol produced. Additionally, each gallon of ethanol leaves behind 12 gallons of waste that must be disposed.^[55] Grain ethanol uses only the edible portion of the plant. Expansion of corn acres for the production of ethanol poses threats to biodiversity. Corn lacks a strong root system, therefore, when produced, it causes soil erosion. This has a direct effect on soil particles, along with excess fertilizers and other chemicals, washing into local waterways, damaging water quality and harming aquatic life. Planting riparian areas can serve as a buffer to waterways, and decrease runoff.

Here is some stuff that Europeans are working on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivhaus (which is an ultra-low energy buildings standard)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_British_housing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7 (a zero emission vehicle no-one would be ashamed to own and drive)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Fuels (Sir Richard Branson's investment division into alternative energy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill (while Europeans did not invent the windmill, they did perfect it which leads us to the modern use of the basic idea which is:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union

None of that at all mentions it's effects on the engine of the car...

I already knew those stats (there abouts) the question is... how does it effect the engine of the car when it's in the tank.

Ethanol has a worse effect on a car's engine then regular gas causing miles per gallon to drop both in the short term. (When burning ethanol) and in the long term (when burning either due to it gunking up the engine.)

I just did quick research on that, Kasz, and you are at least partially right to be concerned.

Ethanol is more corrosive then gasoline, so when a fuel system is made with parts that can rust or dissolve, then there is a real problem. For example, it will eventually put a hole in fiberglass fuel tanks that boats use( http://green.savvy-cafe.com/boat-engines-the-ethanol-menace-2007-08-10/ ) .

Here is what about.com has to say about 10% ethanol blends:
http://autorepair.about.com/library/faqs/bl412i.htm

A. A 10% blend of ethanol and gasoline will not harm any engine or fuel system component. However, the ethanol has a cleaning effect that will remove rust and other junk from the fuel system. This necessitates frequent fuel filter changes until the fuel system is cleaned out.

No modifications need to be done to allow an engine to run on a 10% blend of ethanol and gasoline. There is, in some areas, an 85% blend of ethanol and gasoline that does require engine modifications.

Actually there is no rubber used in the fuel system. All the fuel lines are made of Neoprene which is impervious to degradation by gasoline or other additives.

So at least when blended with gasoline, it has a cleaning effect. Why would it therefore produce gunk when it is a 100% fuel? As long as the engine and its fuel system is specially designed to take advantage of it (ie having a high compression ratio and no corrosive or alcohol dissolving parts) then it should be cleaner.

In the event that it does produce gunk that needs to be cleaned out by a mechanic say at the same rate as an oil change, I'd rather pay 50¢ per liter of (cellulose) ethanol + a mechanics labor for cleaning every 5000 KM then 1.45$ per liter for gasoline that only requires an oil change every 5000KM.

I'd even take that deal if it was 1.25$ per liter of pure(cellulose) ethanol. Why? Because the money I spend mostly stays local. I'd support the local producer, local farmer, local mechanic, local retailer, etc instead of the foreign oil company, local refiner, local retailer local mechanic, etc. (Most people don't have a local refiner though)

Timmah! said:

For example, this was not in their predictions, so they have chosen to ignore it. From Jan 07 to Jan 08, The globe experienced the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, but it was ignored completely by the mainstream media because it was a COOLING trend. Had this trend been warming, it would have been on every front page. Why?

I already addressed the media aspect in my last post to you. Now as for your link, it uses a graph credited to the Hadley Center. Problem is that the Hadley Center does not endorse that graph: http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-deniers-pielke-global-warming-not-cooling/

If you follow this link, it will say that according to the Hadley Centers report, 2007 was the 7th or 6th warmest global year according to its records. That assessment is inline with NASA's warmest year records.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/the-hadley-center-tries-again/

Your link opens with the following paragraph:

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

The article was written February 26, 2008. Which means that "over the past year" means February 2007-2008. If I remember correctly, which I think I do because I am a winter sportman who can't do jack on rainy winter days so I check the weather often, the jetstream at some points in January 2008 had an exaggerated curve that went up from the Canadian Rockies, dipped nearly all the way to the Gulf of Mexico and came back up at such an angle that warm front was to the West of Quebec, where I am from.

What is the effect of this? On the upper portion of the jetstream there would be a cold front which would be the result of that cold air from the Canadian prairies it would extend all the way down through Minnesota, Texas and Florida giving them their record low. The article does is not clear if the record cold was prolongued on just one day. (EDIT: Of course these last 2 paragraphs have been anectodal bases only, I know)

To those who beleive that record snowfall in Canada or increasing of continental ice in the middle of Antartica, here is an explanation for that:

""When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, "seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean," he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century."

Source : http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/09/shasta-glaciers.html

EDIT: Also plugging the hole in the Ozone layer must have helped Antarctica regenerate itself.

Rubang my man! Don't fall for that liberal bullshit.

Like I said before, the media is a powerful, powerful thing.

I have no idea how it started, but global warming has become the "politically correct" so-called problem that needs to be dealt with. Think about it, if you're running for an office, you wouldn't dare call global warming bullshit, it would be political suicide. Also you could not really mention it at all, but better yet you could say you're a believer in it, and that we have a big problem to solve, and the people would love it because they have been told by the media that global warming is a problem. It would definitely help you get elected. Remember, politicians are not saints, most would be willing to do almost anything to get elected.

The myth of global warming exists despite the complete lack of empirical evidence and/or data because it is convenient for certain people for it to exist. It is a "problem," and problems need to be fixed. And for problems to be fixed, you need to create jobs, and put people in those jobs to help "fix" the "problem." People are selfish. Global warming as a non-issue doesn't help anybody at all. Global warming as an issue gives politicians a reason to be elected, it gives people the ability to cash in big-time on silly movies, and it gives scientists nice, six-figure salaries to figure out how to fix it. But there will never be a fix, cause then the game would be over...