[launchpad4]

I believe the reliance on coal and oil in this country has gotten to a critical level. I believe we should invest in solar energy as it is the most renewable and effective source of energy available. In doing this we can create coal to gas measures that could bring down fuel prices and we can export a higher amount of coal to help the trade deficit.

[ComfortEagle]

There are already solar and hydrogen powered cars, they just aren't being mass produced.

There are also some electric cars out there, but the ones I have seen normally don't go more than 60 miles before running out of power.

It would also be nice if we started building more homes with solar panels.

[BaseballMan]

There are already solar and hydrogen powered cars, they just aren't being mass produced.

There are also some electric cars out there, but the ones I have seen normally don't go more than 60 miles before running out of power.

It would also be nice if we started building more homes with solar panels.

It would be nice if homes were build with solar panels to cut the use of energy from coal. However, it is very expensive! But, if possible, I think it would be a brilliant way of getting energy and cutting back the use of coal.

Hydrogen powered cars and electrical cars would work wonderful in urban areas, however, would they be powerful enough in many rural areas? I think they are starting to, if not already, getting something that will be powerful like a Chevy Silverado or Ford F150 built with an alternative energy source.

I think it is important that our country cut its dependence on foreign oil, even if it means we have to cut down on our personal usage of energy. It is not good to have such a dependence on other nations to provide our demands.

[launchpad4]

You can actually buy a solar panel unit for your house online. They run from around 7-20 thousand dollars. The more expensive ones can run up to around five households by themselves. This would allow you to sell power back to the power company and offset the cost of the unit.

[lawrencefan]

We could round up all of the tree hugging environmentalists and put them on a treadmill harnessed to a generator. After they give out we could take their bodies and convert them to bio diesel.

[launchpad4]

We could round up all of the tree hugging environmentalists and put them on a treadmill harnessed to a generator. After they give out we could take their bodies and convert them to bio diesel.

There isn't anything wrong with wanting to be good to the environment. The mass release of fossil fuels has changed the climate in which we live NEGATIVELY. What you are saying is equivalent to telling someone who is sick not to go to the doctor. That is just an ignorant way to live thinking that just because you are wanting to preserve the environment and its resources for future generations.

[Mr.Kimball]

Honda makes a Civic that runs on compressed natural gas. There are currently no CNG refill stations in Kentucky, but they make a device that you install in your garage at home that will compress gas from your own home natural gas line and you can refill your car yourself. CNG refill stations are becoming very popular in California and Utah.

[Coach_Owens87]

There isn't anything wrong with wanting to be good to the environment. The mass release of fossil fuels has changed the climate in which we live NEGATIVELY. What you are saying is equivalent to telling someone who is sick not to go to the doctor. That is just an ignorant way to live thinking that just because you are wanting to preserve the environment and its resources for future generations.

Great post. It really irritates me when people make absurd comments based on false perceptions about people.

I was eating at El Azul just a few days back and I saw a vehicle pull up to the front of the restaurant with a really interesting plate on the front. The plate had cross hairs aimed at trees, and it read "Kill a tree hugger, save a coal miner"? I was at a loss for words, and then burst into laughter, people are so ignorant. By reading that plate you would get the impression that coal miners hate the environment, and that environmentalist hate all coal miners and wish to kill them, that is so absurd. I wouldn't wish harm upon anyone, no matter what job they have. And Im sure most environmentalist wouldn't want any coal miner to die. Crazy thinking like this keeps this country from moving forward.

P.S. It's really nice to see someone from the "right" who actually stands up for the environment and places the blame where it is due. I gained a lot of respect for you launchpad, even though you may not care.

[lawrencefan]

There isn't anything wrong with wanting to be good to the environment. The mass release of fossil fuels has changed the climate in which we live NEGATIVELY. What you are saying is equivalent to telling someone who is sick not to go to the doctor. That is just an ignorant way to live thinking that just because you are wanting to preserve the environment and its resources for future generations.

First of all, what do you mean by "mass release of fossil fuels" ? If someone is out there releasing them then I want some. If you are referring to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant release of CO2 that will allegedly have a negative impact on the environment, then I put you in the category of doomsday alarmists who have been around for centuries. When I was a kid in the early seventies, we were supposed to have been extinct by now due to a population explosion, then it was the new ice age, then it was the ozone hole, now its global warming.

The earth has harbored life for the last billion years or so, it has survived earthquakes, asteroids, comet strikes, and volcanoes. According to NASA,
the worldwide temperature has fallen since 1998. If you want to know the main reason for global temperature variance then look up. The sun. Maybe we could start a campaign to destroy the sun.

[lawrencefan]

There isn't anything wrong with wanting to be good to the environment. The mass release of fossil fuels has changed the climate in which we live NEGATIVELY. What you are saying is equivalent to telling someone who is sick not to go to the doctor. That is just an ignorant way to live thinking that just because you are wanting to preserve the environment and its resources for future generations.

Oh yeah, you want to install solar panels? You live kinda far from the equator for that. No, what you need is a nice clean nuclear power plant. Since 1950, all of the nuclear waste generated by the U.S. would fit in a high school gymnasium. But thanks to environmentalists, we have not built a nuclear plant in over 30 years.

[Super-Card]

The newest and most effective way of heating and ccoling a home is by using thermal eneregy. Many well to do individuals have begun diggin massive holes in the ground and using the heat produced at the Earth's core to run heating/air conditiong units for homes. The inital cost of the hole is much more expensive, but the money saved in the end would have to come out in the good. Besides that even if the electricty goes out you still get to keep your central air.

[Coach_Owens87]

First of all, what do you mean by "mass release of fossil fuels" ? If someone is out there releasing them then I want some. If you are referring to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant release of CO2 that will allegedly have a negative impact on the environment, then I put you in the category of doomsday alarmists who have been around for centuries. When I was a kid in the early seventies, we were supposed to have been extinct by now due to a population explosion, then it was the new ice age, then it was the ozone hole, now its global warming.

The earth has harbored life for the last billion years or so, it has survived earthquakes, asteroids, comet strikes, and volcanoes. According to NASA,
the worldwide temperature has fallen since 1998. If you want to know the main reason for global temperature variance then look up. The sun. Maybe we could start a campaign to destroy the sun.

The sun is not to blame for global warming. Scientist say that the sunspots which give off vast amounts of energy from the sun are only increasing the energy released to the earth and does not have an impact on global climate change. the study done by the IPCC actually included the impact from the sun, so to say that the sun is solely to blame for climate change is ignorant and way off base. some scientist think the sun may have a small act in the climate change, but its nothing to worry about, the release of CO2 from human action is what to worry about, and we can change it. We know from fossil records that when there is more CO2 in the air, then global temperatures increase. So you can start your crusade to destroy the sun, but the sun isnt the culprit.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...spots.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...study.html


Decline in temperatures
If you only look at temperatures since 1998 then yes there hasn't been much of a change, but if you look back at the last century then global temperatures have increased by 1.35 degrees Fahrenheit, and over half of that warming has occurred since 1979. If the emission of green house gases doesnt stop, then we could see that number rise by as much as 2 - 10 times in the next 100 years, that it what has scientist worried. Youre only looking at a very small portion of time, and youre only doing that so it will fit your viewpoint. I tried to research the data since 1998 and 99% of the sites I found where Bs right wing propaganda sites. So I didnt look at most of them.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...mpincrease

[lawrencefan]

I suppose only BS left wing sites are correct?

[launchpad4]

I suppose only BS left wing sites are correct?

All I can say to you is to go back to school and learn a little about how the atmosphere works. The release of CO2 coupled with the loss of trees increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which stops the long wave radiation the Earth reflects off of itself from the sun and warms the Earth. Now you may not think that it matters to you, but that is you being a moron. The artic ice in the world is melting which raises the level of the ocean, which decreases the amount of shoreline. It also causes decreased reflection of short wave radiation because the ice is more reflective than the ground. You are not very smart to say that the environment and how we are abusing it doesn't matter.

[launchpad4]

I suppose only BS left wing sites are correct?

And no not all people who believe in being good stewards to the environment are left wing people. I am about as right as it gets and I think we should listen to what God says and be good stewards to the environment. Read Genisis some time you'll see that even He agrees with me.

[lawrencefan]

That's right let's leave it in God's hands. He destroyed the entire earth through rising water I believe, and here we are again.

[lawrencefan]

Nobody wants to destroy the planet. Not even a radical Republican, Christian like me. The point I am trying to make is to not blindly follow every thing that scientists tell you. We are created in God's image and are equipped with brains which allow us to think critically. Everything will be alright in the end.

[launchpad4]

Nobody wants to destroy the planet. Not even a radical Republican, Christian like me. The point I am trying to make is to not blindly follow every thing that scientists tell you. We are created in God's image and are equipped with brains which allow us to think critically. Everything will be alright in the end.

Yeah and by thinking critically we can develop ways to use renewable energies that don't release stored carbon into the atmosphere. I too am a Republican and a Christian and you know God had to make scientists as smart as they are. Now some try to over-analyze somethings, BUT the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment is a PROVEN FACT. Studies show that since I believe 1940 the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased every year. Well look at the weather the hottest climate on record has come post-industrial revolution. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[launchpad4]

And you know what lawrancefan so what if I'm wrong and some magic wind or something is going to take all of this carbon away we will be going from a finite energy source to an infinite energy source which we won't have to buy from other countries. It will increase jobs in the US and decrease our trade deficit. I don't see anything wrong with this DO YOU?

[Coach_Owens87]

I suppose only BS left wing sites are correct?

If your idea of a left wing site is one that has real science, then yes only those are correct.

Environmentalism shouldnt be a partisan issue, but a few of the big oil guys are trying their best to make that happen, and a lot of right wing sites, and the right wing broadcasting station Fox News are doing their bidding.

[lawrencefan]

And you know what lawrancefan so what if I'm wrong and some magic wind or something is going to take all of this carbon away we will be going from a finite energy source to an infinite energy source which we won't have to buy from other countries. It will increase jobs in the US and decrease our trade deficit. I don't see anything wrong with this DO YOU?

Now you're talking. Do you realize how much money there is to be made in this technology? If the powers that be in Washington were smart, they would offer something like a ten billion dollar reward for anyone who invents a cost effective, reliable and useful form of transportation which is not reliant on oil.
I still don't believe in man made global warming though. Sorry.

[Old School]

All I can say to you is to go back to school and learn a little about how the atmosphere works. The release of CO2 coupled with the loss of trees increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which stops the long wave radiation the Earth reflects off of itself from the sun and warms the Earth. Now you may not think that it matters to you, but that is you being a moron. The artic ice in the world is melting which raises the level of the ocean, which decreases the amount of shoreline. It also causes decreased reflection of short wave radiation because the ice is more reflective than the ground. You are not very smart to say that the environment and how we are abusing it doesn't matter.

The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years, and for the record CO2 levels have historically changed without human input or intervention.

Worldwide man-made CO2 emissions account for about 0.3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, and the idea that man-made polution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Hololene Maximum is a good example, it was the hottest period in human history approximately 7,500 - 4,000 years ago way before fossil fuels were used. If you look back as recently as 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels continued to rise, but temperatures dropped.

I found a interesting fact which said that growers are injecting CO2 into their greenhouses because it promotes plant growth and helps plant resist drought and disease. Sounds like maybe we need more CO2?

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I think we will still need to use oil, gas and coal for several years to come, but we do need to develop solar, wind and nuclear power with the demand for energy growing each year it will more than likley take all of the above to meet our energy demands.

[launchpad4]

The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years, and for the record CO2 levels have historically changed without human input or intervention.

Worldwide man-made CO2 emissions account for about 0.3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, and the idea that man-made polution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Hololene Maximum is a good example, it was the hottest period in human history approximately 7,500 - 4,000 years ago way before fossil fuels were used. If you look back as recently as 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels continued to rise, but temperatures dropped.

I found a interesting fact which said that growers are injecting CO2 into their greenhouses because it promotes plant growth and helps plant resist drought and disease. Sounds like maybe we need more CO2?

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I think we will still need to use oil, gas and coal for several years to come, but we do need to develop solar, wind and nuclear power with the demand for energy growing each year it will more than likley take all of the above to meet our energy demands.

I'm not sure what studies you are looking at that suggest that the amount of CO2 hasn't increased substantially over time but actual studies show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution. Also people put CO2 in greenhouses because it blocks the short wave radiation from leaving the greenhouse which naturally warms it and increases growth ie GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Just because you think that your too old to believe something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Also try using scholarly peered reviewed journals for your sources. Anybody can put something on the internet if it is peer-reviewed then it is acurate.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/...190.001123

[Coach_Owens87]

The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years, and for the record CO2 levels have historically changed without human input or intervention.

Worldwide man-made CO2 emissions account for about 0.3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, and the idea that man-made polution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Hololene Maximum is a good example, it was the hottest period in human history approximately 7,500 - 4,000 years ago way before fossil fuels were used. If you look back as recently as 1940 to 1978 CO2 levels continued to rise, but temperatures dropped.

I found a interesting fact which said that growers are injecting CO2 into their greenhouses because it promotes plant growth and helps plant resist drought and disease. Sounds like maybe we need more CO2?

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I think we will still need to use oil, gas and coal for several years to come, but we do need to develop solar, wind and nuclear power with the demand for energy growing each year it will more than likley take all of the above to meet our energy demands.

I like how you use examples that have nothing to do with man made global warming to try and disprove it, lol. We know that high levels of CO2 cause temperatures to rise, it happened in the period you mentioned, and has happened before. You used an example that spread almost 4000 years, this rise in CO2 is happening in a few decades.

I like how you conveniently stopped your point at 1978, one year before a major warming period happened, between 1979 and now global temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

Also since the industrial revolution CO2 levels have risen 40%, and in that period humans have been responsible for 99% of all greenhouse gas emissions, which accumulate to 3 percent of the total CO2 in the air, not the BS number you mentioned.

Just because CO2 levels where rising in the period you mentioned doesnt mean a dramatic change will happen, it takes time to build up the levels of CO2 in the air, plus we are now cutting down way more forest than we did in that period, taking out our natural way to absorb CO2.

If you would get off of your conservative sites and look and some real scientific sources you may learn something.

And launchpad did a good job describing how people are using the greenhouse effects to grow plants, so I want bother touching on that.

[BaseballMan]

In a minor defense of Old School, I'm not sure where I stand on human pollution destroying the Earth and the whole global warming thing to be the end of the world.

However, there is no denying the evidence that is found. The burning of fossil fuels has been costly to much of the environment, and is in no doubt troubling. It is definite that our country needs to find other sources of energy to help lessen the burning of fossil fuels. I've always believed that if we abuse and abuse something, it will eventually be so distorted that it's nearly impossible to fix.

[Old School]

I'm not sure what studies you are looking at that suggest that the amount of CO2 hasn't increased substantially over time but actual studies show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution. Also people put CO2 in greenhouses because it blocks the short wave radiation from leaving the greenhouse which naturally warms it and increases growth ie GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Just because you think that your too old to believe something doesn't mean it isn't real.
Also try using scholarly peered reviewed journals for your sources. Anybody can put something on the internet if it is peer-reviewed then it is acurate.

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/...190.001123

LP...exactly which post are you referring to, because in my post I said that CO2 levels have increased over the past 18,000 years.

As for the "old" comment, would you care to elaborate?

As for the isn't real comment, if your referring to climate change, then show me where I've said it wasn't. Apparently we both believe in climate change but have different opinions on how we got there, if I understand you correctly, you think the Earth's warming is due to man-made emissions. I would guess that you tend to listen to researchers who often rely on computer models for their predictions, you and I both know these models are only as good as their data and programming, and these models are notorious for being imperfect. Heck we can't even predict what the weather is going to be next week let alone what the temperatures are going to be 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. I on the other hand base my opinion on past history. Where as the Earth has gone through hundreds or thousands of warming and cooling cycles, and I believe this is just another cycle, and these warming and cooling cycles began before man ever set foot on this planet.

I've ask this question to several people over the past 8 years, maybe you can answer it. From 1979 to 1998 the Earth went through a slight warming period and from 1999 to present the Earth has stayed about the same temerature and since you blame this on man-made emissions, explain to me what caused the warming and cooling cycles prior to the industrial era.

As for the peer reviews are concerned, if this were a perfect world, then maybe just maybe I would agree with you on peer reviews, but as we all know it's not a perfect world. I have read a few reports that allege bias by reviewers and also states some reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views and are lenient toward those that agree with them. There have been instances of outright scientific fraud and scientific misconduct that have gone through review and were only detected after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. Are these isolated instances or are they common practice? Personally I don't know but it does cause me to cautious of their conclusions.

[Coach_Owens87]

LP...exactly which post are you referring to, because in my post I said that CO2 levels have increased over the past 18,000 years.

As for the "old" comment, would you care to elaborate?

As for the isn't real comment, if your referring to climate change, then show me where I've said it wasn't. Apparently we both believe in climate change but have different opinions on how we got there, if I understand you correctly, you think the Earth's warming is due to man-made emissions. I would guess that you tend to listen to researchers who often rely on computer models for their predictions, you and I both know these models are only as good as their data and programming, and these models are notorious for being imperfect. Heck we can't even predict what the weather is going to be next week let alone what the temperatures are going to be 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. I on the other hand base my opinion on past history. Where as the Earth has gone through hundreds or thousands of warming and cooling cycles, and I believe this is just another cycle, and these warming and cooling cycles began before man ever set foot on this planet.

I've ask this question to several people over the past 8 years, maybe you can answer it. From 1979 to 1998 the Earth went through a slight warming period and from 1999 to present the Earth has stayed about the same temerature and since you blame this on man-made emissions, explain to me what caused the warming and cooling cycles prior to the industrial era.

As for the peer reviews are concerned, if this were a perfect world, then maybe just maybe I would agree with you on peer reviews, but as we all know it's not a perfect world. I have read a few reports that allege bias by reviewers and also states some reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views and are lenient toward those that agree with them. There have been instances of outright scientific fraud and scientific misconduct that have gone through review and were only detected after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. Are these isolated instances or are they common practice? Personally I don't know but it does cause me to cautious of their conclusions.

There is evidence that points toward greenhouses gases as the culprit as past global climate change events. Scientist aren't for sure what caused the change in greenhouses gases.

the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which occurred 55.8 million years ago was the most rapid warming event of the Cenozoic era. Temperatures rose over 6 degrees Celsius over a period of 20,000 years (compare that to the warming trend we are having now). During this time the CO2 in the atmosphere ROSE (it's happening now, at a much quicker pace). The are numerous possibilities as to how this happened, most of which have been discredited like a comet impact or the burning of peat. Underseas volcanoes releasing methane is a strong candidate as to what could have been a culprit of the increase in greenhouses gases. This warming period helped mammalian life develop on earth.

That warming period was over 20,000 years and completely changed life on earth, imagine what will happen if we don't stop what we are doing?

I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding global warming, it's not difficult to understand. We know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise, we are putting CO2 in the air at a much faster rate than any time in history, and we are taking out the forest which cleanse the air of C02. More CO2, warmer temperatures, it's that simple.

[BaseballMan]

I found this article by Michael Oard. It's not very long so I posted it below:

"Practically all atmospheric scientists (the author included) agree that global warming has occurred. The raging debate is over how much of it is caused by man and whether global warming will be harmful.

Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, climatologists and critics of greenhouse warming hype, write, “In the broadest perspective, global warming is a very real thing, undeniable from surface temperature readings taken over much of the planet in the last 100 years.”

The amount of warming since 1880 has been about 1.2°F (0.67°C). However, a certain percentage of this warming is likely due to natural fluctuations, especially on the sun. From about 1300 to 1880, the Little Ice Age occurred, in which practically all the glaciers in the world advanced, whereas now they are receding. There was less energy from the sun during the Little Ice Age and more volcanic activity, which helped cool the surface of the earth. It is possible such natural long-term climatic cycles caused half of the 1.2°F (0.67°C) rise.

Meanwhile, since 1880 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30%. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have also increased. Researchers desire to compare how these greenhouse gases affect the climate in relation to CO2. So, they convert the buildup of other greenhouse gases into CO2 “equivalency units.” In other words, they change the climatic effect of the gases into one measure. The climatic effect of these greenhouse gases results in an increase of 30% in CO2 equivalency units. The increase in all greenhouse gases has the climatic effect of increasing CO2 by 60%, which increases global warming.

There is one Problem:
[INDENT]Climate specialists run computer simulations using the above-noted formula, in which they double the amount of CO2 and see how much the temperature rises. These simulations are based on estimations and assumptions and not exact figures. The many types of simulations predict a temperature rise of 3 to 10°F. Unfortunately, many politicians and environmentalists take such imperfect climate simulations and claim them to be fact. This is problematic. It is no wonder we have a greenhouse scare. However, if all the greenhouse gases have caused an increase by 60% CO2 in equivalency units, and man has only warmed the atmosphere about 0.6°F, then these climate simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of CO2.[/INDENT]

What we really need is more careful research. All positions should have a say on the issue. Unfortunately, the media and proponents of significant technology-induced global warming have demonized many qualified critics and have accused them of conspiring with the oil companies. These are critics who do not feel that a logical case has been made to prove that manmade technologies are at fault.

All of us must study both sides of the global-warming issue (1 Thessalonians 5:21) to better understand what the Lord requires of us. Although God gave us the command to have dominion over the earth, He also instructs us to care for and be good stewards of it."

[INDENT]~ Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist from the National Weather Service in the USA. He has written numerous articles and authored or co-authored various books.[/INDENT]

[BaseballMan]

Global warming is just as much natural as man-made. There is a steady source of media beating to the drum that man has caused all global warming. Al Gore especially gets it going in, The InConvenient Truth.

There are still outlandish statements being made: “A well-known environmental spokesperson warns that future sea-level rise will drown much of creation.” It is reported that one woman even aborted her baby to reduce her "carbon footprint".

To examine closer, we can look at natural solar irradiance, el nino, and volcanic eruptions that spread sulfur aerosols. We know El Nino warmed the Pacific waters near the equator and is responsible for the unusually warm year of 1998. Sulfur aerosols actually help in cooling the earth as they reflect sunlight back into space, and have been observed to cool the earth 1 degree Fahrenheit.

According to many scientists, TSI or total solar irradiance, is the most significant and long-lasting process however. It has been taught in the college level science courses that sunlight is never changing, however since the invention of satellites that measure solar radiation, we now know better. It changes in small amounts due to sunspots (dark, cool spots) and faculae (bright, hot spots). The effect of these is when there are more sunspots the faculae more than make up for the cooler spots and thus more radiation is released. These sunspots run in cycles, the 11-year cycle, the 22-year cycle, and the more chaotic cycle that runs several hundred years. In effect, this could cause a 1 or 2 degree variation according to the amount of sunspots at a given time.

What this means is that manmade global warming has attributed and the sun has attributed. Man's contribution is small and shouldn't be panicked over. There is a good chance that man can do nothing or only very little to change the manmade portion, even if he spent what alarmist suggest to “fight” global warming (although we should always have been and should continue to be good stewards of the resources God has provided us). Spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to “fight” global warming just doesn’t make sense, and is more likely to ruin the economies of first-world nations than make any significant impact.

I believe that if we put our faith in the God of the Bible and trust His words as being true, then we need not worry. He promised, by the rainbow, that He would never again destroy the earth with water. He has promised He will take care of all those who love Him and seek Him. God has given us dominion over the earth and we should take better care of it, but the most important thing is that we believe and trust in Him.

[Old School]

Here is a good read on Global Warming by John Coleman founder of the weather channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorn...42304.html