I'm gonna have to stop at 100 companies being responsible for 71% of green house gas emissions.

If the criticism is deceptive practices, don't start with deceptive statistics of your own. It's awful easy to blame Shell for all the greenhouse gas emissions of the gasoline they sell. It's wonderful to not have to take personal responsibility for your act of buying that gas for your own transportation, for the manufacture of your own food, for the transportation of that same food to your supermarket. Better still, the gas and electricity used to heat and cool your home can be blamed on the coal and power companies too.

Videos like this are part of the problem by abdicating our own responsibilities and pawning it off on someone else. Stop making this worse while pretending to care about the problem.

I was with him until the end where he said "time is on our side"....sorry, but time actually ran out to 'fix' this issue decades ago. Now the best we could hope for is to mitigate the damage and not continue to exacerbate the effects by adding more CO2 and other green house gasses. Once the ocean warms enough to melt the methyl hydrates, the oceans catch fire (warming them even more) and the methane both destroys the air and starts the super green house effect, sending us on the death spiral towards a Venus like atmosphere. It's getting really close, people. In some places it's already happening. Put your fire suits and gas masks on.

So it seems like the big question is, assuming humans could reduce CO₂ and other green house gas emissions to (a) zero tomorrow, what happens to the climate/atmosphere over the next century? What is the effect if we reduce them to (b) 50% current output? What is the effect at (c) 85% output?

Assuming (a), are we already past a point at which extreme weather, sea level rise, etc. will disrupt human activity for at least 20 years? Would that be the case assuming (b) or (c)? The question we really need an answer to is how do we optimize, over time, the economically relevant weather extremities against energy generation and consumption.
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Also: "Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature....

The article makes the following points
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

(a) seems pretty obvious. It's not a greenhouse, so it shouldn't be called a "greenhouse effect". Heh, well duh. (it uses 34 pages to show this!)

I don't have any credentials to argue against any of the other points, because I'm not a physicist. I'm not sure I can recognize the article in the post that climategate did; seems to be Fox'ed up a bit.

amusing that there is such resistance to an idea as a planet warming. Particularly when we have been pumping it full of green house gasses for the past how many years.. Yeah that could never add up to anything right? Lets hope theres nothing to global warming but in the meantime lets not throw stones at anyone. None of you here are scientists (okay maybe a few) so please stop acting like you have all the answers.

I think in time we will have definite proof of whats going on. You skeptics can disagree all you want but when our oceans start rising have the decency to admit you were wrong. Lets just hope its not too late shall we?

>> ^spoco2:
That's some a-grade engineering right there.
It seems so slow in the uptake for these better versions of hybrids and electric cars (the Prius isn't even as efficient as some similarly sized diesel cars), I get quite frustrated that these things are out there already.
Same goes for renewable energy sources... if money was invested and we all had solar panels and wind generators on our homes we could SERIOUSLY reduce greenhouse gases (and electricity costs).
It's all bloody political... sometimes I think we need a dictator with a heart of gold who does things for the greater good against the whinging and whining of the masses who can't see past their next paycheque.


We might reduce green-house gases, but the electric companies wouldn't make as much money off of us. Marketing and profit are the downfall of new technologies that make things cheaper and cost-effective.

They'll trickle out new technologies little-by-little to get as much profit out of them as possible. Just take a look at the iPhone and any other Apple product.

I am not sure this is based on science.

If one made a serious effort to produce alternative food sources it isn't clear to me that they would not produce different amounts of carbon dioxide. Also, I have found no scientific peer reviewed papers on ISI confirming this conjecture

Moreover, I think there is a thermodynamical difference between carbon dioxide and other green house gases produced by fossil fuels and those produced from defecation.

Green houses gasses are a cause of war ? That doesnt pass the laugh test.