Bah it´s all the rovers we sent to mars that warms the planet....

Loop: You missed this one -> http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature which has a little better science Same guy as your first article, but with some actual numbers. This is a very good article, based on some unreferenced work by the author, and I am not going to try and question his capabilities on the part of astronomy, however: he is an astronomer, not a climatologist. http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate is an article written which thoroughly debunks both the first article I posted, as well as the first one. Sadly, it was written by a journalist and not a scientist, but that's what you get when editorials fight At least the chart is valid.

The second article from nat-geo debunks itself, and #3 is a dupe of #2, but without the debunking from NASA. If you want a better article debunking the mars global warming hypothesis: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

So... this is an example of exactly why I think we are all pretty much fucked. Rejecting the analysis of a professional because they use technical terms from their field is just ludicrous. I am not trying to beat up on you loop, this is just human nature. The problem is that the world is a complicated place, and the truth about any complicated system is going to require complicated analysis and discourse. People without the background to understand this kind of writing tend to reject it.

It seems like as long as you can offer a comprehensible explanation, regardless of how wrong it is, you will win the argument. Technical people tend to overlook this problem, and end up standing around astounded at how they just lost a debate to an idiot.

So it looks like the only solution that will work is the one that will be forced on us.

Interesting thing I saw on /. a while back, about how deserts (the sandy ones, not to be confused with antartica) sequester co2. (sequester... new word for me something like neutralize?)

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/2229207 (slashdot article)

http://www.ecostudies.org/press/Schlesinger_Science_13_June_2008.pdf (actual link)

also i agree with this:

Well, the military industrial complex of the world and other government funded operations are the biggest polluters and use the most fossil fuels. So.. either get rid of them or use 'democracy' (haha) to 'make' them go to renewable energy sources. Provided that happens getting the rest of the third world to convert will be a huge challenge.

Let's tap the ionosphere Tesla style, shall we?

Having lived in LA for a long time I am very used to smog. I shouldn't say used to it, it gives me headaches all the time, but I am very aware of it being around. I can not stand it but I can't move just yet either. Nothing would please me more than eliminating all of it and the factories that pump it out every day. I know cars contribute to it as well and so does smoking but I think the point of all of the propaganda is this; if we cut our pollution as 'citizens' down to nothing, it will leave much more room for corporations to pollute.

This idea is similar to the electric situation here, as an example: Edison wants all of the 'citizens' to cut their energy consumption and they create rolling 'brown outs' to get the point across. The inserts in the monthly power bill contain info on how to change all of your lights, air conditioning, fridge, etc to something that uses minimal power or is energy star compliant. As a contrast, any office you go into has 24/7 air conditioning, computers on day and night, lights, etc. The hypocrisy is pretty obvious when you see it like that.

Another example is the local Waste Management company that recycles all of our waste. They recycled 41 million trees worth of paper last year, and while it seems like a good idea in general, we must remember that all of the paper in this area comes from tree farms that they own. Those farms have not changed size at all which means that while we have reduced our waste, they have increased their business at a rate of 41 million trees in a single year.

I'm all for cutting down on pollution but it doesn't seem right that massive corporations should make billions of dollars from me while they don't decrease their pollution at all and I can be fined for not recycling properly. It kinda makes me feel like a serf and I don't like that very much.

But I do agree with you Enki, there will be a forced solution on us whether its from Big Bro or Mother Nature.