Do you REALLY want to stop Global Warming??

The better question is CAN you really stop it.

Changing your light bulbs isn't going to change anything.

Do Nothing.

If you want to stop global warming, do nothing. It is already stopped.

Global Temperatures have not risen since 1998, and this year appears to be on track to have a slight drop .

Darn those mean global climate scientist and their data.

Facts are stubborn things.

Source is NASA and WMO among others.

Actually you are using the old (wrong) NASA data that continues to be cited by those with an agenda.
This have been thrown on the statistical trash heap along with the temperature "hockey stick" folks loved so much.

The corrected data shows 1934 as warmest.

In fact half of the top ten are before WWII.

And before you get too excited, the difference is between .1 and .4 degree.

Plus if you add in the ocean temperature reading, not good news for those on the "man is causing climate change" camp.

And as to the every little bit helps -
People are going "green" by replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL.
Problem with this is, we are setting our selves up for another issue as all CFLs contain Mercury - and as these start finding there way into landfills etc... We will then have calls for help to solve the Mercury crisis.

Here's more from the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
"Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by between 1.0 and 1.7°F since 1850 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007)."

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2007 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2007 Surface Temperature Analysis:

"Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.
The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005."
Additionally (from IPCC, 2007):

"The warming trend is seen in both daily maximum and minimum temperatures, with minimum temperatures increasing at a faster rate than maximum temperatures.
Land areas have tended to warm faster than ocean areas and the winter months have warmed faster than summer months.
Widespread reductions in the number of days below freezing occurred during the latter half of the 20th century in the United States as well as most land areas of the Northern Hemisphere and areas of the Southern Hemisphere.
Average temperatures in the Arctic have increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years.
United States Surface Temperature Trends
Observations compiled by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.
Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979."

"The IPCC has concluded that most of the observed warming in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely a result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). During the first half of the last century, there was likely less human impact on the observed warming, and natural variations, such as changes in the amount of radiation received from the sun, likely played a more significant role."
These are cited at
www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html#ref.

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) recently published the report “Product 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences,” which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes. According to the report:

"There is no discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere. This discrepancy had previously been used to challenge the validity of climate models used to detect and attribute the causes of observed climate change."

"Errors identified in the satellite data and other temperature observations have been corrected. These and other analyses have increased confidence in the understanding of observed climate changes and their causes."
"Research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and stratospheric ozone."
"An unresolved issue is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict greater warming higher in the atmosphere than at the surface. However, greater warming higher in the atmosphere is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known."
Again, according to the EPA.

It's really more about people's ever-present need to be scared of something. The left is using the global warming scare tactic as a platform just like the right is using terrorism. In 1999 it was all about the Y2K bug, which turned out to be the non-event of the century...

The environment goes in natural warming and cooling cycles, always has, always will, nothing you do will change it, we are not bigger than mother nature.

The "do nothing approach" is comical. Although we do live in a world where fear is used to persuade the people - there's no argument against that - it doesn't mean we should "do nothing."

Shouldn't we at least be somewhat pro-active about the enviroment? Since nobody is certain of global warming, should we all just put our heads in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it can't exist. What if it does? Then what?

So, Head...Sand...Ears...Plugged is the approach we should take? Sounds like the American way.

I'll say it again. You can't keep taking turds in your backyard and not expect it to stink.

Don't confuse doing the right thing, with what this whole thing started with which was a request to petetion the mayor to stop Global Warming.

If you'll notice in all the studies listed above - none can point to "man made" global warming.

Most people leap from the statement - "The climate is changing" to "We must do something to stop global warming." I don't believe any climate scientist are saying that the climate is not changing. What most credible scientist say is that the climate has always been changing. What most non-credible politicians are saying is that man is the cause and we must regulate a solution.

Does the planet temperature change - of course or we will still have the ice age of the 16-1700s.

But all the claims that man is causing these changes and that by passing some stupid deceleration we can have any effect on global temperatures is political horse-hockey.

People need to do the right thing, but be careful that what you are doing actually helps.
As I pointed out before, the move to mandate the use of Compact fluorescent (as is suggested as the first thing to do in the link) in the name of the environment is trading one possible problem (energy) for another (mercury contamination).

The other concern is that we are spending a lot of time and energy on trying to stop something that it is very probably we are not causing.
Let assume we believe the algore figures of a 10 foot rise in sea levels (although the true figure is more like 3 inches) instead of worrying about light bulbs, maybe we could do something to save low lying areas.
At the last turn of the century (1900's) when the city of Galveston was devastated by a Hurricane in stead of worrying about how to stop Hurricanes, they simple raised the city up 17 feet.
Not that's doing something.

Well, obviously moderation is good in any area of life. I personally use compact flourescent bulbs, I don't drive unless I have to, I don't leave lights on in rooms we aren't in (the kids are another story), I am investigating solar panels for my house...but it's not in some misguided belief I am saving the world, it simply saves me money. Completely selfish motivation.

The practice of moderation, wise energy consumption, fiscal responsiblity and the like are good lessons to raise your kids with, and environmental responsiblity is a good thing...but crying wolf about problems that don't exist isn't.

Listen to the talking heads on TV and read the articles advocating severe economy-crippling measures to reduce carbon emissions and you will notice something. They don't call it "global warming" anymore. They call it "climate change". Why? Because the temperatures are not going up along the infamous hockey stick graph anymore.

It's just like the abortion debate 35 years ago. Most Americans were pro-life so the pro-abortion crowd came up with a new term: "pro-choice". Who isn't for choice? It sounds much more palatable than "pro-abortion". Same thing here. When you are wrong, you change the vocabulary terms to fit your argument and make it sound better. That's what the radical environmental movement is doing now. They can't call it global warming anymore because the globe isn't warming right now so now they call it climate change. And all we like sheep go along with it because "we read it in the paper so we know it must be true!"

To the "He is commenting on the statistics ..." reply above: OK, strictly on the scientific level then, why should I trust someone's shell game with other scientists' numbers when this person doesn't even hold an advanced degree in science or math? He's only published a couple of writings, and they weren't in peer-reviewed publications.

On the money side, he funds his own website and has taken a lot of money from the oil industry. So how does he remain credible in the debate?

This from SourceWatch.org:

Stephen McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. McIntyre claims Mann and his colleagues used "flawed methods that yield meaningless results," the Journal writes.[1]

McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[2] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor." [3]

Nesvig, apparently you didn't get the memo about eliminating personal attacks from our posts. I guess that rule only applies to us lowly readers.

Here is one of many web sites that refute your assertions on global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. It clearly illustrates that temperatures fell right when they should have been rising after the 1940's if all our industrial activity was in fact so bad for the climate. He correctly points out that climate change is primarily a political debate, and secondarily a scientific debate.

http://macpcfirstaid.com/climate.htm

Also, as Robert points out, if you follow the money, you will understand why the debate exists at all. Bottom line, we humans and our activities have minimal impact on climate change.

I agree, writers bloc.
I may be overly skeptical of things I read on the Internet, but how is someone who writes about computer help a credible source to refute scientific data from NASA, U.S. government agencies and the IPCC among others sited in this discussion?
Maybe it's just me, but the cloud background and lack of citation makes me a bit weary of this person's argument. Not to mention it is a computer help site.
Come on!
I can probably find a Web site or blog that says the sky is green.
And Savage Guy, if you are going to say, "Bottom line, we humans and our activities have minimal impact on climate change."
Please cite where this comes from.
If it's a lay opinion, that's fine, but a "bottom line" argument stated as fact, should have some credible backing and attribution to prove it.
Please, dbmaster, Robert and Savage Guy, provide credible and attributed links to support your positions. I would love to read them.