Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Burn it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_volcano

"The term mud volcano or mud dome are used to refer to formations created by geo-excreted liquids and gases, although there are several different processes which may cause such activity. Hot water mixes with mud and surface deposits. Mud volcanoes are associated with subduction zones and about 700 have been identified. Temperatures are much cooler in these processes than found at igneous volcanoes. The largest mud volcano structures are 10 kilometres (6 mi) in diameter and reach 700 metres (2,300 ft) in height.[citation needed][where?]
About 86% of the gas released from these structures is methane, with much less carbon dioxide and nitrogen emitted."

 

Yah, methane is a potent global warming gas.

 

the simple logistics of catching, compressing, storing, and transporting low density gas from seeps that are as the article says are often a kilometer or more wide. Make "just burn it" a ludicrous statement. Imagine trying to build a football stadium sized catch cap over each of the hundred or so seems found just in the research area, then multiply that by the tens of thousands over just the geological area where the test area was. Then multiply that again by all the melting permafrost areas in the world.

The point is that we are destabilizing organic CO2 faster than expected. The guys over at realclimate have been dreading this result, although it was expected. With CH4 being about 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas we will see even faster increases in temp and more and more portions of the biosphere dying off. The sixth great extinction is accelerating.

 

Realclimate; Real baloney.

 

or you could admit that its just not financially possible to "just burn it" and there is pretty much nothing we can do to prevent the further release of this type of organic carbon other than to immediately restrict anthropogenic carbon emissions

 

There are ultimately no survivors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei97pr5Yc9k

 

more correctly "there will be" no survivors, the issue is it doesn't need to be that way. Never did. The climate was reasonably stable until we came along

 

That depends on how you define stable.
It certainly smells like a stable on this thread.

 

While such an issue as this certainly encourages the developing countries to hold out their hands, it's still a 2-way street, and the politics in the developed countries is pretty negative. roughly 50% of populations reject the human cause of global warming, therefore we see similar situations as in the USA, with about a half of the poilticians denying the effect.

I really don't see the room for vast monetary conspiracies in this. The entire issue is so politically toxic, no elected officials really want to get sucked into it, and the ones who do face excoriation from the other half of the population. Those who try to do something about it are very brave and risk not getting re-elected.

With this reasoning, I reject the call to ignore the global warming science "just because" there's a perception of it being a conspiratorial money and control issue. This diversion really doesn't stand up to critical reasoning.

 

Dream on.

 

Yes I smell a lot of BS as well. Things like, "its plant food" or "its not a greenhouse gas" or "we didn't do it" all have there own particular aroma now don't they.

 

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

Grow up, hoytedow.

 

Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! Never!

 

Its classic denial tactics Ray, distract, disrupt, deny, anything but engage in a reasonable discussion about the actual science involved. The idea is that since they are up against an irrefutable argument the only way to delay positive action to correct the problem is to flood the media with BS like what we often see here.

He's probably getting paid to disrupt the thread. The oil and gas industry pays out millions to people who want to play denier. Its part of there effort to stall effective legislation that might inhibit there bottom line. Think of it like the tobacco settlement. They're just trying to avoid change at any cost.