See now…this is a different issue! This is called the “peak oil” issue, and I agree with you. It appears that we have more oil available than was originally thought, but it’s still a limited resource - that’s a fact.
The problem I see is that the Global Warmers want the issue solved immediately - if not sooner - because we’re all going to hell in a handbasket if we don’t. I don’t think that humans contribute that much to Global Warming, and for that reason, don’t think that we should just plunge willynilly into the gap, thinking that we can solve the problem - if there actually is one.
Peak Oil, though, while a little farther out there, is something we need to be aware of, and need to begin working on NOW. It’s going to take a lot of time to solve…first the technology of acquiring energy sources, then adjusting our technology to use the new energy sources. I suspect that adjusting our technology is going to be at _least_ as big a project/problem as developing the new technologies we need.

By the way - I think that peak oil is why Bush - and maybe McCain - are on the GW bus…I think it’s a case of hopping on the bus that’s not only going in the right direction, but it’s the bus that has momentum already. The peak oil bus would be starting from scratch.

I don’t disagree with you on man’s overall effect, I just don’t think it has that much to do with GW. If people were really believers, though, I think the first thing they should do is tear up all the concrete and asphalt. Talk about a climate modifier!

I suppose we could get hung up on defining “profound effect” but there is very little point to it. You, yourself, in a post above noted that we have subdued the earth.

I’ll never forget the first time I flew across the country and was absolutely stunned at the visual evidence of mankind’s effects on the earth. True, once I got to the Rockies, the earth looked largely undisturbed, but everywhere else mankind’s effect was profound enough for me.

Have you ever seen pictures from space of the earth at night and thought about how much effort of mankind and use of energy went into making all those lights that are visible from space?

We could argue all day about how much oil still exists in the world, but we are certainly using it up far faster than it is being created and will likely use it all, or most all, within a time so short as to be nearly unmeasureable in the cosmic scheme of things.

For better or worse, we have destroyed huge portions of the earth’s rainforests.

We are told that more species have become extinct because of man than from all other sources combined (Okay, I don’t know if this one is true, but I have no reason, other than questioning political motives, to disbelieve it). Certainly, we have profoundly changed the populations of many species, from buffalos to whales to bald eagles.

Sure, there is a very open question as to how much effect mankind has had on greenhouse gases, the ozone layer, global warming, global cooling or whatever. But mankind’s overall effect has been large enough to qualify as “profound” in my book.

Rereading….and this jumped out at me.

You make this as a statement of fact. In fact, it is the sum of the question - “What effect - if any - is mankind having on earth?” When you start out with the statement as a statement of fact, you’re assuming the conclusion.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/12/the-two-faces-of-the-awg-crowdthe-tale-of-desert-rock-the-navajos-and-the-un/#more-5853

God gave us the Bible to guide us. He told us to “Go forth and multiply, and subdue the earth.” The problem is that we need Volume II…we’ve sort of reached the point of “OK God…we’ve done that - now what!”

>>The earth has some ability to adjust>>

_SOME_ ability??? you’re kidding. How do you define “adjust”? The earth has been all water, has been all ice, has been virtually all tropics…maybe “adjust” isn’t the right word! The earth has the ability to _Change_. Whether we humans can survive the changes is a different issue. hmmm. Sort of like Obama….

>> but no one knows how large mankind’s effects are or how limited earth’s ability to adjust is.>>

I suspect that if you live long enough, you’ll find that mankind’s effects are pretty miniscule. And that the earth will simply change - even if that means that mankind disappears. We’re really not all that important except in our own minds…

But let’s go back to basics. The “hole” in the ozone layer has been very carefully measured. Is it continuing to grow or not? The amount of CO2 put out by mankind’s activity should be fairly straightforward. How much are we putting into the atmosphere? The effect of our cutting down rainforests, and thus inhibiting the ability of the planet to absorb that CO2 should be measureable as well.

Mike, I got a laugh out of your comment about the scientific method, but that’s kind of my point. The scientific method is nothing more than inspired trial and error. Use knowledge and inspiration to form a hypothesis, then try it out, test it to see if it accurately predicts results. Many times, it will not. Unanticipated variables get in the way. Theories are flat wrong. So we learn from our mistakes, form a new theory and try again. We do not just say, well, gee, that prediction wasn’t accurate, so we’ll just give up and go away. That seems to me to be the attitude of too many of global warming’s opponents — The global warming proponents’ computer models are flawed and don’t do a very good job of predicting anything, so there is nothing to worry about. On the contrary, there is everything to worry about, not the least of which is that our predictive models are lousy.

Mankind is having a profound effect on the earth. The earth has some ability to adjust but no one knows how large mankind’s effects are or how limited earth’s ability to adjust is. No one know whether earth’s adjustments (the storms and such that Mike anticipated from the cutting down of the rain forests, for example) are compatible with mankind’s health and prosperity. Remember, “mother earth” is a bitch. She doesn’t care about you and me. The earth may adjust to mankind’s effects by getting rid of mankind (like she did the dinosaurs). That’s fine for the earth, not so good for us. The problem is too important to jump to conclusions. But the problem is also too important to be ignored.

A reduction of CO2 is associated with famine, Little Ice Age etc.

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html