I bet it's pesticides. Or the eventual break down of the family unit that was predicted in the late 70's...

I`ve head cell phone towers being blamed ,,gets them disoriented ,cant find the way home...

Those are two of the theories being investigated. So far, no theories have come to the forefront. As much as I dislike the CBS show 60 Minutes, I did watch the section they did about bees on Sunday. Watch it at: What's with the bees?

An Asian virus has also been implicated. I think it's more than one factor, including stress on the bees. I think they are quitting their jobs (migrant workers) and have found a quiet field somewhere in Canada...

A local beekeeper who has been in the honey business since the '30s lost nearly all his colonies last fall/this spring. He doesn't move them, but they are being encroached on by development and they have to travel farther to find food as all the farming is now gone.

A local beekeeper that I worked with has found four colonies in local woods in the past two years. He suspects that they were 'lost' by other local beekeepers.....

Bees in general didn't seem to have so many issues before raising food became corporate megafarming. Family farms typically raise a variety of products in a smaller acreage, and the bees had a variety of nectars to sample, plus they had a season to rest.

Highly hybridized high cropping plants may also produce less nutritious nectars, just as many of the most beautiful roses have almost no scent. The bees burn a lot of energy while gathering nectar and pollinating in the process. If I had to work hard and starve while doing it, I'd find a new job too.

I have also seen studies about CO2/allergy connection. Also about how certain plants (ivy) and vines thrive with Higher CO2. Those studies have a scientific base, but again, there are a number of factors..not just GW.

I get so wound up when "experts" pin an effect on a single cause. Tunnel vision does not work on a global scale. Nor does basing 200 years of data for predicting climate changes. It's all about scale (like the comparison of time against distance)

The bee thing is a very serious issue. A few months ago I bought two set-ups for hives. In spring I will set them up. I have contacted people at Penn State and they are "watching" the issue. The more information they can get, the sooner the solution can be had.

Yah. I wanted to throw that out there as something scientific about CO2 that was a 'given' through scientific testing. I can see where the 'science bashing' is justified to a point. But we must rely on 'good science' eventually. After everyone gets done bashing the people twisting the underlying causes we need to get back down to Earth and embrace the science that will help us adapt to the changes ahead. It's fun to bash Al Baby and gang but it can go a little too far when proven principles are doubted. All science isn't junk. The escalating CO2 levels are here to stay. You will notice the results a lot sooner than the temperature rising in your neighborhood. We will not all be as lucky as David with his 7000 year old stumps revealed.

"All science isn't junk." of course not !

"escalating CO2 levels are here to stay." Why? how do we know that? Can`t they be undulating? like temp`s...

It's all about 'trends'. Just like you have been basing your arguments against Al Gore and Global Warming. We didn't cause it and we aren't going to change it. What we are going to do is live with it. Everything that produces CO2 is on the up swing. Humans, ocean warming, more cows, ect. ect. Watch it rise and live with the results. Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores.

I based my argument against Gore on his "presumptions" in his movie....

where he states his geography teacher didnt know that Africa and South America had been closer and in fact been part of the same continent...and because those curves follow ea other we can draw the same conclusion about temps and CO2...follow ea other...

so I contend, in the movie he either
1) lied
or 2) was going to a school w very bad teachers
or 3)US schools were many years behind European schools

and I think it was 1)...
arguing this point with a group , two guys ,obviously on a more liberal side , stated : " well, he`s just trying to make a point"....so, they are ready to agree with a lie for the reason he wants to make a point...but wasnt the whole movie about making his point?
so, it would then be ok to lie thruout the movie?

thats about Al...




not quite what I mean...we " might " be causing it...we are not sure...we "may" contribute, but to what extent?
We should all do our best to not pollute etc, but that is not a guarantee that global warming will stop nor reverse..what I`m against most is the eco guys telling everybody that they can actually stop global warming...I think thats wishful thinking , if not an outright lie...

animals of the world , including humans have always had to "live with it", adapt or get extinct no matter warming or cooling...thats just life...

in the meantime ,we should do all we can to keep the planet as clean as we can.....my son and I have spent "Earthdays" cleaning up after other humans.....
but we do that , because its the right thing to do, not that we think we stop global warming

"junkscience.com" is a site that debunks bad science, not promotes it.

Thank you for your support on this, Jim! That was the whole point of my replies, that all science is not junk but poor science or no science is! Poor reasoning or faulty logic using science is also junk!

I don't know if the cows are mad or if Al Gore has a genius level scientific background after he retired from inventing the internet, but we live on a planet of limited resources and we thrive on energy provided to us by the sun either past, present or future. I think mad cow is an insignificant feedback means to control population growth. I think bird flu is closer to the unpleasant remedy to the longer term problem.

Our planet has feedback mechanisms to control its survival. These feedback loops are pretty slow. These mechanisms are not relevant to the survival of your children or even their children. It's part of a longer term balance. This balance doesn't favor individual life, survival or comfort, but rather survival of the earth's occupants.

You can burn oil, but that fuel came to us from our sun through our planet's past and was provided to our planet by the sun through time. Our days are numbered while consuming these old fuel stores. I would place the concern of total crisis and caos at 30 years or less before fighting over remaining resources breaks out over what what's left unless there is change. And of course there is no motivation for change today as long as there is gasoline for tomorrows trip in the SUV and electricty in our home.

You can look go Al Gore for remedy, but with the largest windmill you can put in front of Al, I don't think he can provide our future needs. This problem is larger than an unlimited supply of hot air or even some old and limited ideas. Recognizing there is a problem doesn't identify the causes or identify solutions. I think Al lost grap on this issue. His own energy consumption isn't modest by any measure and not related to his needs.

You can line the planet with solar panels. Even if you could afford them today as free, I don't think that would solve the longer term problem we have for our planet. I say this because when you collect and consume energy, it is not reflected back to space. Our planet's temperature is a blance between what is radiated to us from the sun, what is reflected back, and what is consumed from historical energy supplies. That is to say what energy came from energy captured in historal carbon sources through earth history. When you look at city temperatures on imaging, they are warmer just from energy absorbed in dark asphalt and structres. Even more energy is consumed moving heat out of building to space outside these buildings. Energy cause warming when it is absorbed, consumed or moved where its more convenient.

Energy collected outside of green spaces and consumed warms the planet. Solar energy isn't really green. It's more brown because it warms the planet, especially if it's ever implemented on a full scale. Then more legislation will pass bills to shift to "newer techology". Solar is another way of consuming energy on our planet. The root problem of warming on our planet is energy consumption on our planet. I don't think you obivate that concern by obtaining that energy from solar... though that can help some compared with burning older carbon fuel sources and creating CO2.

That brings us the more unpleasant concern, which is the planet earth has too many people in demand of dwindling resources. Looking forward, there are not enough resources, oil and energy to keep everyone on earth comfortable within their current or anticipated standard of living. Some on earth are already pretty comfortable and won't give that up. I guess I'm lucky enough to be among those who are more comfortable. Carter recommended turning the thermostat down. Yeah, that was popular for those who had thermostats and could afford choices. I remember all my neighbor's homes being cold for a about a week. Folks don't readily give up comforts they already enjoy.

Meanwhile, we export our standard of living elsewhere on the globe where folks have lesser expectations and are willing to work longer to reach personal goals. That warms their home and makes our own home colder. It's a longer term wealth exchange, but we see it already. There are fewer productive activities in our country while we exchange our past stored wealth or borrowed future wealth for goods made somewhere else by folks who will work cheaper.

Long term history solves this problem of resource shortages. Ice ages and warming, plagues, infection, disease and suffering close the "control loop" to bring everything into equilibrium. That reduces demand to meet the available supply of resources.

We have excess population on our planet earth, by any reasonable measure. If you cannot increase fixed or limited resources, that brings you to the next measures of rationing, control of expenditure, and reduction of living standards. Behind that is civil or war strife, death and destruction. Population reduction reduces demand. That always brings demand in line with supply.

The remedy for the crisis today is multi-faceted. We need to start by reducing energy demand and comfort. That's not a popular decision. Jimmey Carter recommended that once upon a time when he handed out sweaters in winter time and suggested turning down the thermostat only a few degrees. That suggestion was about as popular as a fart during Sunday mass. Somehow we need to reduce energy consumption by everyone on earth rather than leave excess consumption to just those wealthy enough to afford fuel.

The next remedy is to gather energy from the sun striking the earth. I think there are better answers to that energy collection than burning what is captured energy as corn or other food products, where agriculture consumes soil resources. I think burning food as fuel is a pretty stupid idea. When you can't feed everyone on earth, lets burn our food? Who was the rocket scientist who dreamed this up? It must have been a senator from a corn-growing state.


Next, evolve energy sources that are matched by yearly supply and demand. By that, I mean bring demand in line with the energy production and recovery that impinges on the earth on a shorter term basis. One cannot plan one's current and future consumption on the energy stored through time. That's a limited gift resource that won't be replaced. Energy demands of earthlings have to match the energy that our sun provides us on a daily basis.

If you wait until all historical fuel sources are spent, this is a hopeless battle to be fought over the last burnable twig using rocks and clubs.

All good info but I'm going to 'cherry pick' a QUOTE: That brings us the more unpleasant concern, which is the planet earth has too many people in demand of dwindling resources. Looking forward, there are not enough resources, oil and energy to keep everyone on earth comfortable within their current or anticipated standard of living.

A couple of things I've heard lately that brings me down to Earth;

1.The US has 100,000 workers added to the workforce every month. That's after all the retirements, deaths, ect. Every month the number of working people in this country goes up at least 100,000. To me, that hits home and is sobering.

2.The Earth doesn't produce enough 'healthy food' to support it's population. If we all decided to eat the prescribed amount of fruit and vegies there wouldn't be nearly enough..... And if we all started to eat right that number above (100,000 new workers every month) would double.

I'm glad the discussion of resource usage came into the thread.

Bottom Line: we need to better caretakers of the planet and utilize it's resources more efficiently.

Ethanol is not an answer. It uses a tremendous amount of energy to produce when looking at the seed to gas tank BTU balance. Bio-diesel is a much more efficient method. And the infrastructure exists for bio-diesel. Blends can be burned in any diesel engine, exisiting tanks/pump stations, multiple feedstock options (soy, rapeseed, animal fats, waste oil, etc), and if corn is used it uses not just the kernal of corn, but the entire plant.

Europe is leading in these technologies. We need to look from today forward for utilizing new technologies. New cars should be diesel, diesel-hybrid or all out electric. Consider the millions of cars on the road on any given sunny day and where they park during work hours. What if each car was fitted with a solar panel built into the roof. Solar energy is still not an efficient method, but the cost would be spread around rather than trying to have a giant extremely expensive solar panel array for power generation. Give the automakers Green credits for putting these on their cars instead of charging the consumer. University of Delaware is doing extensive research. They have developed a new generation of panel that is flexible. As more money is invested the efficiency goes up and costs come down

The solutions for the issues we face are not a Magic bullet answer. There needs to be multiple bullets all hitting the same target.

how `bout parking places, even parking meters equipped with or hooked up to soilar panels...you can get charged when parked...charged and charged for being charged...lol

How about giving credits to people that have large pieces of land and leave them in the natural state? That would help things wouldn't it?? OOOPS That was Al's idea. I better shut up before I get hammered!!