Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
It is not an UNKOWN event and is Provable.... Here is great proof
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Now.... You may think thats not proof. but some can say that about anyhting you want . The whole thing boils down to I DO NOT WANT TO RISK THE PLANET ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTIST ARE WRONG.. You may feel that way but I dont. I will take the Insurance, to make sure that if it is US causing the warming trend like hundreds of scientist believe, we stop it before it is too late...


Again I see your point..I am not saying we are not in a warming trend..I am saying we dont KNOW the real cause..Because in the US ttemps have actually stayed pretty much the same weather wise over the last 40 years.

I am not agianst spending money in RESEARCH of Global Warming..I am agianst spending money to inact laws to prevent something we dont know is causing the problem. What if what we do HURTS more than it helps? That is an assumption I am making, and cant be proved either way..Just like Global Warming being our fault.

Also even ONEs WHO THINK man is causing Global Warming say more research is needed to truly know what impact man has. Why spend billions on laws, when we can spend billions on finding the complete truth

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Sinton fan and Billyfred000 , this Sums up your attitude about the Earth very well. Classy:thumbsup: Keeping the Earth Clean is a Liberal waco thing...... Nice.... Ya know you let people talk enough and you see the real them come out in time.:clap:

Magic, admiring your FAITH in your belief on this subject, but still no absolute proof. The chart you refer to is a reconstruction, therefore an opinion, I doubt there were thousands of weather stations 1000 to 2000 years ago to record actual temperatures around the the world that could have been used to create this graph.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Magic, admiring your FAITH in your belief on this subject, but still no absolute proof. The chart you refer to is a reconstruction, therefore an opinion, I doubt there were thousands of weather stations 1000 to 2000 years ago to record actual temperatures around the the world that could have been used to create this graph.

tempature recording began in like 1880 I THINK..At least accurate tempature recording

[Black_Magic]

SO lets say you all are right and there is no such thing as global warming due to CO2 emmisions from cars and such and we take measures to reduce them... what have we done. Clean the air up . Less deaths from reperatory diseases and and so on... What if we dont clean the air up and Ignore and Ignore data given by scientist who believe it is real... We lose the Planet and our whole way of life.... Kinda like belief in GOD. If Christians are wrong and there is no GOD, then we are in the same boat everyone else is at death... If the Non believers are wrong then they go to hell.... In the Global warming thing dont you think its better to be safe than sorry??

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
SO lets say you all are right and there is no such thing as global warming due to CO2 emmisions from cars and such and we take measures to reduce them... what have we done. Clean the air up . Less deaths from reperatory diseases and and so on... What if we dont clean the air up and Ignore and Ignore data given by scientist who believe it is real... We lose the Planet and our whole way of life.... Kinda like belief in GOD. If Christians are wrong and there is no GOD, then we are in the same boat everyone else is at death... If the Non believers are wrong then they go to hell.... In the Global warming thing dont you think its better to be safe than sorry?? if, if, if....

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
if, if, if.... YEP!!! IF your wrong WE all lose the planet.... and your just fine with that risk.. Me Im not.

[pirate44]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
SO lets say you all are right and there is no such thing as global warming due to CO2 emmisions from cars and such and we take measures to reduce them... what have we done. Clean the air up . Less deaths from reperatory diseases and and so on... What if we dont clean the air up and Ignore and Ignore data given by scientist who believe it is real... We lose the Planet and our whole way of life.... Kinda like belief in GOD. If Christians are wrong and there is no GOD, then we are in the same boat everyone else is at death... If the Non believers are wrong then they go to hell.... In the Global warming thing dont you think its better to be safe than sorry??
would you stop already. if you set your principles acoording to "ifs", then you are a moron and empty. although this may not pertain to you, you are telling people to act that way. I believe in God as a Christian because it is my faith. what if the Muslims are right? then Christians are in trouble. :rolleyes: if you want to believe global warming is caused by America, so be it. more power to you. but quit asking people to be empty morons and believe only because it's a "safe" belief.

[Black_Magic]

IS this model flawed and how is it flawed.... Is it really that hard to understand???
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/ill-greenhouse01.jpg
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/greenhouse01.jsp http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/greenhouse01.jsp

[mustang04]

i'm kinda on both sides of the issue...but here's one problem i have.....

everybody who says "well, the earth has been going through these cycles for millions of years blah blah blah......this is true, BUT!!!!!! how do yall know that the warm cycle the earth is going through right now IS or ISN'T from human assistance???? so i am guessing EVERYBODY here knows exactly what the weather is SUPPOSED to be for the earth naturally right now? am i right???

[Black_Magic]

exactly. but one fact is this. CO2 in the atmosphere creates a warming of the earth. We are putting out more and more CO2 as time goes on. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that will warm the earth over time. That leads to drastic changes. NOT GOOD.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
exactly. but one fact is this. CO2 in the atmosphere creates a warming of the earth. We are putting out more and more CO2 as time goes on. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that will warm the earth over time. That leads to drastic changes. NOT GOOD. We as the human race sure are doing a great job with our 2%! GO TEAM!!!!!:cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl:

[pirate44]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
We as the human race sure are doing a great job with our 2%! GO TEAM!!!!!:cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl:
oh crap!!:eek: what if the temps are changing because we arent making enough??!!! dont take chances people. make more co2!!

[BuffyMars]

WHat is it that you think can be done about this? I mean if you feel so strongly about it, what do you suggest?

No car, no trains, no automobiles?

So I guess you are riding a bike to work right now aren't you?

No more vacations outside of the state or the US.

And you recycle EVERYTHING. Glass, paper, plastic, I mean everything.

Car companies are already trying to lean more to energy effiecient vehicles. You act like no one is trying to help better the environment.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
exactly. but one fact is this. CO2 in the atmosphere creates a warming of the earth. We are putting out more and more CO2 as time goes on. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that will warm the earth over time. That leads to drastic changes. NOT GOOD.

that is true too......also with less vegetation due to rainforests being depleted....i also think that in the past all over volcanic events affect the levels of greenhouse chemicals as well, but that is a natural phase

there are several things that occur naturally to contribute to global warming, but what blackie is saying and what i am agreeing with is that you can't deny that we are putting more CO2 in the air than what would be occuring naturally, so therefore.....we are CONTRIBUTING to global warming, not necessarily causing all of it

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by pirate44
oh crap!!:eek: what if the temps are changing because we arent making enough??!!! dont take chances people. make more co2!! That's what scientists were saying 30 years ago. Remember that we were entering a period of "global cooling"?

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by mustang04


...what blackie is saying and what i am agreeing with...

Never in a million years did I think I would see this day!!!:D :D :D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by mustang04
that is true too......also with less vegetation due to rainforests being depleted....i also think that in the past all over volcanic events affect the levels of greenhouse chemicals as well, but that is a natural phase

there are several things that occur naturally to contribute to global warming, but what blackie is saying and what i am agreeing with is that you can't deny that we are putting more CO2 in the air than what would be occuring naturally, so therefore.....we are CONTRIBUTING to global warming, not necessarily causing all of it So do your share and stop breathing...:p :p :p

[mustang04]

i am not going to lie....i do nothing to help with the problem.....i drive around alot, hardly recycle, shoot paintball guns (these mostly run off CO2) putting more carbon dioxide in the air, pass gas....oh wait, that's just methane:D ......i'm not trying to tell everybody to 'change their ways' cuz that would make me a hypocrite....all i'm saying that if you truly and sincerely don't believe that indrustrialization and such has NO effect on the Earth whatsoever...you're just being plain ignorant

[mustang04]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So do your share and stop breathing...:p :p :p

actually yes i do.....i hold my breath alot cuz it stretches out your lungs, and ever since i was a little kid i've always been fascinated with holding my breath for a long time...i got to 2 and a half minutes one time in highschool...but now i can prolly only for like 1min 45 sec

see....i unintentionally help the environment!!!:D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by mustang04
i am not going to lie....i do nothing to help with the problem.....i drive around alot, hardly recycle, shoot paintball guns (these mostly run off CO2) putting more carbon dioxide in the air, pass gas....oh wait, that's just methane:D ......i'm not trying to tell everybody to 'change their ways' cuz that would make me a hypocrite....all i'm saying that if you truly and sincerely don't believe that indrustrialization and such has NO effect on the Earth whatsoever...you're just being plain ignorant I think what most of us are saying that we are such a small percentage, it's not as big a deal as the "gloom and doom" people would have you believe.

How many times has "new evidence" changed the way science views a problem? More than you and I will ever know.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by mustang04
i am not going to lie....i do nothing to help with the problem.....i drive around alot, hardly recycle, shoot paintball guns (these mostly run off CO2) putting more carbon dioxide in the air, pass gas....oh wait, that's just methane:D ......i'm not trying to tell everybody to 'change their ways' cuz that would make me a hypocrite....all i'm saying that if you truly and sincerely don't believe that indrustrialization and such has NO effect on the Earth whatsoever...you're just being plain ignorant

I have never said that..what i have said and will keep saying is I want more research BEFORE I am ready to make a lifestyle change or see bills passed that forces a lifestyle change and here is why

in the 70's it was the world is going to go into an ice age in the future because of our doing ..then it was the hole in the ozone was our doing..now the hole is shrinking.

I just want more FACTS and i dont understand why that is such a bad thing

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Never in a million years did I think I would see this day!!!:D :D :D


you better cherish it!!!!!

i think this thread should be locked down and posted at the top of the board as "THE Thread: When Reggie agreed with Blackie":D :D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by mustang04
actually yes i do.....i hold my breath alot cuz it stretches out your lungs, and ever since i was a little kid i've always been fascinated with holding my breath for a long time...i got to 2 and a half minutes one time in highschool...but now i can prolly only for like 1min 45 sec

see....i unintentionally help the environment!!!:D Nice. I used to do the same thing but I think my record was only 2 minutes.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
We as the human race sure are doing a great job with our 2%! GO TEAM!!!!!:cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl: The 2% straw that boke the camels back... the earth has been going through warming and cooling periods BY ITS SELF WITH NO HELP FROM US FOR THOUSAND OF YEAR.... the difference now is WE ARE ADDING TO IT. It is a Ballance that has been thrown off by us.. Our 2% as you are so fond of is tipping the scales to the warm side.. and we keep adding to the 2% your so fond of.. ten year from now 3%,4%, and so on. Ice caps start to melt. oceans rise New York and costal cities in trouble ect.. all put in to motion by us. If you think we cant have a devistating effect on nature your nuts. In texas alone 200 years ago there were mustangs wild. Bears all over the place, lepards everywhere. now?? NONE.. NOW we start with the atmosphere.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I think what most of us are saying that we are such a small percentage, it's not as big a deal as the "gloom and doom" people would have you believe.

How many times has "new evidence" changed the way science views a problem? More than you and I will ever know.

you're right...it IS a small percentage....but it IS a small percentage never presented to the earth's climate until the past century

Txbroadcaster....i am not pointing fingers or saying any names....but like we used to say as kids...the guilty dog barks first haha just messin w/ ya:D :)

[BuffyMars]

Talk about broken records.......:speech: :speech: :speech:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Talk about broken records.......:speech: :speech: :speech:

blackie sent it while i was still typing it...didn't know we were going to post the same thing.....so you can just go save the environment

(which means cut off your breathing)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The 2% straw that boke the camels back... the earth has been going through warming and cooling periods BY ITS SELF WITH NO HELP FROM US FOR THOUSAND OF YEAR.... the difference now is WE ARE ADDING TO IT. It is a Ballance that has been thrown off by us.. Our 2% as you are so fond of is tipping the scales to the warm side.. and we keep adding to the 2% your so fond of.. ten year from now 3%,4%, and so on. Ice caps start to melt. oceans rise New York and costal cities in trouble ect.. all put in to motion by us. If you think we cant have a devistating effect on nature your nuts. In texas alone 200 years ago there were mustangs wild. Bears all over the place, lepards everywhere. now?? NONE.. NOW we start with the atmosphere.

What are you guys talking about 2 percent. CO2 makes up roughly 0.48 percent of the atmosphere. Not 2 percent. Water Vapor makes up 98 percent. All other green house gases such as methane etc(which btw, methane oxidizes to water vapor in the troposhere so for all intents and purposes is a good thing) account for 1.5 percent. And man's contribution to the .48 is roughly 0.13. 0.35 is naturally occurring CO2. You really do not have enough info to hold a reasonable debate.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by mustang04
blackie sent it while i was still typing it...didn't know we were going to post the same thing.....so you can just go save the environment

(which means cut off your breathing)

No I meant this whole thread.

But here is a video I think you all should watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ&mode=related&search=

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
What are you guys talking about 2 percent. CO2 makes up roughly 0.48 percent of the atmosphere. Not 2 percent. Water Vapor makes up 98 percent. All other green house gases such as methane etc(which btw, methane oxidizes to water vapor in the troposhere so for all intents and purposes is a good thing) account for 1.5 percent.

oh foolish person...we are talking about contributing to 2% of the carbon dioxide in the air...not the TOTAL AIR....

c'mon keep up:D

[BILLYFRED0000]

But you really do not understand that 600,000 years ago CO2 was at twice the current levels. Sea level was 200 feet higher than it is now and there were no ice caps in evidence. I certainly was not driving my Hummer around at that time.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But you really do not understand that 600,000 years ago CO2 was at twice the current levels. Sea level was 200 feet higher than it is now and there were no ice caps in evidence. I certainly was not driving my Hummer around at that time.

nice way to change subject!;)

soooo lets get this right, i'm going to use what you said...

THEN: sea level 200 feet higher and no ice caps

but no coastal cities to be under water

NOW: Ice caps (which are showing to melt), sea level 200 lower than what it was then.....so what do you think happens to the sea level as the ice caps melt????:thinking:

pretty sure a 3rd grader could answer this cause and effect

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by mustang04
nice way to change subject!;)

soooo lets get this right, i'm going to use what you said...

THEN: sea level 200 feet higher and no ice caps

but no coastal cities to be under water

NOW: Ice caps (which are showing to melt), sea level 200 lower than what it was then.....so what do you think happens to the sea level as the ice caps melt????:thinking:

pretty sure a 3rd grader could answer this cause and effect :clap: :clap: :clap: So the increased co2 DOES melt the Icecaps!! But us pouring on additional CO2 does not hurt things or help along the global warming does it:rolleyes:

[Black_Magic]

Oh well look at it this way.. Folks in Austin may have beach front property at this rate.:clap:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
:clap: :clap: :clap: So the increased co2 DOES melt the Icecaps!! But us pouring on additional CO2 does not hurt things or help along the global warming does it:rolleyes:

haha...the guy proved our point in his own argument haha

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
CO2 twice current levels= Sea level 200 feet higher and no ice caps


billy's equation that he pretty much stated himself:nerd:

[JasperDog94]

Yep. You guys are right. There can be no other causes. There are no other variables. It must be the CO2.:rolleyes:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yep. You guys are right. There can be no other causes. There are no other variables. It must be the CO2.:rolleyes: Well there is ONE of the causes that can be dealt with if you actualy care. but some cleary dont:rolleyes:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Well there is ONE of the causes that can be dealt with if you actualy care. but some cleary dont:rolleyes:

What can be done about it right now?

And you still haven't answered whether or not you ride a bike to work.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yep. You guys are right. There can be no other causes. There are no other variables. It must be the CO2.:rolleyes:

haha...i didn't say it....billyfred did......you already what what i think about it....i said there are several things that come into play....you're not telling me anything new

[BILLYFRED0000]

I am sorry. I said that backwards. Sea levels were 200 feet lower not higher. But co2 was twice as high. My apologies. I am at work and am working on another project paper. You know how it is when you are doing research. Your eyes tend to get crossed once in awhile:nerd: :nerd:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
What can be done about it right now?

And you still haven't answered whether or not you ride a bike to work.

give me your number and i'll tell ya....;) :D

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am sorry. I said that backwards. Sea levels were 200 feet lower not higher. But co2 was twice as high. My apologies. I am at work and am working on another project paper. You know how it is when you are doing research. Your eyes tend to get crossed once in awhile:nerd: :nerd:

mmmhmmmmm:thinking: :thinking: :D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
What can be done about it right now?

And you still haven't answered whether or not you ride a bike to work. Drive more fuel diversive cars that reduce the CO2. Use more wind energy and more solar. pass laws the make auto makers do there part. things can be done by us. Plant more trees too. Do what we can do. I dont ride a bike. If I could buy a better fuel than gasoline I would.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am sorry. I said that backwards. Sea levels were 200 feet lower not higher. But co2 was twice as high. My apologies. I am at work and am working on another project paper. You know how it is when you are doing research. Your eyes tend to get crossed once in awhile:nerd: :nerd: :doh:

What do you say about this BM?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Basically, water vapor's impact on global warming is much more than CO2 could ever be. The way clouds work for instance. At night over land the clouds prevent radiation. However during the day they prevent sunlight and lower temperatures because infrared does not travel well thru moisture. So water vapor has positive and negative feed backs and we have no way of calculating there effects because the physics is unknown. To put it another way and I am quoting--

It is generally agreed that improved knowledge of the role of water vapor in the climate system hinges largely on closing observational gaps that currently exist. To date, most large-scale water vapor climatological studies have relied primarily on analysis of radiosonde data, which have good resolution in the lower troposphere in populated regions but are of limited value at high altitude and are lacking over remote oceanic regions.

Recently, substantial progress has been made using satellite observations to obtain total column water vapor and some low-resolution vertical profiles from infrared and microwave sensors. Satellite observations do not provide water vapor data in all weather conditions above all surfaces. Special processing of signals received from the Global Positioning System (GPS), a satellite-based navigational tool, has been receiving increased attention recently as a method for measuring water vapor, as it could give long-term measurements of the total column water vapor. For more detailed local studies as well as measurements in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Lyman alpha and frost point hygrometers (see Table 1) and differential absorption and Raman lidars can be useful.

New water vapor data sets have been constructed during the last several years from a combination of satellite remote-sensing methods and direct observations to achieve improved spatial coverage and vertical resolution. Figure 2 is a result of such an effort. Data assimilation systems, which combine information from observations and output from atmospheric models, also are being used to augment traditional observations and, in some instances, to take the place of data where no observations are available.

There are several efforts currently under way to observe, understand, and model the hydrological cycle and energy fluxes in the atmosphere, on the land surface, and in the upper ocean. The efforts will investigate variations of the global hydrological regime and their impact on atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. Variations in regional hydrological processes and water resources and their response to change in the environment such as the increase of greenhouse gases will be examined. The Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX), a program launched by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), will act as a coordinating body to facilitate some of these programs.

There are questions about how well the current models, both those used in climate studies and those used in forecasting the daily weather, treat water vapor. Modeling would be improved by systematic examination of models's treatment of water vapor in light of what is now known of its distributions. Some of the questions arise because of the lack of good water vapor observations. The likely benefits of improved water vapor data include better weather forecasts as well as improved climate models.

Different types of measurements are complementary and useful. The challenge is how best to merge the available information on water vapor distribution into an improved description of the time and space variations of water vapor to enhance climate studies.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Basically, water vapor's impact on global warming is much more than CO2 could ever be. The way clouds work for instance. At night over land the clouds prevent radiation. However during the day they prevent sunlight and lower temperatures because infrared does not travel well thru moisture. So water vapor has positive and negative feed backs and we have no way of calculating there effects because the physics is unknown. To put it another way and I am quoting--

It is generally agreed that improved knowledge of the role of water vapor in the climate system hinges largely on closing observational gaps that currently exist. To date, most large-scale water vapor climatological studies have relied primarily on analysis of radiosonde data, which have good resolution in the lower troposphere in populated regions but are of limited value at high altitude and are lacking over remote oceanic regions.

Recently, substantial progress has been made using satellite observations to obtain total column water vapor and some low-resolution vertical profiles from infrared and microwave sensors. Satellite observations do not provide water vapor data in all weather conditions above all surfaces. Special processing of signals received from the Global Positioning System (GPS), a satellite-based navigational tool, has been receiving increased attention recently as a method for measuring water vapor, as it could give long-term measurements of the total column water vapor. For more detailed local studies as well as measurements in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, Lyman alpha and frost point hygrometers (see Table 1) and differential absorption and Raman lidars can be useful.

New water vapor data sets have been constructed during the last several years from a combination of satellite remote-sensing methods and direct observations to achieve improved spatial coverage and vertical resolution. Figure 2 is a result of such an effort. Data assimilation systems, which combine information from observations and output from atmospheric models, also are being used to augment traditional observations and, in some instances, to take the place of data where no observations are available.

There are several efforts currently under way to observe, understand, and model the hydrological cycle and energy fluxes in the atmosphere, on the land surface, and in the upper ocean. The efforts will investigate variations of the global hydrological regime and their impact on atmospheric and oceanic dynamics. Variations in regional hydrological processes and water resources and their response to change in the environment such as the increase of greenhouse gases will be examined. The Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX), a program launched by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), will act as a coordinating body to facilitate some of these programs.

There are questions about how well the current models, both those used in climate studies and those used in forecasting the daily weather, treat water vapor. Modeling would be improved by systematic examination of models's treatment of water vapor in light of what is now known of its distributions. Some of the questions arise because of the lack of good water vapor observations. The likely benefits of improved water vapor data include better weather forecasts as well as improved climate models.

Different types of measurements are complementary and useful. The challenge is how best to merge the available information on water vapor distribution into an improved description of the time and space variations of water vapor to enhance climate studies.

ok....one thing...clouds are not in the ozone layer...they might have an effect on the rays once they are already in through the ozone

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by mustang04
ok....one thing...clouds are not in the ozone layer...they might have an effect on the rays once they are already in through the ozone Just Give up on them. THey are so against it they will make any excuse they can. If there was just one scientist left who said we didnt have an effect on global warming they would say HE is the one wise scientist.. Any Idiot should be able to see our way of life adds to global warming. Sticking your head in the sand does not change a thing.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am sorry. I said that backwards. Sea levels were 200 feet lower not higher. But co2 was twice as high. My apologies. I am at work and am working on another project paper. You know how it is when you are doing research. Your eyes tend to get crossed once in awhile:nerd: :nerd:

YOu know one of the simplest ideas in water goes unmolested thru the minds of the global warming wackos. Ice takes up far more volume than water. So theoritically, when the ice shelfs melt the water levels will not change very much at all. Take a glass of water. If it was all ice, how much water will be left. Then add to that the fact that there is more open space around continents that formerly had ice out to great distances that will allow the water to fill in. The simple truth is that in the last 100 years the water levels have only gone up a few inches and there is not that much ice left when compared with the last ice age.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Just Give up on them. THey are so against it they will make any excuse they can. If there was just one scientist left who said we didnt have an effect on global warming they would say HE is the one wise scientist.. Any Idiot should be able to see our way of life adds to global warming. Sticking your head in the sand does not change a thing.

agreed

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
ok....one thing...clouds are not in the ozone layer...they might have an effect on the rays once they are already in through the ozone

Yes but the ozone has very little effect on green house effect because it is very thin and radiates heat extremely effectively. Most of the green house gases are from the troposphere on down.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
YOu know one of the simplest ideas in water goes unmolested thru the minds of the global warming wackos. Ice takes up far more volume than water. So theoritically, when the ice shelfs melt the water levels will not change very much at all. Take a glass of water. If it was all ice, how much water will be left. Then add to that the fact that there is more open space around continents that formerly had ice out to great distances that will allow the water to fill in. The simple truth is that in the last 100 years the water levels have only gone up a few inches and there is not that much ice left when compared with the last ice age.

now you are just throwing things out there...i know ice has more volume than water thats why it floats....you can't compare water levels rising to the last ice age....cuz then the water was frozen and was covering land..and by melting it follows the contours that usually lead to the ocean or other large bodies of water....and the ice is up to 3 miles thick in several parts of antartica

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Just Give up on them. THey are so against it they will make any excuse they can. If there was just one scientist left who said we didnt have an effect on global warming they would say HE is the one wise scientist.. Any Idiot should be able to see our way of life adds to global warming. Sticking your head in the sand does not change a thing.

Add hominem attacks are the tool of the defeated. Life does add to global warming. The question is the correlation of co2 to warming. Is it cause or effect. And how does man effect it?
ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
now you are just throwing things out there...i know ice has more volume than water thats why it floats....you can't compare water levels rising to the last ice age....cuz then the water was frozen and was covering land..and by melting it follows the contours that usually lead to the ocean or other large bodies of water....and the ice is up to 3 miles thick in several parts of antartica

But it is a small part of the picture. Ice bergs are mostly under water remember. Just a piece of the pie. As big a piece as CO2,
maybe. Maybe not. But it has not been significantly studied.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Add hominem attacks are the tool of the defeated. Life does add to global warming. The question is the correlation of co2 to warming. Is it cause or effect.
ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

well hell....with all these ideas...how about we just say that its from the particle movement caused by supernovas billions of light years away that happened already billions of years ago.....THE WORST IS YET TO GET HERE!!!!!! AAAUUUUGGGHHH WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!



:D

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by mustang04
ok....one thing...clouds are not in the ozone layer...they might have an effect on the rays once they are already in through the ozone

You have a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The sun's rays only warm the atmosphere minimally on the way in. The greenhouse effect is the result of infrared heat radiating back from the surface of the earth on the way out. Water vapor (which is 10x as prevalent as CO2) absorbs energy across the entire infrared spectrum. CO2 absorbs energy across 2 or 3 narrow infrared bands, as do most other molecular gases. A given volume of water vapor absorbs many times as much heat as the same volume of CO2. That's why the total greenhouse warming from all sources of CO2 is approximately 1 degree Celsius. Man's contribution to the CO2 content affects a percentage of this 1 degree.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But it has not been significantly studied.


thats what i have been trying to say.....NO ONE knows FOR SURE what causes the earths climate to behave like it does EXACTLY

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by garageoffice
You have a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The sun's rays only warm the atmosphere minimally on the way in. The greenhouse effect is the result of infrared heat radiating back from the surface of the earth on the way out. Water vapor (which is 10x as prevalent as CO2) absorbs energy across the entire infrared spectrum. CO2 absorbs energy across 2 or 3 narrow infrared bands, as do most other molecular gases. A given volume of water vapor absorbs many times as much heat as the same volume of CO2. That's why the total greenhouse warming from all sources of CO2 is approximately 1 degree Celsius. Man's contribution to the CO2 content affects a percentage of this 1 degree.

And further it is difficult to predict exactly how much of the increase in CO2 is due to the oceans warming up and man's use of fossil fuels. Since the oceans cover 75% of the world it is known that the CO2 output of warmer oceans is significant but again the scientists who want to blame it on man have not included it or studied the amounts at all.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by garageoffice
You have a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. The sun's rays only warm the atmosphere minimally on the way in. The greenhouse effect is the result of infrared heat radiating back from the surface of the earth on the way out. Water vapor (which is 10x as prevalent as CO2) absorbs energy across the entire infrared spectrum. CO2 absorbs energy across 2 or 3 narrow infrared bands, as do most other molecular gases. A given volume of water vapor absorbs many times as much heat as the same volume of CO2. That's why the total greenhouse warming from all sources of CO2 is approximately 1 degree Celsius. Man's contribution to the CO2 content affects a percentage of this 1 degree.

no...i understand the greenhouse effect......so now, i am asking, man's actions have no effect on the water vapor in the air???

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
thats what i have been trying to say.....NO ONE knows FOR SURE what causes the earths climate to behave like it does EXACTLY

But they do try to claim that my Chevy is responsible for a significant amount of it when nothing could be further from the truth. This whole idea that the climate is fragile and could be disrupted by a lifeform that does not even represent 1/100 of one percent of life on earth is just plain ludicrous and assinine.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
no...i understand the greenhouse effect......so now, i am asking, man's actions have no effect on the water vapor in the air???

Basically no. Life that emits methane have effect. Methane oxidizes in the troposhpere into water vapor.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
This whole idea that the climate is fragile and could be disrupted by a lifeform that does not even represent 1/100 of one percent of life on earth is just plain ludicrous and assinine.

so you don't think our output of gases and stuff on earth somewhat surpasses that of other lifeforms????

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Basically no.

basically???

so let me get this straight.....water vapor comes from plants caused by the sun's radiation.....sooooo cutting down millions of acres of rainforests have NO, NONE, ZERO effects on the water vapor in the air....is that what you are meaning by "basically, no"???

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by mustang04
no...i understand the greenhouse effect......so now, i am asking, man's actions have no effect on the water vapor in the air???

Why do you want to keep stating things in absolutes? The argument is not whether or not we have any effect, it's about the magnitude of that effect. I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but my complaint has to do with the inflammatory remarks and extreme legislation that has been discussed as the result of questionable science, while even some of the scientists doing the research are abandoning their positions.

In my opinion, we have made several mistakes that effect our environment negatively, and I'm all for correcting them. But while some say the ice caps are melting, there is also evidence that the antarctic ice is actually thickening. While there is local melting in inhabited areas in the arctic, a report I saw a couple of days ago reported that Greenland's overall average temps have actually decreased in the past 15 years.

I don't claim to have the answers, but I don't think a "sky is falling" attitude is appropriate either. While there are folks with the best intentions on both sides of the argument, I also believe there are those with their own agendas as well, and they are the ones crowing the loudest.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by mustang04
basically???

so let me get this straight.....water vapor comes from plants caused by the sun's radiation.....sooooo cutting down millions of acres of rainforests have NO, NONE, ZERO effects on the water vapor in the air....is that what you are meaning by "basically, no"???

I do think deforestation is a problem, but the vast majority of water vapor in the atmosphere comes from the natural water cycle of the major bodies of water.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Why do you want to keep stating things in absolutes? The argument is not whether or not we have any effect, it's about the magnitude of that effect. I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but my complaint has to do with the inflammatory remarks and extreme legislation that has been discussed as the result of questionable science, while even some of the scientists doing the research are abandoning their positions.

In my opinion, we have made several mistakes that effect our environment negatively, and I'm all for correcting them. But while some say the ice caps are melting, there is also evidence that the antarctic ice is actually thickening. While there is local melting in inhabited areas in the arctic, a report I saw a couple of days ago reported that Greenland's overall average temps have actually decreased in the past 15 years.

I don't claim to have the answers, but I don't think a "sky is falling" attitude is appropriate either. While there are folks with the best intentions on both sides of the argument, I also believe there are those with their own agendas as well, and they are the ones crowing the loudest.

have you not even read any of my previous posts....i'm not being a environmentalists extremists or anything...already said how i live a normal lifestyle and not the "environmental friendly one"....i, more or less, just think if people are going to come on here and TOTALLY cancel out human contribution to the greenhouse effect...then i want it TOTALLY backed up with evidence that ABSOLUTELY proves them right...which i know there is none....sooo yeah

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
so you don't think our output of gases and stuff on earth somewhat surpasses that of other lifeforms????

No it does not...... The oceans themselves emit more gasses back to the atmoshpere than man does in warmer climates.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by mustang04
have you not even read any of my previous posts....i'm not being a environmentalists extremists or anything...already said how i live a normal lifestyle and not the "environmental friendly one"....i, more or less, just think if people are going to come on here and TOTALLY cancel out human contribution to the greenhouse effect...then i want it TOTALLY backed up with evidence that ABSOLUTELY proves them right...which i know there is none....sooo yeah

I have read your previous posts. That's why I was surprised to see you claiming folks are saying we have no impact. The folks who have been doing most of the posting on the con side of the argument haven't been claiming we have no impact, only that the impact is limited and need not result in extreme measures until a better understanding is reached.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
no...i understand the greenhouse effect......so now, i am asking, man's actions have no effect on the water vapor in the air???

And of course the sun is the biggest mover of water vapor by any
measurement. And wind is also important in water evaporation.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And of course the sun is the biggest mover of water vapor by any
measurement. And wind is also important in water evaporation.

that is a given

[mustang04]

Originally posted by garageoffice
I have read your previous posts. That's why I was surprised to see you claiming folks are saying we have no impact. The folks who have been doing most of the posting on the con side of the argument haven't been claiming we have no impact, only that the impact is limited and need not result in extreme measures until a better understanding is reached.

when i refer to ppl claiming that...i am talking about posts ppl had on here a loooong time ago....we had a greenhouse discussion on here like a year and a half ago...and yes...there were ppl trying to say we didn't affect it.....sry if i refered to posts that went outside the thread

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
have you not even read any of my previous posts....i'm not being a environmentalists extremists or anything...already said how i live a normal lifestyle and not the "environmental friendly one"....i, more or less, just think if people are going to come on here and TOTALLY cancel out human contribution to the greenhouse effect...then i want it TOTALLY backed up with evidence that ABSOLUTELY proves them right...which i know there is none....sooo yeah

I have not said that there is none. What I have proven is that it is questionable and insignificant besides the power of the force.

Sorry I believe that science proves that the earth has more climate impact vis a via the suns activity by an extremely large amount and any lifeform as insignificant as us cannot deflect it that much at our current level of development. For example, insects alone acount for billions of species. There are more insects in a sqaure mile that all mankind on earth.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I have not said that there is none. What I have proven is that it is questionable and insignificant besides the power of the force.

Sorry I believe that science proves that the earth has more climate impact vis a via the suns activity by an extremely large amount and any lifeform as insignificant as us cannot deflect it that much at our current level of development. For example, insects alone acount for billions of species. There are more insects in a sqaure mile that all mankind on earth.

haha...once again you are telling me things i already know...how about finding someone who hasnt been a bio major for 2 and a half years to throw these facts at haha

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
There are more insects in a sqaure mile that all mankind on earth.


haha....a square mile of land where....cuz i'll say antarctica just to spite you haha

yes i do know that in rainforests there are more lifeforms in a square-mile than all of mankind on earth....you just have to know that i like being a smart@$$:D :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

The gist of my argument revolves around the fact that CO2 is important to life since all plant life on this planet uses it in photosynthesis. And since it is that plant life that creates O2 it would seem that the climate is fairly self regulating depending on the solar activity and the position of the orbit of earth around the sun. And we know that it changes and those changes cause climtalogical shifts a lot more dramatic that 1 tenth of 1 percent of the greenhouse gases on earth which is about what mankind has produced in the last 100 years or so. So the people trying to claim that the current warming trend is due to that activity are using such a small data sample as to say .00000000025 percent of the data available over the life of the earth Plus or minus a couple of more 0's. Kind of like you telling the irs you owe them a dollar when you really owe them 400,000,000.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
The gist of my argument revolves around the fact that CO2 is important to life since all plant life on this planet uses it in photosynthesis. And since it is that plant life that creates O2 it would seem that the climate is fairly self regulating depending on the solar activity and the position of the orbit of earth around the sun. And we know that it changes and those changes cause climtalogical shifts a lot more dramatic that 1 tenth of 1 percent of the greenhouse gases on earth which is about what mankind has produced in the last 100 years or so. So the people trying to claim that the current warming trend is due to that activity are using such a small data sample as to say .00000000025 percent of the data available over the life of the earth Plus or minus a couple of more 0's. Kind of like you telling the irs you owe them a dollar when you really owe them 400,000,000.

yes CO2 is good for plants....but the Guiness beer commercial pops into my head...you know...the one about moderation haha

i'm saying it one more time....i really dont care about what happens....i've already been near death so my outlook is to have fun while i can cuz you never know when you are goin to die....cuz i think it would be flippin hilarious if everybody changed their ways and we did things to help the environment and all that rubbish and after like 100 years of 'improvement' of the earth, a life ending asteroid hits and kills everybody anyways.....that would be funny in an ironic kind of way

[BILLYFRED0000]

The real threat to global warming is the heat sinks we have created called cities. All that concrete and asphalt capture and magnify heat more than anything else. Fortunately we cannot cover more than 20 percent of the earth at our current level of development but I project that this would increase the global mean temperature by 10 degrees F at least. At its current level of building it is probably responsible for at least 1/3 of the degree
of warming over the last 150 years.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
yes CO2 is good for plants....but the Guiness beer commercial pops into my head...you know...the one about moderation haha

i'm saying it one more time....i really dont care about what happens....i've already been near death so my outlook is to have fun while i can cuz you never know when you are goin to die....cuz i think it would be flippin hilarious if everybody changed their ways and we did things to help the environment and all that rubbish and after like 100 years of 'improvement' of the earth, a life ending asteroid hits and kills everybody anyways.....that would be funny in an ironic kind of way

That is also a part of my arguement. Even if we got the science spot on, we could not project the sociology of a 100 years from now. An asteroid would certainly render it moot. Or so would the discovery of a brand new technology. 100 years ago people in NY were worried at horse supply and getting rid of horseshit as
it was a major concern in a major city at the time. Computers, flight, radar, nuclear energy, solar energy, satellites, atomic weapons, and the list goes on and on of the things that have happened since. Since science cannot even accurately predict the weather next week, how can it predict what we will discover next year? All this is foolish beyond foolish and anyone who believes different has no vision of the future nor understanding of the past.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
That is also a part of my arguement. Even if we got the science spot on, we could not project the sociology of a 100 years from now. An asteroid would certainly render it moot. Or so would the discovery of a brand new technology. 100 years ago people in NY were worried at horse supply and getting rid of horseshit as
it was a major concern in a major city at the time. Computers, flight, radar, nuclear energy, solar energy, satellites, atomic weapons, and the list goes on and on of the things that have happened since. Since science cannot even accurately predict the weather next week, how can it predict what we will discover next year? All this is foolish beyond foolish and anyone who believes different has no vision of the future nor understanding of the past.


so are you buying drinks or shall i?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
so are you buying drinks or shall i?

Either way is good for me.

Bottom line is science may be reasonalbly good at uncovering the past but no one can predict the future. ta da............:D

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Either way is good for me.

Bottom line is science may be reasonalbly good at uncovering the past but no one can predict the future. ta da............:D

i'll get first round...you take second and we'll switch out until one of us is intoxicated enough to buy all the rounds.....hope you have a high tolerance!!!:D :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

YOu know, the funny thing is the one area where man has made
a small impact in CO2 is deforestation. Still not enough for the weather science doomsayers to begin to have an arguement, but maybe it contributes a bit towards the increase in CO2. I am not sure anyone has actually got good science on the issue. But the CO2 issue is a dead horse unless we drained the oceans, then we might have a problem.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
a small impact in CO2 is deforestation. Still not enough for the weather science doomsayers to begin to have an arguement, but maybe it contributes a bit towards the increase in CO2. HOW DO YOU SAY THIS?? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know its not enough? So your saying we are contributing to the prolem but it wont be as bad as some say... Where do you get THAT info???? Man.. you guys sure are willing to risk it all on an hope that some are wrong. Big gamble. I think its funny that people are so hung up on hanging on the the BIG SUV lifestyle that they are willing to turn a blind eye to a problem that can end life as we know it to protect it..:rolleyes: You guys dont think we should do what we can to reduce CO2????????:confused:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Just thought I would throw out one of the most brilliant minds in
Russia's point of view. And this guy is smart.......

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ‘greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
HOW DO YOU SAY THIS?? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know its not enough? So your saying we are contributing to the prolem but it wont be as bad as some say... Where do you get THAT info???? Man.. you guys sure are willing to risk it all on an hope that some are wrong. Big gamble. I think its funny that people are so hung up on hanging on the the BIG SUV lifestyle that they are willing to turn a blind eye to a problem that can end life as we know it to protect it..:rolleyes: You guys dont think we should do what we can to reduce CO2????????:confused:

You really can't read can you. I am not saying this. Prominent brialliant minds are. YOu simply do not have enough background to get it. You are calling it a gamble when I say there is not enough sceince to go either way. Do you understand .0000000025 percent data sampling rate. About 1 in 4.5 billion. And you are willing to bet on that? Now there is the gamble. Just read the Post above this one.

And I said we do not have the ability to deflect the climate one way or another at our current level of ability. We simply in relation to the solar system do not contribute enough mass or energy in CO2 to over come the effects of the universe and solar system and atmosphere around us. And we cannot predict the future. Even if the science is right are we still going to be living in the same house in a 100 years driving the same car using the same technology etc. Any new technology or asteroid or plague or whatever will change the living circumstances by then just like the last 100 year we went from the telegraph to wi fi and the horse and horse manure to cars and exhuast. If you think in a 100 years it will be exactly the same, you might have an arguement if the science is exactly right now which it most certainly is not.

[mustang04]

THREAD CLOSED FOR THE DAY!!!!:mad: :mad:

i've started drinking and yall are still arguing....VERY disrespectful

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
You really can't read can you. I am not saying this. Prominent brialliant minds are. YOu simply do not have enough background to get it. You are calling it a gamble when I say there is not enough sceince to go either way. Do you understand .0000000025 percent data sampling rate. About 1 in 4.5 billion. And you are willing to bet on that? Now there is the gamble. Just read the Post above this one.

And I said we do not have the ability to deflect the climate one way or another at our current level of ability. We simply in relation to the solar system do not contribute enough mass or energy in CO2 to over come the effects of the universe and solar system and atmosphere around us. And we cannot predict the future. Even if the science is right are we still going to be living in the same house in a 100 years driving the same car using the same technology etc. Any new technology or asteroid or plague or whatever will change the living circumstances by then just like the last 100 year we went from the telegraph to wi fi and the horse and horse manure to cars and exhuast. If you think in a 100 years it will be exactly the same, you might have an arguement if the science is exactly right now which it most certainly is not. NO.... YOU DONT GET IT.. Im saying if you have scientist who say we are destroying our planet by CO2 emmisions and some saying we arnt. then your gambling by doing nothing or having a wait and see attitude. WHY??? Because if your wrong and WAIT AND SEE, then it can be too late to do ANYTHING to stop it..... Thats a Gamble... Better be safe than sorry.. Like having car insurance. its a pain to pay every month UNTIL you have a wreck and then it pays off.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

No, you don't got it, GET IT?

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
NO.... YOU DONT GET IT.. Im saying if you have scientist who say we are destroying our planet by CO2 emmisions and some saying we arnt. then your gambling by doing nothing or having a wait and see attitude. WHY??? Because if your wrong and WAIT AND SEE, then it can be too late to do ANYTHING to stop it..... Thats a Gamble... Better be safe than sorry.. Like having car insurance. its a pain to pay every month UNTIL you have a wreck and then it pays off.

the man's gotta point....but he made that point after i declared that i have started drinking and yall should too...so his point is invalid along with any other points made for the rest of the day:D :D

[mustang04]

i swear...if i have to sober up just cuz trying type on here...im gonna be mad....more drinkee...less typee:p

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
HOW DO YOU SAY THIS?? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know its not enough? So your saying we are contributing to the prolem but it wont be as bad as some say... Where do you get THAT info???? Man.. you guys sure are willing to risk it all on an hope that some are wrong. Big gamble. I think its funny that people are so hung up on hanging on the the BIG SUV lifestyle that they are willing to turn a blind eye to a problem that can end life as we know it to protect it..:rolleyes: You guys dont think we should do what we can to reduce CO2????????:confused:
.
BM(can I call you BM)?
I think what many are try to get through to you is that your "Global warming" theory and the reasons behind them are flawed to the point of becoming an untruth. There is very litlle to back up your claims and many here have presented evidence to contradict your beliefs. You have ignored some very valid points in this debate and continue to defend your beliefs like it's some kind of religion. And that very much might be what it is because since you have nothing tangible to back up your beliefs you have to rely on faith to continue your arguement, just like a religion isn't it?:thinking: :p

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by mustang04
i swear...if i have to sober up just cuz trying type on here...im gonna be mad....more drinkee...less typee:p
.
I'm buying if you drink more.:D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by mustang04
i swear...if i have to sober up just cuz trying type on here...im gonna be mad....more drinkee...less typee:p booze hound!:dispntd: :dispntd: Your a discrace to the university. Drinking like that before 5 on thursday at a fine educational institution like that:dispntd: :dispntd:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
BM(can I call you BM)?
I think what many are try to get through to you is that your "Global warming" theory and the reasons behind them are flawed to the point of becoming an untruth. There is very litlle to back up your claims and many here have presented evidence to contradict your beliefs. You have ignored some very valid points in this debate and continue to defend your beliefs like it's some kind of religion. And that very much might be what it is because since you have nothing tangible to back up your beliefs you have to rely on faith to continue your arguement, just like a religion isn't it?:thinking: :p

ok get this guy outta here......here i was drinking and trying to get everyone else to calm down and drink w/ me and he had to open up a whole new can.....can we get someone to Rom this guy


Gawlee the NERVE of some ppl

:D :D :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
NO.... YOU DONT GET IT.. Im saying if you have scientist who say we are destroying our planet by CO2 emmisions and some saying we arnt. then your gambling by doing nothing or having a wait and see attitude. WHY??? Because if your wrong and WAIT AND SEE, then it can be too late to do ANYTHING to stop it..... Thats a Gamble... Better be safe than sorry.. Like having car insurance. its a pain to pay every month UNTIL you have a wreck and then it pays off.
.
Oh I get it myself.
I get the fact that your "scientist" want us all in the U.S. to go back to the Flintstone age. Are you willing to make that sacrifice BM?:tongue:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by mustang04
ok get this guy outta here......here i was drinking and trying to get everyone else to calm down and drink w/ me and he had to open up a whole new can.....can we get someone to Rom this guy


Gawlee the NERVE of some ppl

:D :D :D
.
Ok reg, I'm not buying now...:flaming: :evillol:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
booze hound!:dispntd: :dispntd: Your a discrace to the university. Drinking like that before 5 on thursday at a fine educational institution like that:dispntd: :dispntd:

yeah...well this "fine institution" is trying to become a part of Texas Tech...and if i get shafted with money problems....i'm gonna get up in the middle of the night just to start drinking for the day:)

[mustang04]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Ok reg, I'm not buying now...:flaming: :evillol:

haha...well...as long as you buy me drinks.....you can say whatever you want on here!;) :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by mustang04
haha...well...as long as you buy me drinks.....you can say whatever you want on here!;) :D
.
SEE?
We can come to an understanding here afterall. lol

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
BM(can I call you BM)?
I think what many are try to get through to you is that your "Global warming" theory and the reasons behind them are flawed to the point of becoming an untruth. There is very litlle to back up your claims and many here have presented evidence to contradict your beliefs. You have ignored some very valid points in this debate and continue to defend your beliefs like it's some kind of religion. And that very much might be what it is because since you have nothing tangible to back up your beliefs you have to rely on faith to continue your arguement, just like a religion isn't it?:thinking: :p No it is them who has ignored data. not me. Is global warming a proven fact and that it without a doubt happening?? I DONT KNOW FOR SURE. NEITHER DO YOU.... There is Data BOTH ways.... So what Next? wait and see who was right? that would be stupid. what do we lose if Global warming scientist are wrong. Money but get cleaner air and healthier lungs and bodies.. what do we lose if they are right and we do nothing until things get bad.. the Planet. that is stupid thinking.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
SEE?
We can come to an understanding here afterall. lol

that'll be a double shot of Vodka with a follow-up of Full throttle.......and keep them coming!:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
No it is them who has ignored data. not me. Is global warming a proven fact and that it without a doubt happening?? I DONT KNOW FOR SURE. NEITHER DO YOU.... There is Data BOTH ways.... So what Next? wait and see who was right? that would be stupid. what do we lose if Global warming scientist are wrong. Money but get cleaner air and healthier lungs and bodies.. what do we lose if they are right and we do nothing until things get bad.. the Planet. that is stupid thinking.
.
I disagree. I think that even coming up and defending a flawed theory like the "Greenhouse Effect" is pretty stupid and one is now driven by politics instead of cold hard facts.:thinking:
You admitted that there is "Data BOTH ways" and I'm proud of you for finally acknowledging that what many have been trying to point out to you is valid indeed.
Our air is cleaner today and might very well improve in the future, and that's a good thing. But don't try to feed some cock n bull saying we have to change everything today because of the fear that something "might" happen in the future based on a highly erroneous and flawed theory.
.
Reg, I'm not excited or mad. Just havin some fun with this.;)
.
ACK ACK! I gotta get back to work and will be back on later.:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by mustang04
that'll be a double shot of Vodka with a follow-up of Full throttle.......and keep them coming!:)
.
Sounds good. "More drinks for for Reggie!!!":clap: :D

[mustang04]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.

.
Reg, I'm not excited or mad. Just havin some fun with this.;)
.
ACK ACK! I gotta get back to work and will be back on later.:)


WHERES MY VODKA AND FULL THROTTLE!!!!!:confused:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by mustang04
WHERES MY VODKA AND FULL THROTTLE!!!!!:confused:
.
Dude FedEx is on the way!:thumbsup:

[mustang04]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Dude FedEx is on the way!:thumbsup:

sweeeeeet!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
NO.... YOU DONT GET IT.. Im saying if you have scientist who say we are destroying our planet by CO2 emmisions and some saying we arnt. then your gambling by doing nothing or having a wait and see attitude. WHY??? Because if your wrong and WAIT AND SEE, then it can be too late to do ANYTHING to stop it..... Thats a Gamble... Better be safe than sorry.. Like having car insurance. its a pain to pay every month UNTIL you have a wreck and then it pays off.
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.

So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future.

Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.

At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.

What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.

Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.

So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future.

Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.

At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.

What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.

Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).

Point Invalid....already started drinking

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
No it is them who has ignored data. not me. Is global warming a proven fact and that it without a doubt happening?? I DONT KNOW FOR SURE. NEITHER DO YOU.... There is Data BOTH ways.... So what Next? wait and see who was right? that would be stupid. what do we lose if Global warming scientist are wrong. Money but get cleaner air and healthier lungs and bodies.. what do we lose if they are right and we do nothing until things get bad.. the Planet. that is stupid thinking.

This is a portion of an article written by Richard A Lindzen Professor of meteorology at MIT today in the UK Daily Mail.


Completely divorced from scientific reality


Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality. It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.

In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure'.

This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his report.

He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon, of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing climate history.

There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.

But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.

So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future.

Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.

At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.

What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.

Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).

Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'


In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.

Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.

Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.

Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.

Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.

Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all — something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.

Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and improve his, environment.

There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the 19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease and slums were rife.

Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.

That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.

Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report is manifestly incompetent.

It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and data is twisted to suit a political purpose.

I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.

What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.

Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal.

The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science to push forward this agenda.

Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Completely divorced from scientific reality


Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality. It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.

In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure'.

This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his report.

He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon, of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing climate history.

There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.

But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.

So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future.

Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.

At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.

What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.

Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).

Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'


In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.

Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.

Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.

Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.

Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.

Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all — something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.

Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and improve his, environment.

There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the 19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease and slums were rife.

Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.

That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.

Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report is manifestly incompetent.

It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and data is twisted to suit a political purpose.

I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.

What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.

Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal.

The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science to push forward this agenda.

Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Another Invalid Point due to posting after drinking has commenced....and where are you copying and pasting this from

[BuffyMars]

I am just tired of reading. Or wait. I am tired. Period.

My eye balls hurt. Which in turn is making my brain hurt. Which in turn is making me wish to strangle anyone else that calls the office.

Do ya'll think anyone would notice if I unplugged everyone's phone? :thinking: :devil:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
Another Invalid Point due to posting after drinking has commenced....and where are you copying and pasting this from

This is a portion of an article written by Richard A Lindzen Professor of meteorology at MIT today in the UK Daily Mail.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
But don't try to feed some cock n bull saying we have to change everything today because of the fear that something "might" happen in the future based on a highly erroneous and flawed theory.
.
GOD.. your hard headed and dont listen. You really dont understand that you can be wrong. you say its a flawed theory JUST like the scientist who say Global warming due to co2 emissions is flawed... The scientist who have data to the contrary claim the same thing about those scientist who say its not happening.... Your only accepting one side and one side only. thats why you have a problem with this whole thing. open your eyes and just think about the ramifications of you and those scientist you trust being WRONG... its not as simple as saying 50 years from now " oops we were wrong". There will be a HUGE price to pay if your wrong. More than ANY of us can pay.

[pirate4state]

13 pages??????????????????? 13 pages????????????????

WHY????

Will someone tell me if this thread needs to be closed? I don't want to read 13 pages of posts.

[pirate44]

this link should put a nail in the coffin and finalize the argument (at least for a minute or two)

Science Agrees on Climate Change (http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/member.php?s=&action=logout)

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
GOD.. your hard headed and dont listen. You really dont understand that you can be wrong. you say its a flawed theory JUST like the scientist who say Global warming due to co2 emissions is flawed... The scientist who have data to the contrary claim the same thing about those scientist who say its not happening.... Your only accepting one side and one side only. thats why you have a problem with this whole thing. open your eyes and just think about the ramifications of you and those scientist you trust being WRONG... its not as simple as saying 50 years from now " oops we were wrong". There will be a HUGE price to pay if your wrong. More than ANY of us can pay.

the man's got another point....but, guess what...it's invalid as well.....sheeeesh, i thought yall would have learned by now

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
GOD.. your hard headed and dont listen. You really dont understand that you can be wrong. you say its a flawed theory JUST like the scientist who say Global warming due to co2 emissions is flawed... The scientist who have data to the contrary claim the same thing about those scientist who say its not happening.... Your only accepting one side and one side only. thats why you have a problem with this whole thing. open your eyes and just think about the ramifications of you and those scientist you trust being WRONG... its not as simple as saying 50 years from now " oops we were wrong". There will be a HUGE price to pay if your wrong. More than ANY of us can pay.

And there is a huge price to pay now if you are wrong and you are. There is no reason to change anything because anything we change could make it worse. What if the CO2 is the thing that is making the climate work like it should and removing it puts is in a giant deep freeze? You see the what if game goes both ways.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
GOD.. your hard headed and dont listen. You really dont understand that you can be wrong. you say its a flawed theory JUST like the scientist who say Global warming due to co2 emissions is flawed... The scientist who have data to the contrary claim the same thing about those scientist who say its not happening.... Your only accepting one side and one side only. thats why you have a problem with this whole thing. open your eyes and just think about the ramifications of you and those scientist you trust being WRONG... its not as simple as saying 50 years from now " oops we were wrong". There will be a HUGE price to pay if your wrong. More than ANY of us can pay.

<----------Bangs head on desk.

I think we need to just respect that everyone has different opinions. The point shouldn't be to try and change the others mind, cause this thread is not going to save the world. If'n the world needs saving. :tongue:

It seems like everyone is missing the POINT of why some aren't investing all their faith in the scientists who are claiming humans are to blame for global warming.

And if you need to be reminded of the many POINTS, please reread cause I am too tired to go over this for the umpteenth time.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
<----------Bangs head on desk.

I think we need to just respect that everyone has different opinions. The point shouldn't be to try and change the others mind, cause this thread is not going to save the world. If'n the world needs saving. :tongue:

It seems like everyone is missing the POINT of why some aren't investing all their faith in the scientists who are claiming humans are to blame for global warming.

And if you need to be reminded of the many POINTS, please reread cause I am too tired to go over this for the umpteenth time.

thats invalid as well....i started drinking a long time ago

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And there is a huge price to pay now if you are wrong and you are. There is no reason to change anything because anything we change could make it worse. What if the CO2 is the thing that is making the climate work like it should and removing it puts is in a giant deep freeze? You see the what if game goes both ways. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That takes the cake!!!!:clap: :clap: :clap: "What if the cars are saving us from an ICE AGE DUDE?!?!:eek: :eek: BWAHAHAHA!!!!! Clearly someone who does not care about the ramifications that they could be wrong.. thing is what IF im wrong and we clean up our acts.. we have cleaner air to breath, making peoples lives with repratory ilnesses better ... IF your wrong and we do nothing we lose the PLANET...

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
<----------Bangs head on desk.

I think we need to just respect that everyone has different opinions. The point shouldn't be to try and change the others mind, cause this thread is not going to save the world. If'n the world needs saving. :tongue:

It seems like everyone is missing the POINT of why some aren't investing all their faith in the scientists who are claiming humans are to blame for global warming.

And if you need to be reminded of the many POINTS, please reread cause I am too tired to go over this for the umpteenth time.

LOL ~~~ Welcome to 3A Down Low!!! :)

[pirate44]

yall wussies need to quit opening this thread if you dont like it LOL:D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
[BAnd if you need to be reminded of the many POINTS, please reread cause I am too tired to go over this for the umpteenth time. [/B] When I get tired of reading something I do something simple... I dont read it anymore:rolleyes:

[BuffyMars]

"If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wronIf you're wrong and we do nothing, g and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing..........................

<----------MAKING THE NOOSE NOW.:speech:

[pirate44]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
"If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wronIf you're wrong and we do nothing, g and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing..........................

<----------MAKING THE NOOSE NOW.:speech:
ROFL

[mustang04]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
When I get tired of reading something I do something simple... I dont read it anymore:rolleyes:

EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND HAVE A FRIGGIN DRINK!!!!!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
"If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wronIf you're wrong and we do nothing, g and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing, If you're wrong and we do nothing..........................

<----------MAKING THE NOOSE NOW.:speech: You may not need a noose in 60 years;) :D

[pirate44]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You may not need a noose in 60 years;) :D
i thought we only had 10? woohoo!!

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by mustang04
EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND HAVE A FRIGGIN DRINK!!!!!

What kind? :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That takes the cake!!!!:clap: :clap: :clap: "What if the cars are saving us from an ICE AGE DUDE?!?!:eek: :eek: BWAHAHAHA!!!!! Clearly someone who does not care about the ramifications that they could be wrong.. thing is what IF im wrong and we clean up our acts.. we have cleaner air to breath, making peoples lives with repratory ilnesses better ... IF your wrong and we do nothing we lose the PLANET...

But when I say if you are wrong I post some science to back it up and I do not go nananana.

Quoting from Ria Novosti on an article from January 15 this year.
FYI-Ria Novosti is a leading Russian newspaper.

Abdusamatov is a brilliant mathmetician and physicist from Russia

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ‘greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

[BuffyMars]

I am impressed that we have kept this debate going without any slandering to my knowledge. Nothing that was personal anyway. :D

Too bad we can't do that on the UT & A&M threads. :(

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mustang04
EVERYBODY SHUT UP AND HAVE A FRIGGIN DRINK!!!!!

Well I did not have a drink yet(working), but I stayed in a Holiday
Inn last night.

[garageoffice]

Anybody else getting dizzy? Maybe it's just a blood-sugar problem. :D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Sea levels were 200 feet lower not higher. But co2 was twice as high. . Still waiting on how you explain this BM.....

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Still waiting on how you explain this BM.....

I am still waiting on an answer too.....

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I am still waiting on an answer too.....

I thought you were getting your noose ready? :thinking: ;)

I'm waiting for my drink ....

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I am impressed that we have kept this debate going without any slandering to my knowledge. Nothing that was personal anyway. :D

Too bad we can't do that on the UT & A&M threads. :(

I think it's lasted just because I haven't posted on it. :D

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by pirate4state
I thought you were getting your noose ready? :thinking: ;)

I'm waiting for my drink ....

DON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!!

Obviously it's the only thing she's hanging on for...

:D

[pirate4state]

Well, maroon87 is buying me a DP later so I have that going for me. :p :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Still waiting on how you explain this BM.....

What do you mean? It is simply the geologic record at the time.

You see the current climatologist are only concerned with the recent era's but paleoclimatologists and geologists have more records. That is what they surmised with the records at the time.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
What do you mean? It is simply the geologic record at the time.

You see the current climatologist are only concerned with the recent era's but paleoclimatologists and geologists have more records. That is what they surmised with the records at the time. Right. I was wanting Black Magic to explain to me how we had twice the CO2 and yet more polar ice caps thousands of years ago. That is in direct contrast to his data.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Right. I was wanting Black Magic to explain to me how we had twice the CO2 and yet more polar ice caps thousands of years ago. That is in direct contrast to his data.

I am not sure where he get his data. I have read and collected mine on weather since my early days in highschool. It was one of the things that got me a Scholarship offer to Boston College in Science. That and my act score of 35 out of 36 in science that is.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am not sure where he get his data. I have read and collected mine on weather since my early days in highschool. It was one of the things that got me a Scholarship offer to Boston College in Science. That and my act score of 35 out of 36 in science that is.

well i have news for ya....vodka dont care whether you scored a 3 or a 35 on the ACT....it just ants to get ya drunk the same.....drinks for everybody on me!!!! place your orders on the thread i'm about to make!!!

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
your hard headed and dont listen. You really dont understand that you can be wrong. :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[pirate44]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
i was arguing with Beckye the other night when i told her "cant you admit you just MIGHT be wrong", yet i totally forgot that i MIGHT be wrong too. :doh: i never apologized for that, but i married a good woman.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by pirate44
i was arguing with Beckye the other night when i told her "cant you admit you just MIGHT be wrong", yet i totally forgot that i MIGHT be wrong too. :doh: i never apologized for that, but i married a good woman. Hey, at least you figured it out. :D ;)

[pirate44]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Hey, at least you figured it out. :D ;)
yup. i always do :)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
Hey, at least you figured it out. :D ;)

I am not even claiming to be right. Just claiming that I don't know and the scientist don't know and we really don't have enough info
to make any intelligent suggestions. Although I tend to agree with the Russian guy that it is solar and the oceans are cooling. As go the oceans temps so go the worlds.

[pirate44]

Two women were playing golf. One teed off and watched in horror
as her ball headed directly toward a foursome of men playing the next
hole. The ball hit one of the men. He immediately clasped his hands
together at his groin, fell to the ground and proceeded to roll around
in agony.
The woman rushed down to the man, and immediately began to
apologize.” Please allow me to help. I'm a physical therapist and
I know I could relieve your pain if you'd allow me, "she told him.
"Oh, no, I'll be all right. I'll be fine in a few minutes," the man
replied. He was in obvious agony, lying in the fetal position,
still clasping his hands together at his groin. At her persistence,
however, he finally allowed her to help.
She gently took his hands away and laid them to the side, loosened
his pants and put her hands inside. She administered a tender and
artful massage for several long moments and asked, "How does
that feel"?

He replied, "It feels great, but my thumb still Hurts like hell!

[BILLYFRED0000]

A man entered the bus with both of his front pockets full of golf balls and sat down next to a beautiful (you guessed it) blonde.

The puzzled blonde kept looking at him and his bulging pockets.

Finally, after many such glances from her, he said, "It's golf balls."

Nevertheless, the blonde continued to look at him thoughtfully and finally, not being able to contain her curiosity any longer, asked, "Does it hurt as much as tennis elbow?"

[Txbroadcaster]

It took 27 pages but the thread has finally jumped the tracks

[BILLYFRED0000]

I just thought it was time for a little comic relief. Besides, I was going to have to start workin. All the stuff I have posted is just stuff I have read thru in the last few months. It was starting to get to stuff where I could not remember who the paper was written by. Memory is the first thing to go.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Memory is the first thing to go.

If you're lucky! :doh:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by garageoffice
If you're lucky! :doh:
LOL

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I am not even claiming to be right. I was trying to use a little reverse psychology on BM. ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
I was trying to use a little reverse psychology on BM. ;)

I know. It is humorous tho to see who has pre conceived notions and will defend them at all costs. I like to play the devils advocate in either right or wrong positions. Without ever claiming one way or the other what my position really is. However on GW, and you can quote me on this, the more I study it the more I think it is all a bunch of hooey.

[sahen]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
the more I study it the more I think it is all a bunch of hooey.
there is a lot of people that come to this conclusion....

anyway this thread is a crap load longer than i ever thought, but that is good...the best thing for science is argument and discussion like this that provokes research so the real truth can be determined....atleast i guess thats best for me, gives me more job opportunities :) so argue away!

[Txbroadcaster]

The biggest thing about this thread is during the debate for the most part it has remained civil and informative

[sahen]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The biggest thing about this thread is during the debate for the most part it has remained civil and informative
i suppose that is important too....it has almost turned political a couple times (i havent read it all, its too long) but stayed away from turning into a complete political attack which is quite impressive for a thread of this size as well...

[SintonFan]

:weeping: :weeping: :weeping:
.
I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, BM.
I feel the love fest and please please forgive me and accept my humble apology.:bigcry:
.
.
lol @ those jokes 44 and BF0.:thumbsup:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by sahen
i suppose that is important too....it has almost turned political a couple times (i havent read it all, its too long) but stayed away from turning into a complete political attack which is quite impressive for a thread of this size as well...


ONE comment about Iraq was as close as to being political as it got

[garageoffice]

Hey...this was fun!!! What are we gonna tackle next? The hole in the ozone layer? Where Venus REALLY came from?

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Where Venus REALLY came from? I think there were some rumors about the whole chicken/egg theory being discussed. :devil:

[Gobbla2001]

I think everyone besides maybe one have kept this very civil and informative...

Kudos to all for doing such a great job...

but half of you are wrong...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Hey...this was fun!!! What are we gonna tackle next? The hole in the ozone layer?
.
Volcanoes DUDE!:D

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Volcanoes DUDE!:D

Naah! I don't believe in volcanoes! No such thing...it's just a scam perpetrated on the little people of the world by our oppressive governmental institutions.

:D :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Naah! I don't believe in volcanoes! No such thing...it's just a scam perpetrated on the little people of the world by our oppressive governmental institutions.

:D :D
.
lol
Better watch out or someone might "blow their top".;)

[mustang04]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Where Venus REALLY came from?

lets talk about that hole on Uranus:D