Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Txbroadcaster]

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists



By JULIE WHELDON
Last updated at 00:22am on 5th March 2007


Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[Gobbla2001]

I dunno what to believe anymore...

I'm just gunna keep on drivin' around for no good reason and fartin' until I die...

[Keith7]

I don't believe its just a myth.. the number of glaciers in the artic circle has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years, and the artic circle itself has even shrunk.. And to say that the greenhouse effect is a myth is a bad way to word it, because Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system despite being only the 2nd closest planet to the sun.. the reason for this? because Venus' atmosphere is composed of 95% carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.. so yes the green house effect is very real

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't believe its just a myth.. the number of glaciers in the artic circle has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years, and the artic circle itself has even shrunk.. And to say that the greenhouse effect is a myth is a bad way to word it, because Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system despite being only the 2nd closest planet to the sun.. the reason for this? because Venus' atmosphere is composed of 95% carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.. so yes the green house effect is very real

I think it is possible for there to be a greenouse effect, it's just too much for people to push for it that hard for nothing... but I also know that a small ice-age ended in Europe around the mid 1800's... that had to have been a lot of cows fartin'...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't believe its just a myth.. the number of glaciers in the artic circle has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years, and the artic circle itself has even shrunk.. And to say that the greenhouse effect is a myth is a bad way to word it, because Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system despite being only the 2nd closest planet to the sun.. the reason for this? because Venus' atmosphere is composed of 95% carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.. so yes the green house effect is very real The real debate centers around what's causing it. Anybody that says they have the answer and that everyone else is wrong is just an egomaniac. Nobody really knows. Plus it's all cyclical.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I dunno what to believe anymore...

I'm just gunna keep on drivin' around for no good reason and fartin' until I die...

Or, some other folks do....:D You're right up there with the dog, Gobbla----You're both doing more than your share to contibute to global warming.

[shankbear]

This goes in predictable cycles. The doom and gloom crowd conveniently ignore that. There have been many cycles when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is tremendously higher than it is now and for the last 50 years. The balance is getting about even with scientists on their thoughts about global warming. It is funny because in the early 70s the big alarm was the coming new ice age.

[Macarthur]

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."


Here's the thing. There's no question the earth has had and will continue to have cycles. The question is do our human activities, primairly the burning of fossil fuels, speed the process.

Also, from a pragmatic standpoint. Let's imagine 100 years from now the consequencies of each standpoint if they are wrong. If the Global warming crowd is wrong, the least we have done is reduced CO2, and reduced the burning of fossil fuels, which in turn reduces air polution. If the Global warming oponents are wrong, the earth could be very different. Weather patterns would be drastically different, Major disruptions in vegitation, Severe drought.

My point is, the consequences of doing nothing are too high. Even if the earth is going through a "natural process", shouldn't we attempt to keep the climate as stable as we can? To me, the "implied" position of these anti-climate change folks is highly irresponsible. The implication is that "hey, things are fine; we don't need to make any changes. Just keep driving you 12 mpg vehicles; we'll all be just fine....."

Even if the climate thing is an inexact science, air polution is very real.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
but I also know that a small ice-age ended in Europe around the mid 1800's...

and that little ice-age is why most American's prefer beer as their choice of alcohol...

CHEERS!!!

[Keith7]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
The real debate centers around what's causing it. Anybody that says they have the answer and that everyone else is wrong is just an egomaniac. Nobody really knows. Plus it's all cyclical.

you are right.. but the fact that it is happening or could very well happen, is enough reason to try and find an answer.. Ya alot of peoples solutions to the problems are kind of out there, and we all know people arn't going to get up one day and decide to ditch their car, but this is why we need to keep looking into alternative fuels.. A more enviromentally friendly fuel that we do not have depend on overseas to obtain would be a win/win situation for not only americans but the whole world

[Gobbla2001]

I agree, it is for sure something to look into...

I wonder why the extreme conservatives haven't come up with a little extreme thoughts of their own?

"the earth and it's atmosphere has become dependent on the levels of carbon dioxide we have been giving it, we just can't simply pull the plug on its life-support"

I'd have to laugh...

[BuffyMars]

Every article is skeptical. No one can say who is right and who is wrong.

I do know that it never hurts to try and take care of our lovely mother earth.

~*Peace*~

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


"the earth and it's atmosphere has become dependent on the levels of carbon dioxide we have been giving it, we just can't simply pull the plug on its life-support"



lol "we can not cut and run on our carbon dioxide that means the fossil fuels win"

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
lol "we can not cut and run on our carbon dioxide"

bwahaha

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. but the fact that it is happening or could very well happen, is enough reason to try and find an answer.. Ya alot of peoples solutions to the problems are kind of out there, and we all know people arn't going to get up one day and decide to ditch their car, but this is why we need to keep looking into alternative fuels.. A more enviromentally friendly fuel that we do not have depend on overseas to obtain would be a win/win situation for not only americans but the whole world I agree. :eek: :eek:

BUT, don't tell me that I'm an evil person because I need a big truck to pull my boat, or tax me to death because I'm not being "earth friendly". (I'm not saying that you are. It's just a general statement.)

Research, I agree with. More taxes, (freon) I'm against.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I agree. :eek: :eek:

BUT, don't tell me that I'm an evil person because I need a big truck to pull my boat, or tax me to death because I'm not being "earth friendly".

Research, I agree with. More taxes, (freon) I'm against.

preach!

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I agree. :eek: :eek:

BUT, don't tell me that I'm an evil person because I need a big truck to pull my boat, or tax me to death because I'm not being "earth friendly". (I'm not saying that you are. It's just a general statement.)

Research, I agree with. More taxes, (freon) I'm against.

I would never tell someone what they should or should not drive, especially if they use that vehicle.

The problem I have is with all the soccer moms I see driving around the burbs in these huge SUVs yaking on the phone with one kid in the car. Or the jerk that drives his Ford F-250 diesel to his job in downtown Dallas and that truck never sees anything but the Dallas asphalt.

[Black_Magic]

Lets think about it folks... What if your right and polution does not cause a green house effect?.... and you take measurs to clean up greenhouse gases and fuel emissions?.... What do you get? clean air... cost more money but cleaner air... WHAT IF the Green house effect IS caused by fuel emissions????? and you take measures to stop it before it is too late???.. You have saved the planet..... IF YOU ARE WRONG and DONT listen to warnings about it and believe the scientist who say the greenhouse effect caused by burning fuel the way we are... We Continue to devistate the planet until it is TOO LATE to stop it.... I will be cautious and error on the safe side. at worst we have cleaner air.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I would never tell someone what they should or should not drive, especially if they use that vehicle.

The problem I have is with all the soccer moms I see driving around the burbs in these huge SUVs yaking on the phone with one kid in the car. Or the jerk that drives his Ford F-250 diesel to his job in downtown Dallas and that truck never sees anything but the Dallas asphalt. It all begins with the auto manufacturers. They are resistant to change and have a strong lobby in Washington.:(

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Lets think about it folks... What if your right and polution does not cause a green house effect?.... and you take measurs to clean up greenhouse gases and fuel emissions?.... What do you get? clean air... cost more money but cleaner air... WHAT IF the Green house effect IS caused by fuel emissions????? and you take measures to stop it before it is too late???.. You have saved the planet..... IF YOU ARE WRONG and DONT listen to warnings about it and believe the scientist who say the greenhouse effect caused by burning fuel the way we are... We Continue to devistate the planet until it is TOO LATE to stop it.... I will be cautious and error on the safe side. at worst we have cleaner air. Then let's starting building nuclear power plants tomorrow!:)

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I would never tell someone what they should or should not drive, especially if they use that vehicle.

The problem I have is with all the soccer moms I see driving around the burbs in these huge SUVs yaking on the phone with one kid in the car. Or the jerk that drives his Ford F-250 diesel to his job in downtown Dallas and that truck never sees anything but the Dallas asphalt.

There are a huge amount of taxes paid on gasoline and diesel, so person using more of it pays more. As to where those taxes go, I have no real idea.
First thought is that money could be used for research, but there's already a lot of dead beat scientists who have no real job, but make their living on government grants. In order to continue to receive these grants they've got to come up with controversial theories and then produce information to substantiate their theories. Many of the scientists could argue either way on global warming and some probably have.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Then let's starting building nuclear power plants tomorrow!:)

Actually, they have quite a few in Europe. They are much more efficient; people are just freaked out about the potential for a meltdown, which is highly unlikely.

I would not mind more nuclear plants.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by BTEXDAD
There are a huge amount of taxes paid on gasoline and diesel, so person using more of it pays more. As to where those taxes go, I have no real idea.
First thought is that money could be used for research, but there's already a lot of dead beat scientists who have no real job, but make their living on government grants. In order to continue to receive these grants they've got to come up with controversial theories and then produce information to substantiate their theories. Many of the scientists could argue either way on global warming and some probably have.

The same can be said about scientists on the Oil Company payrolls....;)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Actually, they have quite a few in Europe. They are much more efficient; people are just freaked out about the potential for a meltdown, which is highly unlikely.

I would not mind more nuclear plants. I was serious when I posted this. I'm all for it. It's much, much safer and almost completely clean of pollution. But you can't tell the environmentalist wakos that. They'll freak.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
It all begins with the auto manufacturers. They are resistant to change and have a strong lobby in Washington.:(

That's true, but the auto manufactuers make what the public demands. If our demands would shift, so would their products.

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Macarthur
The same can be said about scientists on the Oil Company payrolls....;)

that i can't argue with you about, mac.
I don't like government controls on business, but I dont' like monopolistic companies controlling economy either.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I was serious when I posted this. I'm all for it. It's much, much safer and almost completely clean of pollution. But you can't tell the environmentalist wakos that. They'll freak.

Well, you do have the big problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. That is a big drawback of nuclear.

[BILLYFRED0000]

I did not bother to read all of your debate on this particular issue because I already know that Global warming does in fact exist.
It has in fact existed since the last Ice Age ended or else we would still be mired in an Ice Age. The psuedo science that claims
CO2 is the main contributer has already been shown to be false this last century by following CO2 and temperature data.

I am quoting
The crude idea in the common popular presentation of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight (apart from the very significant reflectivity of both clouds and the surface), which heats the Earth's surface. The surface offsets that heating by radiating in the infrared. The infrared radiation increases with increasing surface temperature, and the temperature adjusts until balance is achieved. If the atmosphere were also transparent to infrared radiation, the infrared radiation produced by an average surface temperature of minus eighteen degrees centigrade would balance the incoming solar radiation (less that amount reflected back to space by clouds). The atmosphere is not transparent in the infrared, however. So the Earth must heat up somewhat more to deliver the same flux of infrared radiation to space. That is what is called the greenhouse effect.

The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.
end quotes.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Quote

The simple picture of the greenhouse mechanism is seriously oversimplified. Many of us were taught in elementary school that heat is transported by radiation, convection, and conduction. The above representation only refers to radiative transfer. As it turns out, if there were only radiative heat transfer, the greenhouse effect would warm the Earth to about seventy-seven degrees centigrade rather than to fifteen degrees centigrade. In fact, the greenhouse effect is only about 25 percent of what it would be in a pure radiative situation. The reason for this is the presence of convection (heat transport by air motions), which bypasses much of the radiative absorption.


What is really going on is ... the surface of the Earth is cooled in large measure by air currents (in various forms including deep clouds) that carry heat upward and poleward. One consequence of this ... is that it is the greenhouse gases well above the Earth's surface that are of primary importance in determining the temperature of the Earth. That is especially important for water vapor, whose density decreases by about a factor of 1,000 between the surface and ten kilometers above the surface. Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned" to get those quantities approximately right.
End quote.

In other words current models cannot account for water vapor and convective radiation at all. Which is why there is no way that less than 2 percent of the greenhouse gases has any measurable effect. It leaves 98 percent of the variables out of the equations rendering it without value or merit.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect. I guess that would make the entire human race a 2%er.:thumbsup:

[BILLYFRED0000]

One last tidbit for those of you interested.


quoting

It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates. More important, the climate is a complex system where it is impossible for all other internal factors to remain constant. In present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood of four to five degrees centigrade. Internal processes within the climate system that change in response to warming in such a manner as to amplify the response are known as positive feedbacks. Internal processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks. The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors.

Similarly, factors involving the contribution of snow cover to reflectivity serve, in current models, to amplify warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. What happens seems reasonable enough; warmer climates presumably are associated with less snow cover and less reflectivity--which, in turn, amplify the warming. Snow is associated with winter when incident sunlight is minimal, however. Moreover, clouds shield the Earth's surface from the sun and minimize the response to snow cover. Indeed, there is growing evidence that clouds accompany diminishing snow cover to such an extent as to make that feedback factor negative. If, however, one asks why current models predict that large warming will accompany increasing carbon dioxide, the answer is mostly due to the effect of the water vapor feedback. Current models all predict that warmer climates will be accompanied by increasing humidity at all levels. As already noted, such behavior is an artifact of the models since they have neither the physics nor the numerical accuracy to deal with water vapor. Recent studies of the physics of how deep clouds moisturize the atmosphere strongly suggest that this largest of the positive feedbacks is not only negative, but very large.
end quotes.

Basically, the psuedo science of man made green house gases is based on an assumed prediction of the reaction of water vapor in the atmosphere which we do not have the physics to understand nor the knowledge to predict. And sense it accounts for 98 percent of the reative mass of green house gases and has both positive and negative feedback resolutions, no scientist can accurately predict or produce any proof of their assertions.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I took a geology class in the fall that talked about this very thing. Most academians who study this stuff actually believe it's a combination of global warming and the fact that we're still in an ice age that we're coming out of.

The Ice Age that was at its peak 20K-10K years ago is still here, and scientists predict that we're headed towards another "warm" cycle like similar to that of the later dinosaurs' time (Jurassic/Cretaceous Periods). Back then, winter at the South Pole saw lows in the 20's, and the coldest it got on the North American continent was (estimated) in the 40's or 50's. There were no continental glaciers. The average ocean temperature worldwide was in the 70's.

It'll still be many more millenia until we get there, but that's where we're headed.
I posted this a few years back. I believed it then. I believe it now.

[espn1]

The mere fact that there's a disagreement on the topic makes me feel more comfortable. More testing and research comes when each side is trying to prove their point.

[BILLYFRED0000]

You may rest assured that there is no disagreement on water
vapor. There is no science supporting the greenhouse gas people at all that emcompasses empirical models of numerical equations that evaluate correctly the positive and negative feed back syndromes of clouds and water vapor.

[pirate44]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
You may rest assured that there is no disagreement on water
vapor. There is no science supporting the greenhouse gas people at all that emcompasses empirical models of numerical equations that evaluate correctly the positive and negative feed back syndromes of clouds and water vapor.
exactly what i was gonna say, and it quenches thirst on a hot day too!!

[garageoffice]

Maybe you ask, "If there's still so much disagreement, then why are governmental agencies pushing an agenda so strongly?" In two words, POWER and MONEY. In short, you can't tax water vapor, but you can tax man's use of resources.

It's already been proven through both historical record and empirical data that we are coming out of a cold spell, not only the big one (last ice age), but a smaller cycle that's been in effect for the past few hundred years. You can only really figure that man's contributions have had an effect for MAYBE the past 100-150 years (and that's stretching it), certainly not the last 300.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should certainly be taking better care of the environment and use our resources more wisely. I just get tired of some politician trying to tell us that if we don't do what he wants we are condemning future generations, when the science doesn't support it.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
The real debate centers around what's causing it. Anybody that says they have the answer and that everyone else is wrong is just an egomaniac. Nobody really knows. Plus it's all cyclical. its called the end of an ice age. I saw something a few months ago where "scientists" were saying that this past year was the hottest on record....and then their claim was disproved when a news agency did some digging and it was confirmed that the hottest year on record was in the 1930s. It's all BS if you ask me. This is a natural cycle that this planet has gone through before...warming trends between ice ages. It's foolish to think that we have that big of an impact on this planet.

[Pudlugger]

Some inconvenient truths about the Global Warming hoax:

The Middle Ages warm period- Greenland was actually green and the Vikings grew grapes there. That is why it was called Vineland in Scandinavia.

The "Hockey Stick" graph that has been declared evidence of recent warming in the latter half of the 20th Century has been shown to be a statisitcal artifact and not real.

Most of the 1.7 degree increment in global temperature occurred before 1940 when much less fossil fuels were burned worldwide.

CO2 is a good thing necessary for plant growth and photosynthesis and oxygen production. A 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature will result in increased plant growth and hence food yields lessening the risk of famine in face of expanding populations.

The ice caps are melting on Mars. Obviously not due to the SUVs up there but normal fluctuations in the Sun's irradiation.

As others have pointed out CO2 is only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds accounting for most of the effect.

Cosmic radiation and cloud cover are related, as cosmic radiation ionizes small atmospheric particles causing water vaper to condense into clouds which trap radiant heat. Natural fluctuations of cosmic radiation due to the rise and fall of the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way's central mass (a black hole) as well as solar flares probably account for much of the warming cycles known to have occurred millions of years ago.

What happened to the new ice age predicted by the bed wetting scientists in the 1970s? Yeah, it never happened. Neither did the Population
Bomb or Y2K.

Follow the money. Scientists and corporate interests have a big stake in Global Warming. Al Gore's CO2 credits he bought to offset his excessive personal energy usage were from an environmental firm that he is a major shareholder of. How convenient!

When Marxists could not compete with the incredible success of the West's free markets and capitalism they searched for other ways to control the economy and the people. What better way than to control all energy usage and ruin the great economic machine that has elevated mankind from serfdom and hand to mouth subsistence?

While the environmentalists restrict our access to low cost energy China is building one new coal powered power plant per week! Everything in our economy is pegged to energy. If the costs go sky high expect massive inflation and shortages.

I could go own and own and own but this is enough for now.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Some inconvenient truths about the Global Warming hoax:

The Middle Ages warm period- Greenland was actually green and the Vikings grew grapes there. That is why it was called Vineland in Scandinavia.

The "Hockey Stick" graph that has been declared evidence of recent warming in the latter half of the 20th Century has been shown to be a statisitcal artifact and not real.

Most of the 1.7 degree increment in global temperature occurred before 1940 when much less fossil fuels were burned worldwide.

CO2 is a good thing necessary for plant growth and photosynthesis and oxygen production. A 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature will result in increased plant growth and hence food yields lessening the risk of famine in face of expanding populations.

The ice caps are melting on Mars. Obviously not due to the SUVs up there but normal fluctuations in the Sun's irradiation.

As others have pointed out CO2 is only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds accounting for most of the effect.

Cosmic radiation and cloud cover are related, as cosmic radiation ionizes small atmospheric particles causing water vaper to condense into clouds which trap radiant heat. Natural fluctuations of cosmic radiation due to the rise and fall of the solar system's orbit around the Milky Way's central mass (a black hole) as well as solar flares probably account for much of the warming cycles known to have occurred millions of years ago.

What happened to the new ice age predicted by the bed wetting scientists in the 1970s? Yeah, it never happened. Neither did the Population
Bomb or Y2K.

Follow the money. Scientists and corporate interests have a big stake in Global Warming. Al Gore's CO2 credits he bought to offset his excessive personal energy usage were from an environmental firm that he is a major shareholder of. How convenient!

When Marxists could not compete with the incredible success of the West's free markets and capitalism they searched for other ways to control the economy and the people. What better way than to control all energy usage and ruin the great economic machine that has elevated mankind from serfdom and hand to mouth subsistence?

While the environmentalists restrict our access to low cost energy China is building one new coal powered power plant per week! Everything in our economy is pegged to energy. If the costs go sky high expect massive inflation and shortages.

I could go own and own and own but this is enough for now. you are my hero...thank you for this post.....I hope there are others like you and I out there that have the ability to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. It seems most of the sheeple just regergitate what the media feeds them....i.e. global warming, etc. Again, thank you for this post.

[Macarthur]

IHStangFan

It's foolish to think that we have that big of an impact on this planet.

You don't really mean that, do you?

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't believe its just a myth.. the number of glaciers in the artic circle has dropped dramatically in the past 20 years, and the artic circle itself has even shrunk.. And to say that the greenhouse effect is a myth is a bad way to word it, because Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system despite being only the 2nd closest planet to the sun.. the reason for this? because Venus' atmosphere is composed of 95% carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.. so yes the green house effect is very real

And yet there are reports that the Antartica ice sheet is growing and the hole in the ozone above it is shrinking. Go figure.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Macarthur
You don't really mean that, do you? yes, actually I do. In the short time we have been on this earth, much less the even shorter amount of time we have been burning fossil fuels...I don't think we've had quite the impact that "scientists" would lead you to believe.

[icu812]

We can't even predict the weather, do you really think we could change it.....please. I know who controls such things and it ain't us.

[sinton66]

Anybody remember George Carlin's bit on man's effect on the planet?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
You don't really mean that, do you?
I believe it. My geology prof believed it. Most geologists believe it. Why not?

I don't think that we have no effect on global warming, but it's not nearly as bad as most people make it out to be. It's estimated that most of the Earth's fossil fuels will be burned out within the century, and that the fossil fuels we burn won't have enough of an impact to decimate our atmosphere UNLESS we keep destroying the tropical rainforests. IMO, that's a much larger issue than gas-powered cars.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Some inconvenient truths about the Global Warming hoax:
Follow the money. Scientists and corporate interests have a big stake in Global Warming. Al Gore's CO2 credits he bought to offset his excessive personal energy usage were from an environmental firm that he is a major shareholder of. How convenient!

When Marxists could not compete with the incredible success of the West's free markets and capitalism they searched for other ways to control the economy and the people. What better way than to control all energy usage and ruin the great economic machine that has elevated mankind from serfdom and hand to mouth subsistence?

While the environmentalists restrict our access to low cost energy China is building one new coal powered power plant per week! Everything in our economy is pegged to energy. If the costs go sky high expect massive inflation and shortages.

I could go own and own and own but this is enough for now.
.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Anybody remember George Carlin's bit on man's effect on the planet?
.
I do. I think this is it. Warning to everone that this bit has a few cuss words in it.:o
.
GC Take on the planet and mankind! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0vjtW8hKnE) :)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. but the fact that it is happening or could very well happen, is enough reason to try and find an answer..
.
Umm no. You can't find a solution to something that is based on fiction or politics, period.
Ifs, ands or buts do not constitute a theory or policy to me.:p

[Who-dun-it!!?]

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I believe it. My geology prof believed it. Most geologists believe it. Why not?

I don't think that we have no effect on global warming, but it's not nearly as bad as most people make it out to be. It's estimated that most of the Earth's fossil fuels will be burned out within the century, and that the fossil fuels we burn won't have enough of an impact to decimate our atmosphere UNLESS we keep destroying the tropical rainforests. IMO, that's a much larger issue than gas-powered cars.

You just contradicted yourself. Either we do have an effect or we don't . So your college professors believe we don't, yet you think we have some effect?

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
yes, actually I do. In the short time we have been on this earth, much less the even shorter amount of time we have been burning fossil fuels...I don't think we've had quite the impact that "scientists" would lead you to believe.

Well, I disagree. As I said before, think of the consequences of each side being wrong. What if the Global Warming side is wrong; what's the worst that has happened? What if the anti-Global Warming folks are wrong; what do we do 100 years from now?

So do you think we humans have had no effect on the earth? You live close to Houston; tell me what goes through your mind when you look at the skyline? The haze is amazing. As I've said on this board, I once worked on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown Dallas. I saw everyday what we in the metroplex breath. It's not pretty, dude.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I disagree. As I said before, think of the consequences of each side being wrong. What if the Global Warming side is wrong; what's the worst that has happened? What if the anti-Global Warming folks are wrong; what do we do 100 years from now?

So do you think we humans have had no effect on the earth? You live close to Houston; tell me what goes through your mind when you look at the skyline? The haze is amazing. As I've said on this board, I once worked on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown Dallas. I saw everyday what we in the metroplex breath. It's not pretty, dude. Pollution and global warming can be and should be dealt with as separate issues.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I disagree. As I said before, think of the consequences of each side being wrong. What if the Global Warming side is wrong; what's the worst that has happened? What if the anti-Global Warming folks are wrong; what do we do 100 years from now?

So do you think we humans have had no effect on the earth? You live close to Houston; tell me what goes through your mind when you look at the skyline? The haze is amazing. As I've said on this board, I once worked on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown Dallas. I saw everyday what we in the metroplex breath. It's not pretty, dude. Kinda like Being a christian and a non believer. the people who dont believe in god think Christians are waisting time in a futile belief in an afterlife and in God. If they were right ( they are not ) what have Christians lost? Nothing.. they would be in the same boat everyone else is. If they are wrong where does that leave the non bleievers??? HELL...
I Totaly agree with Mac on this. You better error on the safe side and listen to some of the folk who say we are going in the wrong direction. at worst we will have cleaner air if they are all wrong. IF they are right and we do nothing we lose the planet. :eek: Not a tough desicion at all folks.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I disagree. As I said before, think of the consequences of each side being wrong. What if the Global Warming side is wrong; what's the worst that has happened? What if the anti-Global Warming folks are wrong; what do we do 100 years from now?

So do you think we humans have had no effect on the earth? You live close to Houston; tell me what goes through your mind when you look at the skyline? The haze is amazing. As I've said on this board, I once worked on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown Dallas. I saw everyday what we in the metroplex breath. It's not pretty, dude.

Well for one thing plenty of bad things can happen when public policy is based on erroneous theories. Think of the Soviet Union and Marxism and the millions of people who were murdered or starved to death by Stalin. Think of Rachael Carson and "Silent Spring" which started this whole environmental movement. DDT was banned because of fear that it was poisening birds by thinning their egg shells. As a result millions of children died of malaria in sub-Sehara africa due to out of control mosquitto populations. It turns out DDT was not so bad to birds after all. Too bad for those folks who died. The self satisfied environmentalists can just shrug it off and move on to the next huge boondoggle as after all what they are trying to do is so darn noble. If we ruin our great Western economies by hobbling them with unreasonable energy constraints and our standard of living drops to third world status I'd say that is a bad thing regardless if they are right or wrong. But of course, they are doing it to save the planet.

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I disagree. As I said before, think of the consequences of each side being wrong. What if the Global Warming side is wrong; what's the worst that has happened? What if the anti-Global Warming folks are wrong; what do we do 100 years from now?

So do you think we humans have had no effect on the earth? You live close to Houston; tell me what goes through your mind when you look at the skyline? The haze is amazing. As I've said on this board, I once worked on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown Dallas. I saw everyday what we in the metroplex breath. It's not pretty, dude. actually I'm pretty sure I said we do not have as much of an impact as most believe. Yes, I've seen the sky in Houston, its the 3rd largest city in the nation, there is going to be smog, but do I think that Houston's smog is to blame for changing weather patterns and global warming? no. There's no supporting, conclusive evidence that global warming is caused by man, actually the evidence points in the other direction. Do I think we should try to take care of the environment? of course, Do I buy into this "oh we're destroying the planet, and in 100 years....BS? no, I do not.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
actually I'm pretty sure I said we do not have as much of an impact as most believe. Yes, I've seen the sky in Houston, its the 3rd largest city in the nation, there is going to be smog, but do I think that Houston's smog is to blame for changing weather patterns and global warming? no. Great!! then lets all jsut take the chance your right and global warming scientist are wrong.... After all, all we have to lose if your wrong is the planet:rolleyes: and the only thing we gain is cleaner air.:rolleyes:

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Pollution and global warming can be and should be dealt with as separate issues.

I completely disagree. There may be facets of each that are independent, but you just can not address one and ignore the other.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
actually I'm pretty sure I said we do not have as much of an impact as most believe. Yes, I've seen the sky in Houston, its the 3rd largest city in the nation, there is going to be smog, but do I think that Houston's smog is to blame for changing weather patterns and global warming? no.

It's a cumulative thing. It's not just Houston.



There's no supporting, conclusive evidence that global warming is caused by man, actually the evidence points in the other direction.

The first part of your statement is debatable, but the second statement is competely false. Do you have some evidence that mankind is actually making the enviorment better?



Do I think we should try to take care of the environment? of course, Do I buy into this "oh we're destroying the planet, and in 100 years....BS? no, I do not.

Are you sure you're right? You sure as hell better be.

[Macarthur]

If we ruin our great Western economies by hobbling them with unreasonable energy constraints and our standard of living drops to third world status I'd say that is a bad thing regardless if they are right or wrong. But of course, they are doing it to save the planet.

Give me a break. Our economy is very diverse and can very well handle the types of changes needed. You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing the enviromentalists of doing by saying the world's economies will colapse if we start respecting the earth.

[Bullaholic]

I don't want to be overly simplistic---this is a very complex issue, but a simple reality is this---as time goes on there will be more and more persons on the planet demanding an ever increasing amount of energy. We should be the best stewards of our environment that we can be, and use our resources wisely, but we must provide for the energy requirements of the future. Ask the Californians if they liked freezing in the dark when their state ran short of energy reserves a few years ago because of their stringent environmental energy policies.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Great!! then lets all jsut take the chance your right and global warming scientist are wrong.... After all, all we have to lose if your wrong is the planet:rolleyes: and the only thing we gain is cleaner air.:rolleyes:
.
As usual BM(can I call you "BM") you show yourself to be an idiot. You say, "What if?!" to make your point.:D
.
Funny thing about this thing we call smog. I see it in the country everywhere. It's easier to see against big buildings like in major metropolises but it is there everywhere. When this smog thing is at it's worst I've noticed that somewhere close by a fire is burning. Funny that...
.
Please tell us how all of us are ruining the world one cow fart at a time please.:D
.
Friggin tree humping liberals...:rolleyes:

[Black_Magic]

California is different . they had a problem mainly because of that they are growing in population faster than they can provide power.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
California is different . they had a problem mainly because of that they are growing in population faster than they can provide power.

That was PART of the problem, BM, but the main problem was that not very many energy companies wanted to, or were able to, invest in providing power in CA because of their stringent envionmental regulations.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
As usual BM(can I call you "BM") you show yourself to be an idiot. You say, "What if?!" to make your point.:D
.
Funny thing about this thing we call smog. I see it in the country everywhere. It's easier to see against big buildings like in major metropolises but it is there everywhere. When this smog thing is at it's worst I've noticed that somewhere close by a fire is burning. Funny that...
.
Please tell us how all of us are ruining the world one cow fart at a time please.:D
.
Friggin tree humping liberals...:rolleyes: Well you environmental bung hole bandit, I will tell you its easy. we do what we can to reduce the greenhouse gasses we produce and push others to do the same in order to be traiding partners with us. Thats a strong encitive for others who want to sell products to us.. I would like to give a world that functions to our grandkids and greatgrandkids. You go ahead and have the attitude of rape and pillage when it comes to our environment... Funny how some conservatives claim to be devout christians then ignore the part about being a good steward of gods gift to us to use .. Being a good steward is taking care of it too not what you would have.:rolleyes:

[Macarthur]

.
Funny thing about this thing we call smog. I see it in the country everywhere. It's easier to see against big buildings like in major metropolises but it is there everywhere. When this smog thing is at it's worst I've noticed that somewhere close by a fire is burning. Funny that...

Dude, that's a really ignorant post.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Funny how some conservatives claim to be devout christians then ignore the part about being a good steward of gods gift to us to use .. Being a good steward is taking care of it too not what you would have.:rolleyes: [/B]

Excellent point.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Well you environmental bung hole bandit, I will tell you its easy. we do what we can to reduce the greenhouse gasses we produce and push others to do the same in order to be traiding partners with us. Thats a strong encitive for others who want to sell products to us.. I would like to give a world that functions to our grandkids and greatgrandkids. You go ahead and have the attitude of rape and pillage when it comes to our environment... Funny how some conservatives claim to be devout christians then ignore the part about being a good steward of gods gift to us to use .. Being a good steward is taking care of it too not what you would have.:rolleyes:
.
Who said I was a Christian? Did I tell you that or did you ASSume that with your own wittle mind all by yourself(I'm clapping for your remarkable prowess as a sleuth lol).
.
I'm a conservationist, you're an idiot.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Dude, that's a really ignorant post.
.
I said "I've noticed"...
How is that ignorant?:rolleyes:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Kinda like Being a christian and a non believer. the people who dont believe in god think Christians are waisting time in a futile belief in an afterlife and in God. If they were right ( they are not ) what have Christians lost? Nothing.. they would be in the same boat everyone else is. If they are wrong where does that leave the non bleievers??? HELL...
I Totaly agree with Mac on this. You better error on the safe side and listen to some of the folk who say we are going in the wrong direction. at worst we will have cleaner air if they are all wrong. IF they are right and we do nothing we lose the planet. :eek: Not a tough desicion at all folks.

Black Magic, there is no error. Global Warming has nothing to do with man. It is an environmental issue controlled by our position in space around the sun and our axial wobble that over time points us at Vega instead of Polaris. In other words, at our pitiful level of development we cannot truly affect global environment.
We produce CO2. If you were to take all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and place it on a football field with all the other gases in their proper proportions, CO2 would equal less than 1/2
inch of the field. And most of that is naturally occuring. Probably 1/8 inch would represent all that we are currently producing. 1/8 inch in relation to 100 yards, or in percentages, 0.13 percent is the amount of CO2 we are producing as a race as a percentage of the total atmosphere with about 0.35 of CO2 occuring naturally
while the other 99.5 percent of the atmosphere is not CO2. This is about money and control of resources nothing more nothing less. The "what if" syndrome makes about as much sense for policy decisions as my signature line does.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Who said I was a Christian? Did I tell you that or did you ASSume that with your own wittle mind all by yourself(I'm clapping for your remarkable prowess as a sleuth lol).
.
I'm a conservationist, you're an idiot.

Sintonfan, you must realize that Liberals feel they do not think or use facts. They cannot produce anything other than CO2 studies
which cannot be proven to be a major factor in climate change no matter what they say.

From Wall STreet Journal in 2001 by Richard Lindzen.

"The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions."

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
They cannot produce anything other than CO2 studies
which cannot be proven to be a major factor in climate change no matter what they say.



Dude look at Venus!!! hottest planet in the solar system although it is only the 2nd closest to the sun.. why is this??? because the co2 in it's atmostsphere!!!! good god stop making excuses so you can drive your lame duley truck when your the only one who rides in it.. come on people is it really that big of a deal to try and find alternative fuels?? wow i thought people appreciated this planet alittle more than what they do

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
Dude look at Venus!!! hottest planet in the solar system although it is only the 2nd closest to the sun.. why is this??? because the co2 in it's atmostsphere!!!! good god stop making excuses so you can drive your lame duley truck when your the only one who rides in it.. come on people is it really that big of a deal to try and find alternative fuels?? wow i thought people appreciated this planet alittle more than what they do

I do not have any problem with alternative fuels at all. I am a big
proponent of renewables particularly for national security purposes. However the ice caps on Mars are melting and I am not driving my Duelly up there now am I?. You really should learn some science instead of throwing up somebody else's nonsense.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
Dude look at Venus!!! hottest planet in the solar system although it is only the 2nd closest to the sun.. why is this??? because the co2 in it's atmostsphere!!!! good god stop making excuses so you can drive your lame duley truck when your the only one who rides in it.. come on people is it really that big of a deal to try and find alternative fuels?? wow i thought people appreciated this planet alittle more than what they do
.
rofl!
You are the master of flawless logic.:p :p :D

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
You really should learn some science instead of throwing up somebody else's nonsense.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

I took astronomy and meteorology last year, and am taking climatology this year and have discused global warming way more then I would like to.. and you say I should learn science instead of "throwing up" what other people say?? what have u been doing the past 10 posts u have made on here??

and u mention Mars' ice caps melting, well guess what.. their atmostphere is 95% carbon dioxide as well.. hmm maybe we are seeing the future of the earth?? check mate

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
Dude look at Venus!!! hottest planet in the solar system although it is only the 2nd closest to the sun.. why is this??? because the co2 in it's atmostsphere!!!! good god stop making excuses so you can drive your lame duley truck when your the only one who rides in it.. come on people is it really that big of a deal to try and find alternative fuels?? wow i thought people appreciated this planet alittle more than what they do
.
We talk about Earth and you bring up Venus.:thinking: lol

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
I took astronomy and meteorology last year, and am taking climatology this year and have discused global warming way more then I would like to.. and you say I should learn science instead of "throwing up" what other people say?? what have u been doing the past 10 posts u have made on here??

and u mention Mars' ice caps melting, well guess what.. their atmostphere is 95% carbon dioxide as well.. hmm maybe we are seeing the future of the earth?? check mate

Check mate. Fools gold. Mars is further away from the sun and there are no man made issues yet it melts. That means that it is warming in an environment made up of 95 percent CO2. Even with man's intervention on earth CO2 makes up less than 0.5 percent CO2. We should therefore be losing radiation by the tons is radiative effect was the major concer but it is not.


One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
I took astronomy and meteorology last year, and am taking climatology this year and have discused global warming way more then I would like to.. and you say I should learn science instead of "throwing up" what other people say?? what have u been doing the past 10 posts u have made on here??

and u mention Mars' ice caps melting, well guess what.. their atmostphere is 95% carbon dioxide as well.. hmm maybe we are seeing the future of the earth?? check mate
.
Now you bring up Mars...:D
:p

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
We talk about Earth and you bring up Venus.:thinking: lol

because venus has a "runaway greenhouse effect" and is a good example of what too much co2 in the atmostphere can do to a planet

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
because venus has a "runaway greenhouse effect" and is a good example of what too much co2 in the atmostphere can do to a planet

It would seem like common sense but it is not that simple. Show me your time line of variability in Venus climate. 4 billion years ago was it like this. What core samples have you produced to verify your claims and what about other gases in the atmosphere such as sulfuric acid and methane accounts for this warming? In other words you have no measurements or science only a theory that happens to fit your view.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
In other words you have no measurements or science only a theory that happens to fit your view.

no I have taken classes on this stuff.. hang on I have to go take a mid-term and then I will get started on my thesis for you proffesor billyfred

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
no I have taken classes on this stuff.. hang on I have to go take a mid-term and then I will get started on my thesis for you proffesor billyfred

You have taken classes but no one has taken actual longterm
measurements of Venus so there is no way to verify that Venus atmospheric warming is a product of CO2 content. You cannot insinuate a science where none exists because you need empirical measurements over time plus data collected in other forms to verify the veracity of your theory. You only have a hypothesis of what caused Venus
atmosphere to appear this way since no true measurements or scientific data over say the last 100 years can be collected about Venus. And you have no temperature data to say whether Venus is warming or cooling. For all we know it may be cooler there than it was 1 billion years ago because we have no empirical data.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Black Magic, there is no error. Global Warming has nothing to do with man. It is an environmental issue controlled by our position in space around the sun and our axial wobble that over time points us at Vega instead of Polaris. In other words, at our pitiful level of development we cannot truly affect global environment.
We produce CO2. If you were to take all the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and place it on a football field with all the other gases in their proper proportions, CO2 would equal less than 1/2
inch of the field. And most of that is naturally occuring. Probably 1/8 inch would represent all that we are currently producing. 1/8 inch in relation to 100 yards, or in percentages, 0.13 percent is the amount of CO2 we are producing as a race as a percentage of the total atmosphere with about 0.35 of CO2 occuring naturally
while the other 99.5 percent of the atmosphere is not CO2. This is about money and control of resources nothing more nothing less. The "what if" syndrome makes about as much sense for policy decisions as my signature line does. WOW!! OK DR BILLY!!!!! Heck !! Glad that you solved it and know more than all the rest of the scientist:rolleyes: Wonder what box of crackerjacks the other scientist got thier deree from?:doh: Give me a break.:rolleyes:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
WOW!! OK DR BILLY!!!!! Heck !! Glad that you solved it and know more than all the rest of the scientist:rolleyes: Wonder what box of crackerjacks the other scientist got thier deree from?:doh: Give me a break.:rolleyes:

I can read and understand atmospheric models like most of them.
Further it has been my personal hobby sense my first tornado. While not degreed, I have studied. And I understand the limitations of the science. For example wator vapor. It is 98 percent of the atmosphere's green house gasses but we have never been able to measure it or calculate its effect on the debate of global warming.

The following is an small summary from an excerpt of a report on Water vapor and it's unknown role in how it affects climatology over the long term.

Quoting.There have been several estimates of longer-term changes in tropospheric water vapor. The most recent global estimate shows an increase in precipitable water during the period 1973-1990, with the largest trends in the tropics, where increases as large as 13% per decade were found. A recent study of water vapor trends above North America based on radiosonde measurements from 1973 to 1993 finds increases in precipitable water over all regions except northern and eastern Canada, where it fell slightly. The regions of moisture increase are associated with regions of rising temperatures over the same period, and the regions of decreased moisture are associated with falling temperatures.

A unique program makes approximately monthly measurements of the vertical profile of water vapor with frost point hygrometers carried by balloons at Boulder, Colorado. Observations over a 14-year period (1981-1994) show an increase in water vapor in the lower stratosphere over Boulder of a little less than one 1% per year. Although it is not completely understood, the observed trend is not inconsistent with an observed increase in methane because methane oxidizes to water vapor in the stratosphere.

These recent results are intriguing, but it should be noted that the trends are observed over relatively short, recent periods and have limited spatial domains. Studies covering longer periods and other regions of the globe will require both the continuation of current measurement systems and improved observations in regions that are now poorly observed.

End of quotes.

As you can see we have no water vapor data only bits and pieces.
Yet the 0.5 percent of CO2 is more important that 98 percent of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Add to that the data sample of true observations which provides the most accurate look is 100 years out of 4 billion. That means that we have .0000000025 percent of the data available with which to make a calculation. Not really representative is it. The simple fact is we just don't have enough information or tools yet to even begin to predict the weather in 10 days much less 1000's of years.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Macarthur
I completely disagree. There may be facets of each that are independent, but you just can not address one and ignore the other. Sure you can. Pollution levels can be quantified. "Greenhouse effect" is still highly debated and there are so many factors, nobody can be 100% sure what causes global warming and global cooling.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Keith7
Dude look at Venus!!! hottest planet in the solar system although it is only the 2nd closest to the sun.. why is this??? because the co2 in it's atmostsphere!!!! good god stop making excuses so you can drive your lame duley truck when your the only one who rides in it.. come on people is it really that big of a deal to try and find alternative fuels?? wow i thought people appreciated this planet alittle more than what they do

Even this topic is a source of debate in the scientific community, although you don't hear much about it. Even if you buy the story that Venus' heat is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, you still can't compare it to Earth. The atmospheric density of Venus is 92x that of Earth! Add to that the fact that it is roughly 1/3 closer to the sun and has a VERY slow rotation, and of course you get very high temperatures. However, because of this slow rotation, you would expect there to be a significant difference in the light vs. dark side temps. Surprisingly, it isn't so. Something else must be at work here, also.

I'm not foolish enough to think that our actions don't have consequences. I do believe we shouldn't be wasteful or irresponsible in our use of resources. However, the established global warming theories just don't cover enough of the bases. It is a very complex issue and CO2 levels just aren't sufficient to make the forecasted impact. If it were so, then why was the Earth warmer roughly 1000 years ago than now? Why did most of the last century's temperature rise occur in the first 40 years of the 1900s? Shouldn't it have occurred during the last 30?

How can our actions make a SIGNIFICANT change (positive or negative) in the temperature?

FACT: 98% of the Earth's atmosphere is composed of diatomic gases (nitrogen and oxygen) and monatomic trace gases (argon and neon) that don't contribute noticeably to warming. Roughly 2% of the remaining 2% (0.04% of the total) represents the amount of CO2 from human-related activities.

FACT: Although details vary from place to place and season to season, water vapor is typically present in the atmosphere in roughly 10x the amount of CO2. Water vapor absorbs heat across the entire infrared spectrum, while heat absorption by CO2 is restricted to two narrow infrared bands.

FACT: Scientific estimates place greenhouse warming from water vapor at 95-99% of the total of approximately 33 degrees Celcius (about 32 degrees). This leaves man's CO2 contribution responsible for about 2% of the remaining 1 degree.

The problem in the our society today (and for the past several years), is that there ARE competing, compelling theories that are actually being squashed by the establishment and don't make it into the media. Too many politicians and media hounds are trying to use "common sense" to define scientific positions.

[mustang04]

don't forget about the sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere!!!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Sure you can. Pollution levels can be quantified. "Greenhouse effect" is still highly debated and there are so many factors, nobody can be 100% sure what causes global warming and global cooling. You are still taking a gamble that they are wrong and the gamble your taking you cant pay off if your wrong!.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by mustang04
don't forget about the sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere!!! Too bad they didnt put sulfuric acid on the rear end of the bronze tiger infront of tiger stadium. You would have burned off that stem of yours:clap: .

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Global warming is caused from the heat given off from my sexxxy body.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Global warming is caused from the heat given off from my sexxxy body.

It's a good thing these conversations are electronic. If this was spoken conversation all the hot air would certainly contribute to global warming!

:doh:

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I do not have any problem with alternative fuels at all. I am a big
proponent of renewables particularly for national security purposes. However the ice caps on Mars are melting and I am not driving my Duelly up there now am I?. You really should learn some science instead of throwing up somebody else's nonsense.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "

:clap: :clap: :clap: This has to be one of the all time best posts on a political/policy thread in 3aDownlow history. Mc Arthur, Black-Magic, Keith7 all have brought a spoon to a gunfight. Consider your selfs biaatch slapped on this thread. :eek:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by garageoffice
It's a good thing these conversations are electronic. If this was spoken conversation all the hot air would certainly contribute to global warming!

:doh:

Jealousy! :mad:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by garageoffice
It's a good thing these conversations are electronic. If this was spoken conversation all the hot air would certainly contribute to global warming!

:doh: :clap: :clap: :kiss:

Plus, there would be a great need for boots. :D

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
:clap: :clap: :clap: This has to be one of the all time best posts on a political/policy thread in 3aDownlow history. Mc Arthur, Black-Magic, Keith7 all have brought a spoon to a gunfight. Consider your selfs biaatch slapped on this thread. :eek:

Gee, I wonder which side of the debate you fall on?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You are still taking a gamble that they are wrong and the gamble your taking you cant pay off if your wrong!. If, if, if.... They are two separate issues and should be dealt with accordingly, whether you are right or not.

[Macarthur]

BILLYFRED0000, I will ask again. I would like to know where you are getting the information from your posts. I'm sure you're aware that it means absolutely nothing to provide the "quotes" you have in your posts without giving a source. Anyone can go get info on the internet to defend any position what so ever.


And the other thing, BillyFred. These examples of medical "mistakes" in your previous post really do nothing to "defeat" the global warming science. We are always making scientific & medial advances. So what? What's your point? If you are making the point that because we were wrong about those things in the past then we must be wrong about this, I don't follow the logic. I suspect I could find many examples of the original theory of something turning out to be true.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
BILLYFRED0000, I will ask again. I would like to know where you are getting the information from your posts. I'm sure you're aware that it means absolutely nothing to provide the "quotes" you have in your posts without giving a source. Anyone can go get info on the internet to defend any position what so ever.


And the other thing, BillyFred. These examples of medical "mistakes" in your previous post really do nothing to "defeat" the global warming science. We are always making scientific & medial advances. So what? What's your point? If you are making the point that because we were wrong about those things in the past then we must be wrong about this, I don't follow the logic. I suspect I could find many examples of the original theory of something turning out to be true.

You seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Let me spell it out for you. Science is not in the consensus business. The only people who use the term consensus are the lawyers and libs building a case for their agenda while a true scientist advances theory with empirical real world results that can be proven and measured. I have already used in several posts scientific fact which supports my position that there is not nearly enough science and far too much consenses but the best you can do is try to change the subject and denigrate my sources because you have none.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
You seem to be a little slow on the uptake. Let me spell it out for you. Science is not in the consensus business. The only people who use the term consensus are the lawyers and libs building a case for their agenda while a true scientist advances theory with empirical real world results that can be proven and measured. I have already used in several posts scientific fact which supports my position that there is not nearly enough science and far too much consenses but the best you can do is try to change the subject and denigrate my sources because you have none.

And I could throw out more historical perspective. The flat earth
people, Gallileo and the Roman Catholic Church etc. It is unnecessary since the simple fact that we cannot measure predict or model the water vapor in the atmosphere prevents us from being able to project warming or cooling trends beyond the obvious which is that the earth has been warming since the last ice age.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
If, if, if.... They are two separate issues and should be dealt with accordingly, whether you are right or not. We have scientist as reputable as the come saying it is real.. We should Ignore them?? we should wait for the environment to prove them right before we take action????? I think that is a stupid attitude to have about it. If I had a doctor saying I have cancer and one saying I am fine, I would get a second oppinion.. If every other oppinion said I have cancer. I would Get Treated for it!!! NOT wait to see if I start dieing to see who is right.:rolleyes:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Macarthur
BILLYFRED0000, I will ask again. I would like to know where you are getting the information from your posts. I'm sure you're aware that it means absolutely nothing to provide the "quotes" you have in your posts without giving a source. Anyone can go get info on the internet to defend any position what so ever.


And the other thing, BillyFred. These examples of medical "mistakes" in your previous post really do nothing to "defeat" the global warming science. We are always making scientific & medial advances. So what? What's your point? If you are making the point that because we were wrong about those things in the past then we must be wrong about this, I don't follow the logic. I suspect I could find many examples of the original theory of something turning out to be true.

I have quoted The Wall STreet Journal, Richard Lindzen a dr from MIT and one of the best climatologists around, parts of a speech
from Michael Creighton, a report on Water Vapor and the Climate
System, Scientific American, etc along with a lot of basic science 101 as far as empirical data and theory is concerned.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
We have scientist as reputable as the come saying it is real.. We should Ignore them?? we should wait for the environment to prove them right before we take action????? I think that is a stupid attitude to have about it. If I had a doctor saying I have cancer and one saying I am fine, I would get a second oppinion.. If every other oppinion said I have cancer. I would Get Treated for it!!! NOT wait to see if I start dieing to see who is right.:rolleyes:


Now this is what you don't get. The scientists are in disagreement. Which means the fundamental theory is flawed.
There is no gamble because we don't know. To keep the earth clean is a liberal wacko control mechanism to give them power over what choices you make. Keeping it clean in and of itself is not the issue but rather the fact that they will force you when they know and the scientist know that this is not science. If it was they would trot out the proof and end the discussion.
To continue your analogy you would have proof in the form of x-rays and blood work from the doctors that would prove that you had cancer which any good doctor would be able to reproduce and report. You could then conclude that the other doctor was a quack.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I have quoted The Wall STreet Journal, Richard Lindzen a dr from MIT and one of the best climatologists around, parts of a speech
from Michael Creighton, a report on Water Vapor and the Climate
System, Scientific American, etc along with a lot of basic science 101 as far as empirical data and theory is concerned.

I'm on his website. Do you know which speech?

[BILLYFRED0000]

If I remember correctly it was Aliens as a cause for Global Warming.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
If I remember correctly it was Aliens as a cause for Global Warming.

Hehe! That made me giggle! :clap:

I am sure that is what Ron L. Hubbard believes. ;)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Hehe! That made me giggle! :clap:

I am sure that is what Ron L. Hubbard believes. ;)

I thought it was funny too the first time I read it. Michael is one educated dude but he sure has a sense of humor.

[garageoffice]

This is a great example of how the science is taking a back seat to the politics of the situation.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806

[BILLYFRED0000]

Nice post. He is not the only one with these types of issue.

[Pudlugger]

Okay Mc Arthur and Black Magic, since using logical argument obviously doesn't work with you guys how 'bout this:

Fact- Mars is warming and the ice caps are melting.

Fact- The Mars Rover is the only vehicle on Mars.

Fact- The Rover runs on solar power.

Ergo- Solar power does not prevent global warming.

Bwah ha ha ha

:D

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Okay Mc Arthur and Black Magic, since using logical argument obviously doesn't work with you guys how 'bout this:

Fact- Mars is warming and the ice caps are melting.

Fact- The Mars Rover is the only vehicle on Mars.

Fact- The Rover runs on solar power.

Ergo- Solar power does not prevent global warming.

Bwah ha ha ha

:D

mars is made up of 95% carbon dioxide, the very gas that is emitted by fossil fule emisions.. Sure there are no cars there (duh, I can't beleave you just now figured that out), but because of years of outgassing, and where the planet is located Mars natrually has co2 in it's atmosphere...

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

we are higher than ever before

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

starting to notice similarities in these graphs?

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Keith7
mars is made up of 95% carbon dioxide, the very gas that is emitted by fossil fule emisions.. Sure there are no cars there (duh, I can't beleave you just now figured that out), but because of years of outgassing, and where the planet is located Mars natrually has co2 in it's atmosphere...

Of course Mars has CO2 in it's atmosphere, but why would it suddenly start getting warmer? Solar cycles! There is no other reason that Mars AND Earth should both be warming around the same time.

Also, the first chart you posted shows a larger change during the first 40 years of the 20th century than at any other time. Yet this was a time when the CO2 levels changed minimally. How can that be, if CO2 is the primary agent of change?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png

I would not call wikipedia a reliable source since they have no way of controlling who is puttting out the information.

But since you insist on using flawed information how does it explain this.


In the first Earth Day in 1970, UC Davis’s Kenneth Watt said, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” International Wildlife warned “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war” as a threat to mankind. Science Digest said “we must prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor noted that armadillos had moved out of Nebraska because it was too cold, glaciers had begun to advance, and growing seasons had shortened around the world. Newsweek reported “ominous signs” of a “fundamental change in the world’s weather.”

[BILLYFRED0000]

Or here is another prediction.

“How Many Species Exist? The question takes on increasing significance as plants and animals vanish before scientists can even identify them.”



Now, wait a minute…How could you know something vanished before you identified it? If you didn’t know it existed, you wouldn’t have any way to know it was gone. Would you? In fact, the statement is nonsense. If you were never married you’d never know if your wife left you.

Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

we are higher than ever before

For instance this chart is the Mann hockey stick chart and it has been completely discredited in scientific literature.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This one has been somewhat discredited as well.

Now the first thing to say is that there is some uncertainty about how much warming has really occurred. The IPCC says the 20th century temperatures increase is between .4 and .8 degrees. The Goddard Institute says it is between .5 and .75 degrees. That’s a fair degree of uncertainty about how much warming has already occurred.



But let’s take the graph as given. It shows a warming of .4 degrees until 1940, which precedes major industrialization and so may or may not be a largely natural process. Then from 1940 to 1970, temperatures fell. That was the reason for the global cooling scare, and the fears that it was never going to get warm again. Since then, temperatures have gone up, as you see here. They have risen in association with carbon dioxide levels. And the core of the claim of CO2 driven warming is based on this thirty-five year record.

.

But we must remember that this graph really shows annual variations in the average surface temperature of the earth over time. That total average temperature is ballpark fourteen degrees. So if we graph the entire average fluctuation, it looks like this:



http://book1.htm

[BILLYFRED0000]

hey i am having getting my graph in here. can somebody please help me

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I would not call wikipedia a reliable source since they have no way of controlling who is puttting out the information.



here are your references from that wikipedia article.. it doesn't look like this was made by some idiot messing around on wikipedia:

Notes

1. ^ a b c d e f Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
2. ^ Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, figure SPM-2
3. ^ Climate Change: Basic Information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 2007-02-09.
4. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I. United Nations. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
5. ^ Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2006-01-12). Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
6. ^ Real Climate, 2005 temperatures. RealClimate (2007-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
7. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12
8. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 7.5.2 Sea Ice, 2001. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
9. ^ Gerald A. Meehl, et.al., Science Magazine, How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?, 18 March 2005. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
10. ^ Pearson, PN (2000). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years". Nature 406 (6797).
11. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Part 6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
12. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration
13. ^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Information
14. ^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Los Angeles Times: Ocean Report
15. ^ Sample, Ian. "Warming Hits 'Tipping Point'", The Guardian, 2005-08-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
16. ^ Gregory, J. M.; R. J. Stouffer, S. C. B. Raper (2002-11-15). "An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity" (PDF). Journal of Climate 15 (22): 3117-21. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
17. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes
18. ^ TerraDaily.com, Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming, Sep 13, 2006. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
19. ^ Real Climate, The sky IS falling, 26 Nov 2006. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
20. ^ Stott, et al., Journal of Climate, Vol. 16, Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, 15 December 2003. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
21. ^ Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark, Space Science Reviews 00: 1–16, 2000. Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate.. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
22. ^ Muscheler et.al., Nature, How unusual is today's solar activity?, 2005. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
23. ^ Duke University, Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report, September 30, 2005. Retrieved February 11, 2007.
24. ^ Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Retrieved on 2005-12-19.
25. ^ The Independent/UK, Extreme Weather Prompts Unprecedented Global Warming Alert, July 3, 2003. Retrieved March 4, 2007.
26. ^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Warming. Retrieved March 4, 2007.
27. ^ Hoyos et al., [[Science (journal)|]], Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity, March 7, 2006. Retrieved March 4, 2007.
28. ^ Thomas R. Knutson, et. al., Journal of Climate, [http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/tk0401.pdf Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization], 15 SEPTEMBER 2004. Retrieved March 4, 2007.
29. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I Based upon Chapter 12, Figure 12.7 (2001). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
30. ^ Torn, Margaret; John Harte (2006-05-26). "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming". Geophysical Research Letters 33 (10). L10703. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
31. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I Chapter 7.2.2 (2001). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
32. ^ The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle. NASA Oceanography (science@nasa) (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
33. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I Chapter 6.4 (2001). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
34. ^ a b (2005). "IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (summary for policy makers)" (PDF). International Panel on Climate Change and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
35. ^ The Relative Roles of Ozone and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change in the Stratosphere. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (2007-02-29). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
36. ^ The Open University (January 30, 2004). The Open University Provides Answers on Global Warming (PDF). Press release. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
37. ^ Cohen, Anthony S.; Angela L. Coe; Stephen M. Harding; Lorenz Schwark (February 2004). "Osmium isotope evidence for the regulation of atmospheric CO2 by continental weathering" (HTML/PDF). Geology 32 (2): 157-160. DOI:0.1130/G20158.1. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
38. ^ Maslin, M.; E. Thomas (2003-01-30). "The Clathrate Gun is firing blanks: evidence from balancing the deglacial global carbon budget". Geophysical Research Abstracts (see European Geophysical Society) 5. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
39. ^ Shaviv, Nir J.; Ján Veizer (July 2003). "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" (PDF). GSA Today 13 (7). DOI:<0004:CDOPC>2.0.CO;2 10.1130/1052-5173(2003)013<0004:CDOPC>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
40. ^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I Chapter 3.7.3.2 (2001). Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
41. ^ Rahmstorf, Stefan; et al. (2004-01-27). "Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate" (PDF). Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 85 (4): 38-41. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
42. ^ William Ruddiman (2005-03). "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?" (PDF). March 2005 issue. Scientific American. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.
43. ^ Schmidt, Gavin; Drew Shindell and Susan Harder (2004). "A note on the relationship between ice core methane concentrations and insolation". Geophysical Research Letters 31. DOI:10.1029/2004GL021083. ISSN 0094-8276. L23206. Retrieved on 2007-03-05.

Further reading

* Amstrup, Steven; Ian Stirling, Tom Smith, Craig Perham, and Gregory Thiemann (2006). "Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea". DOI:10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5.
* Association of British Insurers Financial Risks of Climate Change, June 2005, (PDF) Accessed 7 January 2006
* Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. (2005). "Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions". Nature 438: 303–309. [1]
* Behrenfeld, M.J., O'Malley, R.T., Siegel, D.A., McClain, C.R., Sarmiento, J. L., Feldman, G. C., Milligan, A.G., Falkowski, P. G., Letelier, R. M., and Boss, E.S. (2006). "Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity". Nature 444: 752–755.. [2]

* Choi, O. and A. Fisher (2003) "The Impacts of Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change on Severe Weather Catastrophe Losses: Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR) and the U.S." Climate Change, vol. 58 pp. 149 [3]
* Dyurgerov, Mark B; Mark F. Meier (2005). Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: a 2004 Snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Occasional Paper #58. [4]
* Ealert Global warming - the blame is not with the plants
* Emanuel, K.A. (2005) "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years." Nature 436, pp. 686–688. ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
* James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Larissa Nazarenko, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony DelGenio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nicholas Tausnev (2005). "Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". Science. DOI:10.1126/science.1110252.
* Hinrichs K.U., Hmelo L. & Sylva S. (2003). "Molecular Fossil Record of Elevated Methane Levels in Late Pleistocene Coastal Waters". Science 299 (5610): 1214–1217. DOI:10.1126/science.1079601.
* Hirsch, Tim. "Plants revealed as methane source", BBC, 11 January 2006.
* Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten (1993). "A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700–1992". J. Geophys. Res. 98: 18895–18906. [5]
* Kennett J. P., Cannariato K. G., Hendy I. L. & Behl R. J.American Geophysical Union, Special Publication, Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. 54, (2003). Questions about Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (source of information)
* Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley (2002). "The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate". Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (24): 2224. DOI:10.1029/2002GL015880. (online version requires registration)
* Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner (eds) (2006). Environmental issues : essential primary sources.. Thomson Gale. ISBN 1414406258.

[Keith7]

* McLaughlin, Joseph B.; Angelo DePaola, Cheryl A. Bopp, et al. (October 6, 2005). "Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis associated with Alaskan oysters". New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14): 1463–1470. Retrieved on [[July 18, 2006]]. (online version requires registration)
* Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller and Ian Snowball (2005). "Climate: How unusual is today's solar activity?". Nature 436: E3-E4. DOI:10.1038/nature04045.
* Oerlemans, J (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308 (5722): 675–677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046.
* Naomi Oreskes, 2004 Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Retrieved December 8, 2004. Also available as a 1 page PDF file Reviewed 928 refereed scientific articles identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published 1993-2003—concluded that 75% of the articles explicitly or implicitly accepted the scientific consensus. The remainder of the articles did not take any stance on recent climate change.
* Purse, Bethan V.; Mellor, Philip S.; Rogers, David J.; Samuel, Alan R.; Mertens, Peter P. C.; and Baylis, Matthew (February 2005). "Climate change and the recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe". Nature Reviews Microbiology 3 (2): 171–181. DOI:10.1038/nrmicro1090. Retrieved on 2006-07-26.
* RealClimate Scientists Baffled
* Revkin, Andrew C (2005). "Rise in Gases Unmatched by a History in Ancient Ice". New York Times. "Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today." (November 25, 2005) [6]
* Ruddiman, William F. (2001). Earth's Climate Past and Future. New York: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-7167-3741-8. [7]
* Ruddiman, William F. (2005). Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12164-8.
* Shaviv and Veizer (2004). "Forum: Comment". Eos 85 (48): 510–511. [8]
* Smith, T.M. and R.W. Reynolds, 2005: A global merged land and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880–1997). J. Climate, 18, 2021–2036.

* S.K. Solanki, I.G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler, J. Beer (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.". Nature 431: 1084–1087. DOI:10.1038/nature02995.
* S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer (2005). "Climate: How unusual is today's solar activity? (Reply)". Nature 436: E4-E5. DOI:10.1038/nature04046.
* Sowers T. (2006). "Late Quaternary Atmospheric CH4 Isotope Record Suggests Marine Clathrates Are Stable". Science 311 (5762): 838–840. DOI:10.1126/science.1121235.
* Svensmark, Henrik; Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh, Martin B. Enghoff, and Ulrik I. Uuggerhøj (2006). "Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions". Proceedings of the Royal Society A 462. DOI:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773. (online version requires registration)

* UNEP summary (2002) Climate risk to global economy, Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives Executive Briefing Paper (UNEP FI) (PDF) Accessed 7 January 2006

* K. M. Walter, S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla and F. S. Chapin (2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443: 71-75. DOI:10.1038/nature05040.
* Wang, Y.M., J.L. Lean, and N.R. Sheeley (2005). "Modeling the sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713". Astrophysical Journal 625: 522–538. [9]
* Wired Careful Where You Put That Tree
* Nanotech Could Give Global Warming a Big Chill (July, 2006) by Ray Kurzweil (PDF)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

I'm with you on this one Keith, but I'm in over my head, sorry I can't get your back. Just thought I'd let you know I support your side. You are not alone.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Keith7.

I do not have time to enter all the relevant info at this time.
However here is a link to a answer your temperature graphs.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Read "Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century" buy Michael Creighton. He has the relevant graphs for your global temperature and if you wish to get more I will try to get my Bibilographical info out for you. Suffice it to say that everything you pulled out of Wikipedia is descredited or exaggerated by current science.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
For instance this chart is the Mann hockey stick chart and it has been completely discredited in scientific literature.

actually this is a composite graph showing 10 different reconstructions of mean tempurature changes over the last 200 years.. here is a list of who all came up with these

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
11. (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Anything that has to do with IPPC is purely a political excercise and many of the names you include on your list do not agree and had their names added with out their permission. I do not have time to explain to you how most of it is bs but believe me it is.
I will try to underwhelm you with scientific facts and not some UN
committee speculation later.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Anything that has to do with IPPC is purely a political excercise and many of the names you include on your list do not agree and had their names added with out their permission. I do not have time to explain to you how most of it is bs but believe me it is.
I will try to underwhelm you with scientific facts and not some UN
committee speculation later.

How do you know the "facts" that you have aren't the ones that are BS? I'm not saying that they are, but that argument goes both ways you know.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
actually this is a composite graph showing 10 different reconstructions of mean tempurature changes over the last 200 years.. here is a list of who all came up with these

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
11. (black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [3] was used.

I understand however the Mann stick is in evidence and is the main compositing tool. And it is completely invalid. The interesting things about all this garbage is the total ignoring of the facts of the issue and twisting it to fit a political end.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Just read the Creighton speech and get back to me to morrow.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I understand however the Mann stick is in evidence and is the main compositing tool. And it is completely invalid. The interesting things about all this garbage is the total ignoring of the facts of the issue and twisting it to fit a political end.

All of it is going to be politically motivated. Think about it, conservatives want to limit restrictions on businesses and at one time even wanted to get rid of the E.P.A., and liberals tend to want to protect the environment. I'm not accusing anyone of buying into any of the propaganda, but who can you really believe on this issue? Personally, I'm just using common sense to know that it's getting warmer and the ice caps are melting, so some type of global warming is present, just don't exactly know how.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Just read the Creighton speech and get back to me to morrow.

will I be quized??

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
All of it is going to be politically motivated. Think about it, conservatives want to limit restrictions on businesses and at one time even wanted to get rid of the E.P.A., and liberals tend to want to protect the environment. I'm not accusing anyone of buying into any of the propaganda, but who can you really believe on this issue? Personally, I'm just using common sense to know that it's getting warmer and the ice caps are melting, so some type of global warming is present, just don't exactly know how.

It's only gotten warmer over the short term, though, and many scientists are predicting it will cool back down again in the next 50-60 years. BTW, the ice caps are not melting. The Antarctic ice is actually growing and thickening.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=200&CFID=3545543&CFTOKEN=61232972

[Keith7]

Originally posted by garageoffice
The Antarctic ice is actually growing and thickening.



but is it really??

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm

[Bullaholic]

Let's consider the entire historical ecological evolution of planet earth. This planet has evolved through changes which transcend anything mankind has yet to cause, such as temperatures that would boil water, sub-zero glacial periods, and volcanic eruptions which placed tremendous amounts of gaseous and particulate matter into the atmosphere. Over eons of time, these inhospitible conditions have evolved into the earth we know today. No mortal knows how long the life clock of mankind will tick, but I feel assured, based on planetary history, that our planet is more than capable of sustaining and recovering from any man-made changes over time when viewed in this perspective. This does not even take into consideration the technolgical advances which will be made in our science over such a span of time to deal with any ecological problems. If mankind did succeed in committing environmental suicide, in the span of time I feel the earth would resurrect itself and life would flourish again----if that is God's plan-----and that, my friends, is a non-board topic for discussion some other time.

[JasperDog94]

All I can say is WOW! We as humans sure are doing a great job contributing to global warming when we only account for 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

WAY TO GO TEAM!!!!:cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
All I can say is WOW! We as humans sure are doing a great job contributing to global warming when we only account for 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

WAY TO GO TEAM!!!!:cheerl: :cheerl: :cheerl:
The amount of methane released at my home on certain days is exponentially greater than that. :hairpunk:

[Pudlugger]

Al Gore the Prince of Dorkness!:D

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Keith7
mars is made up of 95% carbon dioxide, the very gas that is emitted by fossil fule emisions.. Sure there are no cars there (duh, I can't beleave you just now figured that out), but because of years of outgassing, and where the planet is located Mars natrually has co2 in it's atmosphere...

Keith Keith Keith this was a joke! Man no sense of humor.:eek:

BTW I assume you mean Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2. The Moon of course is 99% Green Cheese.:D

[BTEXDAD]

i've been out of college for almost 30 yrs and have no desire to do additional research papers, but in my 50+ yrs of life i have noticed a few things.
Some winters are colder than others and some summers are hotter than others. Sometimes there's droughts, sometimes there's floods. It's called weather.
Cleaning up pollution and not wasting natural resources is fine, but I personally feel global warming is a myth as stated in first post on this thread.
This past winter after being fairly mild initially and inflaming all the global warming talk again, turned out to be one of the coldest on record in many parts of the country.
I've mentioned before, we may be heading the wrong direction in worrying about global warming. When will scientists wake up and spend time finding a way to solve global cooling.
I know I don't want to spend time at the beach wearing longjohns and parkas. :D

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Keith7.

I do not have time to enter all the relevant info at this time.
However here is a link to a answer your temperature graphs.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Read "Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century" buy Michael Creighton. He has the relevant graphs for your global temperature and if you wish to get more I will try to get my Bibilographical info out for you. Suffice it to say that everything you pulled out of Wikipedia is descredited or exaggerated by current science. Billyfreed0000,
You have seen evidence by scientist that say globle warming because of humans and cars and such... You have seen evidence by scientist of saying it is not true. So what next?? answere this question. If You had been seen by a doctor and he said you had cancer and if you didnt treat it you would die. You go to several doctors but every other one say you dont and some say you do have cancer. What do you do??? get treated for it incase you have it? or wait to see if you die to see who is right??

[Reds fan]

"get treated for it incase you have it? or wait to see if you die to see who is right??"

I'll answer that, there are positve and accurate tests for cancer! When positive get the treatment!

That was a bad analogy between cancer and global warming.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Reds fan
"get treated for it incase you have it? or wait to see if you die to see who is right??"

I'll answer that, there are positve and accurate tests for cancer! When positive get the treatment!

That was a bad analogy between cancer and global warming. Look You can say the same thing about global warming. there is evidence of it presented.. Its a question of if you want to believe it or not. It is a great analogy. You dont know who is right. Nobody does. BUT if your wrong who has the most to lose. the global warming crowd? or the ones who dont think it is real? EASY.. If the Global warning crowd is wrong then we lose by having cleaner air. But then again you will never realy know if they are wrong because as the opponents to global warming say its not real.... BUT if the people who dont think its real are wrong and we do nothing to stop it... WE LOSE THE PLANET.. DO you think is better safe then sorry??

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look You can say the same thing about global warming. there is evidence of it presented.. Its a question of if you want to believe it or not. It is a great analogy. You dont know who is right. Nobody does. BUT if your wrong who has the most to lose. the global warming crowd? or the ones who dont think it is real? EASY.. If the Global warning crowd is wrong then we lose by having cleaner air. But then again you will never realy know if they are wrong because as the opponents to global warming say its not real.... BUT if the people who dont think its real are wrong and we do nothing to stop it... WE LOSE THE PLANET.. DO you think is better safe then sorry??

In theory that is great..BUT if they start putting policies in place that cost upwards of billions of dollars and legislate the people to be forced to do things that in the end does not truly change anything, then how is that ok?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
In theory that is great..BUT if they start putting policies in place that cost upwards of billions of dollars and legislate the people to be forced to do things that in the end does not truly change anything, then how is that ok? Look. There ar hundred of scientist who say its real. IF they are right and we do nothing about it then everything else does not make a hill of beans dont you think??

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
In theory that is great..BUT if they start putting policies in place that cost upwards of billions of dollars and legislate the people to be forced to do things that in the end does not truly change anything, then how is that ok? Because it's the thought that counts.:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Look. There ar hundred of scientist who say its real. IF they are right and we do nothing about it then everything else does not make a hill of beans dont you think?? And there are hundreds that say it isn't. There's not even a large majority that believe either way. Why make policy on something that is still so debatable?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And there are hundreds that say it isn't. There's not even a large majority that believe either way. Why make policy on something that is still so debatable? So wait to see if you die or not to prove that you have or dont have cancer?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So wait to see if you die or not to prove that you have or dont have cancer? Bad analogy.

Cancer is provable. Global warming caused by us is not. Period.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So wait to see if you die or not to prove that you have or dont have cancer?

Bangs head on desk. HARD.

:helpme: :crazy: :crazy1: :speech:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So wait to see if you die or not to prove that you have or dont have cancer?

Or take Chemo and wreck your body to find out you never had cancer? My point is I want to wait until real PROOF is out there before my Government starts to legislate me and my money on an issue

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Bad analogy.

Cancer is provable. Global warming caused by us is not. Period. Many scientist say global warming is provable and use many studies to do so. YOU just dont buy it.... Say your wrong and we do nothing... what happens??? WE LOSE THE PLANET!!!! say they are wrong.. what has happened??? clean air! you really want to risk loseing the planet?? Look we aint talking about a spotted owl here.. We are talking about the hole ball game including us.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Or take Chemo and wreck your body to find out you never had cancer? My point is I want to wait until real PROOF is out there before my Government starts to legislate me and my money on an issue the only proof that will convince you is the start of the end of things. It can be too late at that point. you would risk it all on a wait and see attitude??

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
the only proof that will convince you is the start of the end of things. It can be too late at that point. you would risk it all on a wait and see attitude??

Global warming if it is real will not be a sudden end all event. We have time to truly find out the source, if there is even one source to it.

That is the main issue I have..Politicans are using this as a scare tactic to get things rammed thru as far as bills..Kinda like the Red Scare of the 50's

It is weird...The Same people who want a wait and see approach when it comes to things like Terroism want us to jump on to Global warming without all the facts. And I say that with no allegiance to any party

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Global warming if it is real will not be a sudden end all event. We have time to truly find out the source, if there is even one source to it.

That is the main issue I have..Politicans are using this as a scare tactic to get things rammed thru as far as bills..Kinda like the Red Scare of the 50's

It is weird...The Same people who want a wait and see approach when it comes to things like Terroism want us to jump on to Global warming without all the facts. And I say that with no allegiance to any party to bad we didnt listen to some of those about Iraq...:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Many scientist say global warming is provable and use many studies to do so. AND AS MANY SAY IT'S FALSE!!!!:speech: :speech: :speech: :speech: :speech:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Global warming if it is real will not be a sudden end all event. We have time to truly find out the source, if there is even one source to it.

That is the main issue I have..Politicans are using this as a scare tactic to get things rammed thru as far as bills..Kinda like the Red Scare of the 50's

It is weird...The Same people who want a wait and see approach when it comes to things like Terroism want us to jump on to Global warming without all the facts. And I say that with no allegiance to any party Remember we are not talking about the spotted owl or some particlular species... We are talking about the whole ball game us included.. Boy you know your anti environment when you are willing to risk losing it all to save your SUV or save a buck.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
AND AS MANY SAY IT'S FALSE!!!!:speech: :speech: :speech: :speech: :speech: SO LETS WAIT TO SEE IF THE PATIENT DIES TO SEE WHO IS RIGHT??!!!:doh: :doh: :doh:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
SO LETS WAIT TO SEE IF THE PATIENT DIES TO SEE WHO IS RIGHT??!!!:doh: :doh: :doh:


You keep using that argument..The Earth is not going to burn up in 5-10 years..we have TIME to truly see if there is anything that can be done

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
SO LETS WAIT TO SEE IF THE PATIENT DIES TO SEE WHO IS RIGHT??!!!:doh: :doh: :doh: I can show you indisputable proof that someone has cancer. Can you do the same about global warming?

Didn't think so.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
You keep using that argument..The Earth is not going to burn up in 5-10 years..we have TIME to truly see if there is anything that can be done how do you know that?? you dont. Heck it could be to late already. It could be too late in 10 years. you dont really know. what is real is that unless we do something it will get worse in the future all over the world as population grows and the growth of the third world energy use.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
how do you know that?? you dont. Heck it could be to late already. It could be too late in 10 years. you dont really know. what is real is that unless we do something it will get worse in the future all over the world as population grows and the growth of the third world energy use.

How is it real that it will get worse? WE DONT KNOW. I am not going to just buy into something because SOME scientist say it is a certain way..There is to much unknown

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
how do you know that?? you dont. Heck it could be to late already. It could be too late in 10 years. you dont really know. what is real is that unless we do something it will get worse in the future all over the world as population grows and the growth of the third world energy use.

We also can't predict a nuclear war within 5-10 years.

If you think its bad now, you must not remember El Nino. We survived that! You must have went underground into a bomb shelter because you are not thinking clearly.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I can show you indisputable proof that someone has cancer. Can you do the same about global warming?

Didn't think so. I can. Want me to show you proof?? you wont buy it because you have studies to the contrary. If you have two doctors who have run test and both say different things what do you do????? Gamble your not sick? or make sure you dont die incase the one who said your fine was wrong?? You know you would take treatment. Dont say all medical conditions are so black and white because you know they are not. Your saying Nobody ever missdiagnosed cancer before??? surely not.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I can. Want me to show you proof?? you wont buy it because you have studies to the contrary. If you have two doctors who have run test and both say different things what do you do????? Gamble your not sick? or make sure you dont die incase the one who said your fine was wrong?? You know you would take treatment. Dont say all medical conditions are so black and white because you know they are not. Your saying Nobody ever missdiagnosed cancer before??? surely not.

Maybe one of the doctors was not a very good doctor and read the test wrong. Hmmm....sounds like the argument between the scientists on global warming. :thinking:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I can. Want me to show you proof?? you wont buy it because you have studies to the contrary. If you have two doctors who have run test and both say different things what do you do????? Gamble your not sick? or make sure you dont die incase the one who said your fine was wrong?? You know you would take treatment. Dont say all medical conditions are so black and white because you know they are not. Your saying Nobody ever missdiagnosed cancer before??? surely not.

Here is the difference

With Cancer you can find the tumor or mass..With Global warming it is ALL theroies that CANNOT be proven full either way.

And no I would not just take the treatment. I would go to a third doctor

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Here is the difference

With Cancer you can find the tumor or mass..With Global warming it is ALL theroies that CANNOT be proven full either way.

And no I would not just take the treatment. I would go to a third doctor and the third said you have cancer then go to a 4th and he says no. Thats what we have on the global warming issue. By the way you have temperatures rising all over the world and there is data on that. you say it does not mean anything. Gambling your right risks the planet.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
and the third said you have cancer then go to a 4th and he says no. Thats what we have on the global warming issue. By the way you have temperatures rising all over the world and there is data on that. you say it does not mean anything. Gambling your right risks the planet.

So the fact the planet has went thru warming cycles before means nothing?

And once again Cancer can be 100% proven..You need another analogy

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
and the third said you have cancer then go to a 4th and he says no. Thats what we have on the global warming issue. By the way you have temperatures rising all over the world and there is data on that. you say it does not mean anything. Gambling your right risks the planet.

And there are temperatures lowering all over the world!!!

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Maybe one of the doctors was not a very good doctor and read the test wrong. Hmmm....sounds like the argument between the scientists on global warming. :thinking: EXACTLY!!!!!! SO now what?? wait to see who is wrong by waiting to see if things go downhill or not???? I dont like that because by that time it could be too late. WHY GAMBLE ??? There is too much to lose if global warming is real dont you think?? Just take the medicine to be cautious so you dont DIE!!! sure it does not taste good but it has to happen to make sure we dont DIE! .. at worst if your wrong and its a false alarm you only are stuck with a crappy tasting dose of medicine for a while. If your right you saved your life. Small price . Like insurance.. Would you drive your new car without Insurance becaue you think your a great driver? no! your cautious to make sure if you make a mistake your covered. same thing here. why not pay for the insurance to make sure your covered?

[Black_Magic]

National Geographic thinks it real here are some Facts.

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

December 6, 2004
Global warming is a hot topic that shows little sign of cooling down. Earth's climate is changing, but just how it's happening, and our own role in the process, is less certain.

Check out these fast facts and pictures for a snapshot of Earth's evolving climate.

Email to a Friend

RELATED
Earth Becomes Greener as Climate Changes
By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says
Melting Arctic Bogs May Hasten Warming, Study Says
Arctic Melting Fast; May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?
You Can Fight Global Warming, Authors Urge

• There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.

The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.

The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.

• The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that global temperatures will rise an additional 3 to10 degrees Fahrenheit (1.6 to 5.5 degrees Celsius) by century's end.

• Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.

But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past—and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe—yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. Greenland ice cores indicate one spike in which the area's surface temperature increased by 15 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) in just 10 years.

• Where do scientists find clues to past climate change? The tale is told in remnant materials like glacial ice and moraines, pollen-rich mud, stalagmites, the rings of corals and trees, and ocean sediments that yield the shells of microscopic organisms. Human history yields clues as well, through records like ancient writings and inscriptions, gardening and vintner records, and the logs of historic ships.

• Rising temperatures have a dramatic impact on Arctic ice, which serves as a kind of "air conditioner" at the top of the world. Since 1978 Arctic sea ice area has shrunk by some 9 percent per decade, and thinned as well.

ACIA projects that at least half of the Arctic's summer sea ice will melt by century's end, and that the Arctic region is likely to warm 7 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 7 degrees Celsius) during the same time.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So the fact the planet has went thru warming cycles before means nothing?


but its now warmer than ever before.. and I guess its just a coincidence that the invention of automobiles, and other co2 emitting technology happened during the most extreme warming period yet?? ha give me a break..

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
EXACTLY!!!!!! SO now what?? wait to see who is wrong by waiting to see if things go downhill or not???? I dont like that because by that time it could be too late. WHY GAMBLE ??? There is too much to lose if global warming is real dont you think?? Just take the medicine to be cautious so you dont DIE!!! sure it does not taste good but it has to happen to make sure we dont DIE! .. at worst if your wrong and its a false alarm you only are stuck with a crappy tasting dose of medicine for a while. If your right you saved your life. Small price . Like insurance.. Would you drive your new car without Insurance becaue you think your a great driver? no! your cautious to make sure if you make a mistake your covered. same thing here. why not pay for the insurance to make sure your covered?


Again bad analogy..Your not talking about something small..The changes would cost taxpayers and the government BILLIONS and the legislation of our lifestyle is not right IMO for something we dont even know exist.

You start being a Governemnt that legislates by scare tactics where does it end?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Again bad analogy..Your not talking about something small..The changes would cost taxpayers and the government BILLIONS and the legislation of our lifestyle is not right IMO for something we dont even know exist.

You start being a Governemnt that legislates by scare tactics where does it end? So the Reason you pay for Insurance to your car is because the government makes you??? or is it for a precaution that you MAY have an accident???

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
but its now warmer than ever before.. and I guess its just a coincidence that the invention of automobiles, and other co2 emitting technology happened during the most extreme warming period yet?? ha give me a break..

Prove it

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So the Reason you pay for Insurance to your car is because the government makes you??? or is it for a precaution that you MAY have an accident???

Actually I pay for insurance cause it is the law in texas

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Global_Warming_Predictions.png

[Keith7]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
EXACTLY!!!!!! SO now what?? wait to see who is wrong by waiting to see if things go downhill or not???? I dont like that because by that time it could be too late. WHY GAMBLE ??? There is too much to lose if global warming is real dont you think?? Just take the medicine to be cautious so you dont DIE!!! sure it does not taste good but it has to happen to make sure we dont DIE! .. at worst if your wrong and its a false alarm you only are stuck with a crappy tasting dose of medicine for a while. If your right you saved your life. Small price . Like insurance.. Would you drive your new car without Insurance becaue you think your a great driver? no! your cautious to make sure if you make a mistake your covered. same thing here. why not pay for the insurance to make sure your covered?

I think you missed the point. My point was one of the docs were wrong, meaning they misdiagnosed the patient. Do you have any idea what chemo is? It is a toxin that poisons your entire body. The point is to kill the cancer, but at the same time its poisoning your body.

So let's say this person is misdiagnosed and undergoes treatment for cancer....wow. That is a lot of unneccesary pain and suffering.

I work with a guy who was 1st told he had an inoperable brain tumor, then 6 weeks later he didn't. He was then told he had MS, which turned out that he did not.

Its impossible to predict the future or the climate. We could experience the beginning of a new ice age tomorrow, in fact there are some people who believe that we are. So I guess we better start preparing for that at the same time right?

What is it that you suggest we do about helping to "stop" global warming? I mean, we don't even know for sure what can be done about it, if in fact it really is occuring.

For all you know or any scientists know global warming began the day we dropped the atom bomb. Can you disprove it?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image159.gif

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image159.gif

we are talking about global warming not US warming

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
So the Reason you pay for Insurance to your car is because the government makes you??? or is it for a precaution that you MAY have an accident???

Um...actually we required by law to have insurance, so yes, it is because the government mandates it. Unless you wish to pay the fines everytime a cop pulls you over.

[garageoffice]

There's one major difference in the global warming discussion, so let's take a look at it from the perspective of Black-Magic's analogy.

You go to the doctor, he recommends some tests. The specialist says he's pretty sure there's no problem, but the hospital administrator takes the report, writes his own summary saying you need a bunch more tests because he believes you have a fatal disease that must be addressed ASAP. You are not allowed to discuss your condition with the specialist again, but are requested to work directly with the administrator. Now what do you do?

Over the past 10 years, several of the scientists that have done the grunt work of aggregating data and evaluating the relationships between actions and reactions, have actually jumped ship because their work has been misrepresented by politicians or by so-called "scientific specialists" who are employed by governmental or UN organizations. This is the story line that only sometimes get any air time.

That's where I have a problem. 35 years ago the consensus was that we were going to freeze due to global cooling. Now, we're going to die from global warming. 35 years is not enough time to establish a trend when the cycles involved typically last hundreds of years. I still ask, if it's such a big deal, then why are the warmest years on record from the 1930s?

Another issue in this debate is that most of the "proof" comes from ground-based readings. OK, I'll agree that average temps for most ground-based stations probably are warmer than they once were. But, think about where most of these weather stations are. Most of them are in or near populous areas, airports even. I do believe that we are putting more heat into the air than ever before (not the same thing as greenhouse effect), but the upper atmosphere and ocean water temperature readings I've seen online haven't shown any significant rise in the last 30 years.

http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19215.pdf

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
I think you missed the point. My point was one of the docs were wrong, meaning they misdiagnosed the patient. Do you have any idea what chemo is? It is a toxin that poisons your entire body. The point is to kill the cancer, but at the same time its poisoning your body.

So let's say this person is misdiagnosed and undergoes treatment for cancer....wow. That is a lot of unneccesary pain and suffering.

I work with a guy who was 1st told he had an inoperable brain tumor, then 6 weeks later he didn't. He was then told he had MS, which turned out that he did not.

Its impossible to predict the future or the climate. We could experience the beginning of a new ice age tomorrow, in fact there are some people who believe that we are. So I guess we better start preparing for that at the same time right?

What is it that you suggest we do about helping to "stop" global warming? I mean, we don't even know for sure what can be done about it, if in fact it really is occuring.

For all you know or any scientists know global warming began the day we dropped the atom bomb. Can you disprove it?

And that is the issue I have...I dont know either way, and until more proof is out there I think we should wait and see.

In the early 80's with the AIDs scare MANY doctors were saying AIDS was transmitted thru the air or by regular contact..Now think how life would have changed if they had legislated that.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
we are talking about global warming not US warming

ohhhh so The HUGE continent we live on is not part of the Global tempature?

[Keith7]

I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to give up their fossil fuels.. jeez do u really not care about this planet?? I have a 5 page paper I have to write today so i can't spend 3 hours defending the case for global warming today.. but wow I didn't know there was so little compassion towards our planet, it is the only one we have

[BuffyMars]

Oh my gosh! Bird flu is expected to reach 1 Hong Kong resident by July.

Oh my gosh! They better close down the airports now, and start quarantining the city!

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
ohhhh so The HUGE continent we live on is not part of the Global tempature?

it is, but it is only a small part of the earth.. give me a break.. talk about trying to skew numbers to make your opinion work

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to give up their fossil fuels.. jeez do u really not care about this planet?? I have a 5 page paper I have to write today so i can't spend 3 hours defending the case for global warming today.. but wow I didn't know there was so little compassion towards our planet, it is the only one we have

GL in your paper

It is not about not having compassion..It is about not reacting to things that cannot be proven 100%. I did not like it when Republicans said if you dont agree with War in Iraq then u dont love the US

and I dont agree with if you dont jump on Global Warming then u dont have compassion for Planet. That is a scare tactic that is IMO oversimplified.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
it is, but it is only a small part of the earth.. give me a break.. talk about trying to skew numbers to make your opinion work

How is it skewing? The Contient of North America's Tempature ESPECIALLY since the US is leading the world in CO2 emmisions SHOULD show directly the results

Again..I am not for/agianst on the issue of man causing Global Warming..I am wanting more research before we just go and make policies

[garageoffice]

If you are going to cite regional hot-spots in an argument for global warming, we should probably look at the big picture. So, Alaska is warmer than ever before. Greenhouse effect? Who knows? Is it just coincidence that there are more people and industry in Alaska than ever before? I'm not going to say that we are not creating more heat than ever before, but that's not what the global warming argument is about.

Global warming says that we are adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere that the radiant energy from the sun is being trapped and causing catastrophic warming to occur. Even the charts that have been posted here show a pretty dramatic cooling period from the 50's to the 70's. CO2 levels were on the rise pretty dramatically during this post-WWII industrial era. If man's contribution to the greenhouse effect makes such a big impact, why were temps going down?

[BuffyMars]

It has nothing to do with compassion towards our planet. Terry would probably tell you I am on the verge of being a tree-hugger.

Its that it has not been proven what THE CAUSE is. This could be something completely out of our hands!

This could have been the effect of something long before cars, planes, trains, etc.

We just DON'T have a definitive answer.

All we can do is hope that people will be a little more weary of being wasteful.

And if it is because of humans, we are fighting a losing battle. Because of overpopulation, we are killing most of our natural resources. If you ask me, I would start with worrying about our rainforests and trying to preserve the ocean. Because tuna are predicted to be extinct by 2030.

Again I use the word predict. Its not certain.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Um...actually we required by law to have insurance, so yes, it is because the government mandates it. Unless you wish to pay the fines everytime a cop pulls you over. That Explains it perfectly. No WAY would I drive a $28,000 Tahoe around without insurance on it. Why if I screw up and make a mistake ( Mistakes all happen ya know ) and roll it because of a slick spot in the road or what ever . I dont have to pay a $28,000 note AND find another car AND pay for it TOO just to get around! NO WAY would I do that. To much to risk. Now You on the other hand would risk it. that explains it perfectly your view on Global warming. If you would not pay $100 a mounth to protect $28,000 then why would you worry about the Planet?:clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster


and I dont agree with if you dont jump on Global Warming then u dont have compassion for Planet. That is a scare tactic that is IMO oversimplified.

u don't have to believe in global warming, thats only part of the issue, and its not a scare tactic because there is more than enough evidence to make a case for it, unlike the iraq had....

All i'm trying to get at is that pollution is very real, we see it everyday in the air, on the ground, even in creeks.. We only have one planet, why not try to find alternative fuels to help protect it.. its all we have.. Does it really matter if your duley runs off of gasoline, if it does the same job on ethonal or electricity?

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
That Explains it perfectly. No WAY would I drive a $28,000 Tahoe around without insurance on it. Why if I screw up and make a mistake ( Mistakes all happen ya know ) and roll it because of a slick spot in the road or what ever . I dont have to pay a $28,000 note AND find another care AND pay for it TOO just to get around! NO WAY would I do that. To much to risk. Now You on the other hand would risk it. that explains it perfectly your view on Global warming. If you would not pay $100 a mounth to protect $28,000 then why would you worry about the Planet?:clap:

Jeez, its like talking to a brickwall.

You are right. You should be in charge of this whole operation. I cease to your global warming knowledge. You clearly have all the answers.

:thumbsup:

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
That Explains it perfectly. No WAY would I drive a $28,000 Tahoe around without insurance on it. Why if I screw up and make a mistake ( Mistakes all happen ya know ) and roll it because of a slick spot in the road or what ever . I dont have to pay a $28,000 note AND find another care AND pay for it TOO just to get around! NO WAY would I do that. To much to risk. Now You on the other hand would risk it. that explains it perfectly your view on Global warming. If you would not pay $100 a mounth to protect $28,000 then why would you worry about the Planet?:clap:

Nice job of taking the point and boiling it down to a point is not there..You asked if we pay insurance cause Government makes us..and the answer is of course yes. Does not mean we would not pay for it if it was not law.

and a 100 a month for FULL coverage is cheap..where you get your insurance? lol

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Jeez, its like talking to a brickwall.

You are right. You should be in charge of this whole operation. I cease to your global warming knowledge. You clearly have all the answers.

:thumbsup: BuffyMars, your attitude on Insurance said it all. You have it ONLY because the government makes you. I have it because I understand I have something valuable and want to protect the value of it from MY own possible mistakes.YOU are willing to risk your investment on the otherhand. Im the same with the planet.Im willing to make an insurance payment to make sure its protected for my grandkids or greatgrandkids.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Keith7
I just don't understand why it is so hard for people to give up their fossil fuels.. jeez do u really not care about this planet?? I have a 5 page paper I have to write today so i can't spend 3 hours defending the case for global warming today.. but wow I didn't know there was so little compassion towards our planet, it is the only one we have

Nobody on this board is talking about fossil fuels. I think most would agree we should be investigating alternative energy sources. That's not the debate. Using scare tactics, taking research out of context, using specific sub-sets of data to prove a point when the motivation is suspect is the issue. Trying to force restrictive legislation that would cost billions when even the scientists don't agree is the issue.

I'm not even trying to say that global warming doesn't exist. I'm just saying there's not enough agreement to warrant the inflammatory statements that are often made by non-scientists who have their own agendas. Just like in most other things political...follow the money.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster

and a 100 a month for FULL coverage is cheap..where you get your insurance? lol GERMANIA.. Its $104 actualy but 100 is a round number.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by garageoffice
I'm not even trying to say that global warming doesn't exist. I'm just saying there's not enough agreement to warrant the inflammatory statements that are often made my non-scientists who have their own agendas. Just like in most other things political...follow the money.

Exactly.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
All i'm trying to get at is that pollution is very real, we see it everyday in the air, on the ground, even in creeks.. Pollution and Global Warming are two separate issues.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Pollution and Global Warming are two separate issues. Nope Pollution (Co2) from engines is one and the same and causes global warming

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Nope Pollution (Co2) from engines is one and the same and causes global warming CO2 is a kind of pollution, but to lump all pollution into the global warming debate is disingenuous at best.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
CO2 is a kind of pollution, but to lump all pollution into the global warming debate is disingenuous at best. You know what they are talking about. Of course throwing a bottle out the window on a road does not contribute to global waring. Its the Driving on the road that does that. But you get it anyway.:rolleyes:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
You know what they are talking about. Of course throwing a bottle out the window on a road does not contribute to global waring. Its the Driving on the road that does that. But you get it anyway.:rolleyes: Yep. The 2% of the CO2 that we're responsible for is causing global warming....despite evidence to the contrary...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm done here. You believe whatever data that you want and I'll believe the evidence to the contrary. That's what's great about America! Just don't force your beliefs on me.

:)

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yep. The 2% of the CO2 that we're responsible for is causing global warming....despite evidence to the contrary...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm done here. You believe whatever data that you want and I'll believe the evidence to the contrary. That's what's great about America! Just don't force your beliefs on me.

:) The 2% your fond of can raise the temperatures 2% and then raise the level of the oceans causing significant problems ... and by the way if it is only 2% that can turn into 4% quickly if nothing is done... I wont force my beliefs on anyone. I will just vote people out of office like we did november and then 2 more years. thats what we will do:D

[Txbroadcaster]

Black magic..I am enjoying the debate because it has been civil and informative. You bring up some valid points.

The biggest difference is You assuming it is our doing. I am saying I dont know.

You use Cancer and Insurance as analogies.

Well Cancer can be proven, and Insurance is protection from a KNOWN event..a car wreck and such

Global Warming is an UNKNOWN event. We dont know what truly is causing it, we dont kknow if it truly is something that is happening because of a cause, or is it part of a cycle. For each stat that points one way..there is another stat that says the exact opposite.

As I have said before, I am all for doing something IF it is proven WE as a race are the cause. I am NOT for spending tons of money and making laws to fight something IF it is not even an issue we can fight.

I just want to see more proof before I go jumping feet first.

the BIGGEST problem is that this has moved from the scientific forum into the political forum and that has muddled up the debate even more. That is what is truly sad about it.

I THINK Al Gore had his heart in the right place with his movie..BUT the movie picked the facts THEY wanted to use to make their case. That is not trying to see what is real or not real..that is shaping the facts to fit their argument

[Bullaholic]

nm--Wrong thread. Sorry...

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I will just vote people out of office like we did november and then 2 more years. thats what we will do:D

I'm behind u with that

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The 2% your fond of can raise the temperatures 2% and then raise the level of the oceans causing significant problems ... and by the way if it is only 2% that can turn into 4% quickly if nothing is done... I wont force my beliefs on anyone. I will just vote people out of office like we did november and then 2 more years. thats what we will do:D
.
How can our 2% raise temperatures 2% if their is no correlation between the two?:nerd:
.
Your cancer analogy is a terrible one unless you believe in mother Earth.:p

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
The 2% your fond of can raise the temperatures 2% and then raise the level of the oceans causing significant problems ... and by the way if it is only 2% that can turn into 4% quickly if nothing is done... I wont force my beliefs on anyone. I will just vote people out of office like we did november and then 2 more years. thats what we will do:D

That's what's at the center of the debate, though. It's not 2% of the greenhouse gases or 2% of the greenhouse effect. It's 2% of the CO2, which is only a small part of the actual greenhouse effect, because water vapor is 10x as prevalent and absorbs much more heat, accounting for 95-98% of the total greenhouse effect. Can the man-made CO2 make a difference? Sure, but the difference is statistically so small that even doubling the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere isn't likely to raise temperatures significantly.

At least, this is the point many scientists are trying to make. They are just trying to say the the real cause of the current warming trend is unknown. Because of that, it is premature to try to force massive, expensive change that can only minimally affect the situation, and even then, only if EVERY nation of the world jumps on the bandwagon.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
How can our 2% raise temperatures 2% if their is no correlation between the two?:nerd:


look at the graphs I posted.. there are some distinct similarities in co2 emissions and the average GLOBAL temprature..

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by garageoffice
That's what's at the center of the debate, though. It's not 2% of the greenhouse gases or 2% of the greenhouse effect. It's 2% of the CO2, which is only a small part of the actual greenhouse effect, because water vapor is 10x as prevalent and absorbs much more heat, accounting for 95-98% of the total greenhouse effect. Can the man-made CO2 make a difference? Sure, but the difference is statistically so small that even doubling the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere isn't likely to raise temperatures significantly.

At least, this is the point many scientists are trying to make. They are just trying to say the the real cause of the current warming trend is unknown. Because of that, it is premature to try to force massive, expensive change that can only minimally affect the situation, and even then, only if EVERY nation of the world jumps on the bandwagon.
.
The Kyoto boondoggle would have ignored India and China. What makes them so special?:confused:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
I will just vote people out of office like we did november and then 2 more years. thats what we will do:D

-------------------

And then everyone will complain about how sorry the next president is. Democrat, republican....whoever! Mark my words.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Keith7
look at the graphs I posted.. there are some distinct similarities in co2 emissions and the average GLOBAL temprature..

I didn't see any charts that correlated temp to CO2. If you go by these charts, temperatures have been trending upward long before man's CO2 contribution would have had any effect.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
The Kyoto boondoggle would have ignored India and China. What makes them so special?:confused:

TAKE from the wealthy.... GIVE to the poor, give the economic advantages to India and China two huge contributors to emissions but restrict the US and hold our economy back... exactly the agenda the global warming fear machine wants.

The scariest thing is the amount of people who have bought into it.

I am proud to see that there are many that haven't and are skeptical. After all it wasn't many hundreds of years ago that the world was flat and only crazy skeptics thought otherwise.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by garageoffice
I didn't see any charts that correlated temp to CO2. If you go by these charts, temperatures have been trending upward long before man's CO2 contribution would have had any effect.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

notice the big spike in tempurature increases starting around the early 1900's

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Keith7
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

notice the big spike in tempurature increases starting around the early 1900's

Maybe I am looking at this wrong....but there was a massive spike around 1000, and then it went back down.

It was all the chariots and their CO2!!! :foul:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Maybe I am looking at this wrong....but there was a massive spike around 1000, and then it went back down.

It was all the chariots and their CO2!!! :foul:

no chariots didn't produce co2, we are talking about the invention of the automobile, and other things that cause pollution.. I kind of figured that was common sense though..

You guys have been argueing about the "warming" trends that the earth goes thru, well that spike during the 1000's is a warming trend..

but look again at the chart.. the temps. are higher than any warming trend that we can project from the past, and are rising at an alarming rate..

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
no chariots didn't produce co2, we are talking about the invention of the automobile, and other things that cause pollution.. I kind of figured that was common sense though..

..

And I kind of figured she was joking

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Keith7
no chariots didn't produce co2, we are talking about the invention of the automobile, and other things that cause pollution.. I kind of figured that was common sense though..


LOL! :clap: :clap:

I hope you know I was being sarcastic.

And I am sure if they had the science back then that we do today, they would have thought the world was ending because of the warmer climate change. However, you see that it dropped.

Who is to say (for the umpteenth time now) that the weather won't drastically change over night? That's all we have been trying to say is we want more definitive answers before we start charging billions of dollars to the American people.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
we want more definitive answers before we start charging billions of dollars to the American people.

that didn't stop anybody from sending troops to Iraq

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
that didn't stop anybody from sending troops to Iraq

that happened years ago, why always resort to Iraq? not everyone wanting to take a closer look at Global Warming before doing anything about it is a big war supporter...

everyone gets too caught up in "are you liberal or conservative" and forget that a lot of people could give two-chits about being/supporting either, they just have their own individual thoughts...

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
that didn't stop anybody from sending troops to Iraq

And what does that have to do with this issue? Sorry but that is trying to make this a political issue.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
that happened years ago, why always resort to Iraq? not everyone wanting to take a closer look at Global Warming before doing anything about it is a big war supporter...

everyone gets too caught up in "are you liberal or conservative" and forget that a lot of people could give two-chits about being/supporting either, they just have their own individual thoughts...

Amen! :clap: :clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
And what does that have to do with this issue? Sorry but that is trying to make this a political issue.

all i'm saying is that if all you guys are concerned about is your own money, I believe there are bigger issues than funding studies for globalwarming..

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


everyone gets too caught up in "are you liberal or conservative" and forget that a lot of people could give two-chits about being/supporting either, they just have their own individual thoughts...

Your right..Buffy and I have NO I repeat NO party that we belong to, support or have anything to do with.

Just because I am on one side of ONE issue, does not mean I will be on SAME side of every issue

Sorry but to say something about Iraq says you just cannot find a fault with the line of thinking we are presenting so you turn it into a political thing

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
all i'm saying is that if all you guys are concerned about is your own money, I believe there are bigger issues than funding studies for globalwarming..

No I am saying I want proof before My government starts making policy ON ANY ISSUE. I dont understand what is so bad about wanting to see the true facts after research is COMPLETE.

You keep turning it around like we dont think Global warming is a human issue or being caused by humans..I am saying I DONT SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE EITHER WAY.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Your right..Buffy and I have NO I repeat NO party that we belong to, support or have anything to do with.

I hate politics! :foul:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
that didn't stop anybody from sending troops to Iraq :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Your right..Buffy and I have NO I repeat NO party that we belong to, support or have anything to do with.

Just because I am on one side of ONE issue, does not mean I will be on SAME side of every issue

Sorry but to say something about Iraq says you just cannot find a fault with the line of thinking we are presenting so you turn it into a political thing

tru dat

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Keith7
all i'm saying is that if all you guys are concerned about is your own money, I believe there are bigger issues than funding studies for globalwarming..

Personally, I'm more concerned with the integrity of the science and the process. My biggest complaint is actually with the suppression of information and the adoption of selected data points that are then trumped up and used to back inflammatory statements. Also, people being labeled as not caring about the environment because the don't immediately support a specific position.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Personally, I'm more concerned with the integrity of the science and the process. My biggest complaint is actually with the suppression of information and the adoption of selected data points that are then trumped up and used to back inflammatory statements. Also, people being labeled as not caring about the environment because the don't immediately support a specific position.

I'm more concerned about them kangaroos...

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I'm more concerned about them kangaroos...

Ahh, now Gobbla...that was totally out of line...this is a serious discussion on this thread.

:doh: :D

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Ahh, now Gobbla...that was totally out of line...this is a serious discussion on this thread.

:doh: :D

Global warming can melt the kangaroos.

[garageoffice]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Global warming can melt the kangaroos.

Baby kangaroos can melt the heart...

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Baby kangaroos can melt the heart...

Awwwwwwwww....now let's all hold hands and sing Kumbahyah! :D

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Ahh, now Gobbla...that was totally out of line...this is a serious discussion on this thread.

:doh: :D

this is serious... if the global warming did infact harm kangaroos, would that whipe out the Texas kangaroo population before we ever knew they existed here?

I am concerned...

I say, without knowing if there are kangaroos in Texas or not, that we raise taxes to help fund a 24/7/365 research team consisting of atleast 1,000 scientists and bioligists to help prove that there is infact a kangaroo population under the bridge down by the river...

please support this cause...

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
this is serious... if the global warming did infact harm kangaroos, would that whipe out the Texas kangaroo population before we ever knew they existed here?

I am concerned...

I say, without knowing if there are kangaroos in Texas or not, that we raise taxes to help fund a 24/7/365 research team consisting of atleast 1,000 scientists and bioligists to help prove that there is infact a kangaroo population under the bridge down by the river...

please support this cause...

I am on it! Please take my money!

THIS IS SERIOUS PEOPLE!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[garageoffice]

Complete and total derailment...

hahahahahahahaha

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by garageoffice
Complete and total derailment...

hahahahahahahaha

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


Gotta love Gobbla! ;)

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Gotta love Gobbla! ;)

it is a requirment... I am Hall of Fame... but I would give that Hall of Fame tag away just to save one Texican Kangaroo...

[Reds fan]

Finally some common sense on this thread:D :D :D

Now a serious question.... What year was the thermometer invented?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
we are talking about global warming not US warming

But the problem is that we have the most accurate Temperature data on the planet and we know that. We also have a larger data capture on temperature data. This is an excellent example of "global warming".

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Billyfreed0000,
You have seen evidence by scientist that say globle warming because of humans and cars and such... You have seen evidence by scientist of saying it is not true. So what next?? answere this question. If You had been seen by a doctor and he said you had cancer and if you didnt treat it you would die. You go to several doctors but every other one say you dont and some say you do have cancer. What do you do??? get treated for it incase you have it? or wait to see if you die to see who is right??

Not all you still don't get it.

Now this is what you don't get. The scientists are in disagreement. Which means the fundamental theory is flawed.
There is no gamble because we don't know. To keep the earth clean is a liberal wacko control mechanism to give them power over what choices you make. Keeping it clean in and of itself is not the issue but rather the fact that they will force you when they know and the scientist know that this is not science. If it was they would trot out the proof and end the discussion.
To continue your analogy you would have proof in the form of x-rays and blood work from the doctors that would prove that you had cancer which any good doctor would be able to reproduce and report. You could then conclude that the other doctor was a quack.


__________________

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Finally some common sense on this thread:D :D :D

Now a serious question.... What year was the thermometer invented?
.
ooooooo
Good question. Was it Galileo(off the top of my head, I saw this on Jeopardy recenlty, I think lol)?
:confused: :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Not all you still don't get it.

Now this is what you don't get. The scientists are in disagreement. Which means the fundamental theory is flawed.
There is no gamble because we don't know. To keep the earth clean is a liberal wacko control mechanism to give them power over what choices you make. Keeping it clean in and of itself is not the issue but rather the fact that they will force you when they know and the scientist know that this is not science. If it was they would trot out the proof and end the discussion.
To continue your analogy you would have proof in the form of x-rays and blood work from the doctors that would prove that you had cancer which any good doctor would be able to reproduce and report. You could then conclude that the other doctor was a quack.


__________________
.
Ding Ding Ding!!!
We have a winner and you are right BILLYFRED0000. The global warming theories are just a tool used for the liberal elite to grab power by any means.
This reminds me of a saying by I forget, it goes something like this:
If you don't believe in God(or a higher power), then you'll believe anything...
I think this is relevant in this discussion.
:D

[sahen]

wow.....what an argument....techniquelly im a scientist (well i guess tech. in may im an official scientist but whatever) but im not gonna really get into this....if it is has gone on for 17 pages of fighting then obviously no one is gonna convince anyone to change their mind.....however i will say im more closely alligned w/ billy on this one....some problems with global warming is the fact that humans are arrogant enough to think that we ourselves cause the problem when we obviously havent caused a single climate change in the past...we do need to look for alternative fuel sources but not because of global warming in my opinion, but because of the fact that we are getting it out of the middle east which is a powder keg itself...i guess if global warming gets us to find an alt. method then so be it, but it seems quite arrogant of ourselves to think we are causing the problem....we as humans have a much smaller role in what happens on this planet than we think, but thats not to say we have no effect, just a small one....

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
To keep the earth clean is a liberal wacko control mechanism to give them power over what choices you make. 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:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Black magic..I am enjoying the debate because it has been civil and informative. You bring up some valid points.

The biggest difference is You assuming it is our doing. I am saying I dont know.

You use Cancer and Insurance as analogies.

Well Cancer can be proven, and Insurance is protection from a KNOWN event..a car wreck and such

Global Warming is an UNKNOWN event. 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...