|
Post by TheBadSeed on Oct 16, 2007 16:42:12 GMT -5
DrShot- The thing about Nasa doesn't make sense to me. How can we be warming other planets? Please explain that to me as well. [glow=red,2,300]<- ARG! I am not sure I can continue an honest effort of a discussion when that went right over your head. You seriously think that things done on Earth have polutted other plantes? Thats the ENTIRE point. If our entire solar system, a large portion of it at any rate is in a warming trend then it really blasts a hole in the 'Global Warming' nonsense the alarmists are spewing. Solar radiation is the cause. Imagine that, the Sun![/glow] Sorry, Shot, if you want to claim that Human activity is blameless in global warming, you are at odds with 95% of the scientific community, including Nasa, who estimated that greenhouse gasses in Earth's atmosphere have increased by 14% since 1950. The 5% that are left are increasingly funded by oil companies, who started offering 'Bounties' in the late 90's of $10,000 or more to scientists who would write papers debunking and questioning the evidence of global warming or its causes. This is a page right out of the tobacco industries playbook. They did the same thing through the 70's, 80's, and 90's to try and debunk the "theory" that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. Well, I have common sense. Everytime I take a drag off a cigarette, I understand it is bad for me. Its freakin' smoke, ffs, its not gonna be good for my lungs! I also have common sense enough to know that if you add 100,000 metrtic tons of carbon dioxide a day to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels while simultaneously removing 15,000 acres a day of rain forest, so there are less trees to "breathe" the carbon dioxide, it is going to build up. Built up CO2 = increased greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring, and necessary phonomenon to life on Earth. Increasing it wont destroy life, it will just create a situation where certain forms of life will survive, and others will not. Humans will probably survive, just not thrive to the point we have thus far. Now, that being said, lets say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is a completely natural, self occurring phenomenon. Let's say the paid pundits for the oil companies are right. Humans have nothing to do with global warming. We still need to change. Petroleum is a finite resource, it is not renewable. Estimates run as little at 10 years and as high at 75 years as to when the current known reserves will run out at current usage rates. One thing is for certain, it will run out, and most of what is left is held by nations that arent friendly to our lifestyle. The people and countries that are ahead of the curve in production of alternative energy will be better off economically and socially. Until we break the oil standard, people (the US) will go to war to maintain their lifestyle. Our soldiers will die, their citizens will die. Besides all that, the internal combustion engine that uses petroleum for fuel is horribly outdated. Its complicated, inefficient, hard to work on, and pullutive. Check out the number of moving parts in a gasoline powered engine compared to the number of moving parts in an electric engine sometime. The internal combustion engine hasnt evolved significantly since its inception. The Ford Model T got 25 miles to the gallon nearly 90 years ago, how efficient are cars today? I really cant think of another industry that is so prevelant that has evolved so little in 90 years. Oil is also used for a myriad of other purposes that need to change, plastics, for example. Non-biodegradable plastics are choking landfills by the millions of tons, when we have the technology to do better. The only reason not to break the oil standard is greed and lack of foresight. I dont blame either major political party in the US for this, I blame them both. Stop trying to make it a political issue and focus on whats good for your kids.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 16, 2007 20:11:57 GMT -5
DrShot- The thing about Nasa doesn't make sense to me. How can we be warming other planets? Please explain that to me as well. [glow=red,2,300]<- ARG! I am not sure I can continue an honest effort of a discussion when that went right over your head. You seriously think that things done on Earth have polutted other plantes? Thats the ENTIRE point. If our entire solar system, a large portion of it at any rate is in a warming trend then it really blasts a hole in the 'Global Warming' nonsense the alarmists are spewing. Solar radiation is the cause. Imagine that, the Sun![/glow] Sorry, Shot, if you want to claim that Human activity is blameless in global warming, you are at odds with 95% of the scientific community, including Nasa, who estimated that greenhouse gasses in Earth's atmosphere have increased by 14% since 1950. What you shoudl be sorry for, Seed, is not reading the entire thread before comming to conclusions. Here is what you may ahve missed. "Environmentalist- What the hell is wrong with that? Are you saying you don't care about the environment? <- Unlikely the case. Sure, some people couldn't care less. But Truth in reporting is what needs be the rule NOT the exception. Global warming? Yea, it exists... NASA (a group I trust a hell of a lot more than the UN) says they have concluded a study siting that ALL the planets in our solar system have displayed a warming trend. Incredible that we are now polluting all planets. Al Gore... don't get me started" Perhaps I was hoping for too much combining so many topics into one paragraph. Allow me to expound, I will restart from the original question from the OP: "Environmentalist- What the hell is wrong with that? Are you saying you don't care about the environment? Of course I am concerned about the environment. Our planet is one large churning mass with a liquid core of 'fire', ever churning. The planet is alive, thus continually creating changes that contribute to the condition of the surface of Earth. We, as humans ( the surface dwellers), are insignificant from the plantets point of view. Not only do the volitole conditions of Earth give us much to ponder but there are many many other factors that wreak havok on our survival. Consider our solar system. The Sun puts forth virtually unimagineable amounts of radiation. This radiation is not a steady flow but a chaotic torrent of energy that showers all that is within our solar system and beyond. Nasa, not so long ago, released a study citing that all of the planets( they covered, the 'inner' ones I believe) have been in a warming trend. I cite this as only one of a myriad of reasons Earth is getting warmer. This also is a display of the linear thinking the Liberal movement has on 'Global Warming'. In the Liberal mindset global warming is produced by Big Business and the 'evil that men do'. Liberals do not openly, if at all, speak of the other factors, even potential or mitagating factors that exist. There are so many things unkown about our planet/solar system and universe that to simply state that 'Globar Warming' is man made is nothing less than moronic. Consider: Half a century ago we did not know that Gamma Rays were real or not. Consider: The Industrial Revolution of the 19th c. but 'Global Warming' is new, and a (late) 20th c. induced problem. Consider: What was life like on this planet a several hundred million years ago. The Paleozoic Era: 545 - 250 million years ago ended when, what is widely believed to be, volcanic activity released toxic gases, thus choking huge amounts of species into oblivion. The mass extinction left voids in the ecosystem as the once dominant species disappeared. In their place, reptilians began to greatly evolve into those recognizable today, such as the turtle, lizard, snake, crocodile. Consider: The Cenozoic Era: 65 million years ago - Today At this time, the Earth's climates grew cooler in some regions, causing plant life to adapt and eventually branch into new species. Grass became dominant, and grasslands became common communities for life, as opposed to the original swamp communities of the Paleozoic. The Earth continued its cycle between cool and warm global temperatures. During the Ice Ages, when much of the surface water was trapped in gigantic glaciers, the land seemed to grow while the oceans receded. At certain areas between the continents land bridges surfaced. One of the most important land bridges surfaced in the Bering Strait, thus connecting the North American and Asian continents. Across this bridge, following the woolly mammoth along with the beaver and many others, humans were introduced to North America. Going the other way, horses abandoned the continent completely. ( - University of Maryland College Park Scholars ).
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Oct 16, 2007 21:19:34 GMT -5
I was told by an "expert" in 1975 that all of the petroleum will run out in 10 years.
The fact is that we have plenty of petroleum for generations to come; it's just more expensive to harvest as we have been living off of the low hanging fruit.
|
|
|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 16, 2007 22:05:17 GMT -5
When I said do you you not care about the environment, I wasn't talking to you. But since you feel like answering, I'm glad you do. Yes, Global Warming happens naturally.
But like TBS said a combo of cutting down trees and spewing carbon into the atmosphere has to contribute some effect. Don't feel like looking it up right now tho. Too tired.
Oil, Iv'e heard from several sources that at the current rate of consumption, we will run out in 40 years. But new sources will be discovered and as we run out we will use less and less. So this isn't accurate, but the way we consume our resources like there's no tommorow and destroy the environment is just unacceptable, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 16, 2007 23:05:31 GMT -5
combo shmombo if a 14% increase in carbon only leads to a 1% increase in temp, i'de say thats pretty weak. I read on this web page that for most of earths history, the earth was 8 to 15 degress celcius warmer then it is now. We can also see the other planets warming too. Blaming mankind (aka America) for warming the planet is a bit much imo. It leads me to wonder what is the maximum amount of damage mankind can do to earth? If we mess the earth up so bad that everything dies, how long will it take to set back to normal? www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 17, 2007 0:13:30 GMT -5
ahhh, the end of yet ANOTHER ice age
About 10,000 years ago the earth started to warm up. Sheets of ice started to melt. As the ice melted it left lakes and broad valleys with a mixture of rocks and soil. The only ice left was up high in the mountains. The glaciers that you see now are what is left over from the ice age
So if it started warming 10,000 years ago, it certainly wasn't cars, hydro-fluorocabons, emissions, or aerosol cans.
wooley mammoths still roamed the north american continent and man was just beginning to stop their tribal/nomadic existance and started settling on small farms growing wheat and barley; hunting from central points near farms AND RIVERS FORMED FROM THE WATERS OF PREVIOUIS ICE-AGES with the BRAND NEW technology attaching flint to wood for spears and arrows.
Just The Facts - There were about 11 different ice ages. - The ice ages were during the earth's 4.6 billion years of history.
- The last ice age was called "The Great Ice Age" and was 11,000 years ago.
- During the "Great Ice Age" over a third of the earth was covered in ice. During the ice age the air had less carbon dioxide in it.
- Right now we are living in a mini ice age.
There are two explanations of why the ice ages might have occurred: 1.The temperatures were much colder so it never rained, only snowed. 2. The earth changed its tilt away from the sun.
This recent one which is ending won't be the last - yet it's being blamed on "Global Warming"
It's a MANY TIMES REPEATED natural evolution of the earth
I don't precisely remember the Carl Sagan quote, but it's something along the line of:
"if you put the entire history of Earth on a 24 hour clock, man's existence on earth only started when you began reading this Carl Sagan quote"
How absolutely EGOTISTICAL to think that ONE OF MANY repeated world geological events over a 4.6 BILLION year period can be blamed on man
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Oct 17, 2007 0:26:38 GMT -5
By your logic Dr.Shot, TGS and MVV concerning the enviro, I should feel okay when I go camping, to leave my fire burning as the forest doesn't matter because 100,000 years ago, there was only ocean. Its the dismisal of responsibility as well as the carefree slander of a stereo type called, 'liberal' that I really can't quite wrap my head around.
No one has said TGS that its Americas fault, just as no one has said its Canadas fault or even Englands. I don't even think America even has rainforests... Besides, America gets its wood from Canada, need I remind you the twenty five year softwood lumber disbute;) Maybe you just feel the need to defend America because you feel a sense of guilt as America is a well developed country and has yet to agree to anything that starts with a 'K' (Koyoto)
Its this easy; if your government can regulate industries to lessen the impact (damage) they create on the environment, whether its imposing regulations on carbon emmisions, etc; why ever not should they do it? Some old companys or older industries (Special interests) might complain, this would be natural, hence; the one turn of anarchy when converting to enviro civic, but newer companys would be pressed to buy existing technology already out there. Newer companys would simply be adhering to a current standard already set by the government. How is this a bad thing?
Oil Is fooking expensive!! As a consumer this is absolute Horse Sh*t. My current oil prices are reflective of a market that is so damn skittery it makes you wonder what is the point of Opec? Besides, as TBS said, "it will run out, and most of what is left is held by nations that arent friendly to our lifestyle." I mean, with this point alone, why the hell would you want to be dependant on a commodity that you as a nation have absolutely no control over even if it runs out 75 years from now? Thats not including the effects (damage) it does to the environment.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Oct 17, 2007 3:43:48 GMT -5
Communism is and has been a dictatorship most of the times it was tried, so yes, police state, poverty and starvation- maybe, and there would only be one or two brands of everything- not very good quality either because of the lack of competition. But slavery? I don't think so. Please tell me about slavery and communism. In USSR, slavery = use of prisoners so to do something. Millions were effectively slaves, they worked like slaves, they died like slaves building Egyptian Pyramids. And most of these slaves weren't criminals... So, yes, slavery. *** P.S. I see thegreatsatan didn't become any smarter since his previous ret arded topic.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 17, 2007 12:17:13 GMT -5
hi ellestar
In USSR, slavery = use of prisoners so to do something. Millions were effectively slaves, they worked like slaves, they died like slaves building Egyptian Pyramids. And most of these slaves weren't criminals... So, yes, slavery.
(thx for coverin the slavery / commie-ism thing. any system of goverment that requires huge police forces and camps will evenually resort to slave labor.)
*** P.S. I see thegreatsatan didn't become any smarter since his previous slowed topic.
(I don't claim to be smart. While guys like you where off studing for your spelling test, guys like me had part time jobs and girlfriends. Besides, u seem to enjoy these threads. this is where it happens. The battle of intelect and ideas. FREE people engaged in open FREE debate(and we play civ4 too). This aint no spellin bee)
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 17, 2007 17:49:00 GMT -5
By your logic Dr.Shot, TGS and MVV concerning the enviro, I should feel okay when I go camping, to leave my fire burning as the forest doesn't matter because 100,000 years ago, there was only ocean. Its the dismisal of responsibility as well as the carefree slander of a stereo type called, 'liberal' that I really can't quite wrap my head around.
(uh, ya... burning down forest is bad. i agree)
No one has said TGS that its Americas fault, just as no one has said its Canadas fault or even Englands. I don't even think America even has rainforests... Besides, America gets its wood from Canada, need I remind you the twenty five year softwood lumber disbute;) Maybe you just feel the need to defend America because you feel a sense of guilt as America is a well developed country and has yet to agree to anything that starts with a 'K' (Koyoto)
(America is the cleanest modern indistrial nation. Get China to sign Koyoto 1st. oh... then u gotta enforce it somehow. gl with that)
Its this easy; if your government can regulate industries to lessen the impact (damage) they create on the environment, whether its imposing regulations on carbon emmisions, etc; why ever not should they do it? Some old companys or older industries (Special interests) might complain, this would be natural, hence; the one turn of anarchy when converting to enviro civic, but newer companys would be pressed to buy existing technology already out there. Newer companys would simply be adhering to a current standard already set by the government. How is this a bad thing?
(America has tons of regulations. Land of the free, home of the regulated. Russia is a pit. Get them onboard)
Oil Is fooking expensive!! As a consumer this is absolute Horse Sh*t. My current oil prices are reflective of a market that is so damn skittery it makes you wonder what is the point of Opec? Besides, as TBS said, "it will run out, and most of what is left is held by nations that arent friendly to our lifestyle." I mean, with this point alone, why the hell would you want to be dependant on a commodity that you as a nation have absolutely no control over even if it runs out 75 years from now? Thats not including the effects (damage) it does to the environment.
(the earths crust is 60 miles thick. The deepest we can drill at the moment is like 5 miles. Infact, new oil gets found all the time. And if you libs really believe the global warming hipe, why dont u tell opec how many gallons of oil they can sell a year. Wont that fix the prob? GL)
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Oct 17, 2007 18:41:55 GMT -5
ahhh, the end of yet ANOTHER ice age Just The Facts - There were about 11 different ice ages. - The ice ages were during the earth's 4.6 billion years of history. - The last ice age was called "The Great Ice Age" and was 11,000 years ago. - During the "Great Ice Age" over a third of the earth was covered in ice. During the ice age the air had less carbon dioxide in it. - Right now we are living in a mini ice age. There are two explanations of why the ice ages might have occurred: 1.The temperatures were much colder so it never rained, only snowed. 2. The earth changed its tilt away from the sun. This recent one which is ending won't be the last - yet it's being blamed on "Global Warming" It's a MANY TIMES REPEATED natural evolution of the earth I don't precisely remember the Carl Sagan quote, but it's something along the line of: "if you put the entire history of Earth on a 24 hour clock, man's existence on earth only started when you began reading this Carl Sagan quote" How absolutely EGOTISTICAL to think that ONE OF MANY repeated world geological events over a 4.6 BILLION year period can be blamed on man Nothing's more dangerous than someone convinced he knows something that isnt true. While there has been a mini ice age in recent human history, this is simply not the case now. The most recent mini ice age, often referred to as "The Little Ice Age" began at around 1600, and ended around 1850. This period was marked by bitterly cold winters in northern Europe as well as North America. The coldest period of this ice age was known as "The Maunder Minimum", a period marked by much decreased solar activity. The Maunder Minimum was a period from around 1645 to 1715 in which famines were common in Northern Europe, causing several wars to be fought, and mass emigration to North America. In a way, we, as Americans can attribute much of our European heritage to the Little Ice Age, because people came here to try and find something better than famine and war in Europe. The climate temperature returned to "normal" around 1850. In 1850, the glaciers began a worlwide retreat until about 1940. Between 1940 and 1980, glaciers around the world remained stable, and grew slightly in some areas. Around 1980, a significant global warming began to take effect, and glaciers have retreated significantly, some have disappeared all together. This trend has accelerated at an alarming rate, with the warmest years in known history all being in the last 30 years. Now, I'm quite willing to accept that there are natural factors that bear out in the current climate change. I believe that increased solar activity plays a part. However, I am not willing to accept that there are not man-made factors at play as well. in 1950, world-wide consumption of petroleum was at about 5 million barrels per day. In 2005, world wide consumption is over 200 million barrels per day. Never in history, with the exception of major forces at play, i.e. massive volcano eruption or meteor strike, has the worlds climate changed so rapidly. Ice ages and warming trends due to increased or decreased solar activity are slower to take effect, since we have an atmosphere that keeps things relatively balanced. You think its egotistical to believe that man can affect the planet? That gives me a hearty chuckle. We're the most capable and effective species ever to walk the planet. In fact, in 1985, we overcame the brown rat as the most populous mammal on Earth. We've built monuments and structures that can be seen from outer space. We've BEEN to outer space. We've harnessed the power of the atom. We've adapted and molded this planet to suit our needs for many thousands of years, with the pinnacle of our power coming in the last 100 years. Inside of 50 years, we've burned most of the liquid oil that it took hundreds of millions of years to create inside the earth, spare me the crap about being an egotist, I call it like I see it. What I do believe is egotistical is for someone with half a cupful of knowledge to believe that the community of scientists worldwide who spend their time day in and day out studying climate change know less that you do about it.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 17, 2007 20:36:30 GMT -5
Am I wrong then when I say, ice don't last on earth unless something causes an ice age.
Is it wrong to say that as long as no huge event happens to earth to cause an ice age, the earth will revert to its jungle past?
Am I wrong when I say that for the majority of the earths history, the global temp has been 8 to 15 degrees Celius hotter then it is now?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 17, 2007 22:32:11 GMT -5
Well then you and I at least agree upon one thing.
I posted FACT (from geologic history, ALL available through almost ANY google search using "ice age" as the key word)
I did NOT post "scientific data" - ONLY the history
Man, perhaps, HAS contributed a infinitismal amount to the current ONGOING global trend of "warming" (the end of the last great ice-age) in the last 11,000 years, but - on the other hand, man can do NOTHING about nature and the LONG TERM CYCLES of the geological path.
Sure, we can (and should) keep "our messes" cleaned up and do what we can to keep the earth clean as we live here
and you're VERY VERY wrong about glacier "growth." The glaciers have been "receeding" for thousands of years, NOT growing. YES YES YES, they WERE moving forward (in length and width) as much as 2 inches per year, but their height and density were melting and diminishing (oh that silly sun).
Ever heard of "blue ice?" - google it.
IN FACT, there is more "green-house gas" blown into the atmosphere in a single day BY NATURAL GEOLOGIC OCCURENCE, i.e. A SINGLE active volcano puts forth that amount of "gas" (carbon-monoxide, carbon-dioxide, etc) into the earth's atmosphere than man can produce in 25 years.
And of course there IS more than ONE active volcano in the world
Finally, according to geologic history, EACH and EVERY global warming period occurs AFTER an ice-age. And what does the global warming cycle do? It creates the NEXT global "ice-age." Of course, this is a million year process (give or take). (ALL scientists agree on that)
Scientists RECORD past and ongoing data to create a...
hypothesis
a hypothesis, by definition (even in the scientic community) is this: 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument. 3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition. 4. a mere assumption or guess.
SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTION, PROPOSITION, PROVISIONAL CONJECTURE, GUESS
With enough scientists working with the correct hypothesis, one could prove that if EVERY PERSON on the planet FARTED, Pharted, passed-gas, butt-burped, etc AT THE SAME TIME then the air would become, at least momentarily, unfit for life (hydrogen gasses)
Scientists and HYPOTHESIS also work in equal number to the contrary of what the other group believes.
100 years of the industrial world vs. 4.6 BILLION years of this planet's continuous growth/cycle/pattern. That's not even a mouse-fart in a tornado. YUP - EGOTISTICAL (do the math)
About that remaining half-cup of knowledge you mentioned? Drink it very very slowly (it can be cold) and I wouldn't want you to get the knowledge equivalant of an ice-cream head-ache.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 17, 2007 22:42:42 GMT -5
CLUE:
Put a 25lb block of ice in your yard, next to a normal size ice-cube.
Which melts and disapears FASTER?
The ice-cube.
Why? I'ts smaller, less dense, and has less mass.
11,000 years after the ice-age ended and the warming trend began, there is simply LESS ice (less mass) to melt.
So, it melts faster.
The less of it there is, the faster it melts.
JUST another global cycle (that THIS time, man gets to be around to record and WITNESS)
(oh, and by the way......... if you took away the computers from the maybe 6-10 people that posted in this forum and put them all in one place, it would be called "hazardous waste" and would indeed contribute to global warming)
But then again, I just exhaled twice - on purpose (carbon-monoxide and carbon-dioxide) so I just added to "global warming" as well.
It's all perspective (4.6 billion years worth)
Should I INHALE twice in a row as well or would that be considered sucking all the oxygen from the planet?
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Oct 18, 2007 3:45:00 GMT -5
Well then you and I at least agree upon one thing.
I posted FACT (from geologic history, ALL available through almost ANY google search using "ice age" as the key word)
[glow=red,2,300]fact, includijng claiming we are currently in an ice age? Please get some support for this "fact", because what I've studied tells me you're pulling "facts" out of your anus[/glow].
I did NOT post "scientific data" - ONLY the history [glow=red,2,300]Said history to iclude the afformentioned "facts"? Perhaps you should post some scientific data to support your "facts", you'd look less ignorant then.[/glow]
Man, perhaps, HAS contributed a infinitismal amount to the current ONGOING global trend of "warming" (the end of the last great ice-age) in the last 11,000 years, but - on the other hand, man can do NOTHING about nature and the LONG TERM CYCLES of the geological path. [glow=red,2,300]according to the United Nations Official Website: The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 31% since 1750. The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely7 not during the past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation[/glow]
Sure, we can (and should) keep "our messes" cleaned up and do what we can to keep the earth clean as we live here [glow=red,2,300]I bet you dont even clean up after your dog, I mean, MMV- "Who can prove my dog made the poo? What if its a natural poo put there by god? It's natures way to leave the poo on my neighbor's lawn." Who can argue with that logic.. If noone saw the actual poo-ing, it must not exist. How very existentialist of you.[/glow] and you're VERY VERY wrong about glacier "growth." The glaciers have been "receeding" for thousands of years, NOT growing. YES YES YES, they WERE moving forward (in length and width) as much as 2 inches per year, but their height and density were melting and diminishing (oh that silly sun).
[glow=red,2,300]Glaciers grow and recede as a normal course, but never to scientific knowledge have they receded this fast, this far.[/glow]
Ever heard of "blue ice?" - google it. [glow=red,2,300]Ok, did it, waste of time, your point? because I'm missing it.[/glow] IN FACT, there is more "green-house gas" blown into the atmosphere in a single day BY NATURAL GEOLOGIC OCCURENCE, i.e. A SINGLE active volcano puts forth that amount of "gas" (carbon-monoxide, carbon-dioxide, etc) into the earth's atmosphere than man can produce in 25 years. [glow=red,2,300]Yer killin me Smalls, please, by all means, present your evidence, and then, present to me an argument that makes it ok for us to continually add to that ammount. The Earth has a balance. Co2 is emitted into the atmosphere, trees, and other green plants "breathe" the Co2 and it becomes oxygen. What happens when you increase the ammount of Co2 and decrease the number of plants? You tell me, genius.[/glow]
And of course there IS more than ONE active volcano in the world [glow=red,2,300]Right, has been for billions of years, how long have we been buring fossil fuels?[/glow] Finally, according to geologic history, EACH and EVERY global warming period occurs AFTER an ice-age. And what does the global warming cycle do? It creates the NEXT global "ice-age." Of course, this is a million year process (give or take). (ALL scientists agree on that) [glow=red,2,300]Are you still on the "were at the end of an ice age" crap? Wake the F Up.[/glow]
Scientists RECORD past and ongoing data to create a...
hypothesis
a hypothesis, by definition (even in the scientic community) is this: 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument. 3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition. 4. a mere assumption or guess.
[glow=red,2,300]Talking in circles trying to sound smart is really having the opposite effect.[/glow]
SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTION, PROPOSITION, PROVISIONAL CONJECTURE, GUESS
With enough scientists working with the correct hypothesis, one could prove that if EVERY PERSON on the planet FARTED, Pharted, passed-gas, butt-burped, etc AT THE SAME TIME then the air would become, at least momentarily, unfit for life (hydrogen gasses)
Scientists and HYPOTHESIS also work in equal number to the contrary of what the other group believes.
100 years of the industrial world vs. 4.6 BILLION years of this planet's continuous growth/cycle/pattern. That's not even a mouse-fart in a tornado. YUP - EGOTISTICAL (do the math) [glow=red,2,300]You think everythings so stable we dont affect it? We've burned off 250 million years of fossil fuel creation in a matter of 50 years. Do I think we'll have a permanent effect on the planet? No, I think the planet will balance itself out in short time, maybe a couple hundred years. (also a mousefart in a tornado, but much longer than I, or my grandchildren will live) I'd just rather that time be sooner than later. I'm not really sure why people like you try to rail against the obvious, if for no other purpose than to argue. You have no leg to stand on, you present your argument anywhere, and anyone with half a brain will tell you the same thing I'm telling you, you're an idiot. You present false "facts" and try to pass them off as truth. For what reason is it really that you dont want to change? You have too much invested in oil stocks? Dont worry, they're exploring alternative energy too, their stock will be fine.[/glow]
About that remaining half-cup of knowledge you mentioned? Drink it very very slowly (it can be cold) and I wouldn't want you to get the knowledge equivalant of an ice-cream head-ache.
[glow=red,2,300]If you ever actually took a sip, you might find it to be a nice, hot cup of coffee, wakes you up, and clears your head. Let me know when you try it.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 18, 2007 8:16:55 GMT -5
Well then you and I agree on several other points as well.
what I KNOW tells me that what you study occurs naturally out of your anus. But, who can argue with the logic of your poo-ing? You're missing it. Trying to sound smart is really having the opposite effect for you.
But, glad to see that you also agree that you "think we'll have a permanent effect on the planet? No, I think the planet will balance itself out in short time, maybe a couple hundred years."
That's EXACTLY what I've been posting, lol! But, a couple of hundred years as you said? No - a couple of MILLION years at the minimum. I really don't think you fully comprehend what a couple of BILLION means.
And the scientific group that studies and attempts to "cry havoc" about global warming? It's the SAME group that says that if a multiple geologic event causing TEN PERCENT (10%, or 150 of the approximate 1,500 hundred of them) of the world's ACTIVE volcanoes were to have a violent eruption within a short period of time, it would be equivalent to a NEW AGE and would darken the sky enough to limit the sun's effect on the earth CAUSING ANOTHER ICE AGE (similar to the catastrophic event that ended the age of the dinosaur).
YUP!!!! OH THOSE scientists - they will study whatever they get PAID to study. (but that's a different topic)
I'm not really sure why people like you try to rail against the obvious (ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF NORMAL GEOLIGIC EARTH CYCLES)
Well, unless it's for the sole purpose of arguing. You have no leg to stand on with your present argument here (well, except for the arguing itself). Anyone with half a brain (as you so clearly demonstrated) will tell you the same thing.
I'm telling you, you're an idiot. You AGREE with the natural evolution of the earth's geologic cycles but you argue WITH WHAT WE AGREE UPON - ROFL!!!
Harsh post? Nah, I just used the same verbage you did. People without "a leg to stand on" VERY OFTEN turn to insults in an effort to sway the topic or someone who posts. Return to "discussion" and make YOURSELF valid or your point will never be understood.
I've NEVER posted that I AGREE with what mankind has done, or whether it's write or wrong. I've only posted that in the grand scheme of things, it's as insignificant as mankind believing they can change what they've done in the past. Once again, to put a 24 hour clock on the earth's geologic timeline, mankind has only been involved for about the last 10 seconds (see Carl Sagan quote).
You're response reminds me once again to never "wrestle with a pig - everyone gets dirty, but the pig likes it.
May I suggest a sippy-cup for your remaining half-cup of knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 18, 2007 14:43:10 GMT -5
fact, includijng claiming we are currently in an ice age? Please get some support for this "fact", because what I've studied tells me you're pulling "facts" out of your anus
(well, we are in an ice age. the planet for most of its history was 8 to 15 degrees celcius higher. and its a fact too. MMV is right when he says his thing about the ice melting n stuff. Imagine, the more ice that melts, the faster the rate of melting gets. Its almost like my glass of ice water. I better get a napikin though cause when the ice melts my sippy cup will over flow)
according to the United Nations Official Website: The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 31% since 1750. The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely7 not during the past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation
(so lets just say its all mankinds fault for that extra 31% for the sake of arguement. What is the percent of warming that has taken place scence then. its like 2% but idk for sure. How much of the warming is natural? I heard there used to be an ice bridge to asia)
crap game launching
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 18, 2007 15:13:27 GMT -5
This is the Year of the Pig. oink-oink.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Oct 18, 2007 16:19:10 GMT -5
youre Pig sucks this is a real pig ;D
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 18, 2007 18:05:53 GMT -5
ah, the reference to the "mini-ice age" he's all a'fluster about this post/statement: This information was taken from here: library.thinkquest.org/3876/iceage.html(near the bottom of the page) It's the autumn season here in the midwest and it was 90 degrees fahrenheit today (GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!) Of course, it was the autumn season last thursday as well and it was 38 degrees fahrenheit (GLOBAL FREEZING!!!!!)
|
|