Greenhouse Gases DO cause Global Warming

[Chilly]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789

 

Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true.

[Alaska Darin]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789

 

Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true.

246572[/snapback]

I like your sig line. Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse.

[OGTEleven]

This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it.

[RkFast]

I like your sig line.  Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse.

246599[/snapback]

 

Come on, Darin...he's "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others". You know....like the "idiots" who dont agree with his POV on the Greenhouse Effect.

 

[Chilly]

I like your sig line.  Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse.

246599[/snapback]

 

I aint no stinkin Democrat, and I aint no stinkin neo-con either.

 

This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it.

246695[/snapback]

 

I suggest that you read: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...85&pageNumber=1

 

The article that you posted has to do with continual cycles over millions and millions of years, not the dramatic increases that we've seen and now can prove has happened and can't account for. The cycle which was described in that article is going to happen dramatically in the future - and its going to start growing expentially, not nearly like what we are seeing right now and not enough to account for the current changes, if I understand it correctly.

 

 

Come on, Darin...he's "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others". You know....like the "idiots" who dont agree with his POV on the Greenhouse Effect.

 

   

246706[/snapback]

 

 

I didn't know that the definition was applying to obsolete ideas to which we have scientific proof to show wrong.

 

In fact, you know what, I'll be tolerant of everyone's obsolete ideas from now on! I'll think that if someone tries to build a car using square wheels instead of round, that I'll think they're not an idiot but quite a smart guy, as its a different idea then right now!

 

Or what about a guy that tries to treat his high blood pressure with sodium! Maybe the guy that is lactose intollerant who thinks that if he drinks enough milk he'll become lactose tollerant!

 

These guys are all smart, and I would welcome them into the world with open arms and not think they are dumb!

 

Thanks for showing me the light!

 

(Yeah !@#$ing right)

[Terry Tate]

This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it.

246695[/snapback]

He fails to mention whether the global warming 470 to 550 million years ago could have been prevented by the Kyoto Treaty provisions. I wonder if he's an 'idiot', too.

[DC Tom]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789

 

Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true.

246572[/snapback]

 

Unfortunately, a "correllation" is never "unequivocal proof". It's a correllation.

[erynthered]

And we'll all be around to know the truth

 

 

Chicken wing?

[Rich in Ohio]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789

 

Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true.

246572[/snapback]

 

 

Why do we have to refer to the hard working well intentioned people who work in our government as "idiots" They are not so different then us. Perhaps we should try walking a day in thier shoes before we throw around these types of shots.

 

Just a thought.

[gmac17]

Greenhouse Gases DO cause Global Warming, Now we have proof

 

wait, so if a bunch of scientists say something that means it is true? Good, cause there are a lot of scientists who will argue against this data.

 

A must read article for people on both sides

 

To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

 

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

 

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

 

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. ...

[DC Tom]

wait, so if a bunch of scientists say something that means it is true? Good, cause there are a lot of scientists who will argue against this data.

 

A must read article for people on both sides

247042[/snapback]

 

And conversely, that's pretty stupid !@#$ing logic for justifying polluting the planet. Regardless of whether or not global warming due to pollutive emissions is real or not, polluting the planet is still a pretty stupid thing to do.

[PTS]

Global Warming = Manipulated data that scientists use to get big money grants and research funding from international bodies and governments.

 

Earth goes through cycles....

 

It Gets Warm, It Gets Cold, It Gets Really Warm, The Then It Gets Really Cold. Billions of years, it's always been the same way.

 

Michael Crichton just wrote a book about it called State of Fear. The story is fictional but the data and information on this very topic is factual.

[DC Tom]

Global Warmings = Manipulated data that scientists use to get big money grants and research funding from international bodies and governments.

 

Earth goes through cycles....

 

It Gets Warm, It Gets Cold, It Gets Really Warm, The Then It Gets Really Cold. Billions of years, it's always been the same way.

 

Michael Crichton just wrote a book about it called State of Fear. The story is fictional but the data and information on this very topic is factual.

247066[/snapback]

 

Right. Crichton's a great source. And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic. "Hard" science is actually much more about "massaging data" to prove your desired result than most people would think...and I'm absolutely damned sure that Crichton's sources are just as guilty of it as anyone else involved in the "global warming" debate.

[PTS]

Right.  Crichton's a great source.  And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic.  "Hard" science is actually much more about "massaging data" to prove your desired result than most people would think...and I'm absolutely damned sure that Crichton's sources are just as guilty of it as anyone else involved in the "global warming" debate.

247068[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree with you one bit, but if I had to pick one side of the fence to stay on, it would be the side that says global warming is just cyclic process.

 

If we can't accurately predict weather next week, why should we trust these people to predict weather 100 years from now.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't disagree with you one bit, but if I had to pick one side of the fence to stay on, it would be the side that says global warming is just cyclic process.

 

If we can't accurately predict weather next week, why should we trust these people to predict weather 100 years from now.

247083[/snapback]

It doesn't change the fact that continuing to poison the air and water is not a good for humanity.

[Berg]

And conversely, that's pretty stupid !@#$ing logic for justifying polluting the planet.  Regardless of whether or not global warming due to pollutive emissions is real or not, polluting the planet is still a pretty stupid thing to do.

247058[/snapback]

 

why?

[VABills]

It doesn't change the fact that continuing to poison the air and water is not a good  for humanity.

247097[/snapback]

And we agree on something. I personally don't believe all the hype on "global warming" but I do know the pollutants can't be good for day to day living.

[OGTEleven]

The article that you posted has to do with continual cycles over millions and millions of years, not the dramatic increases that we've seen and now can prove has happened and can't account for. The cycle which was described in that article is going to happen dramatically in the future - and its going to start growing expentially, not nearly like what we are seeing right now and not enough to account for the current changes, if I understand it correctly.

 

 

246837[/snapback]

 

 

You don't understand it. But then again, you probably don't want to understand it. It says that when the warming comes, it will come quickly. It also says there is no known way to predict when. It could be now, or millions of years from now, but if the planet's cylces continue, it is coming.

 

Your article, OTOH, blames it all on humans (despite the fact that these warmings and coolings pre-date humans). It more specifically balmes capitalism (even if subtly). Funny that capitalism is also to blame for poverty, starvation, disease, racism, and every other world problem. At least all of the people come to the same conclusion: get rid of capitalism and the world becomes shangri-la.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

Your article, OTOH, blames it all on humans (despite the fact that these warmings and coolings pre-date humans).  It more specifically balmes capitalism (even if subtly).  Funny that capitalism is also to blame for poverty, starvation, disease, racism, and every other world problem.  At least all of the people come to the same conclusion: get rid of capitalism and the world becomes shangri-la.

247257[/snapback]

 

It is to laugh. The BIGGEST polluters of all time were the Soviets and the Eastern European COMMUNIST countries. China is a big polluter too, but for some reason they always seem to get a pass from the enviro crusaders. Seems a country with a tyrannical legislative system doesn't care all that much how much it pollutes. Funny though that in a capitalist system technologies to clean up some of the effects of pollution are developed all the time.

 

How much come from the communist/socialist systems? Not much I'd wager, but instead they just all get together in some 3rd world country (flying there in polluting airliners and driving there in polluting limos, all that energy used to house and put on their symposeums, eating tons of luxury food that takes resources to acquire, and generating tons of trash) and B word how those evil capitalist countries are destroying the planet...

 

And yes, I'm with AD and others in that we are still stewards of our environment and steps to curb pollution should be taken, but because of common sense NOT from some global cabal of pinheads.

[sweet baboo]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789

 

Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true.

246572[/snapback]

 

where's the "proof"

i see no link to established journals documenting this

all i see is a newspaper out of south africa

 

and the way alot of this science can be manipulated in anyway way for political means...two people with two different points of view will interpret data two different ways

[DC Tom]

why?

247102[/snapback]

 

Maybe for the same basic reason that taking a nice big dump in your pantry is unhealthy?

[GG]

The fun threads I miss.

 

Totally predictable for an article to link the "man made" global warming to Bush Admin's failure to sign Kyoto. Do these people actually know what the Kyoto Accord is, and what its impact on the US would be? My guess would be, no.

 

I think that empirical evidence is sufficient to believe that industrialization of the Earth has a definite impact on the envirnment. The real hard answer to the easy question, though is what reasonable measures should countries, industries & people take to slow down the human abetting of the environmental destruction.

 

Kyoto is based on the reduction of certain gases, in large part on trading carbon credits. The US is against the plan, because by its design, Kyoto would have a disproportionately worse effect on the US than other developed countries. The oft-cited statistic that US produces 25% of the world's pollutants is neglected to be followed by the fact that US produces about 30% of the world's output. That's pretty efficient.

 

A country can reduce its pollutant output not only by building new efficient plants, but by investing in new plants that exceed the Kyoto standards. EU gets a huge windfall, because it can maintain older inefficient infrastructure, while get credits for the work that's being done by Western EU companies in Eastern Europe. Thus, they would be in compliance with the "new" protocols based on works that are already happening.

 

While critics feel good about bashing Bush for not accepting Kyoto, why is no one addressing the deafening silnce from the left in the last campaign on Kyoto? Could it have been that Kyoto would devastate the Midwest industry?

 

As is the case withmany things, Bush is not for global warming. He's anti-Kyoto, which by definition is anti-US industry. If the world bodies come up with a plan that doesn't disadvantage US industries relative to other developed nations, you'd see a different tune.

[PTS]

In my senior year at UB's School of Management, I took Geography and the entire class was devoted by the Professor to bash Bush for not signing the Kyoto Accord and slam his military spending. That didn't go over well with a lot of us. My best friend took that class with me and he's in training to become an Army Ranger. Three more of his Army buddies were in that class so it was rather fun seeing the exchanges.

 

Back to your original point, the Kyoto Accord would put a Fucillo HUGE burden on the USA, and quite frankly, I got the impression that they don't know exactly if the Accord would make a drastic difference.

 

Also, if Bush did sign the Kyoto Accord how many of the people that are bashing him now for not signing it would bash him for the major job losses that would follow?

 

 

The fun threads I miss.

 

Totally predictable for an article to link the "man made" global warming to Bush Admin's failure to sign Kyoto.  Do these people actually know what the Kyoto Accord is, and what its impact on the US would be?  My guess would be, no.

 

I think that empirical evidence is sufficient to believe that industrialization of the Earth has a definite impact on the envirnment.  The real hard answer to the easy question, though is what reasonable measures should countries, industries & people take to slow down the human abetting of the environmental destruction.

 

Kyoto is based on the reduction of certain gases, in large part on trading carbon credits.  The US is against the plan, because by its design, Kyoto would have a disproportionately worse effect on the US than other developed countries.  The oft-cited statistic that US produces 25% of the world's pollutants is neglected to be followed by the fact that US produces about 30% of the world's output.  That's pretty efficient.

 

A country can reduce its pollutant output not only by building new efficient plants, but by investing in new plants that exceed the Kyoto standards.  EU gets a huge windfall, because it can maintain older inefficient infrastructure, while get credits for the work that's being done by Western EU companies in Eastern Europe.  Thus, they would be in compliance with the "new" protocols based on works that are already happening.

 

While critics feel good about bashing Bush for not accepting Kyoto, why is no one addressing the deafening silnce from the left in the last campaign on Kyoto?  Could it have been that Kyoto would devastate the Midwest industry?

 

As is the case withmany things, Bush is not for global warming.  He's anti-Kyoto, which by definition is anti-US industry.  If the world bodies come up with a plan that doesn't disadvantage US industries relative to other developed nations, you'd see a different tune.

247485[/snapback]

[Terry Tate]

where's the "proof"

i see no link to established journals documenting this

all i see is a newspaper out of south africa

 

and the way alot of this science can be manipulated in anyway way for political means...two people with two different points of view will interpret data two different ways

247354[/snapback]

I thought everyone used the 'the biggest news, classifieds and info site on the Web in South Africa' as the source for all their scientific information.

 

Here's the original UCSD press release.

[Berg]

  Maybe for the same basic reason that taking a nice big dump in your pantry is unhealthy? 

247368[/snapback]

 

I'd ask you how you know this, but instead I'll just remember to politely decline any invitations you may extend to me for dinner at your house.

 

But you still didn't answer the question...

[DC Tom]

I'd ask you how you know this, but instead I'll just remember to politely decline any invitations you may extend to me for dinner at your house.

 

But you still didn't answer the question...

247723[/snapback]

 

Basic public health: don't pollute the environment in which you live. Though the principle is most often applied on a local level (e.g. "We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal"), it certainly isn't invalid on the scale of theentire planet.

 

Though naturally, keeping the planet completely pristine is, as a practical matter, impossible...just as it's impossible to keep your house perfectly antiseptic. But just because you can't keep your house perfectly clean, it doesn't mean you throw trash on the floor, either...

[IDBillzFan]

Right.  Crichton's a great source.  And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic. 

247068[/snapback]

It's a little known fact there Norm that you should not hyphenate an "-ly" modifier.

[gmac17]

"We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal")

 

yeah, but that wasn't the main problem. The problem was the whole "we don't care if there is dioxin under there, we're the school board and we want the land.....(wait 20 years)....I know we signed something saying we won't build there, but you put the dioxin in there and we have to blame someone..."

[Berg]

Basic public health: don't pollute the environment in which you live.  Though the principle is most often applied on a local level (e.g. "We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal"), it certainly isn't invalid on the scale of theentire planet.

 

Though naturally, keeping the planet completely pristine is, as a practical matter, impossible...just as it's impossible to keep your house perfectly antiseptic.  But just because you can't keep your house perfectly clean, it doesn't mean you throw trash on the floor, either...

247744[/snapback]

 

Too bad more people can't admit the only reason humans are concerned about the environment is for completely selfish reasons, rather than some grand and noble concern for "saving" the planet.

[Wacka]

The question is not that there is warming (the amount is up for debate) but if it is caused by man.

There are many instances of warming and cooling happening over a short period (100 years) that happened before humans were around. For several hundred years (from about 1600-1800) it was called the little ice age. The climate was noticably cooler over that time, with the winter that Washing crossing the Delaware being one of the worst. Remember, the climate was cooling for the first half of the 20th century.

[/dev/null]

The Kyoto Treaty won't do a bit of good as it does not cover my dad, who has released more noxious gases than exxon

[DC Tom]

Too bad more people can't admit the only reason humans are concerned about the environment is for completely selfish reasons, rather than some grand and noble concern for "saving" the planet.

249969[/snapback]

 

Uhhh...of course we are. "Saving" the planet? I don't think the planet cares...it'll be here long after we're gone, and the principle that pollution by homo sapiens is somehow an unnatural act that the planet needs to be "saved" from is as lunatic as the idea that earth needed to be saved from pollution by cyanobacteria at the end of the Paleoproteozoic era would be. What other reason could there be? Sentimental? Do you keep your house clean for your own good, or for some sentimental attachment that motivates you to "save" it?

[Berg]

Uhhh...of course we are.  "Saving" the planet?  I don't think the planet cares...it'll be here long after we're gone, and the principle that pollution by homo sapiens is somehow an unnatural act that the planet needs to be "saved" from is as lunatic as the idea that earth needed to be saved from pollution by cyanobacteria at the end of the Paleoproteozoic era would be.  What other reason could there be?  Sentimental?  Do you keep your house clean for your own good, or for some sentimental attachment that motivates you to "save" it?

250033[/snapback]

 

Yeah I know. That's the point I was making. Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah I know.  That's the point I was making.  Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

250055[/snapback]

That's because they can't grasp the simple fact that Mother Nature is a heinous B word who'll whack us all if she sees fit.

[DC Tom]

Yeah I know.  That's the point I was making.  Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

250055[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I know. I was expanding on it for the pinheads among us... Plus, I wanted to make sure my "So we have selfish reasons, there's nothing wrong with that" attitude was clear...