Global Warming, v. 2008.1
A perpetually hot topic. Continued from version 2007.2.
Date: July 23, 2008
Categories: Life, Non-Muse news, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 129 comments
-
1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:26I’ll take the liberty of repeating my GAPA sermonette from the end of the last thread:
Magazines, even the great Muse, aren’t sources of information. They’re media for spreading information. So are TV shows, websites, and documentary films. To decide whether to believe something (or at least to know why other people believe it), you have to know where the information comes from.
So far we have some people saying, “We’re all gonna die!!!” and other people saying, “Oh, nonsense. No problem.” At the risk of sounding like a teacher, I think it’s worthwhile to take a time out and figure out exactly who is saying exactly what.
0
0
-
2
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:31(previous thread)
357-If it doesn’t exist, it can’t kill them. And it doesn’t! Sorry to dissappoint you, but it’s a 100%natural cycle and it’s harmless. Animals adapt, and if some are unable to do so then they die. It’s a sad fact, but luckily we have nature preserves and zoos to keep the species going.
0
0
-
3
The Man For Aeiou
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:401- True.
2- Even if it’s not humans, We do need to stop using Gas! and Coal!
We need to convert all our energy to Solar/Wind/Hydro/Geothermal
0
0
-
4
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:523- We can’t really ever TRULY convert from gas. We use it ever day. And do we have enough solar energy to power every car and every household in the WORLD? I think not.
0
0
-
5
The Man For Aeiou
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:084-
Look. The only places it wouldn’t work are The Far north and Far south.
How ever, if they save up in the 24 hours of sunlight they have, then yes.
Yes, We use Gas every day. But we need to stop using it so much. Gas is like Alcohol: rarely drank, O.k. Constily Drank, Bad.
0
0
-
6
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:19Thanks for the new thread!
Robert’s simplification is a bit drastic, I feel. I didn’t say “we’re all gonna die!!!” but I have indicated I feel this is a very important issue that we need to face.
4-Agrrrfishi, your responses indicate you don’t have a lot of information to base your opinions on. If you knew that oil and gas would be gone in 50 years anyway, you might be a little hesitant to claim we can keep using it forever. It is also surprising you have so little faith in humans, so little you don’t think we can ever change.
Your attitude is disturbing. You are basically saying “I’m right and you’re wrong, SOO-RRRYY!! Hahah!” Seriously, “Sorry to disappoint you?” You are acting as if we are all complete morons that you float high above with your great knowledge. But, you’re looking like a complete fool, someone so immature they think we’re all here revolving around you, waiting for you to tell us the truth. We’re not, we’re here to calmly discuss a topic, sharing information and opinions, hoping to achieve a greater overall understanding. PLEASE stop acting as if your word ends discussion. We’re here to discuss something, not have someone tell us what to do!
Please settle down and calmly share your opinions. And make sure you have an understanding of the topic before claiming to have reached a conclusion.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
7
Beatlesrockr and John
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:25Even if global warming isn’t a problem, we still need to cut down on gas and keep our environment clean.
True about the solar energy but remember there is also wind, hydro, and geothermal. We don’t have to stop using gas altogether (like TMFA said) we can just, use it rarely.
0
0
-
8
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:39*is humbled* I’m very sorry if I offended in any way. I don’t think that any of you are morons.I didn’t mean to be rude, but I will state my opinions, because hey, that’s what we’re here to do. I’ll try to be a little less opinionated in future posts.
I would also like to say that I do have a knowledge of this topics and no, I don’t beleive that gas is going to last forever. But how on earth are we going to harvest enough solar?wind?hydro?geothermal energy to power the world before it does run out? But TMFA, you’re right, we do need to stop using so much if the gas. That’s why I prefer to bike instead.
0
0
-
9
The Man For Aeiou
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:488- start now. Put the basics into place, and start to build on it. by 2030, we could be using very little gas.
0
0
-
10
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 11:54Thank you, Agrrrfishi, I think we’ll be able to get along much better now. I can better understand what you’re saying now!
If I ever said it would be easy as pie, I apologize. No, it won’t be easy. But humans have never before been afraid of challenges, and I don’t think now is the time to start. As you say, biking is an option. But, you can’t get everywhere on a bicycle. I also think we need to adjust some so that the new technologies will work. Although they will likely improve if we start working on them now, we need to be flexible. This has never been a problem in the past. The only thing we need to overcome is our stubbornness. Conserving energy, driving less, you know the drill. I can’t see why we can’t change, considering what we’re facing.
Does that sound reasonable?
Oh, and there are many types of alternative energies already out there, even more than those Beatlesrockr listed. OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Converter) is one, there are others I’m sure. Plus, we can probably invent more if we stop arguing about every minute detail and just work together!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
11
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:00I think that even now, with all of the obesity and laziness that people have been overcome with in this day and age, it will be harder for us to change. We need to get new energy fast, if that is the case. But you have to keep in mind that some lifestyles can’t fully be changed to exist without gas or cars.Some people can’t live with out gas. They need it to get them to work so they can earn money and feed their families. That’s almost all people worry about, especially where I live. But for now, unnecessary driving should be eliminated.
0
0
-
12
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:102- If you don’t believe in/ignore global warming please don’t post on the global warming thread! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
We definately need to cut down on polution, I know a person who went to China two weeks ago and people there were saying they were very lucky to be during a week with very clear skies (they were not trying to be sarcastic) and on the trip they couldn’t even see the sun. US clear days would be impossible once-in-a-life-time clear days in China. I guess that goes to show what happens when most of the world’s goods are made in 1 country! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
13
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:1812-WELL! *is offended* I just thought that a little bit of another view would be interesting.
0
0
-
14
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:208- We use less to begin with, dry our clothes on clothes lines like they do in Australia, stuff like that, that’s how! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
15
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:21Again, I think the problem is too many opinions and not enough explanation of where the opinions come from.
In any case, Agrrrfishi, it sounds to me as if you do believe that global warming is happening — you just don’t believe that people are causing any of it, and you think that eventually it will go away on its own. And you agree that animals might go extinct as a result, but you don’t think that’s necessarily anything to worry about. Do I read you correctly?
0
0
-
16
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:2515-You’re a little bit off. No, I certainly don’t beleive in global warming. I beleive in something called Global Temperature Change, which is a fluxuation of the earth’s heating and cooling. Yes, this will settle itself on its own. I do worry about the animals but I beleive that they aren’t going to go extinct because of the temperature change.
0
0
-
17
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:25*is worried that she sounded too edgy* Sorry if I was a bit rude. I hate to be so opinionated, but unfortunately for me it’s part of my personality. An annoying part, I might add.
0
0
-
18
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:3214- I don’t know what you’re directing that statement at. It appears I’m not welcome here. I think I’ll go.
0
0
-
19
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:37Agrrrfishi? The one thing I have a hard time understanding about your belief is this: The current temperature increase is dramatically higher than any seen before. This increase occurred right as we started adding CO2 and other pollution to the air, thus disturbing the balance. CO2 increases always go along with temperature increases because of the well-known “greenhouse effect.” The CO2 traps heat, raising the overall world temperature. I hope you aren’t denying we have put a lot of pollution in the air. If you aren’t, then how do you think all of that pollution didn’t cause any problem, especially when it coincided with a major problem a scientific process could have caused?
That’s what most confuses me when people say they don’t think people caused global warming.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
20
Vendaval
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:38Please don’t leave, Agrrrfishi. Your opinions are interesting, and well spoken. Comment 14 must be mis-directed, comment 12 is just rude.
0
0
-
21
The Man For Aeiou
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:3918- No! Stay!
12- That would be boring. Debate!
0
0
-
22
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:47Okay, I guess. But it would be nice if you’d be a little less hurtful, Logogeo.
19- I know that the world is widely polluted. I don’t like it any more than you do. But the reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. When plants and animals die, the dead organisms decay and give off CO2. It’s as much our fault as it is the fault of dying plants.
0
0
-
23
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 12:50Sorry, accidentaly posted too soon.
Did you know that because the earth’s core is warming and cooling, ocean warming over the earth can also cause the release of CO2? That’s why I believe that humans are not the cause, or at least not the primary and important cause.
0
0
-
24
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:00All right, Please stay Agrrrfishi! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
25
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:21Agrrrfishi, I still feel you’re missing my point. I’m trying to say there are two measurements that are higher than they ought to be naturally: CO2 and temperature. While you make a good point, there are many natural sources of CO2, we are dramatically increasing CO2 levels. It’s a case of “too much of a good thing.” Remember Feather saying of water, “How can something so lovely in cupfuls be so terrible in square kilometers?” (I know that is far from the exact wording, I just can’t remember how it went…) Well, I feel it’s the same with CO2. Yes, we need it to regulate temperatures; yes, plants need it to survive. But, I’ll say two things about that: One, too much CO2 raises temperatures, and too little lowers temperatures. It’s a careful balance. We have upset the balance. Here at home we don’t realize just how much CO2 is going into the air, because we can’t see it. We think everything’s fine because we can’t see the source of the problem. CO2 is released from smokestacks, automobiles, forest burning (which we definitely can’t see, as it’s occurring on other continents)… Also, because we are cutting, burning, and otherwise obliterating our forests here in the US and in other places, such as South America in the Rain Forest and Canada in the less-well-known Boreal Forest, there are fewer plants to absorb the CO2. Again, we don’t realize the extent of the damage because we can’t see it. We don’t live in the Rain Forest or the Boreal, and we aren’t old enough to remember a lot of the forests that used to stand here.
We are adding millions of tons of CO2 to the air, while also removing millions of trees that would otherwise have absorbed it. Where is the pollution to go? It goes to the atmosphere, where I believe it is causing the global warming we’re talking about right now.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
26
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:2725- That’s also why we’re trying to plant MORE trees. Actually, that’s part of the community service that I’ve been doing lately.
0
0
-
27
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:3326-I think it would be impossible to plant enough trees to make up for all that have been cut or burned, let alone make up for all of the pollution we are releasing. There wouldn’t be enough land in the world. Plus, there’s the labor factor
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
28
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:50I don’t like cutting down forests, don’t get me wrong, but the trees are also doing some good. We’re building houses and furniture for people who don’t have any(even though this is a bit off topic). And I think that we can plant a lot of trees anyways. A lot is better than none.
0
0
-
29
The Man For Aeiou
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 13:58“We’re building houses and furniture for people who don’t have any”
No we’re not. Coporatings are killing trees so that cows can graze to make hamburger. The Rich are getting second and third houses.
0
0
-
30
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 14:12Yes, we are getting off topic. Many more trees are wasted on things besides housing for the poor, and thus I think it’s wrong to use that as an excuse for the extremely destructive logging currently taking place. Also, all of the forests that are burned every year to clear land for agriculture are completely wasted, down the drain. The trees disappear, more CO2. And, they release a bunch as they go out! They release a lot of CO2 as they burn.
We can recycle paper, but almost all toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, etc. are made of pulp from Boreal trees.
Of course we should plant trees. They improve the local environment and habitat. But they will barely make a dent in the CO2 increase, nor will they restore all of the forests that are being destroyed. We ought to stop cutting and burning trees pointlessly in the first place.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
31
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 15:1629-Well, that’s what I’ve been doing. *indignancy*
0
0
-
32
Piggy
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 16:14RtH- Prove to me that CO2 is causing global warming. All right, so humans have put some carbon dioxide in the air. What we have released makes up about 3.6% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists aren’t even sure CO2 even causes much of a greenhouse effect. Most agree that water vapor, the gas produced by “environmentally friendly” hydrogen cars, does much more to trap heat than CO2.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m all for eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels simply because we’re gonna run out soon. I agree that pollution is bad. However, global warming simply is not caused by humans.
0
0
-
33
Beavo (I Haz 16 spdzk Points)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 16:47I was about to rant, but then I saw Piggy’s and decuded it wasn’t worthwhile. I’m just going to say that I’m of the same opinion.
0
0
-
34
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 16:516: well put.
0
0
-
35
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in July 24th, 2008 @ 04:17Yes, your are right in your last point. the animals that can’t adapt will die. it’s nice knowing that humans are not very adaptable creatures, so we are probably going to die.
sure, people can adapt to cold and hot, but csn they adapt to millions of immigrents all pushing towards the highlands? Can they handle millions of refugees without homes to turn back to? or will humans freak out and pin point certain people for persecution, stamping out their own species as conflicts of race, gener, and nationality become higher than when humans weren’t in trouble? and if they do, when we are all confined in large metropolises on th ehighlands, can we feed the entire population of the earth with even less land than we have now? what about disease? Close quarters with millions of people with limited water and food supplies. oooh, that’ll be fun. lots of nice plagues to minimize th epopulation. and then we’ll blame the plagues on a certain group of people, and then we’ll kill them off….
it’ll be the dark ages all over again. now the question is, should I BOTHER having kids?
29- Thank you.
i see that we can never prove to people who don’t believe that it is people who caused global warming, just like we can never get the iranian president to admit that the holocaust actually happened. We need to start making plans for how to react when th ecoasts start going under.
i’m gonna miss Copenhagen!!
0
0
-
36
Agrrrfishi
in July 24th, 2008 @ 06:0332-Thank you!
35-Actually, over the histoy of the world iut’s been shown that we as a human race can adapt pretty well. And what does immigration have to do with this topic?
0
0
-
37
Agrrrfishi
in July 24th, 2008 @ 09:3029- Who’s getting second and third houses? Honestly, as if they really need them.
34- We’re already over that, I’d appreciate if I don’t have to hear it again. Please be considerate.
0
0
-
38
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in July 24th, 2008 @ 10:3736- global warming= higher sea levels= coastal regions disapear= people who live along the coast will have to move. the entire state (or at least most of it) of louisianna is undersea level. All of the nederlands, most of Jutland.
0
0
-
39
Logogeo96
in July 24th, 2008 @ 12:09*feels guilty* In the process of my family moving to North Carolina we got a new build
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
40
Axa
in July 24th, 2008 @ 13:41Sometimes I think it’s less about…whether we disagree on what global warming is or isn’t and more about what can agree upon in regards to the state of our planet.
According to the world census website, there are 6,712,187,588 people in the earth. In the scheme of things, I can say that I’m only a minuscule fraction of that population, but if all other 6,712,187,587 people on Earth think like that, which we are all at some point going to do, then there’s billions of people who think it’s not a huge deal to throw a gum wrapper out of their car. And you know what, it’s not a big deal, but the mindset is, and six billion gum wrappers pile up fast.
I’m not being literal of course. It’s no skin off my back if you believe or don’t believe in global warming because at times it becomes irrelevant. Just…please be considerate of our planet. It’s something we all have in common.
0
0
-
41
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in July 24th, 2008 @ 14:4840- that’s true. Not if some certain corporations would get off their fat, well, um, if they would start working instead of worrying about getting rich. I mean, ethenal, now really? Who’s bright idea was that? Starving people, really……
0
0
-
42
Agrrrfishi
in July 24th, 2008 @ 16:3040- I hate litterers. They make the world gross. Plus, I have to pick up after them whenever I do service in the community. It’s plain disrespectful and annoying.
0
0
-
43
Kokonilly
in July 24th, 2008 @ 16:3542 – I sometimes litter, but accidentally. I’m holding a gum wrapper and walking, and I get distracted so I drop it. I don’t realize until a half hour later.
0
0
-
44
Beavo (I Haz 16 spdzk Points)
in July 25th, 2008 @ 12:57Littering=bad. And air pollution is just gross. I remember going to NYC, and it was really hot, and I felt like I was swimming in car fart. Sooo gross. I agree with everyone on that.
0
0
-
45
iŹ√Ҳ! (411 piepoints 47 brain points)
in July 25th, 2008 @ 14:2842- same here. I once did a cleanup of my local park’s pond, and whoa. you wouldn’t believe what I found in there, here’s the list.
Refrigerator: 1
Grocery carts: 3
Plastic bags: innumerable.
Car parts: uncounted.
Hardware: (i.e. nails, drill bits, hinges, utility knives, metal rebar.) also VERY large amounts.
Illegally captured dead tropical fish: 2, probably from the same people.
Broken bicycle tires: several.
Fenceposts: 4.well, that’s as much as I remember…
0
0
-
46
Logogeo96
in July 25th, 2008 @ 14:4245- Whoa! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
47
♫ Agrrrfishi ♫
in July 25th, 2008 @ 14:5045- Ick, that’s disgusting! I can’t beleive that someone would dump a REFRIDGERATOR in a pond!
0
0
-
48
Beavo (I Haz 16 spdzk Points)
in July 25th, 2008 @ 15:1545-Ew. Dead tropical fish? A fridge?
0
0
-
49
Kokonilly
in July 25th, 2008 @ 18:0445 –
Woah. Ick. A fridge? An illegally captured tropical fish?
0
0
-
50
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in July 25th, 2008 @ 19:0837: sorry…
0
0
-
51
Logogeo96
in July 26th, 2008 @ 06:56It is predicted by scientists that 6.5 billion HUMAN BEINGS (that means you) will die from global warming related causes in the next century if global warming continues, that’s an average of 65 million people a year! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
52
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 26th, 2008 @ 09:26(51) Logogeo, I’m afraid statements like that aren’t very useful. Which scientists? What do they mean by “global-warming-related causes”? How did they calculate the figures, and on the basis of what assumptions (e.g., how much warming?–estimates vary a lot)? Where did they announce or publish their conclusions? Was it in a peer-reviewed journal (one in which other scientists check their work for mistakes first), a government report (usually based on many papers published in scientific journals), or a press release (something that anybody can write and that carries no guarantee of reliability at all)?
It’s important to be specific. After all, I can confidently predict that of the 6.6 billion human beings alive today, most will be dead within the next 100 years, along with a lot of people who haven’t been born yet — and that’s regardless of what the climate does.
So again, I think it would be helpful to introduce a little more scientific rigor into these discussions.
0
0
-
53
I-Man
in July 26th, 2008 @ 13:46I have a stunning fact. My dad and I went on a tour at NOAA in Maryland, and they had this big globe called Science on a Sphere (incidentally, the guy was using a Wii remote to control it :XD:). There was this one picture that had the parts per million of carbon dioxide. Today, it is 100 more than it was in 1870. If it continues as projected (and stops at 2100), we’ll be at 717 ppm by 2100, and the world will pretty much be match food. That’s not good.
0
0
-
54
☮iŹ√Ҳ! (411 piepoints 47 brain points)☮
in July 26th, 2008 @ 14:1346, 47, 48, 49- Yes, I was disgusted. Fish?Fridges? I thought the world was bad…
0
0
-
55
♫ Agrrrfishi ♫
in July 26th, 2008 @ 21:5750- Tis okay.
51- Key word here is likely to be estimated, not proven.
0
0
-
56
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in July 28th, 2008 @ 17:16To be honest, I don’t think anything can be proven. I believe global warming exists, but I can’t prove it! Also, there is no way I can convince everyone to stop polluting. I feel like we have a lost cause.
0
0
-
57
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in July 28th, 2008 @ 18:37to quote Fridgid Symphony, from the last thread:
It doesn’t matter. The people who think it’s natural and those who think it isn’t arent’ likely to change their minds, and arguing is pointless because we should be actively doing something to stop it, be it natural or not.While I strongly believe global warming exists, arguing about does nothing but get everyone angry, happy in a slightly sadistic way, or dissapointed and embaressed.
And anyway, in the time we are arguing, we could be doing something.
0
0
-
58
Piggy
in July 29th, 2008 @ 13:1957- But if it is, as many believe, natural, why would we stop it, and how? Even if some species are suffering because of global warming, others are thriving because of it. It’s survival of the fittest.
0
0
-
58.1
iridian4
in August 18th, 2009 @ 21:00recycling, saving water, unplugging stuff so we can save electricity, picking up trash, etc,
0
0
-
59
iŹ√Ҳ! (411 piepoints 47 brain points)
in July 29th, 2008 @ 13:50Global Warming…is not natural.
Yes, there have been warm spells before, but nothing of this magnitude. Watch the documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth”.
0
0
-
60
Ò‰PiggyÒ‰
in July 30th, 2008 @ 12:0159- First of all, the earth has been much hotter than it is now. Second, it is impossible for humans to affect the environment in the way that Gore says we are. And third, what’s so bad about global warming? Okay, so a couple species die off, but others are thriving like they never have before. And technically, we’re still in an ice age. Oh, and another thing. You’re going to protest and spew out dozens of facts when I say this, but scientists really have no clue about what’s going on in the environment. Remember “global cooling?”
0
0
-
61
Ò‰PiggyÒ‰
in July 30th, 2008 @ 12:05Sorry, shrinking comment box. Anyways, in the ’70s, everyone was freaking out that the Earth was gonna freeze over because some scientists said that CFCs from human activities were causing the temperatures to plummet. Now that some scientists say we’re causing the Earth to heat up, everyone’s freaking out again. People will believe anything. In an extemp speech I had to give about global warming, I said that by 2015, Antarctica would be half its current size. My judge said that was an amazing fact, completely believing me. Mass hysteria is just a human hobby.
0
0
-
62
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in July 30th, 2008 @ 13:11piggy, *exasperated tone* Trees produce oxygen out of CO2, right?
Now, if there are no more trees, than there will be a lot of CO2 in the air. Right?
Since there would be more poloution, the world would heat up.
Get it?
Thus, the entire globe would warm…Æ“É©ÏƒÉžÉ‘É É¯ÉɽÊˡʌƓ
0
0
-
63
The Man For Aeiou
in July 30th, 2008 @ 16:39What happened to robert’s post? it was really good!
0
0
-
64
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 30th, 2008 @ 16:53I changed my mind about posting it. MuseBlog is for your thoughts, not mine.
Basically, I said that during the 1970s I remember worrying about a lot of things, but not about Global Freezing. A few scientists may have thought that it could happen and got a little attention from magazines, but the idea didn’t make much of a splash and certainly didn’t shape policy as the idea of global warming is now doing. I also pointed out that scientists have loads more climate data than they did 35 years ago and that some ideas that seemed plausible back then no longer do. That’s all.
0
0
-
65
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in July 30th, 2008 @ 17:56Please put your post back!
It was really good for clarifying what Piggy said, and also showed that you should always get your facts straight before posting.
0
0
-
66
Cat's Meow
in July 30th, 2008 @ 18:5945 – My school does a clean-up of our local river at least once per year, and sometimes more often. My friends found several hypodermic needles and other drug paraphenilia the last time we did one.
0
0
-
67
♫ Agrrrfishi ♫
in July 31st, 2008 @ 08:1061- Your comment box shrinks too? I hate when that happens! And I agree with you. It’s nice to have someone here who shares my views.
62- You seem to be forgetting just how many trees there are on this entire planet. An estimate is 980 million, that’s a lot of trees. There will never just be ‘no more trees’. It’s not possible, and I know that humans aren’t going to allow it. That’s why we plant more trees ourselves, the ones lining our sidewalks, in our backyards, the one I planted in my city park yesterday…People are trying to save trees just as much as they are chopping them down.
0
0
-
68
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in July 31st, 2008 @ 20:1967-Actually, more trees are being chopped down than planted. The demand is bigger than the supply! So, logically, eventually, there will be “no more trees”!
0
0
-
69
Kokonilly
in July 31st, 2008 @ 21:0268 – Mm-mm. *shakes head frantically* The more they chop ’em down, the stricter the laws will get. Am I correct in saying that it is now the law that they have to plant a new tree whenever they chop them down? No? Well, then, they should put it in soon.
Anyway, people are getting greener and greener, even as others are getting blacker and blacker, if you see my point.
0
0
-
70
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in August 2nd, 2008 @ 12:4169-Maybe. I’m still worried, though.
0
0
-
71
Ò‰PiggyÒ‰
in August 4th, 2008 @ 15:31Wait, when did I say anything about trees? I don’t remember talking about those. *checks* Nope. I didn’t. I’m all for leaving the trees how they are. I like trees. I like the animals that live in trees. I don’t like deforestation. I also don’t like being controlled by Al Gore. It’s his opinion. I have my own. The world keeps on spinning.
Just so no misunderstandings occur, here’s what I believe in:
I hate deforestation.
I want to stop using fossil fuels.
I want to stop pollution.
Humans are destroying animals’ habitats.
–We should stop doing that last one.
I’m all for renewable energy.
I’m fed up with Al Gore.
I don’t like being told what to think.
Hydrogen cars will do more harm than good.Any questions?
0
0
-
72
♫ Agrrrfishi (Aggie) ♫
in August 4th, 2008 @ 15:47I beleive that:
Deforestation is bad but sometimes necessary for human survival
Renewable energy is good when we are finally able to harness it
Al Gore is creating an unnecessary uproar
Fossil fuels are bad news.
I don’t like killing animals.
I want to stop pollution
Electric cars don’t work
There’s no global warming, only global temperature flux(P.s. Please don’t scold me even if my opinion is a bit different.)
0
0
-
73
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in August 4th, 2008 @ 16:5872-I won’t scold you. If you aren’t here to discuss your point of view, then YOU are causing an unnecessary uproar, and you ought to get off the thread. Don’t be offended when people have a different opinion and want to talk to you about yours.
No, deforestation is not essential to human survival. Selective logging and similar practices are okay when new material is needed (when recycling can’t supply what you need).
What do you mean by “finally able to harness it?” We are already harnessing it.
Al Gore is, well, great. He has been watching and studying this for years, longer than you have been alive. He has talked to scientists and gone all over the world seeing what is happening. People here who don’t believe in global warming read novels written specifically to exaggerate and enrage. They are written by people who want to cover up the truth. We have reason to be shouting, they don’t. Why is the government covering things up if nothing is happening? When the EPA produces a report explaining how Global Warming is happening and it will dramatically alter the landscape, impacting humans, and the government tries to hide it you know something’s up. Why are they covering it up? Because Oil money is BIG, that’s why. Money does strange things to people, admit it. And yet you still feel you’re right: you’re smarter than the scientists, smarter than everybody working for the EPA.
“Electric cars don’t work” What? Electric cars do work. They’re using them in Europe. They are developing them so they will go farther, and they could be plugged in along the way briefly to boost the battery. The fact you don’t know this shows you are not qualified to say you are an authority on the subject. It’s a laugh you won’t even listen to Al Gore but think you are an authority when you have, in my mind, little knowledge in at LEAST a few of the main areas you must be knowledgeable in to claim you have the right to argue with the experts.
At least you seem to be indicating you’re an authority.
And finally, I will point out that scientists have proven (by drilling ice cores) that the current temperature increase is dramatically greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years. The increase has been sudden and extreme. It coincided with Humans dumping CO2 into the air, something that has been proven increases temperatures. It’s called the Greenhouse effect and you have no way to deny it.
No, I am not in any way being mean, I’m expressing my opinions like you did. The only difference is I have WAAAY more facts on my side and I am agreeing with the Scientists and the EPA. Not to point out any reasons you should consider my opinion more closely or anything
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
74
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in August 7th, 2008 @ 10:56Piggy, about what you said in the “heres what I believe in section post, thank you for saying something constructive, instead of just repeating ‘you are wrong, scientists are wrong, everyone who is doing the research is wrong, and global warming believers are incorrect, and stupid’ what you said was constructive, and I have two questions about it…
1. How is Gore worse than the angry Murdoch employees who do the same thing, except 80 decibals louder, with more insults, and with opposite views?
And don’t say “because the screaming people are right.
2. how do H cars do more harm than good?
I can’t imagine steam causing global warming, even if it is hot steam.
Who is more likely to have the facts on en’s side, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or a “Peabody” winner (notice the quotes)
Thank you for being constructive, but answer this…
are you fed up with the angry Fox News People?
0
0
-
75
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in August 7th, 2008 @ 20:1774-Brendan, aligning yourself against Al Gore doesn’t automatically put you on Fox’s side. Just because someone is fed up with Al Gore doesn’t mean they aren’t fed up with Murdoch too. However, I do agree with you on point 2!
0
0
-
76
♫ Agrrrfishi (Aggie) ♫
in August 7th, 2008 @ 21:58Me’s getting outta here. WAY too much opinionation. If you don’t like what I beleive, that’s fine with me. I’m not swaying on my views no matter how many ‘facts’ you have. Besides, I really hate being rude, and obviously my views are causing an uproar. I don’t want to be the bad seed. Just please don’t only see one-sidedly in the future. Oh, and by the by, I was forced to watch Al Gore’s documentary in science class. I don’t beleive a single word because yes, there are facts that counter his opinions. And RtH, I’m very sorry, but you are being terribly stereotypical. I do NOT beleive that I am smarter than the scientists. I am NOT figuring out a way to prove that greenhouse gases are not real, I’m just a kid who loves to write and speak her mind. I do NOT want to put myself and my opinions above any of you. And if you want me to ‘get off the thread’, I will do so without hesitation because I am not causing an unnecessary uproar. Quite the contrary.
I’m sorry if I was ever offensive in any way. I really didn’t mean to, if this is true. I just wanted to help out. I swear, this is not the normal me, just an incensed me. See you all around the blog.
0
0
-
77
bubbles
in August 8th, 2008 @ 17:12Methinks this:
bad people cut down trees and don’t plant new ones
good people cut down trees and plant new ones
Great people don’t cut down trees and plant trees where trees are needed
Recycling good
Throwing away things that can be recycled BAD BAD BAD
increase in gas prices is encouraging people to not drive, and is therefore somewhat good
THIS IS MY OPINION. IT IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT FACT IN ANY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I’m sorry, I had to say that, this thread is getting a little wee bit out of control, battle of the opinions)
0
0
-
78
Ò‰PiggyÒ‰
in August 8th, 2008 @ 18:4774- Water vapor is not just more abundant than CO2, it also traps more of the sun’s rays than CO2.
0
0
-
79
☮iŹ√Ҳ!☮ (411 piepoints 47 brain points)☮
in August 9th, 2008 @ 13:26*Pies* Happy B-day, QueenofAces!
0
0
-
80
☮iŹ√Ҳ!☮ (411 piepoints 47 brain points)☮
in August 9th, 2008 @ 13:27oops! GAPAs, why does your link to the “August Birthday Thread” actually come here?
0
0
-
81
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 brain points)
in August 12th, 2008 @ 13:1378:
So clouds are worse than smog and CO2?
Im sorry, but you’re saying that a cloudy day hurts the environment?
Clouds go away, CO2 does not.p.s. in a little, i will post something that should make everyone lighten up a bit, without popo-ing, or being offensive to anyone.
yeah, Bookworm, you’re right, that wasn’t fair of me to say.
0
0
-
82
Cat's Meow
in August 12th, 2008 @ 13:4178 – The difference, though, is that water vapor is a natural part of the natural process that is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a huge part of the reason why we can survive on Earth, and not be cold like Pluto or overheated like Venus. Human actions cannot affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere – it naturally fluctuates.
However, while carbon dioxide is also a natural part of the greenhouse effect, it has never been seen at these levels in the past. That is the concern.
0
0
-
83
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in August 12th, 2008 @ 20:12It’s too much of a good thing!
0
0
-
84
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in August 13th, 2008 @ 15:31In school, we learned about Acid Rain, and, while this isn’t exactly Global Warming, they are related (both are made worse by inaction and SUVs) Here, as I see it, are our options…
Completely Realistic Methods For Reducing Acid Rain
Assembled carefully by (censored for safety), Scientist.
o REMOVE ALL WATER FROM EARTH
No Water, No Clouds, No Clouds, No Rain, No Rain, No Acid Rain.
You do this by separating H2 from the O, and burning the hydrogen.
Wait, this would cause the destruction of all life on earth, so disregard this one.
o DESTROY SUN
Without The Sun, There Will Be No Evaporation, Removing Earth Of Clouds, And Thus Stopping Rain, And Acid Rain.
Get in the way of the fusion inside of it, and BLOOIE!
Wait, this would cause the destruction of all life on earth, so disregard this one, too.
o PLANT 406,000,000,003 MORE TREES ON EARTH
This Much Will Be Enough To Scrub The Earth Of CO2 And Replace It With Clean Air.
A big worldwide effort would be guaranteed results.
Would take years, and would possibly introduce invasive species, and may get in the way of cities, but otherwise good.
o FIND WAYS TO REMOVE CARBON FROM CO2 AND PRESS INTO DIAMONDS, WHICH GO TO ACID RAIN STOPPING CAUSES.
This One Really Speaks For Itself, Saving The Environment, And Generating Flawless Diamonds.
Great idea, if possible. We should invest in it soon.
Might take decades before the technology becomes possible.
o GENETICLY ENGINEER TRAIT IN HUMANS WHERE THEY INHALE CO2 AND RELEASE O2
Expensive, Controversial, And Risky, But Effective. It Would Reduce Carbonic Acids, And If Things Got Really Bad, We Would Still Live.
If things got too good, we would not be able to breath, maybe a hybrid?
Oy, lets not try this one.
o GENETICLY ENGINEER HUMANS WINGS
This Would Remove The Necessity Of Vehicles, And Would Be Absolutely AWESOME!
We have to do this one!
Risky, but worth it. Maybe a kind of angelic pair of wings would be good. Might take a while.
o OUTLAW PAPER IN FAVOR OF COMPUTERS
Expensive, And Harmful Because Of The Chemicals In Computers But Would Save Trees.
Everyone owning a computer would cut down on paper use, but would create a lot of e-waste
$ $ $ e x p e n s i v e $ $ $So there you have it, the acid rain stopping plans of tomorrow.
Also, several would work against Global Warming, too.Comments?
0
0
-
85
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and two B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points!)
in August 13th, 2008 @ 19:58I like the wings idea, myself!
0
0
-
86
♫ Agrrrfishi (Aggie) ♫
in August 14th, 2008 @ 09:3584- I want wings! Have you ever heard of or read the Maximum Ride series? If not, you should, they’ve got a whole lot of stuff about people with wings.
0
0
-
87
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in August 25th, 2008 @ 13:19Here are ways Muse, and MuseBlog could be funded by these plans:
The Kokonspiracy could be funded by CO2 diamonds…
without the sun no-one will be told “go outside, stop reading, it’s a beautiful day!
more trees=more paper for Muse Magazine
Wings, they are just plain awesome, and if we invented them, we would get publicity…
More computers, more outlets for MuseBlog
inhaling CO2, Exhaling O2 -?????
No Water-???????And no, I haven’t, sorry Agrrrfishi…
0
0
-
88
ladygaladriel
in September 1st, 2008 @ 12:16The wings idea is really cool!!
My mom is a biochemist and teaches an ecology class sooo if anyone wants backup I can search her books.
0
0
-
89
LadyGaladriel (100 Mzps)
in September 20th, 2008 @ 17:44Um. This thread is DEAAAD.
0
0
-
90
Taiwan Hippo Fan
in September 20th, 2008 @ 19:10I believe that the destruction of the earth is inevitable, and our attempts to fix it up so that we’ll die from our sun exploding instead is just crazy. I think that we’re all so afraid of dying, so afraid that the human race will become extinct, is almost —not quite there, but close enough— stupid.
However, I am entirely pro-clean electricity and pro-fuel efficiency, because it cleans up the planet.To quote Al Gore, because I feel like it, “We’re borrowing money from China, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, to burn it in ways that hurt the planet.”
89 – If you would like to make a comment about global warming, or even only request a new thread, fine. But please don’t make a post that only talks about how no one has posted, that doesn’t help anything.
0
0
-
91
Zinc the sorceress and Leafygreen
in September 25th, 2008 @ 19:35Scary thought that’s been haunting me ever since I heard of global warming- What if Earth turns into a planet with an atmosphere like Venus?
A line from Tom Lehrer’s song Pollution – “Pollution, pollution, they got smog and sewage and mud. Turn on your tap and get hot and cold running crud.”
0
0
-
92
KaiYves
in September 25th, 2008 @ 20:5091- Don’t worry. We’re working on this, and I have a good feeling we can lick it.
0
0
-
93
Taiwan Hippo Fan
in September 25th, 2008 @ 20:57“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret ploy by wacko tree- huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!” – Chip Giller.
0
0
-
93.1
iridian4
in August 18th, 2009 @ 20:58global warming is a natural cycle in the universe….we are just making it worse
0
0
-
94
KaiYves
in September 25th, 2008 @ 20:5993- Best. Quote. Ever.
0
0
-
95
Brendan The Science Whiz/Fforde Ffan (37 Brain Points)
in October 2nd, 2008 @ 17:4293:
funny!
0
0
-
96
crazyquotescollector
in December 14th, 2008 @ 18:4471,72: I agree with just about everything you said. I don’t like fossil fuels because who knows how long they will last.
73: We can harness renewable energy, just not enough to power all the technology that humans use, not and still keep it affordable enough for us to use. Wind power works well, I admit, but only for small areas like farms.
I don’t think we are destroying the world. I believe that, up to a point (that has not been reached yet!), the Earth is self healing, and, yeah, people should stop littering, but the world will be fine.
0
0
-
97
The Bookworm & Lurline (410 piepoints and three B-Day Points and 42 KAG Points! And 5 Wung Points!)
in December 14th, 2008 @ 19:44I have an idea! We consume so much (oil, paper, lumber, etc.) in part because we have so many people. There are over 6 billion people on the Earth. If we could reduce that number, we’d have less waste. We just need to make the birth rate smaller than the death rate. There are two ways to do that: Shrinking the birth rate or growing the death rate. Now, I personally wouldn’t like to grow the death rate. While we could just be like the Giver society and kill seniors, I don’t like that idea. I’d much rather lower the birth rate. We could take a page from China’s book and enact a World-Wide One Child Policy. Mind you, no baby killing. We’d just give bonuses (financial and educational) to the single babies and their parents. We could also give free birth control and free abortions at every hospital. That way if somebody was raped, they wouldn’t lose their advantages. In this way, we could reduce the Earth’s waste!
0
0
-
98
Zallie
in December 14th, 2008 @ 21:29.97 – While it is unlikely that the US will enact a policy like that (Americans like their freedom!), you can certainly hold yourself to a ‘no reproducing’ rule. I think it’s a good idea as well!
0
0
-
99
Piggy
in December 24th, 2008 @ 12:1597- Ah, yes. Killing babies to solve a relatively minor problem. Great idea. But why stop there? Why not kill seniors? And people with disorders? Why not just get rid of all the defective people, like North Korea does? Take a page out of their book.
Putting trees above humans. That is sickeningly wrong.
0
0
-
100
♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫
in December 31st, 2008 @ 12:4897- But that wouldn’t work. You’re contradicting yourself when you say “no baby killing”, and then “free abortions” down the page. If you really want to reduce the birth rate, either stay abstinent, or have one child when you are married, and there can be a future for that child. That way, there will be no unnecessary murder involved and, if someone needed birth control, then hopefully they would have a steady job or support from their husband to buy such items.
0
0
-
101
Cat's Eye
in January 17th, 2009 @ 11:08I think if people had more education about these topics, it would be less of a problem. There are places where sex ed is taught by only mentioning abstinence as birth control. Teenagers are teenagers, and many of them are just willing to take the risk of pregnancy if they don’t know there are other options than abstinence.
100: I take offence to the term “baby killing” when referring to abortion. Like stated above, many teenagers are willing to take the risk of pregnancy, and plenty do become pregnant. There is no reason a child should ruin one girl’s future if there are other options. Really, I think it should be up to the pregnant girl/woman, and her values, and what she believes.
0
0
-
102
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 17th, 2009 @ 11:20The thread is straying rather far from the topic of global warming.
0
0
-
103
♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫
in January 17th, 2009 @ 11:44101- And to think that I can still remember a time when children MADE a woman’s future. What has this world come to, that we would resort to killing as a result of our own bad choices?
0
0
-
104
Vendaval
in January 17th, 2009 @ 15:3898 (Piggy)- Trees above people? No, Bookworm is talking about reducing the birthrate to save people, not kill them.
Save the future masses from the ignorance of todays’. I don’t know if the destruction of the world’s resources is a “a relatively minor problem.” Is preventing future famine not worth reducing births today?100 (Aggie)- Shouldn’t a woman be able to buy herself birth control? I don’t think complete dependency on her husband is a good thing. Teenagers are going to have sex, but if they know to use prevention they’re much less likely to get pregnant.
Abstinence is 100% effective, yes, and good birth control is 98% effective, but abstinence is obviously not used, so why not prevention? A government official in Thailand, Mechai Viravaidya, was a genius at reducing birthrates, using publicity to share knowledge.101 (Cat’s Meow)- Agreement. The Federal Government gives more money to schools if they teach abstinence only, not prevention. Also, as women are more educated, birthrates drop. I too take offense to calling abortion “baby killing.”
102 (Robert)- Is that observation or objection?
103(Aggie)- Bookworm originally referenced rape, in which there is no choice. Obviously, abortion equaling murder or not is an endless issue that I will not comment on any further.
What do you mean by “a time when children MADE a woman’s future”? Are you saying that women should be more concerned with having children, and less with their own lives?
I am angered now. Do you understand the lives some women in say, India, or Brazil live? They have 5 children, at their husband’s wish, so they hope 2 will survive to adulthood and care for them in turn. They do half of the work, but receive a tenth of the income.
0
0
-
105
♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫
in January 17th, 2009 @ 15:59104- I’m sorry, that’s not what I meant. What I was trying to say is that when I was little, I looked forward to having children, watching them grow, and having them be the pleasure and happiness of my old age. I still do. What angers me is that some people would take advantage of the fact that they have such an opportunity, and then throw it away.
0
0
-
106
Red-tailed HAWK
in January 17th, 2009 @ 18:09Then again, some girls would love to have kids, with their boyfriend once they finished High School and got married. Maybe they’d even been abstinent before graduating and becoming adults, hoping to get jobs, get married, and start a family. Should their good planning and dream of raising a family be ruined by some idiot? Should they have to raise some jerk’s kid, potentially having to drop out of High School to get jobs to do so, after they had been careful and waited to start a family? If they had decided to risk having a kid in High School, then sure, it’s their kid and they should raise it together. But if they had done everything they could to graduate and get jobs before having a child, I don’t think they should be forced to live a hard life, struggling to earn a living after having to drop out.
If this continues to be a topic of interest, we really should move to the Hot Topics Thread.
0
0
-
107
♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫
in January 19th, 2009 @ 10:31Well, I don’t know. I mean, if she was dating her boyfriend and wanted to have kids with him, I seriously doubt that she would have slept with this jerk.
0
0
-
108
Red-tailed HAWK
in January 19th, 2009 @ 18:51107-Do you want to meet somewhere else, like the Hot Topics thread? We’re going to be a nuisance if we stay here.
0
0
-
109
Princess_Magnolia
in January 15th, 2010 @ 16:14I actually read this argument for global cooling in English last week. It actually had MORE facts than this Al Gore essay – shocking, yes – and it was a radio show that Rush Limbaugh had sometime. It’s actually pretty offensive at times, but the global cooling argument is pretty solid…not to say that we’re actually going into a new ice age. I’ll see if I can find the link…
Here it is. It might possibly get snipped.
www . rushlimbaugh. com / home / daily / site_022708/content/01125113 . guest . html
0
0
-
109.1
Tesseract
in January 15th, 2010 @ 17:00Nope. Flawed logic. First of all, a one-degree drop in a year does not “cancel out” a decade of global warming. There are fluctuations. That year may have been a cooler year, but that is within natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature. It is possible for there to be a one- or even several-year dip in temperatures with the overall trend still being rising temperatures. The Plague killed many people in Europe in 1350, causing a dip in world population, but no one can deny that the overall trend has been an increase in population.
Also, Limbaugh says: “So they’ll come up with all kinds of excuses. “Well, may be true for one year, but we can’t afford to just forget this. We can’t afford to stop our carbon footprint limiting,” and, folks, once again, this is one of the, I have to say, brilliant tactics of the left.” Well, actually, it is a brilliant tactic, but not in the sarcastic way that he means. Even IF global warming is not true (which in my mind is very unlikely), it cannot possibly do harm to lower our carbon footprint. If global warming IS true, we save the fate of our planet by doing so. Then if it isn’t, all we’ve done is come up with new technologies that save money and resources.
Also, it strikes me as awfully suspicious that much of his argument seems to come from putting down liberals. If you have to insult and degrade other people to get your point across, then it’s likely that you’re trying to win over listeners by discrediting the source of their views, not by the strength of your own argument.
One more thing–Limbaugh doesn’t have more facts than Al Gore. In fact, I can only identify two in this entire transcript: 1) This has been the coldest and snowiest winter in many, many years. 2) Global temperatures have dropped 0.75 degrees Celsius, which is close to the 1 degree Celsius that they have risen in the past century. You take AP Environmental Science or read/watch An Inconvenient Truth, then get back to me on which side has more facts to support it.
0
0
-
110
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 15th, 2010 @ 16:50According to news stories I’ve edited, even a 10- or 20-year pause in warming wouldn’t be surprising. In fact, most climate models predict it.
The reason is that a lot of things are going on in weather and climate at the same time, including some fairly big short-term hot-and-cold swings that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Earth’s orbit varies, the amount of heat coming from the sun varies, sometimes a big volcano will spew enough dust into the atmosphere to cool things off for a while. Even if there’s an overall long-term warming trend, sometimes several of those cooling factors will happen at the same time and keep temperature level for a while — but only a while.
Most climate scientists I’ve heard about think that’s been happening since 2000 or so. None of them, as far as I know, thinks that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or that the amount of it in the atmosphere is not increasing, or that increasing it is a good idea.
It’s a complicated topic, and nobody claims to know all the answers about it (except maybe Rush Limbaugh, who seems to know all about everything).
0
0
-
111
TreeCafe
in January 15th, 2010 @ 17:14Two things. One: Global Warming is happening, but is it really the end of the word? People are trying to help. Have you heard about how Google is making a software that will help lower their electricity use on all their servers.
And on a totality unrelated subject… (Talking to the GAPA Robert Coontz) Did your really invent the epic phase of “Pwt Pwns”?
0
0
-
111.1
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in January 15th, 2010 @ 17:20This question doesn’t really belong here, but Robert indeed came up with “Pwt Pwns.” First mention is on a 2005 Books and Reading thread.
0
0
-
111.1.1
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in January 15th, 2010 @ 17:26My place in history is assured.
0
0
-
112
hayley
in March 10th, 2010 @ 20:19the decade of 2001-2010 was the snowiest on record–why are we still talking about global warming??
0
0
-
112.1
Axa
in March 10th, 2010 @ 20:43global warming is a misnomer in a sense, it does not simply mean an over all warming of the planet but rather changes in the climate
global warming is still very much relevant
0
0
-
112.2
Tesseract
in March 10th, 2010 @ 21:14Actually, due to increased evaporation, climate change can lead to more precipitation. It’s known that climate change leads to more extreme weather.
In addition, data points to an overall increase in the temperature of the planet–there’s room for variation within this framework. Some years can be colder, some warmer.
0
0
