Global Warming, v. 2007.2
Still going strong. Continued from version 2007.1.
Date: May 27, 2007
Categories: Life, The Universe
Comments RSS TrackBack 361 comments
-
1
E2MB
in May 27th, 2007 @ 15:51Wow. This thread has been around for a while and nobody has posted anything yet.
Global warming is a problem we all need to be aware of. Nobody is sure how bad it is, or what is needed to stop it, or if air pollution is even causing it, but even if it isn’t, air pollution is still bad, so we should try to conserve gas (which people are doing anyway given that prices are now 3 and a half bucks a gallon).
0
0
-
2
E2MB
in May 27th, 2007 @ 17:10Where is everybody? This thread has been around for several hours.
0
0
-
3
Shadowkat
in May 27th, 2007 @ 18:58I guess people are just sick of arguing over the same thing over and over again…frankly, I don’t blame them…all my supporters left me, so I’m alone in a world of ignorance…sort of. Sorry about the little insult, but it’s not just you. None are more blind than those who will not see.
0
0
-
4
Otzi
in May 27th, 2007 @ 21:48I recently read that half the world’s life will be extinct in 93 years. Can anyone back this up?
0
0
-
5
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 27th, 2007 @ 21:52Where did you read it?
0
0
-
6
Alice
in May 27th, 2007 @ 21:545- Muse. *scathing looks*
0
0
-
7
Otzi
in May 27th, 2007 @ 23:48I think it was on a magazine cover- didn’t catch the title.
0
0
-
8
Cinnamon Moon / Miriam / ???
in May 28th, 2007 @ 03:19Global warming… Lies. All lies. Exploitation of third world countries. My opinion.
0
0
-
9
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 28th, 2007 @ 07:37Can we all agree that greenhouse gasses form a blanket, trapping heat, and can we also agree that there are millions of tons of these gasses being released into the air every year???
Another thing-can we agree that this has been a VERY HOT month of May?
0
0
-
10
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 28th, 2007 @ 08:10Look, the sad truth of the matter is that the planet is heating up, be it natural or man-caused. And the consequences of that aren’t very pleasant.
0
0
-
11
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 28th, 2007 @ 08:22Okay then, let me just say that it isn’t natural, because we should be headed toward an iceage. You don’t heat up more that ever before in the history of the planet before you cool off.
0
0
-
12
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 28th, 2007 @ 08:2811: 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.
0
0
-
13
Shadowkat
in May 28th, 2007 @ 08:398-*hugs* Except, it is warming up, but it’s being mis-represented…my opinion…lol.
9-Well, I dunno where you live, but it’s sure not hot here!
11-Is your history correct?
12-Alright, I’ll give you that, but I’m only doing something about it if whatever’s being done doesn’t further restrict my freedom. Any ideas?
Shadowkat thinks–Hey, I think we’re actually getting somewhere…me and mine think it’s natural, and everyone else thinks it’s man-made, but either way, none of use want to roast…yay for being constructive, finally!
0
0
-
14
Shadowkat
in May 28th, 2007 @ 08:40Oops…none of *us…sorry.
0
0
-
15
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in May 28th, 2007 @ 09:04Using public transportation more should be something we do anyway, out of simple respect for nature. Everything that can stop global warming is something that impacts positively on the environment anyway.
0
0
-
16
Ebeth the Ãœbiquitous Ãœber
in May 28th, 2007 @ 10:11we have no public transportation, but most people walk or bike around here anyway since everything’s so close (and finding parking spaces is killer because there’s hardly any room)
0
0
-
17
rabbity24
in May 28th, 2007 @ 10:37well I think we’ll all agree that global warming, wether natural or man made, is here when Antarctica is merely a puddle. Did anybody besides me bother to see Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? My house is so obsessed w/ global warming we have a picture book of it lol
0
0
-
18
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 28th, 2007 @ 11:0017-We saw it-and we have the book-and global warming is real.
Shadowkat-I do have my history right, and you can’t just say, “oh, it happens to be a nice, cool day so global warming is false”. You need to look at the trends. Overall temperatures are rising.
Some things people need to understand:
Temperatures are supposed to rise very slowly, so even a one-degree change in a decade is huge.A one-degree change in temperature at the equator means a 12-degree change at the poles.
The poles are vital cooling mechanisms for the Earth. Because of this, when that 12-degree difference melts the ice, the whole Earth heats up, heating the Arctic/Antarctic even more.
The oceans warm because they don’t reflect the rays of sun as much as the ice.
The warmer oceans kill coral reefs, an already declining habitat.
Does that make sense???
0
0
-
19
rabbity24
in May 28th, 2007 @ 11:2718- all of what you say makes sense.
I believe that it’s a combination of mother nature and us but if we didn’t do some of the stuff we do it wouldn’t be half as bad. Seriously. My dad used to want to live in New Mexico when he retired. Now he’s thinking Vermont because of all the temperature risings. You can’t just ignore this problem unless you want your brain fried from the heat.
0
0
-
20
Shadowkat
in May 28th, 2007 @ 12:5815-True, that I don’t disagree with.
16-I don’t have public transportation around me, either, but nothing’s really close, so we pretty much have to drive…sorry.
17-You have nooooo idea how popular/infamous (depending on which idea you support) that movie is on MuseBlog…
18-Look, it was a joke, ok? Ya’ll take everything so seriously…sheesh.
0
0
-
21
dark duke of darkness
in May 28th, 2007 @ 13:26i don’t have a car. w00t. what really needs to happen is people move out of the suburbs, which are a total waste of energy, and have every city get a public transportaion system that actually works. new york, hint hint. also food.stop eating old food from ten million miles away as much as you can.like, get a farmer’s market. again, new york, hint hint. Then stop using coal and oil for electricity. say… wind? denmark, hint hint. That should be about enough. not hard at all, doncha think?
0
0
-
22
Shadowkat
in May 28th, 2007 @ 13:31Dude…wind wouldn’t be reliable enough for a standard energy source…and I like the suburbs, thank you very much…and you’re restricting my freedom.
0
0
-
23
Piggy
in May 28th, 2007 @ 13:36GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the oceans are not all rising. the ice caps are not melting.
the earth is actually cooling down, moving towards another ice age.
read “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. its a fiction book, but he put a lot of research into it and shows what lies global warming actually is. THE EARTH ISN’T HEATING UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
0
-
24
Piggy
in May 28th, 2007 @ 13:44some places are warming up due to urbanization, growth of cities more concrete and pollution, etc., but many more are cooling down. in some places, sea level is rising, but, again, in many other places, it is falling. many brilliant scientists agree that the earth is moving towards another ice age, and has been for a century, even with industries growing rapidly. one one hand, if you look at, say, a 50-year graph of temperatures in places around the globe, it would look as though the earth is heating up, but if you look at the entire graph going back to the 1800s, you will see that temperatures have actually stayed about the same or even fallen.
0
0
-
25
Piggy
in May 28th, 2007 @ 13:46Everyone, don’t get me wrong. I am all for lessening our dependency on fossil fuels simply because we will very soon run out, but I don’t believe that humans are causing irreversible climate change that will lead to all life being wiped out or whatever. I believe the facts.
0
0
-
26
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 28th, 2007 @ 14:04Well, you believe Michael Crichton’s version of the facts, at least.
I haven’t read State of Fear, but it was published in 2004. Knowing how long it takes to get a book out, I’d say that means it was written in 2003 and probably researched earlier than that. So we know it isn’t up-to-date. And he’s not a climatologist — he’s a fiction writer.
He might be right, and the hundreds of scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be wrong. But if you were the President, with a lot at stake, would you really bet on one novelist?
0
0
-
27
SuperSaiyajin424
in May 28th, 2007 @ 14:23ZOMG. i hate it when people deny something even though the evidence is right in front of them, just because they don’t want to believe it. if you, Piggy, went and saw An Inconvienent Truth, and actually understood it, i don’t think you would be denying it so readily. what is your evidence that the ice caps are not melting? what is your evidence that global warming is not happening? i have plenty of evidence to support my opinion. you, on the other hand, are making yourself look foolish from pure lack of evidence.
0
0
-
28
SuperSaiyajin424
in May 28th, 2007 @ 14:30it’s like in The Order of the Pheonix where the Ministry absolutely refuses to listen to Dumbledore saying that Voldemort is back until the Dark Lord and the Death Eaters start a melee in the Department of Mysteries.
|+|+|+|+|+|
just a little randomness to mix things up.
0
0
-
29
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 28th, 2007 @ 14:44Hahah yea that was weird-what piggy just did. The ice IS melting-you can see movie clips in an inconvenient truth of massive chunks of ice falling into the sea to be melted.
Also if you saw the movie-a submarine surfaced right under the North Pole.
I hope people are reading post 18.
0
0
-
30
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 28th, 2007 @ 14:52It’s not obvious. It’s a complicated subject, and the science is hard to do. But that’s the way things work, I’m afraid: when you have an easy decision to make, you don’t need to call a scientist. Scientists get the hard jobs.
0
0
-
31
E2MB
in May 28th, 2007 @ 16:0425 – I agree. Even if fossil fuel consuption isn’t causing global warming, we still need to cut back.
0
0
-
32
Beavo the Great
in May 28th, 2007 @ 16:08Last time this thread was here, it turned into a flame war with people calling names. I’m staying off this one if it turnes hostile *hopes* and don’t be mad cuz I said this. Thank You.
0
0
-
33
jammin j
in May 28th, 2007 @ 16:42i don’t know a darn thing about global warming. can anybody point me to some sources to research? well, about fossil fuels…..we’re idiots to even use them! they are toxic! shouldn’t the asphyxiation of people exposed to these things warn us?!!!
0
0
-
34
Necromancer
in May 28th, 2007 @ 17:21Here’s a nice short explanation of fossil fuels and global warming.
Actually, it’s not much of an explanation, but it’s hell-uh funny.
http:// www. exxposeexxon. com/movie/
0
0
-
35
Necromancer
in May 28th, 2007 @ 17:23It’s a short one-minute movie.
0
0
-
36
Beavo the Great
in May 28th, 2007 @ 17:2733-If you want the counter-arguments, (and since I cant post a website address) go to google and type in “Great Global Warming Swindle” in the search bar and see the video (TWO HOURS, so skip around some) that comes up.
0
0
-
37
Julieb
in May 28th, 2007 @ 18:2833- And if you want actual science, go to newscientist.com and find their special report on climate change. Otherwise, see/read An Inconvenient Truth.
0
0
-
38
wingnut
in May 28th, 2007 @ 20:1212- A (somewhat rare) occasion where I agree with FS.
It seems to me like everyone just argues and argues about who or what is causing global warming and climate change and then do nothing about it themselves. People are always preaching the ‘best’ way to deal with climate change and then– nothing. They do nothing. No apparent progress is being made. I mean, the least people could do is abide by their own opinions. Maybe I’m alone in my view or just clueless, but there you go.
“AAAAAHHHHHH!!! Run!! It’s global warming!! Save yourselves!!!
0
0
-
39
E2MB
in May 28th, 2007 @ 21:0738 – My family composts!!! I bike to school!!! I bike places!!! I do things!!! Please don’t just assume stuff!!!
0
0
-
40
wingnut
in May 29th, 2007 @ 09:2838- I’m not assuming anything. I’m not talking about you guys, I’m talking about the politicians and other people who are knowledgeable about the climate and related issues.
Now that I actually read my post through, it does seem a little unclear. Sorry, guys.
0
0
-
41
Shadowkat
in May 29th, 2007 @ 09:5237-Oh, please…just stop. “And if you want actual science…” Give me a break. Right now I’m insulting the person, rather than the opinion, because that was a little low. How many times a day does the subject of “global warming”, as it were, come up in your house? Honestly, I’m a bit curious, with your mom working for the EPA, and all.
38-Well, we’re trying to stop arguing about it and do something…
ANNOUNCEMENT: Alright, look, no one here likes pollution. There are some who say that global warming is man-caused, and others who say that it’s just part of a natural cycle. Then there are those who say that it’s not even happening at all. But even the last two groups don’t like pollution. Even if it’s not the cause of global warming, it still mucks up our air, kills animals, makes the world a nastier place, etc.. We all agree on that. Now, I don’t know about other people here, but I’m perfectly willing to do my part in helping the environment (as I already do, by picking up trash, conserving energy, and such…), as long as no one else makes me do it. See, if you make me, or anyone else, do something about the environment, or anything else (barring going to jail/going to prison/being punished for criminal activities), against their will, even if it’s for the good of the people, in your opinion…well, you’re a fine dictator. The key to solving everyone’s environmental problems is campaigning. Show people what’s going on, and show them how easy it would be to stop it. Then offer them the choice of doing those little things. You can also show them the consequences if they don’t protect the environment, but no lying or exaggerating, please. From there, it’s their choice as to what they do. That, I believe, is the simplest solution to our global warming problem. Also, and I’m helping out you greens (not meant in a derogatory way), here, if you don’t present it as a fight against global warming, the skeptics might not necessarily know, and make such a ruckus. You’ll still accomplish what you want to, and sleep better at night, and things will, in general, get better…maybe the earth will even cool, a little bit. Just a thought, but I think it’s a darn good one.
Opinions?
0
0
-
42
dark duke of darkness
in May 29th, 2007 @ 16:1039- i didnt say you yourself were bad, just Americans in general. good for you! but also, you ahve a car. you use it. you heat your house. these things i think i can safely assume.
41-good idea. i like.
22-not only wind of course. but sustainable energy. and my infringement of your rights is a valid argument, but suburbs are just bad. i can see your right to live there, but maybe make it so noone would want to live there? think gas taxes, and public transportation in all cities. also, why do you like the suburbs? just out of curiosity. the suburbs seem horrid to me. (nothing to do but go to the mall, your parents have to drive you everywhere, homogeneous population, etc. etc.) i really dont get suburb people. perhaps you would like to explain? i’m thirteen, i can go anywhere i want without my parents, i have a choice of literally hundreds of schools to go to, i go out to lunch, i regularly go to the theater, and there are awesome people and stores everywhere. how can the suburbs compete?
0
0
-
43
Julieb
in May 29th, 2007 @ 18:1841- First I’ll reply to the little personal attack, and then address your suggestion. It makes me angry, as a person, when people do not take science as truth. Science is not a debatable subject, you just cannot have a different point of view of results from experiments that are done well or data that is collected well. I am a science girl, and while it may not be what I hold most important about myself, it is a determining factor in my identity. You may not understand this, but I really don’t know how to explain this any more clearly. That movie, The Great Global Warming Swindle, uses skewed results, gives incorrect or insufficient data it touts as truth, and did not consult with any reputable climatologists who opposed their views (in addition to falsley “boosting” the reputations of those who appeared in the film and featuring some climatologists who get tons of money from big oil and coal), and is even being sued by one of the scientists appearing in it who says he was tricked into saying things he didn’t believe. Sound like a reputable documentary to you? And by the way, global warming comes up in conversation probably twice a week, sometimes more. Unfortunately, my mother is too busy trying to keep our water clean and commercial products safe to deal with the more earthy side of the EPA, not that she doesn’t have a strong viewpoint on the issue. Do you make sure to bring up the imminent destruction of our planet with your parents every day?
Now to your arguement. I understand what you’re saying, and I agree we shouldn’t have to force people to do anything. Do you see anyone being forced right now? Unfortunately, most of the country’s population is apathetic to the problem. Not everyone is going to be like you and try to cut down on pollution just because it’s a good thing. Today I saw a girl throw a styrofoam cup on the ground. Do you think she doesn’t know that littering is bad? Of course she does, but she doesn’t care. The protocols the “green movement” are trying to put in motion won’t make anyone give up their car, or destroy businesses. All they do is encourage companies and individuals to cut down on emmisions and use more environmentally friendly fuels.
42- Not all of us want to live in the smoggy cities, and just so you know, the suburbs can be just as diverse as the city. The suburbs have plenty of advantages, including cleaner air, lower crime rates, foliage, community closeness, etc. I love living in the suburbs.
0
0
-
44
Beavo the Great
in May 29th, 2007 @ 18:2141-My oppinion: Brilliant! On the other global warming thread, people said that I was denying Global Warming as a whole and that pollution wasn’t bad and stuff. But, I HAVE been to New York City and San Fransisco, and you could literally SEE the smog from the Golden Gate Bridge. All I’m saying is, the environmentalists are not for Global Warming, they’re anti-technology! Where would America or any other industrial nation be without factories (that unfortunatly produce thick, black, gross, polluting smoke)? Living in mud huts. So, unless we can come up with another power source *ahem* *coughnuclearenergycoughcough* excuse me unless we can come up with another source for power, right now, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. *coughsoinvestinuclerenergypeoplecough*
0
0
-
45
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 29th, 2007 @ 18:47I’m afraid nuclear is bad. It’s not renewable.
Solar, and sometimes wind, are the main things. Geothermal isn’t too bad. Wave energy, etc…
All of those things will power those “smogg-releasing plants”.
I like what Julieb said. I don’t now of any credible climate scientists who are saying that global warming doesn’t exist, or is part of a “natural cycle”.
GAPAs-below is a link. I think it is safe-and will show what i’m having a hard time explaining. If you don’t think it’s okay, just snip it out and sorry for the trouble…
http:// data.giss.nasa. gov/gistemp/
RtH
0
0
-
46
Necromancer
in May 29th, 2007 @ 21:04HYDROGEN! PRAISE HYDROGEN!
We bows to hydrogen… *drool*
Ahem…
I know that every single one of the cars today could be converted to a hydrogen-powered car. We have the techonology right now to do it. The only obstacle is manufacturing and distributing the H.
Thank you. I just had to get that out of my system before I murder someone at my school who doesn’t believe that hydrogen can work. Of course it can work. We just need the intiative to do it. And then it will work.
Please stop me, or I shall go on a rant about fossil fuels.
0
0
-
47
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in May 29th, 2007 @ 21:10Storing and transporting hydrogen are not trivial obstacles. Those little atoms (protons, basically) are mighty slippery.
And, of course, you have to make the hydrogen. Chemists know a couple of ways to do that. One is to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. That takes lots of energy, which at present most countries are likely to get by burning coal. Another way is to strip the hydrogen atoms off molecules of hydrocarbons, i.e., fossil fuels.
All in all, I wouldn’t bet on hydrogen to solve everybody’s problems overnight, or possibly ever.
By the way, I drove a hydrogen car a couple of years ago. It was an experimental prototype that cost a million dollars. An engineer was in the passenger seat, and a public-relations man was in the back seat. The car stalled at a red light on Independence Avenue, a couple blocks from the Capitol building. It didn’t have a key, so they couldn’t restart it; they had to reboot it, all the while explaining hastily that this sort of thing never happens, that this car had driven from Norway to Spain without the slightest problem, etc., etc. They were afraid I was going to put the mechanical problems in a news story. I didn’t.
0
0
-
48
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 30th, 2007 @ 06:49I prefer alternative energy that doesn’t need to be conditioned before usable. Power that can be converted directly to energy. Solar is good, and wind isn’t terrible if they put the farms somewhere quiet instead of right in the path of major bird migration routes.
Then this power can be used to power homes, and re-charge totally-electric cars. (those need some work too, but really just to enhance possible travel before charging again.)
RtH
0
0
-
49
Beavo the Great
in May 30th, 2007 @ 17:0845-Know what the waste product of nuclear is? Water vapor! We actually do have the technology to renew nuclear energy. France uses it, and so far, their fine!
Problems with ethanol: Ethanol can’t be distributed through pipes because it dilutes quickly, so it has to be transported by truck. And trucks guzzle fossil fules. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it gives off, anway.
Problems with Solar Power, Wind, etc.: These are a good thing. Dosn’t pollute the air to power your cities with water, either! But they do have their dissadvantages. Like ethanol, it takes more energy to produce them than they put off. Think of it this way. Say you buy a mint that costs a trillion dollars. But the machines in the mint only produce pennies, and one at a time. It would take a LOT of pennies to pay off for the whole mint, so whoever bought it would be in big doo. Our government would buy the windmills and solar panels, but who’s going to pay the government back? No pollution though, so I’m afraid those and nuclear are our only alternatives. The fossil fules need to stop.
0
0
-
50
E2MB
in May 30th, 2007 @ 17:1549 – That’s why we need to buy all those solar panels and windmills NOW, so they will pay back sooner! The longer we wait, the worse off we will be!
0
0
-
51
E2MB
in May 30th, 2007 @ 17:15And mints don’t cost anything near a trillion dollars.
0
0
-
52
Red-tailed HAWK
in May 30th, 2007 @ 19:24Fossil fuels are going to run out within the next 300 some years. We need to develop the technology now, so when we are REALLY in trouble, i. e. when the coal runs out, we’ll be prepared.
0
0
-
53
E2MB
in May 30th, 2007 @ 19:33Oil is going to run out within our lifetimes.
0
0
-
54
biblioRose
in May 31st, 2007 @ 15:14It just seems to me that there wouldn’t be hundreds of books, a movie, and groups of scientists who devote themselves to stopping global warming if it wasn’t real. That may be naive of me, but thats just how I see it.
47- Very interesting!
0
0
-
55
SuperSaiyajin424
in May 31st, 2007 @ 17:5049 – then make the dang E85 trucks run on the fuel they’re carrying, then.
0
0
-
56
dark duke of darkness
in May 31st, 2007 @ 21:04“Not all of us want to live in the smoggy cities, and just so you know, the suburbs can be just as diverse as the city. The suburbs have plenty of advantages, including cleaner air, lower crime rates, foliage, community closeness, etc. I love living in the suburbs.”
okay. number one. new york does not have noticeably lower air quality than the suburbs. hwere i live, no smog. whatsoever. smog is for places like LA, which are fenced in by mountains, and dont really have public transit. lots of cars, and nowhere for the air to go=smog. no so many cars+lots of space for air to go=no smog.
they can be as diverse as the city? im sure they can. i have no doubt. but are they anywhere near that? lower crime rates…. only cause you never walk anywhere. also, the aforementioned homogeneity might have something to do with that…and the lack of poor people….and why cant community closeness exist in the city? where i live, it doesnt, but thats voluntary. in smaller buildings, it certainly does, and there is no reason it couldnt exist if you wanted it to. and foliage is overrated.
no, seriously its called parks. from my expierience, going to a park gives me much more foliage than there is in any one spot in the ‘burbs. and if you wanna go hiking, it not gonna be in the suburbs anyway. one has to go to like a mountain. (which i do, with the help of a train.)
43-there are real scientists opposed to the human cause of global warming. and AIT is a bit unbalanced too. but… i agree with you.
0
0
-
57
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 1st, 2007 @ 07:48Can we all at least agree that pollution is bad??? By the time we eventually decide whether GW is true or not, it will be too late to do anything. If you can’t agree that we need to use new technologies to stop pollution, you are saying you don’t want to clean our air.
0
0
-
58
BiblioRose
in June 1st, 2007 @ 11:17I agree with r-t H! All of the ways they are focusing on to stop GW are beneficial to the enviroment no matter what!
0
0
-
59
violindino
in June 1st, 2007 @ 16:4457: Well said! It doesn’t matter if you believe GW is happening or not, but you can always do something to help the environment.
In environmental science we’re doing puppet shows about the environment. In my group, we are working on one about global warming and what you can do to help the environment. Guda (the cheese) is also mentioned several times in our puppet show. One group member has this thing with cheese.
0
0
-
60
Shadowkat
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 08:5843-It wasn’t technically meant to be an attack, simply a retort. I’m a science girl, too, which is why I’m especially wary about which science I believe, and which I don’t. I didn’t know about the suit, so thank you for telling me…who was it, do you know? I’d like to check it out… And, no, I don’t bring up environmental issues in my house every day, I was just curious…taxes come up in my house all the time, because that’s basically what my dad deals with…I figured since your mom deals with the environment, that would probably come up fairly often…that’s all.
But they shouldn’t be “protocols”…they should be suggestions. Look how many people break the law each day. Do you honestly think that most of them do it just because they can? No, they do it because they don’t care. If someone doesn’t care about the environment, you are not going to convince them of doing so by enforcing a bunch of “protocols”. You have to inform them. Don’t just tell them that GW is bad, tell them why, tell them what’s going to happen.45-Actually, although it’s not renewable, it’s still safe and clean. All it takes is uranium and plutonium, and those two resources should last for a few hundred years. Granted, that’s not forever, but it’s still quite a long time, and by then, we can hope to be advanced enough to have a new solution.
48-Alright, that’s fine…as long as we had enough energy to be productive and keep society moving forward, not just staying in the same place. Development is the key to survival. If we don’t develop, we won’t live on as a species no matter what we do.
57-Hey, that’s basically what I said…see post 41, if you haven’t already.
0
0
-
61
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 09:11Be always wary of “junk science”.
0
0
-
62
E2MB
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 09:3561 – “Junk science”?
0
0
-
63
FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 10:02“Junk science” is a term coined by advertisers referring to actual science proving that smoking causes lung cancer. The tobacco industries had ‘think tanks’, so-called scientist who, instead of being given a problem and asked to look for the solution, where given the solution and asked to justify it. The companies would label any concrete actual scientific evidence of a connection between smoking and lung cancer “junk science”. The same thing is happening with GW.
0
0
-
64
rabbity24
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 13:43I think there are many ways to improve the ways we get our energy. In small amounts, everything is good. In sunny places, use solar panals. In windy places, use the wind. In others you can still use fossil fuels, but cut down on it substantially. I mean come on! Florida could use solar panels all year long!
0
0
-
65
M & M
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 17:2743- :]]
60- I explain what global warming is to a lot of people. Though sometimes they just stand there looking bored and nodding every so often while they stare behind your head.Just frustrates me so verily much. You tell them about it, they recycle a can, then the next day they forget. Maybe that’s why people make it such a big issue or rather, “overly dramatizes it.”
sigh.
I agree with, er, someone back in those older posts (too lazy to find). I don’t feel a point in arguing anymore (or informing) because people won’t change their minds. I’ve explained it absolutely too many times. As long as they do good for the environment(like shadowkat) I’m fine with what their opinions are (mm, sorta).
0
0
-
66
Shadowkat
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 20:4765-Lol…nice. What do you mean, “sorta”? Maybe I can fix things…:grin:
0
0
-
67
Julieb
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 20:55Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at MIT, is suing because what he said was taken out of context, falsly representing him as not believing the science behing global warming. By the way, other’s are now critiquing on the basis that the graphs shown in the film were not from NASA, as the film claimed, and some of the “scientists” had their titles boosted from “retired proffesor” to “respected leading scientist.” The channel that broadcast the documentary is distancing itself from it, and you might want to look up the director, Martin Durking (his record isn’t exactly clean as far as making accurated documentaries). Have you read any of this?
0
0
-
68
Julieb
in June 2nd, 2007 @ 21:10Ok, that should say “accurate,” not “accurated.” Sorry, it was a typo and I’m getting really neurotic about it…
0
0
-
69
Shadowkat
in June 3rd, 2007 @ 09:2567-No, I hadn’t, but I will…*reads Wiki article*…true, that doesn’t speak well of him…ok, I won’t refer to that, anymore, but the books and articles I have read/am reading tell a similar story. And those authors have good, clean records. You can find them on the other thread.
68-Lol. That’s fine
0
0
-
70
Shadowkat
in June 3rd, 2007 @ 09:26Oh…my second comment in reply to 68 should have a period…I’m not awake today…
0
0
-
71
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 3rd, 2007 @ 16:2060-No, the nuclear components will only last 72 years.
69-Please tell me which posts they were! I must have missed them!
RtH
0
0
-
72
jammin j
in June 5th, 2007 @ 15:56fossil fuels…..ugh. me hates them! we probably first started widespread use of them about….80 years ago? something like that(automobiles, trains and more) and look at what that eighty years has done. hundreds of millions of cars, buses, trains(not as much), and more are spilling toxic, foulsmelling, exhaust fumes into the very air that we breathe. hhmmmm….do you think this could have a remote effect on the world in which we live? yes, no, maybe-so? i hate pollution. the problem is that the average American can think of no alternative to driving everywhere, using manufactured goods, going to stores and more. only 100 years ago this type of thing would be unheard of…but today? mention one thing about taking away any of our americans comfort and….BLAM! they shut the door of openmindedness in your face. “no way am i going to save my future!” the idea that i want to promote is the idea of sacrificing present pleasures for future benefits….or maybe for a future at all! about the city debate….well, cities in themselves are not at all bad. its just the stuff we’re using to power them, commute them and more. humans feel safer in large groups. it lets us keep in touch and carry on (in our minds) a normal, friendly life. so, anyway, i hate nuclear, fossil fuels and more pulluting power. the problem is that right now we don’t have a viable, cheap, clean alternative power source that everyone is willing to trust. sigh. lets all sit back and watch our world die. man, i feel like crying.
0
0
-
73
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 7th, 2007 @ 07:3372-Yup.
The thing that shocks me the most is how people refuse to believe pollution is causing this. Do they understand the whole greenhouse effect??? Should I explain it here? What tells them pollution isn’t making the atmosphere thicker, when scientists can see it is?
0
0
-
74
Julieb
in June 7th, 2007 @ 10:40Has anyone here heard of Bioplastics?
0
0
-
75
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 9th, 2007 @ 18:1974-No, but with the word “bio” in front it must be made of recycled plastic, right?
0
0
-
76
Sobriquet
in June 10th, 2007 @ 14:2275- It’s biodegradable plastic made out of things like corn or potatoes. It’s really cool, and a great alternative to the chemical stuff we use now.
0
0
-
77
Shadowkat
in June 12th, 2007 @ 20:4976-Hey, that’s pretty cool…but are they as durable as regular plastic, or what?
0
0
-
78
E2MB
in June 13th, 2007 @ 19:57I’ve never heard about it, but it sounds cool.
0
0
-
79
Alice
in June 13th, 2007 @ 20:0374- Oh! We had a grocery bag made out of corn for a while, until my mom put it on the compost heap, probably because it was getting old, and we have a spoon made out of potatoes.
77- It always seemed to me that the grocery bag was rather more durable, and the spoon is certainly less brittle.
0
0
-
80
Shadowkat
in June 14th, 2007 @ 14:2479-Huh…but that almost doesn’t make sense…I mean, you can’t really wash it, can you? It would fall apart! There has to be something else in it…
0
0
-
81
Alice
in June 14th, 2007 @ 14:4980- No, you can! I have many, many, times, believe me.
0
0
-
82
Shadowkat
in June 15th, 2007 @ 10:0781-Lol…well, I like the idea…and it doesn’t make all your food taste slightly like potatoes, or anything?
0
0
-
83
The Skipper Nancy
in June 15th, 2007 @ 15:35A bag made out of corn? Cool. I just collected a bunch of cloth bags that were lying around the house and am going to force my mum to use them for groceries from now on.
I was doing some research just now on how to reduce my carbon footprint. If anyone else wants to do this, I suggest carbonfootprint.com, the EPA web page on flourescent bulbs and home depot’s eco-options page (you can just google the last 2).
0
0
-
84
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 15th, 2007 @ 15:46We are working on our carbon footprint too. We use cloth bags!!!
Anybody who doesn’t believe in global warming should really go back and take a look at the global warming ARTICLE.
0
0
-
85
Alice
in June 15th, 2007 @ 15:5582- Nope. It’s a weird grainy texture, though.
83- Yeah, we have a bunch of cloth bags and we use them a lot.
0
0
-
86
E2MB
in June 16th, 2007 @ 16:03My family has cloth bags too. We use them very often.
0
0
-
87
Fortune Cell
in June 16th, 2007 @ 22:5383- That’s what I did, too. “Mom. Cloth bags. Use”
Heh.
We have solar panels on our house, and it’s really cool to see the meter running backwards. As for me, personally, I eat veg to lower my footprint, as well as some other stuff.
It’s really irritating though, my mom has a friend who claims to be really enviromentally active- but eats meat. He just doesn’t make the connenction. D:
0
0
-
88
Shadowkat
in June 17th, 2007 @ 09:5984-I pick up trash that I see in the park, in the neighborhood, etc., whenever I can…and which article are you talking about?
85-Haha…well, I guess that’s not that bad…p.s. that was a joke (about it being bad at all)…that’s cool.
87-But being environmentally active isn’t necessarily about going veg. That’s more animal-rights-related. I’m not saying going veg is a bad thing, just that it’s not always (nor usually) associated with environmentalism.
0
0
-
89
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 18th, 2007 @ 08:3488-Actually, there was a whole ISSUE. A whole issue of Muse about Global Warming, saying how the scientists are right and giving evidence. How long have you been getting Muse? It was the one with the dying flowers on the front.
0
0
-
90
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 20th, 2007 @ 18:56MWAHAH!!! No comments now, eh???
0
0
-
91
E2MB
in June 21st, 2007 @ 18:34Eh.
0
0
-
92
Red-tailed HAWK the Prime Muser of Ice, and don't you forget either!
in June 21st, 2007 @ 20:0991-Huh??? I wasn’t mad at you! *chocolate*
0
0
-
93
E2MB
in June 21st, 2007 @ 21:10I know. I was noting that you were correct by saying “eh”. Is that not what the word is used for?
0
0
-
94
Shadowkat
in June 24th, 2007 @ 10:5689-Oh, yeah…I thought you meant something else, like, from a different magazine, or whatever. Yeah, I know…come to think of it, though, I never actually got around to reading that whole issue…*makes mental note to read ASAP*
0
0
-
95
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 24th, 2007 @ 12:5794-Good.
0
0
-
96
Fox With Drops of Rubies
in June 26th, 2007 @ 08:22Wow! No one is posting here. It must mean that people finally believe in global warming.
0
0
-
97
Fox With Drops of Rubies
in June 26th, 2007 @ 08:23Cuz it’s real folks. And we caused it. Not we foxes, we people. You people. Yeah, you folks. I’m confused.
0
0
-
98
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 26th, 2007 @ 10:33I don’t know why people don’t post here any more. See post 90 and how much attention that even brought. But yes, people are the problem. Not foxes or HAWKs, just those crazy humans…
*commiserates with Fox With Drops of Rubies*
0
0
-
99
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 28th, 2007 @ 14:52OH_brother…No posts in two days??? Come on people!
0
0
-
100
Lawrence of Antarctica
in June 28th, 2007 @ 20:39world is warming, warm is worlding. Bad, very bad.
0
0
-
101
Alice
in June 28th, 2007 @ 20:5097, 98- But you two are humans, beyond your blog names. And yes, it’s real, and yes, we caused it. And you two as well as the rest of us.
0
0
-
102
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 29th, 2007 @ 08:11101-Joke!
Read the latest Audubon. Aerosol is making it worse…
0
0
-
103
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in June 29th, 2007 @ 08:23101- NOOOO.Noooooooo. nooooooooo. *sinks into denial* *says in small voice* Can we fix it?
0
0
-
104
DragonWings
in June 29th, 2007 @ 08:28Oh, my dear, it is time for our species to learn that not all of our mistakes are fixable. We must arise and face our consequences.
0
0
-
105
B. Cavefish or Lone One Against Global Warming
in June 30th, 2007 @ 12:52Oh please. It’s natural. I’d state all my reasons, but I did that before and it didn’t convince anybody. let’s just not argue.
0
0
-
106
Red-tailed HAWK
in June 30th, 2007 @ 14:13105-Scientists study the trends of ice ages and such. There are patterns. We should be headed toward an ice age but instead are experiencing temperatures more extreme (on the warm side) than ever before. I can see no logical reason not to believe it is human caused, when we know carbon creates a blanket that traps heat like a greenhouse. Please state your reasons.
0
0
-
107
Shadowkat
in July 3rd, 2007 @ 19:19105-You’re not alone!!! And never think you are! Do you have any idea how many people agree with us??? Assuming, of course, that you and I are on the same wavelength…? And don’t give up, either way.
106-Actually, the “Little Ice Age”, which took place in the 12th century, lasted for almost 700 years!!! Also, the Earth has been much hotter than it is now. For instance, Greenland used to be just that: green land. Then the Little Ice Age took hold, and it got covered in ice. Another point: the southern hemisphere is not experiencing very much warming at all, if any. And even if you go with the “mean global temperature”, the warming is only going at a rate of about 1.2-1.7 degrees C per century. By the way, it’s impossible to get a “mean global temperature”, because measuring stations aren’t evenly spaced out anywhere, much less around the world. In fact, there aren’t any stations in many places. The “warming trend” started in the early 1990’s, just after Russia shut down a bunch of measuring stations in its country because of economic problems. If you stop measuring a colder spot on the world, of course your average temperature is going to increase.
As to whether or not it is man-caused, humans produce a meager 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The rest is Nature-produced.
0
0
-
108
Red-tailed HAWK
in July 3rd, 2007 @ 19:42107-But nature has also been making CO2 for ever, while we ADDED. The South Pole isn’t experiencing much warming because the wind and sea currents do not flow in a way to bring it there. An increase of something like 2 degrees at the equator is 12 degrees at the North Pole, so it is warmer there. And CO2 is going up, too, and mature has no reason to be making more. If anything, with an even SLIGHTLY warmer climate trees would grow more taking more out of the atmosphere.
I’ll look into that Greenland melting thing, but anyway, do you think it was good to live in NYC, etc. when that was happening?
The planet will not be fun when Global warming is done with us. I don’t see how we can put so much pollution into the air and not have a problem. Do you think the sky can just take it all in and keep taking it in, without there being side effects?
And what about this new cloud thing they’ve found out about? the sun will bake all day on the ground and then the heat will form storm clouds. The new types of storm clouds will keep the fw remaining rays of afternoon sun out, but hold ALL of the day’s heat in.
Sorry if there are any spelling errors…
BTW-Where are you getting your facts? Mine are mostly from Al’s book, but the cloud thing is from the latest Audubon.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
109
Shadowkat
in July 4th, 2007 @ 22:04108-I’ll reply to all of this more, later, but I get my facts from various sources, the main one being The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
0
0
-
110
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in July 5th, 2007 @ 19:40If you look at weather from the past, the Earth tends to go through 500-year cycles of warm and cold. We are in a warm cycle right now. You should be scared when we start cooling down again-we could end up in another Ice Age. A really good place to test your knowledge of global warming is:
http:// www. geocraft. com/ WVFossils/ GlobWarmTest/ start.htmlRead the explanations after u answer each question, too. G2G!
GAPAs, please let this link through
0
0
-
111
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 5th, 2007 @ 21:30I’ll allow the link (with spaces inserted), but I’ll note that websites are notoriously unreliable sources of information. Basically, any idea you can imagine has a site somewhere to support it, and so does the opposite idea.
In the case of this site, I’m no expert. But I suspect that if 500-year climate cycles did exist, climatologists wouldn’t be able to spot them. I’ll ask some scientists next time I encounter them.
0
0
-
112
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in July 5th, 2007 @ 21:40111-OK, but it says the same stuff about the 500-year cycles in books too, like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, and other stuff like that.
0
0
-
113
Shadowkat
in July 6th, 2007 @ 14:08*gives Donaldo a high-five*
As someone once said, “That’s my BOOOYYYY!!!!”
Lol.
0
0
-
114
Red-tailed HAWK
in July 6th, 2007 @ 15:14I’ve done a little search on this guy, and will check his book out of the library. What I found was he thinks it’s a whole plot for the government to get away with controlling peoples’ lives. Well, we can see how much the conservatives have controlled our lives, and so, I really can’t see why the “evil democrats” would like to control us. They are usually thought of as the party for the people, and the republicans are thought of as the economy group. Does it not seem likely that the republicans wouldn’t like global warming simply because it would blame industry and threaten the oil business??? When someone’s job or income is threatened by them saying something, don’t you think they are going to say the other thing? Before Bush became president, once upon a time he had an oil company. It didn’t work out, but the oil business still gives him lots and lots of money, and he, of course, isn’t going to let that stop flowing any time soon, right??? Does this make more sense now?
Sorry for any spelling errors, and for the long paragraph, but I’m just in a bit of a hurry and wanted to get you this asap!
0
0
-
115
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in July 18th, 2007 @ 18:06DEAD THREAD ALERT!!! DEAD THREAD ALERT!!!! WEEOOO WEEOO!! ALERT!! ALERT!!! WEEOO WEEOO!!
0
0
-
116
Red-tailed HAWK
in July 19th, 2007 @ 07:13Ok, don’t zoom around in your fire truck or whatever you’re putting polution in the air!
0
0
-
117
Shadowkat
in July 20th, 2007 @ 09:37116-We’ll just say he was running around in his underwear yelling…tehe.
See? No pollution.
0
0
-
118
Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd
in July 20th, 2007 @ 14:20116-LOL
117-Bigger LOL
0
0
-
119
E2MB
in July 20th, 2007 @ 15:21117 – Except for that nasty byproduct of the beans he ate last night.
0
0
-
120
Shadowkat
in July 23rd, 2007 @ 18:41119-HAHAHAA!!! Nice…oh, man, nastiness, right there…:razz:
0
0
-
121
Red-tailed HAWK
in July 26th, 2007 @ 14:23!!!!!!!~NOTICE FROM RtH~!!!!!!!!
I will be staying with my grandmother from tonight, till late Saturday, but may not even be on the blog till early Sunday. Please hold anything that involves me, or things that I need to agree to, until I return and can help/decide about.
I am sorry I have to leave you, but I shall miss you all…
Blog safely,
RtH
0
0
-
122
Shadowkat
in July 26th, 2007 @ 15:06121-And you stay safe, alright? Good! Have fun!
0
0
-
123
cilroxmysox
in July 29th, 2007 @ 13:29ditto
0
0
-
124
cilroxmysox
in August 3rd, 2007 @ 18:36*apple pie*
0
0
-
125
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 4th, 2007 @ 10:12122-124-Thanks! Oh, and 124-I LOVE APPLE PIE YESYESGIVEMESOMEOHYOUDIDTHANKYOUSOMUCH!!!
Now for some evidence:
The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sets the probability that humans are to blame for global warming at higher than 90 percent.
We can change the outcome of climate change if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions greatly soon.
Gasses such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons have greatly and rapidly increased over the last 200 years, after a period of 10,000 years of roughly stable levels.These gasses are the main ones to blame for causing the well-known process of “Global Warming”, or trapping thermal energy.
I won’t say any more as to not make this post too long…
0
0
-
126
Shadowkat
in August 5th, 2007 @ 17:19125-Those 10,000 years weren’t stable. They fluctuated between miniature ice ages and warming trends. Those ice ages and warming trends, however, have conveniently disappeared. I need to review this section of the book before I go too in-depth, but, well…yeah.
0
0
-
127
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 6th, 2007 @ 12:49126-No, they have made it very clear that there were those “mini” warming trends and such, but the current one is so much higher than before, there is no comparing them…see the latest newsweek-I haven’t read it yet, but I’m going to…
0
0
-
128
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 6th, 2007 @ 13:18Ok, I’m readig the article…
I am typing after I read something of note:
A report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries said : “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
There is a 90% likelyhood that people are causing this, by releasing greenhouse gasses.
A conservative think tank funded by ExxonMobil offered scientists $10,000 to write articles that didn’t fully show the evidence from the latest models.
That’s just a taste.
And people try to say “water is the biggest greenhouse gas!”, but water has been around a good while longer than coal plants.
0
0
-
129
Dancergirl13
in August 11th, 2007 @ 11:56128- Wait, let me get this straight, those ExxonMobil people payed scientists money to not tell us the truth, and the scinetists actually did it?! That makes me really mad….
0
0
-
130
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 12th, 2007 @ 09:32129-I don’t know if all of them took it, but the ones who don’t believe in global warming have been getting all sorts of money from the oil companies. And most of the government scientists have been either told not to say anything, or are hired because they have an agenda. Here’s a list of what our previous cheif of staff had been doing before he became it, and where he went the day after he resigned:
Phillip Cooney:
Step 1. 1995- January 20, 2001 Worked for the American Petroleum Institute, was in charge of disinforming people on global warming.
Step 2. January 20, 2001 Hired as cheif of staff in the White House Environmental office.
Step 3. June 14, 2005 Resigns from his position*, goes to work for ExxonMobil the next day.
*He left the white House because someone leaked an article to The New York Times that was found out to have been edited down by him, taking all of the parts showing how the scientists found problems that would affect the American People out.
I guess the point of all this is, the ones who don’t believe in GW have been paid not to, and so saying they are scientists and so they must be right is not really logical once this has been exposed. But even with these paid scientists, all of the other ones who aren’t being paid have been warning us about this for decades.
0
0
-
131
Dancergirl13
in August 12th, 2007 @ 10:47130-Ya, they have been warning us for a long time, and they have good proof dont they? So why must the other scientists (I respect opinions, but now it just seems to me they are being stubborn or something) like you said, say since they are scientists so they are right? Something aweful could happen because so many people dont believe them. Well, wait, something already has happened. Our Earth is way too warm!!!! And look at all the pollution!!!!
I just want to say I wasnt trying to be sarcastic when I say ‘wait something already has happened’ , I just realized those things as I was typing them. And I am not a global warming expert and I dont read about it or anything, so please dont think I was being rude if I said something.
0
0
-
132
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 12th, 2007 @ 13:09131-And the sad part is, warming in some areas will make other areas VERY cold. Europe could go into an Ice Age if Greenland melts from the heat, as the water current that brings warmer water, and thus warms the continent, will almost stop from the cold, dense, fresh water sinking into it. The whole planet is in bad shape, and people need to do something instead of making absolutely sure we are to blame. 95% is good enough for me, and if we wait for 100% it will be too late.
I’m glad to see you are understanding me, I was begining to worry I wasn’t making any sense!
0
0
-
133
Dancergirl13
in August 12th, 2007 @ 19:37132-You make total sense to me. I hate it when people want to make sure it is 100 percent true just to be stubborn, becuase they dont like someone, or just want to be right becuase they said something before. Think about all the people who would die, all the animals who would die, this is REAL and people are going to ignore it. Now I am not talking about everyone, some people just are uneasy. But I wish those stubborn people would snap back to reality. Again, I am not an expert, so please dont get mad anyone!
0
0
-
134
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 13th, 2007 @ 14:27133-Thank you! Well, I hope nobody here will be mad, becuase as far as I know, none of them are climate scientists. There are some people here who think Global Warming isn’t true, though, and they will probably be here any time now…
Thank you again for understanding!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
135
Dancergirl13
in August 13th, 2007 @ 18:20134-I know, I dont mean to make people mad, I just want to help!!! I hate making people mad, so please, anyone here, please dont get mad!!!!
And thanks for understanding me too, sometimes I feel really dumb, becuase I dont know much about the subject, but I just want to say what I think, and help!
0
0
-
136
Unintended Pun
in August 14th, 2007 @ 00:01I don’t know much about global warming. I’m not really sure if I should believe that it’s natural or that it’s our fault. I think that people need to stop trying to figure out if pollution is causing global warming and just stop polluting. Global warming or not, it’s still destroying the environment in other ways. There’s stuff saying that global warming isn’t happening, and stuff saying it’s natural, and other stuff saying it’s our fault. I don’t get why the average temperature of the Earth going up 1 degree makes such a difference, but like I said, I don’t know much about this.
0
0
-
137
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 14th, 2007 @ 08:34136-One degree may not seem like much, true, but half of the problem is we should be in a cooling period, and the other half is, when it calculates out, a one-degree change at the equator is a 12-degree increase at the North Pole.
So what I’m trying to say is, because of the patterns the scientists follow, they can tell when we should be cooling or warming, and so when we are warming when we shouldn’t be, like now, there is an added factor beyond what nature does.
You may hear people say there are “natural cycles”. There are, but they are usually milder, and as I said before, we are going against what the current natural cycle should be.
You are totally right about the pollution. People who don’t believe in Global Warming should still try not to pollute so much. Sadly, some of the people against it are just so they can busy themselves arguing about it instead of working on cutting emmisions.
I hope I’m not overwhelming you, I just want to share some of what I know!
0
0
-
138
Dancergirl13
in August 14th, 2007 @ 18:30137-Wow. See I dont even know that much. And its not really too much. *sigh* I really need to learn more about it but, sadly, I am getting ready for school, and although I have time to post, I do not have time to thouroughly search the web. But I found what you said quite interesting, and now I know more!!!! Yay!!!
0
0
-
139
Shadowkat
in August 21st, 2007 @ 15:57132-So they’re covering all the bases. If the planet gets warmer, it’s our fault. If the planet gets colder, it’s our fault. They can’t lose, according to their rules. Unfortunately, their rules don’t exactly follow those of nature, or history.
136-It’s actually warming by .49 degrees Celsius per decade (?) I believe. The other paid scientists decided to exaggerate.
138-But you should still do some of your own research. I came to my point of view through making my own decisions after looking at information from lots of different sources. Looking at An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle would be a good idea.
0
0
-
140
Gimanator
in August 21st, 2007 @ 16:06but how reliable are those sources? how do we know the movies didn’t exaggerate as well?
0
0
-
141
Shadowkat
in August 21st, 2007 @ 17:34Well, we can make our own judgments on that, can’t we? I was simply pointing out two very different sources. She (or anyone else) can find anything else they want…I would, though, prefer if they didn’t only take information from those with one viewpoint.
0
0
-
142
Shadowkat
in August 21st, 2007 @ 17:34Er…well…you know what I mean.
0
0
-
143
Dancergirl13
in August 23rd, 2007 @ 21:07139-I will check it out. At the moment I am researching something else, but I will definately right that book down, and actually I talk to my friends about global warming, and we have different view points, its just that again we dont know that much. But we kinda heard some stuff in science class, so you know.
0
0
-
144
Red-tailed HAWK
in August 24th, 2007 @ 13:53Shadowkat, who is paying the scientists I have pointed out? I have given clear evidence that the ones you have pointed out were paid, but I haven’t seen any comments on who is paying “my scientists” and why. Do you have any real climate scientists who have not been paid or bribed who agree with your viewpoint? I would be interested in seeing their information if you have any…
0
0
-
145
treehugger (a.k.a. Wise Potato Gremlin)
in August 31st, 2007 @ 18:17I haven’t read all of the recent posts; I was just reading from the beginning and I was something that I have to somment on: “Piggy” (posts 23 and 24) needs to watch An Inconvenient Truth . Yeah, the Al Gore movie. Yes, the Earth is heating up. Yes, it is a problem. And yes, a lot, if not all, of the blame does go to us humans. If ya don’t think it’s a problem, READ THE ISSUE OF MUSE WITH THE GOLDEN TOAD ARTICLE IN IT! Y’know, not just Piggy, but everyone needs to watch An Inconvenient Truth who hasn’t already. Maybe Al Gore does talk about himself and his past a little more than he needs to, but look at the statistics he shows!!!
0
0
-
146
treehugger (a.k.a. Wise Potato Gremlin)
in August 31st, 2007 @ 18:19Aha! I just read some more posts (139 especially) and I guess I’m not the only one who’s seen An Inconvenient Truth!
-WPG
0
0
-
147
Red-tailed HAWK
in September 3rd, 2007 @ 10:05I’ve seen it.
I would be very interested in seeing some actually data from climate scientists, instead of cardiac surgeons saying how they “feel” about it. Just “saying” the Earth is cooling with no actual data is odd. How would they ever put laws into effect for anything if no actual information was given? Vague statements can never be used as proof that a theory isn’t true.
0
0
-
148
Dancergirl13
in September 3rd, 2007 @ 19:03I just have a strange question. Why dont people make laws about recycling, and make people recycle instead of just encouraging it? I cant think right now, maybe the answer is right in front of me…..
0
0
-
149
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in September 3rd, 2007 @ 20:29Maybe because it’s not that important, in the big scheme of things — at any rate not everywhere, not yet.
0
0
-
150
Beavo the Online Stalker
in September 5th, 2007 @ 14:43148-Because recycling takes up money, and some people don’t have the money to pay for a big truck that takes a box out in front of their house, and some people don’t have the time, and most don’t have the ability. Think if you were some old lady living on the third floor of an apartment building without airconditioning or elevators, and you had to walk down three flights of steps with a box full of cans and newspaper every Thursday?
0
0
-
151
Red-tailed HAWK
in September 5th, 2007 @ 18:26In my town I think it is the law. A lot of people don’t follow it, but it is the law. A lot of people aren’t old ladies in un-air conditioned appartments, and they should be recycling. The world’s resources don’t go on forever, certainly not at the rate we are using things. Another reason Nuclear power is bad…
0
0
-
152
Beavo the Online Stalker
in September 29th, 2007 @ 13:27151-NUCLEAR POWER CAN BE RECYCLED!!! We actually are that high tech.
0
0
-
153
Gimanator
in September 29th, 2007 @ 14:23152-how can it be recycled? Explain, please.
0
0
-
154
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in September 30th, 2007 @ 15:55I found an interesting story on Snopes.com. Everyone should read it. You can find it on Snopes by searching up “The Story of Two Houses.”
0
0
-
155
Red-tailed HAWK, PM of ICE, Leader of Zemtee and Captain of the Seahawk
in September 30th, 2007 @ 16:40154-I had not heard about that. It is very interesting. However, we must not be blinded by one house compared to the whole country. Standards should be raised and use of fossil fuels lowered in the entire country. That’s great he’s done that, if it really is true, but it just can’t make up for all of the big problems I’m afraid.
0
0
-
156
agagabagabag zepata (trevor the decent)
in October 1st, 2007 @ 10:15Excellent point,HAWK.
0
0
-
157
Dancergirl13
in October 1st, 2007 @ 16:01Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! I just read something by Jane Goodall about global warming. Here is her example: If you are sitting in a coffee shop in Hawaii and are putting sugar in your coffee, it could have originated across the street, but before it got to you it was flown to New YOrk to be whitened (which is pointless, it will taste the same, brown sugar is something different), and then to California to be packaged in little wasteful paper things that destroy the Earth, and then back to where you are. HOW REDICULES IS THAT? They do that with almost EVERYTHING!!! How horrible is that? People can be so stupid………
Also, sorry to bring this up, it is a hot topic, but I heard from various sources that George Bush was having a meeting to prevent anything from being done about Global Warming, now I know some people dont believe in Global Warming, but that doesnt mean we should destroy the environment in the process. I thought it was totally ridiculous and I wanted to throw the stupid radio across the room.
0
0
-
158
Red-tailed HAWK, PM of ICE, Leader of Zemtee, and Captain of the Seahawk
in October 1st, 2007 @ 16:38I was rather shocked to hear about the president’s house. If it is true, I have a hard time believing he wants to fix the whole country’s problems, such as the one dancergirl mentioned.
Part of the problem is the oil industry supports some political people, so they don’t want to blame Global Warming on oil or fossil fuels at all.
156-Why thank you, Agagabagabag!
0
0
-
159
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 1st, 2007 @ 16:42157-Yes, destroying the environment is stupid, with a capital S, but in my opinion Global Warming is a hoax.
I was just beggining to like my science teacher when I found out she was a tree hugger.
0
0
-
160
agagabagabag zepata (trevor the decent)
in October 1st, 2007 @ 17:17Smoke-tower hugger.
0
0
-
161
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in October 1st, 2007 @ 18:23152-How?
155-Did you even read the whole thing? That first house is Al Gore’s!!!! And did you guys hear that Al Gore was caught flying on a private jet? He is nothing but a big hypocrate.158-Helloooooo? The first house that was bad for the environment was Al Gore’s!! The second house that was good was Bush’s!!!!!
157-I am guessing that that is a rumor.
159-Fight the power man!!! Global Warming is fake! Saving the environment is fine, but Global Warming is false.
0
0
-
162
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in October 1st, 2007 @ 18:26Whoops! I spelled hippocrate wrong.
0
0
-
163
Alice
in October 1st, 2007 @ 18:52Supergeek, go at once to the Sea Roc RRR or I will never speak to you again.
162- You spelled it wrong twice. I think it’s spelled hypocrite. I think.
0
0
-
164
trevor the decent, snarkmaster, resident blog-spy
in October 1st, 2007 @ 19:06161- You ignore science, and yet you call yourself a geek. Shame.
0
0
-
165
trevor the decent, snarkmaster, resident blog-spy
in October 1st, 2007 @ 22:38161- HAWK understood you fine in 155. And you guess that one thing from a prodigous scientist is a rumor, and yet you tell of something just as unsure.
159- lt’s not a matter of opinion. lt’s a matter of willingness to believe the truth.
159- Man, that is just wrong. There’s nothing wrong with people who care about the world.
0
0
-
166
Shadowkat
in October 2nd, 2007 @ 15:14148-Because whether or not one recycles (along with many other actions) should be voluntary.
Alright, so I have come to a conclusion. According to Libertarianism, person A can not make person B do or not do something unless person B’s choice of action is harmful to person A. This would normally mean that person A cannot make person B protect the environment unless person A can prove that person B’s actions are harming person A. But, if person A is able to prove that person B’s actions are harming person A, then person A can tell person B what to do relating to that topic. So, if ya’ll can prove that what everyone else is doing is harming you, then you can make a law against our current actions, eh?
On a side note, it occurred to me that, even if we “take action against GW”, we’ve only been told that these actions taken against it will “minimize the effects” of GW. Therefore, whether or not what we did actually had any effect can never be proven, because what if the result was exactly what it would’ve been? And don’t tell me that computer models are the answer, because those can be programmed to have whatever result the maker pleases.
But, that’s just a side note…sort of.
0
0
-
167
trevor the decent, snarkmaster, resident blog-spy
in October 2nd, 2007 @ 18:25166- Only if you’re a libertarian. And with the models, give us some credit.
0
0
-
168
Shadowkat
in October 2nd, 2007 @ 19:10167-What’s “only if your Libertarian”?
0
0
-
169
trevor the decent, snarkmaster, resident blog-spy
in October 2nd, 2007 @ 19:33You’re. Sorry.
0
0
-
170
Dancergirl13
in October 3rd, 2007 @ 16:46159-What is wrong with someone who cares about the world? I care very much about it!!!
Ok, and for those of you who dont believe in global warming, I respect that. I am just saying that it is rediculous that some people who dont believe in it just assume that they dont have to care about the Earth or nature or anything anymore. Like my example in my last post when George Bush was preventing anyone from helping the environment, just because (this is my impression) he wants to be stubborn and stick to his point even if he knows he is wrong. I totally respect the fact that people dont believe in global warming, but again, that doesnt make it right to stop helping the environment, because either way our planet is in trouble. Within the next 50 years the rainforest is in huge danger of disappearing, and that is really bad news, over half the worlds species lives there, and think about all the trees that supply oxygen. This means a HUGE crisis for everyone living on this planet. And dont get the wrong impression of this post, I wasnt getting on anyone about their global warming opinion, I am just mad that he is trying to prevent things that are good for the Earth.
0
0
-
171
Red-tailed HAWK
in October 4th, 2007 @ 06:55161-I did understand you. I just don’t think one house in the entire country will make up for all of the problems.
I was also attempting to say that polititcians sometimes are given money by the oil industry, and so do not want the industry to go bankrupt when fossil fuel use would stop.
Sometimes being a politician envolves things that require a large house. This does not excuse it, but he might not want to spend all of his money fixing his one house, when he do better things with it.
Also, his house doesn’t make his facts false. One of the main issues with taking people who write books for their word is they can twist things, as some of you think Gore did. But anyone can do that, so when you have a book with lots of pure facts (not “oh the world is cooling!” but ” the world has been warming at exactly ‘x’ rate”), you must consider the idea that at least some of it may be true. Then you go to real facts, reports and data, and realize what is going on. It takes time, but it helps you become more knowlegable about a subject.
Has this been helpful? I may not always sound clear when typing these long posts but I try…
hug trees!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
172
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in October 4th, 2007 @ 09:44Wangari Maathai said that she thinks that she cares about people doing simple things like buying envirfriendly lightbulbs more than governmental and coorporative action. I’ll try to find the quote later.
0
0
-
173
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in October 4th, 2007 @ 13:16172: Let me repost that.
Wangari Maathai, the first and only Nobel Peace Prize for Enviromentalism Winner, said:
“This morning, I had a wonderful experience here in Seattle, Washington. We went to a small avenue here with kids from local schools and with the mayor, the local mayor, and we were planting trees in a little groove where there were some big trees, but we were planting some small trees with the children. It is that kind of activity, where the mayor, the local populations, and the children come together to do something that simple, but which demonstrates the dynamism, the commitment and the energy of the people of the United States of America.
And even before, when people would tell me that we need to do something about the fact that America had not yet signed the Kyoto Protocol, I used to say, “I’m not too worried about the fact that the government has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. I’m much more encouraged by the activities of ordinary citizens in America, those who are changing their bulbs and using bulbs that are saving energy, those who are deciding not to drive a car unless they have to, because they want to reduce the amount of fossil fuel and the amount of greenhouse gases that they dump in the atmosphere, those who are making those small actions, like those children this morning planting trees.†That’s what makes the difference.”
Wangari Maathai is a native Kenyan, but is currently living in the US. She is active in concerns of the affect of Global Warming on Africa, where the snows of Mt. Killomanjaro (sp?) are melting. This quote is from a recent interveiw by Democracy Now! which you can google as the GAPAs donøt allow links.
0
0
-
174
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in October 4th, 2007 @ 21:36163-Oh. WHoops!
171-OK, I understand. Still, we are cooling down here on Planet Earth, if only by a little, according to the most accurate temperature monitors, like satellites and stuff like that. I have nothing wrong with helping the environment, but I was disgusted when I got an issue of Time For Kids in school last year and it featured one of Gore’s plans for towns. He wanted to have supermarkets and public schools within walking distance of every home in America. Do you know how hard that is???? I know my school’s district is low enough on money and enrollment already! They have closed four schools in the past two years! I am sorry, but I do not think that plan is practical.
Also, many scientists have said that the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles every 500 years. If we start cooling down a lot, that means we could be headed towards an ice age! I guess everyone would be scared about Global Cooling then! LOL
172-That’s neat. BTW, Kilimanjaro.
I don’t think God would cause the end of mankind by global warming and ice caps melting.
0
0
-
175
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in October 4th, 2007 @ 21:38I forgot to add: In Sacramento, we are getting cool quick. A couple days ago, they said there was a chance of sleet in the Sierra, and its only October!
0
0
-
176
Shadowkat
in October 5th, 2007 @ 18:15169-Oops…sorry, I didn’t mean to misquote you. But I really meant “what’s ‘only if you’re Libertarian’?”…as in, what were you talking about?
Alright, ignore me, people…
0
0
-
177
Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows
in October 5th, 2007 @ 18:35163- I think you’re write! And I just posted, don’t worry.
0
0
-
178
agagabagabag xarcu zepata
in October 7th, 2007 @ 23:04Please change your name. You’re no geek.
0
0
-
179
purplefinch
in October 8th, 2007 @ 06:56What does God have to do with global warming?
We shouldn’t disbelieve the facts that say Global Warming is a threat, just because some people would prefer a different “messenger” than Al Gore.
0
0
-
180
purplefinch
in October 8th, 2007 @ 06:59I’m sorry. That sounds a bit… not nice. You can edit it if you want, GAPAs.
0
0
-
181
The Raven of the Hawk(Traggle)
in October 8th, 2007 @ 08:53God shouldn’t have anything to do with science, be it global warming or evolution.
0
0
-
182
purplefinch
in October 8th, 2007 @ 09:34181-That’s kind of what I’m meaning to say.
0
0
-
183
agagabagabag xarcu zepata
in October 8th, 2007 @ 10:07That’s ridiculous! God made science, didn’t he?
0
0
-
184
The Raven of the Hawk(Traggle)
in October 8th, 2007 @ 10:25183- That’s your belief. Unfortunately, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any sort of deity who might or might not have created the universe, so on that topic, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
0
0
-
185
Lawrence of Antarctica
in October 8th, 2007 @ 10:36Who cares about Al Gore? Because Al Gore does non-environmental stuff doesn’t mean that global warming is false! Many acclaimed scientists agree with global warming. Warming and cooling cycles have nothing to do with this. Warming has accelerated(is that how you spell it?) at a faster rate than ever before in this century. IT’S BECAUSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, PEOPLE. Just because Bush denies global warming for the sake of arguing with Democrats doesn’t mean Republicans should too! I know two Republicans who believe global warming.
Besides, God has nothing to do with this. There’s a Religions thread for that.
0
0
-
186
The Raven of the Hawk(Traggle)
in October 8th, 2007 @ 10:42185- There is no religions thread anymore. That always degenerated into flame wars. Actually, I think it’s time for a new one, now that FS has left MB. What do the GAPAs think?
0
0
-
187
Lawrence of Antarctica
in October 8th, 2007 @ 14:19Heh heh. I think I was partly responsible for the flame wars too.
0
0
-
188
Lawrence of Antarctica
in October 8th, 2007 @ 14:20174- A god who damns people to eternal torment? I think he would.
0
0
-
189
agagabagabag xarcu zepata
in October 8th, 2007 @ 17:09184- That’s not my belief. l’m an atheist. And science definitly proves most of religion wrong, but people deny it. What l meant was, why wouldn’t god have nothing to do with science? Oh, wait. l see. l thought you meant that as a diety he should avoid science.
0
0
-
190
Red-tailed HAWK
in October 13th, 2007 @ 19:13Hahah, I replaced some lamps in our house with cf’s on January 13, and one just burned out. The box said they would last nine years, but they were made in china…worse, it has a small crack at the base, and it looks a little gross at the bottom there…
We are going to find another source of bulbs…
0
0
-
191
Dancergirl13
in October 14th, 2007 @ 14:32I wish more people would recycle. That may have been random but I think it fits in with this thread. I get so mad when people are just too lazy to put stuff in their recycle bin. Its just like, you are living on this Earth with tons of other people, so you should do your share to take care of it. Respect, its important. Gosh.
0
0
-
192
Red-tailed HAWK
in October 14th, 2007 @ 18:57191-I hope in the future recycling will extend farther out. I know some people who don’t recycle because the truck doesn’t go to where they live. But yes, people in my town break the law by not recycling, and the guys on the truck don’t complain because they don’t have to stop…
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
193
Dancergirl13
in October 15th, 2007 @ 16:09192-I know it doesnt come to some people, in which case I understand, but those other people….they drive me crazy, and do you know how many people have told me the workers just dump the recycling in with the trash and drive on?! How stupid is that? OH MY GOSH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!!! People can be so ignorant, again, we all live on this planet!!!! *storms off*
0
0
-
194
Shadowkat
in October 15th, 2007 @ 20:27Golly, it’s been a long time…how on Earth did religion get into this?
0
0
-
195
Dylanthe_man
in October 15th, 2007 @ 21:48I live in Alaska and by now you usually see ice on the horizan at this time of year, but it is hundreds of miles away, if you count a couple mounds of slush here and there, ice.
0
0
-
196
MissSwann2223 is changing her name to Urania Rocks
in October 16th, 2007 @ 14:01Woww. There are three less glaciers in Glacier National Park.
0
0
-
197
Dancergirl13
in October 16th, 2007 @ 15:45195,196- Thats horrible……and really sad!!!!!
0
0
-
198
Red-tailed HAWK
in October 19th, 2007 @ 13:58196-Yup, they may have to change the name to dry gulch pretty soon. Depressing!
Hmm…who got the nobel prize? Hmmm…SOMEBODY thinks he’s right.
Storms and earthquakes raging across the country…not good…
Droughts across the country, with some cities possibly running out of drinking water within three weeks. Not good either.
RtH the WORRIED!!!!
0
0
-
199
Anna C
in October 20th, 2007 @ 10:06Global Warming doesn’t exist. Our planet has always had slight temperature changes and always will, all the hype is political.
0
0
-
200
Lady Cinnamon Moon of Orange
in October 20th, 2007 @ 10:59Welcome, Anna C! *pies*
0
0
-
201
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 20th, 2007 @ 11:10199-Another person who sees REASON! *pies* Welcome, welcome, welcome! *does happy dance for Anna C*
0
0
-
202
gimanator
in October 20th, 2007 @ 11:57199-please excuse me, miss Anna C, but even though we do have cycles, our warming cycle is way over where it should be, rising since the industrial beginings. Plus, as far as I know, we should be in the cooling phase at the moment, so that makes it an even bigger deal.
0
0
-
203
emmatheduck
in October 20th, 2007 @ 12:04199-Hi, welcome to MuseBlog! I don’t agree with that, but since you’re new I won’t attack you right away. Except with pies, of course!
*pies Anna C*
0
0
-
204
agagabagabag xarcu zepata
in October 20th, 2007 @ 12:15Hey, gim and l agree!
0
0
-
205
the man for aeiou
in October 20th, 2007 @ 12:21199- *pies*
0
0
-
206
Shadowkat
in October 20th, 2007 @ 12:31201-Ditto!
0
0
-
207
Dancergirl13
in October 20th, 2007 @ 15:31199- *pies* Welcome!!! But as I have said before, even if you dont beleive global warming exists, it doesnt mean we shouldnt help the environment, because anyhoo, all our pollution etc isnt good for the environment, we are still destroying it no matter what you believe about global warming. I personally do believe in global warming, as post 202 said. But WELCOME!!!!
0
0
-
208
nerdz_r00l
in October 20th, 2007 @ 16:34I haven’t posted for a while, but here I go. I think that the media hypes global warming too much. I don’t really think its a “catastrophy waiting to happen”.
0
0
-
209
Red-tailed HAWK GIVE ALICE CHOCOLATE!!!!!
in October 20th, 2007 @ 16:44199-Welcome, but beware that there are people with facts on this thread. *hugs Gim and agagabagabag and dancergirl and emma so tightly they turn purple* Sorry!
As far as I know, nobody opposing the theory of GW has given anything but disputable evidence or explanations. CNN is even putting on a whole series thing on climate change around the world, from Australia to Greenland.
Adapted from the story:
According to scientists, temperatures are up 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 30 years on Greenland, more than double the global average. NASA estimated in 2005 that the ice sheet was losing about 200 gigatons per year – roughly 200 times more than the amount of water Los Angeles uses every year.
And when they say global average, of course we must assume they mean the NEW global average. Species are only able to adapt to new environmental conditions over periods of thousands of years. Thus, temperature rises of a degree a year may not seem like much, but when that should have occured of a thousand years or more, and the rises started when we started releasing millions of tons of co2 into the air, it seems very clear.
I hope people read my post 198.
I also hope the anti-gw people will post some FACTS please, at the moment you seem to be delighting in posting obscure insults and celebrating in your supposed knowlege. If you feel so strongly, be brave! Come to the front of the stage, and enlighten us all!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
210
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 20th, 2007 @ 16:53207-Oh bah, us non-belivers are not just gonna let our planet go to heck and pollute all over the place and not worry about endangered animals and water, but that dosn’t mean we’re gonna blame it all on the industries. Where would we be without industry? Living in little grass huts and caves eating wheat berries.
Ethanol=more trouble than it’s worth.
Nuclear Power=:mrgreen:
0
0
-
211
nerdz_r00l
in October 20th, 2007 @ 16:58did you watch the 20/20 episode on global warming? Or read john stossles book? Well, he interviewed some scientists, and they laught at the idea of a global warming catastrophe. Here’s why:
they agency for global warming actually said that seal levels would rise only 6-24 inches. And besides, if se leves are going to rise that much, are we just going to stand there? No! we can build dikes, levees, and all sorts of buildings to keep the water out. Adjust to our enviorment.
0
0
-
212
nerdz_r00l
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:04sorry for double posting, but-
210-I agree. Nuclear all the way!
0
0
-
213
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:15211-Plus the fact that if ice burgs DO melt (which they won’t) then there won’t be a big gaping hole in the middle of the sea and water covering North America, there’s just going to be no ice burg! The water will fill in the hole were it was, and stay there. There will be about the same water level.
0
0
-
214
Red-tailed HAWK GIVE ALICE CHOCOLATE!!!!!
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:47213-Um LOOK AT A PICTURE of the surface of greenland please. The ice is on land, and so it will all run into the sea. Even the part that is in the sea goes above the sea. Glaciers are on land and can be very deep. But when entire glaciers disappear in 20 years, you have a problem. And they will melt, they have been melting, and disappearing. The entire antarctic is land covered by ice, and the entire arctic is ice surrounded by land.
The permafrost is melting too…
If one studies pictures and charts, they soon realize the classic picture book depiction of “the arctic” is not representative. And christmas wrapping paper with polar bears and penguins dancing with santa hats on is not realistic.
Also, solar and even wind is better than nuclear. I have heard that nuclear will only last 72 years, and besides, the waste is too nasty to think about before I go to bed. Solar doesn’t require deep pits to be dug to bury waste it doesn’t even create anyway.
I hope this post has been interesting and understandable, especially for the poor GAPA who will have to moderate it!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
215
nerdz_r00l
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:51214but then agaoin, at modern solar technologies, it’ll take 1,000 ACRES of land to power the amuzement park.
0
0
-
216
Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:54This discussion about sea levels makes me think about my aunt’s former beach front property. It’s now two lots’ deep away from the shoreline — under the ocean. Since she only has to pay something like 25 cents in taxes, she’s holding onto the title. Just in case.
North Carolina has been trying to hold back the ocean for decades, and so far many of the measures employed have only worsened the situation or created other problems.
0
0
-
217
Red-tailed HAWK GIVE ALICE CHOCOLATE!!!!!
in October 20th, 2007 @ 17:54213-By the way, just so you know, it’s Iceberg, and an iceberg is a floating mass of ice detached from a glacier and floating at sea. There shouldn’t be many of those left, as they will melt in the sea, but they will take more room because if they came off of a glacier, they used to be on land, and so when they fall into the sea they take up extra room. You’re thinking of them as ice floating in a glass of water that is full with the ice, but in reality you should be thinking of dropping ice into an already full cup.
Does this make sense? *hopes*
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
218
speller73
in October 20th, 2007 @ 18:06I think that global warming is a big problem. We need to find alternate energy sources, though I learned that hydrogen fuel cells are not reliable when I competed in science bowl. I am starting a project on the energy used at my school and ways we can cut down on it for a robotics competition. This years theme is energy. I took a quiz and found out that if everyone used the amount of energy that I do, we would need about 4 earths.
0
0
-
219
Kittykat
in October 20th, 2007 @ 18:25Double posting is awesomely awesome!
idea:
0
0
-
220
Kittykat
in October 20th, 2007 @ 18:26Uhhh! Why isn’t my kpink buny icon working?
0
0
-
221
Red-tailed HAWK GIVE ALICE CHOCOLATE!!!!!
in October 20th, 2007 @ 18:40220-Forgot the first :
Also, sometimes a space is required at the front of the line…There is an HTML thread if you are interested…
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
222
Dancergirl13
in October 20th, 2007 @ 20:30211-Ya, but think about how important the glaciers are to polar bears and penguins and seals etc, how will they live? Antarctica is very important!
218-I agree!!!
210-I didnt say that, I am just saying, some people are trying to prevent us from lessening our pollution, which I think is…..wierd (for lack of a better word). Because pollution is not a good thing, (please, i am not trying to sound harsh) give me one good reason its not. Industry is a good thing persay, but do you know how wasteful some people are? Back to the sugar in a Hawaii coffee shop, they fly things back and forth for the stupidest reasons I have ever heard (it is farther back on this thread somewhere). That is very wasteful, and if we cut things down like that, think of how much healthier our Earth will be. And pollution is destroying our Ozone, I dont think burning up from the sun is a fun way to die.
209-*gives Red-Tailed HAWK a hug back*
0
0
-
223
nerdz_r00l
in October 20th, 2007 @ 22:33then again, hydrogen isn’t that viable…it needs platinum, and If everybody switched to hydrogen, platinum would run out in years. All the platinum. And anyways, I have a contrarian streak.
0
0
-
224
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 20th, 2007 @ 23:08222-Point understood. I hate pollution with as much passion as lots of you. Why, yesterday I threw a dirty glance at a hot girl because she tossed a cigarette into the grass. (Which, is very rare, because I rarely throw dirty glances at hot girls). But you can’t blame it on the industry. True, shipping sugar to England or something and back just for it to turn white is stupid, but most industry is not horrible. I aggree with alternate fuel sources. We’re in the 21st century for heavan’s sake! COAL?! But ethanol don’t work, and neither does solar panels or wind power or water power. It would take more power to operate these facilities than they produce.
0
0
-
225
Red-tailed HAWK GIVE ALICE CHOCOLATE!!!!!
in October 21st, 2007 @ 08:02Just because the renewable technologies aren’t great at this point, doesn’t mean you don’t start making them better. It’s true they aren’t perfect, but do we want to start trying to fix them when the coal runs out and we don’t have a light to work by? Putting things off never works. It creates a rush at the end, and SERIOUS energy shortages. Even if you think co2 HELPS the environment (which I hope you don’t), coal and oil will only last a couple hundred years at best.
There are so many things that are renewable that we should be working on. Wind. Solar. Oscillating water columns, OTEC. HEP. And new ones may be discovered if we try. If humans are considered distinctive as a species as being adaptive and inventive, we ought to show it in the choices we make about energy. If we think ourselves the smartest animals on the planet, we are responible for saving it, especially because we caused the problem.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
226
nerdz_r00l
in October 21st, 2007 @ 12:58sorry, edit…
then again, hydrogen isn’t that viable…it needs platinum, and If everybody switched to hydrogen, platinum would run out in 2 years. All the platinum in the world. Solar technology isn’t viable to power the whole world, uranium will be quickly depleted if we switch to fission(nuclear fuson would be great), and ethanol would drive up prices of corn, and might creat a food shoratage in mexico. But then again, reducng pollution isn’t just for global warming. It’s for ourselves. And, by the way, many scientists don’t even think that global warming is that big of an issue. Carbon emmisions increase after temperature increases.
0
0
-
227
Beavo the Online Stalker
in October 21st, 2007 @ 15:50There’s not that much co2 in the air anyways. 2%. That’s not a lot at all. But I aggree, cutting down trees for huge random housing developments is stupid. I live in one of the fastest growing counties in the whole US, and they never seem to finish those stupid projects! I remember the cows, the wheat, and the huge trees. Now they’re all gone.
0
0
-
228
Dancergirl13
in October 22nd, 2007 @ 18:18226-just becuase many scientists dont think global warming is a BIG issue, it is still an issue that can become huge (I think it is a huge problem now) and it doesnt mean you should believe them. Red-Tailed HAWK has told us many times about how so many scientists agree to tell us false information for money, which is stupid. I would like to give those scientists a piece of my mind.
0
0
-
229
Dylanthe_man
in October 22nd, 2007 @ 18:58Whoops you’re all a bit exaggerating about the ice caps melting, it just froze over today, and I know because i saw it with my own eyes, but if we keep this up I won’t be able to see it all year around.
0
0
-
230
Hafiz
in October 23rd, 2007 @ 21:24Ethenol isn’t that great, but what about Sugarcane? Brazil has been running on that for its gas for Decades. It gives back 9 times the energy it takes to make it. Peoplethink about global Warming in centuries, when they should be thinking about it in decades, or half-decades. Solar Energy and wind power are both clean, and you don’t have to spend millions of dollars protecting the countries the wind blows in, or the sun shines. And what about India and CHina? China is pumping out a new coal plant about every week, and India about every month.
0
0
-
231
nerdz_r00l
in October 24th, 2007 @ 00:02Well, My contrarian streak gets me in the oddest of places…
228-paying the scientists? I don’t think so. Those scientists live in apartments…with barlely any power…I don;t think they get paid. I think thathat global waming is exaggerated. for 1-The media sells fear. And 2-the government has spent billions on global warming research, and doens’t want that money to go to waste.
230-Then again, you can only put wind farms in windy places, and you can only put solar panels in sunny plances.
0
0
-
232
Hafiz
in October 24th, 2007 @ 19:43231-But once their built, you don’t have to fight over where the wind blows.
0
0
-
233
agagabagabag
in October 24th, 2007 @ 22:49226- Many could mean 25. C’mon.
0
0
-
234
nerdz_r00l
in October 24th, 2007 @ 23:48232-huh? restate that.
0
0
-
235
Aeiou's Homeboy
in October 27th, 2007 @ 09:19I don’t like global warming. Its killing the polar bears, destroyng environments, and endangering our lives, and the lives of animals that we need to survive. CURSE YOU, OIL COMPANIES!!
0
0
-
236
Shadowkat
in October 27th, 2007 @ 12:26231-Hyping GW is also a way to gain control over peoples’ lives; if you can scare them enough, and make them think you can do something about it, they’ll hand over their freedoms in exchange for “security”.
0
0
-
237
nerdz_r00l
in October 27th, 2007 @ 18:41There’s something else I don;t like. Scientists make computer models. They ask the media to treat the computer models with “great scepticism”. Vut what do they do? thay don’t!
And another thing-most of the tmeperature increase of the century from 1900 to 200 has been caoused in the years 1900-1945. If we were the cause of global wrming, wouldn’t there be more warming
from 1946-2000?
0
0
-
238
Raven of the Hawk
in October 27th, 2007 @ 20:32236- That’s not what’s happening in the case of global warming. That’s what’s happened in the supposed “war on terror”. The only rights you could possibly take away to stop global warming would be the “rights” of greedy companies to destroy our environment for the sake of profit.
0
0
-
239
Dancergirl13
in October 28th, 2007 @ 15:55231-ask red tailed hawk about the paying, he knows more about it.
237-The point isnt whether we are causing global warming, its the point that we are making it worse.
0
0
-
240
Red-tailed HAWK is shortening his name...
in October 28th, 2007 @ 16:16Sorry, I’ve been busy…
Scientists were paid. I’ll try to get more info soon…
236-The only thing that could be taken away from you would be the right to burn gasoline in your backyard. There are so many things we could be doing to replace our current energy, it’s just scary how it isn’t being explored more. See my post 225 for many examples of new power options…
I have info on the temperatures rising, etc. and will post when I can.
235-You’re right. Polar Bears are drowning, the temperature MUST be rising!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
241
nerdz_r00l
in October 28th, 2007 @ 18:43240-only 4 polar bers drowned-and that was from storms.
I really admire the Scientists who dont wupport global warming. They’ve been given death threats. DEATH THREATS! and hate mail, lots of it…Good for them for sticking to their opinions.
0
0
-
242
agagabagabag
in October 28th, 2007 @ 18:46It is my opinion that Chicago is a mythical land and there is nothing that you can do to change that.
0
0
-
243
nerdz_r00l
in October 28th, 2007 @ 23:21242-did you post in the wrong thread?
0
0
-
244
agagabagabag
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 00:12No, l’m trying to prove a point. l’m stubbornly stating my opinion.
0
0
-
245
Shadowkat
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 15:51238-You’re twisting what you’re saying to make the companies sound like monsters. They don’t have a right to “destroy our environment for the sake of profit”, but they do have the right to do what they wish with their own property, as long as that action does not provably harm another who has not consented to said harm.
(I love using “said” in that way…it’s such fun!)
0
0
-
246
Raven of the Hawk
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 16:17245- Have companies ever asked consent of people who might be affected by polluted rivers, or acid rain, or smog?
0
0
-
247
Gilly
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 18:16this has nothing to do with the previous posts, but it is on topic:
ok, i think global warming is terrible and all, don’t get me wrong, but my science teacher told us that it’s mostly the planet that’s causing it, not people. people do cause some of it, but only a little. i mean, is it true that we are just in a period in geological time when the earth is warming? like in between ice ages, the earth gets warm, and that’s what our teacher said is happening now. is it true?
0
0
-
248
Dancergirl13
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 20:06Ok well, a good point was brought up the other day outside of the blog. Who cares what is causing global warming? We need to be aware of pollution and cause less emitions and less pollution anyway. If we keep arguing about whether it is caused by us or naturally it will be too late if we keep arguing. And since something has already caused it, why keep arguing about something in the past? The point is, we need to stop being careless and help the environment!!!!!
0
0
-
249
Beavo the Online Stalker
in November 2nd, 2007 @ 20:45248-How do we know how to “stop” global warming if you don’t know how it got started?
0
0
-
250
Dancergirl13
in November 3rd, 2007 @ 14:31249-Well think about it, the reason people are getting worried about global warming is because of all our pollution, right? Well we need to be more responsible about that anyway, because its horrible for the Earth anyway, so why dont we just stop being lazy and actually do something about that instead of just arguing about how it started? Because even if global warming is all natural, pollution causes problems anway, so once again why dont we just do something about the pollution? Did that make any sense?
0
0
-
251
nerdz_r00l
in November 4th, 2007 @ 14:47well, global warming is actually DECREASING by some statistics…
0
0
-
252
Dancergirl13
in November 4th, 2007 @ 16:31251-But once again the point is we need to stop polluting so much and destroying the environment.
0
0
-
253
agagabagabag
in November 5th, 2007 @ 00:35Perhaps l should refrase this.
It is my opinion that Chicago is a mythical land and there is nothing that you can do to change that. l refuse to change my opinion no matter what evidence you shove at me, and l will stubornly stick to my beliefs.
0
0
-
254
Red-tailed HAWK
in November 5th, 2007 @ 07:44OK, people, I’m just going to explain some things here:
WE are IN A COOLING PERIOD, not a warming one. I want to make that clear. If the temperature goes up one tenth of a degree right now, it is ALL the fault of humans. But it hasn’t, it has gone up quite a bit more. Even a degree or so up in 100 years is a drastic and disastrous change for the environment. Animals cannot adapt fast enough to make up for the changes, warmer world, food changes, inhabitable area changes, etc.
We know gw is cause by co2. co2 comes from natural sources, yes, but the Earth isn’t putting out more, we are.
OK, I have to go, but I’ll try to come back tonight to finish what I’m saying…
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
255
Sobriquet
in November 5th, 2007 @ 08:55Poor believers in global warming… you’re in the minority on this thread now.
An important point that isn’t really being stressed enough is that it’s not just CO2 from factories and such, it’s also methane from factory farming and the destruction of trees and algae that recycle atmospherically detrimental gases like CO2.
0
0
-
256
Beavo the Online Stalker Spy
in November 5th, 2007 @ 14:05252-And you suggest we do that by doing what?
253-I understand that I cannot sway you in your decision that Chicago is a mythical land, so we will listen to your proof that it is a mythical land. If we’re not swayed, we will thoughtfully not burden you with crap about how it isn’t mythical, because we understand that your belifes will not change, no matter what we do.
Including kidnapping you and carting you off to Chicago
0
0
-
257
Dancergirl13
in November 5th, 2007 @ 16:00256-Recycling (they burn alot of trash) making more fuel efficient cars, ride the bus, eat organic, there are so many things we can do, just think about it, its easy!
0
0
-
258
agagabagabag
in November 5th, 2007 @ 18:14256- Ah, but wouldn’t you rather that l knew the truth rather than letting me be stupid? Knowledge must come before happiness.
0
0
-
259
nerdz_r00l
in November 6th, 2007 @ 21:02my favorite answer:
A most excellent question! Who benefits? Those that plan to use the global warming ruse to seize power.
The Global Warming scam is at the base level, simply a play for power.
CO2 is generally accepted as only 0.033% (330 parts per million) of the gases in the make up our air. Well over 90% of the greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere is attributed to water vapor. Why are the proponents of man-made global warming focusing almost exclusively on CO2, when that particular gas has such a minuscule greenhouse effect? Because you can’t produce energy en mass with out producing CO2. So if you control the production of CO2 then you control the usage of energy, if you control the usage of energy then you control the economy and every other facet of life in a modern society.
It is all about control. The anointed elite socialists and communists get to seize power and tell us all how to live – all under the guise of saving the planet! Think about it – which groups squawk the loudest about man-made global warming? The UN, Europeans, Academia, Misanthropes, the main stream media, anti-capitalists and the rest of the hate America first crowd.
If the price for our advanced civilization, our food supply infrastructure, our economy, our convenience, longer and healthier lifespans, industry, and COMFORT turns out to be an increase in the world’s temperature by 1 degree Celsius on average over the last 100 years, I say GOOD.
0
0
-
260
agagabagabag
in November 6th, 2007 @ 22:54259- Ah, but is america truly great? ln my mind, the ideal civilization is that of enlightened people without need for divisions or rulers.
For such a smart group of people, it’s quite disturbing how few belive* in global warming.
*Sticking up for what you were told first, or in this case “believing”, isn’t necessarily good.
0
0
-
261
Beavo the Online Stalker Spy
in November 7th, 2007 @ 00:25258-As long as it’s not going to hurt anybody, and as long as you don’t turn into a mushball, and as long as you stay smart enough to stay on MuseBlog, then I’ll respect your firm belifes. My belifes in anti-GW aren’t THAT firm. I’d rather you knew the truth, but since your belifes cannot be swayed… In short, no.
Although I can say that I’m rather incredulous, even though I’ve never been to Chicago.
0
0
-
262
nerdz_r00l
in November 7th, 2007 @ 21:28260-I was just repeatimg something I saw in yahoo answers that loked good…
0
0
-
263
Sobriquet
in November 7th, 2007 @ 22:13259- Oh yes, because big companies have nothing to do with controlling our lives based on skewing information to serve their own needs, not to mention doing everything they can to make you psychologically attracted to their product or service… it’s those power grubbing scientists who need to be looked out for…
Seriously, I don’t mean to start anything, but how stupid can people get?
Companies exist to make profits. Scientists become scientists because they like to discover new things and find out the truth. At least, that’s why all the scientists I know chose their careers. And because I live in the biotech capital of the world, I happen to know a lot of scientists. All of them chose their careers because they are sincerely curious people who don’t mind questioning what is taken for granted. You’re doing the same thing, challenging accepted beliefs, which is a good thing, except in this case it’s a really dumb thing, because you don’t have any hard scientific evidence to back up your argument (and that means established studies, with references that are not from books with titles like “Global Warming Isn’t Real.” If you’re really desperate, and it’s a well written book, it should cite it’s sources either in the back or in the text itself) Research like that is the only thing we idiot scientists who actually believe in global warming are going to have a hard time dismissing outright with facts of our own. Come on, think like a lawyer!
0
0
-
264
nerdz_r00l
in November 8th, 2007 @ 21:53263-I thin the exact oppisite of you. Lawyers are bad, Scientists are good in the ase of global warming.
And yes, there is hard scientific evidence.
for example, only 4 polar bears died this year, nad that was from storms.
Most of the temperature increase oh the 20th century happened during the First part of the century.
Greenlands northern glaciers are actually thinckening, not melting. Only the southern greenland glaciers are melting.
scientists tell the media to view their computer graphs with “great scepicism”.
gloabl warming is actually stopping by some statistics.
0
0
-
265
agagabagabag
in November 8th, 2007 @ 23:48264- The lawyer part was the only weak part of what she wrote.
1. What is it, then?
2. How do you know that?
3. See last.
4. Can you prove it?
5. That’s because when you look at it with scepticism, it’s still bad.
6. Which are?
0
0
-
266
agagabagabag
in November 8th, 2007 @ 23:50My point is that some musebloggers say that one thing is fact, while others say the opposite. l actually don’t base my opinions on the subject on muser’s posts.
0
0
-
267
Sobriquet
in November 9th, 2007 @ 13:37I never understand why people hate lawyers so much… they’re a pretty integral part of our justice system and do serve to make things fair for those being represented, having someone with knowledge of the law making sure they get a fair trial… sure, some cases can be skewed because the lawyer is good or bad at his or her job, but how would you suggest we run the court system without them? Never mind, off topic, off topic…
And you just proved my point. You didn’t even mention a source for any of those “facts,” much less cite a scientific study.
0
0
-
268
nerdz_r00l
in November 9th, 2007 @ 18:56267-
alright, I cited it from a study by agroup of scientists from norway or sweden, and article from athe daily tlegraph, time magazine, and John stossel’s book.
I used to believe In globable warming, until I realized that in the year 1970, during the first earth day, students said by the year 2000, the earth would be starving and thirsty for energy. It’s just human nature to think the world is coming to an end.
0
0
-
269
Dancergirl13
in November 11th, 2007 @ 15:55Once again I think people should stop arguing about if global warming is real and just focus on reducing pollution, because it is STILL BAD even if you dont believe in global warming.
0
0
-
270
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in November 11th, 2007 @ 16:01If you don’t believe in global warming, however, you don’t think carbon dioxide is pollution.
(Well, apart from its role in putting more carbonic acid into the oceans. Even if CO2 weren’t a greenhouse gas at all, putting more of it into the atmosphere would still be bad for some sea creatures.)
0
0
-
271
greekgurl the Latin speakin geek freak!
in November 11th, 2007 @ 16:03270- interesting, and although our manmade resources contribut much more, overpopulation could be killing our planet becuase with every breath we take, we exhale CO2……..I believe in global warming though, i have to, my mom teached college level Enviromental Science (that explains away some of the geek)
0
0
-
272
Raven of the Hawk
in November 11th, 2007 @ 16:08CO2+H20=H2CO3, right?
0
0
-
273
greekgurl the Latin speakin geek freak!
in November 11th, 2007 @ 16:16no idea, ask some other geek
0
0
-
274
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in November 11th, 2007 @ 16:42That’s the reaction.
0
0
-
275
Cedar
in November 11th, 2007 @ 17:42I thought An Incovenient Truth with Al Gore was a really good documentary about Global Warming.
And Al has a strangely gentle way of narrating.
0
0
-
276
the man for aeiou
in November 11th, 2007 @ 20:06I thought that the book is better if you do not read the stuff about his life.
0
0
-
277
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in November 12th, 2007 @ 16:22People-The time has come for us to stop talking about whether or not global warming is something we believe in. We don’t talk about whether we believe that the sun is hot, or the ocean filled with salt. It seems as if all this believing and disbelieveing is hiding the bigger picture: the plantet is tilting into a worse situation than the one it is in right now.
Hurricanes get more powerful, droughts longer. The oceans higher, the desserts larger. No, New Orleans would not be the wastewhole it is now if it weren’t for Global Warmong.
0
0
-
278
Red-tailed HAWK
in November 12th, 2007 @ 18:01I have something good I can post sometime soon, I hope!
The fact is, Whatever data you have or say isn’t trustworthy due to this or that, you can just (a) look at how much CO2 we put out every day (b) examine the very well understood theory of the greenhouse effect and (c) put the two together and realize the world cannot be in anything but a bad situation becuase of the result.
You cannot deny we are putting out pollution. You can see it being pumped into the air, even on any road with cars (or cows! Methane!)
The theory of the Greenhouse blanket trapping heat is fully understood and demonstrated.
And when you put the two things together, the result is temperatures rising in some places and falling in others, with overall changes disastrous to the planet.
And I should make this clear: there is no reason Climate Change shouldn’t be called a theory. There really isn’t any complete fact, anything can be questioned. But I guess there is one fact, having a theory to support you view is the best you can get. They don’t get a theory from nothing, it is formed when many scientists give data suggesting the same thing, and they all agree that something is happening, and so what they have discovered is the best in the world (at least at that time).
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
279
nerdz_r00l
in November 12th, 2007 @ 19:13275-I think the movie was good, except the data was bad. Did you know that al gores teacher asked him to treat his graphs with great scepticism? But he didn’t…
And, to make it clear, I sort of am neutral on global warming, the stats contadict themselveles. I don’t think global warming is a huge catastrophe,though.
0
0
-
280
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in November 13th, 2007 @ 02:33279- *cough, splutter* New Orleans? Anybody? My friends lived there. No, of course it wasn’t a catastrophe….
0
0
-
281
Raven of the Hawk
in November 13th, 2007 @ 18:56Don’t want to sound unfeeling or anything, but it would help if New Orleans hadn’t been built below sea level.
0
0
-
282
nerdz_r00l
in November 13th, 2007 @ 23:24280-Global warming didn’t exactly cause hurricane katrina though…
0
0
-
283
agagabagabag
in November 16th, 2007 @ 20:54Ooh, l thought of something.
Isn’t the greenhouse gass source cows?
0
0
-
284
Beavo (and such)
in November 18th, 2007 @ 12:27281-Yeah, and it also would have helped if the scientists had built better levis to hold back the storm surge.
0
0
-
285
agagabagabag
in November 18th, 2007 @ 13:18You wanna build the levis?
0
0
-
286
Cliff Eagle Teh Pwnage
in November 18th, 2007 @ 14:50As someone who’s mom is a New Orleanian, I don’t think it was the levee’s fault. The person to blame for Katrina is FEMA and George Bush who probably can’t find Louisiana on a map.
0
0
-
287
agagabagabag
in November 18th, 2007 @ 15:11About the cows: Whose fault is it that their population has exploded?
0
0
-
288
Red-tailed HAWK
in November 18th, 2007 @ 17:20287-Ours, of course. You are right.
Levees people, and maybe we shouldn’t try to live where we have to constantly worry about floods and protect against it. No, the coast has never been a good place to live. It seems to me building where you know it is even natural for the tide to come in and do some natural selection work is no better than shooting yourself a couple of times because, “well, the fire department just bought a new ambulance!”
Prevention is key. Just like using less energy, or not buying a 80 square mile television and instead investing in enough solar panels to power your 30″ set.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
289
Beavo (and such)
in November 23rd, 2007 @ 12:38288-I beg to differ. The coast is a wonderful place to live. I know lots of people who live on coasts. It’s not just great because of the tourist attraction of swimming and resorts and spas, but also because some people make their living off of the ship building industry, and even more people off of fishing. Please don’t rant at me about how horrid and inhumane fishing is. Without people on the coast, our economy would be a lot worse off. Do you expect people from other countries shipping goods to just “leave the stuff there and we’ll send you a bill in the morning”? I think not. And airplanes are “polluting” and we don’t have fuel for the airplanes that aren’t.
If we could develop technology that would allow us to live there without being pounded and having a whole ‘nuther Katrina every hurricane season, why not? If you use it responsibly, of course. No building on alligator nests.
Yes, the evacuation was very crappy. We could have had a much lower death count if people got out of there faster, and I put the blame for that on George Bush and his bogus “scientists” who should have known what to do. It’s their job to study science. THEIR JOB.
And solar panels that power places are HUGE. There’s this barn place a few towns down from where I live and it takes a HUGE area to power just that barn. HUGE. Not like football huge, but still way to big to have on every house property.
0
0
-
290
agagabagabag
in November 24th, 2007 @ 19:20So why not an even huger one for every house, hmmmm?
0
0
-
291
Red-tailed HAWK
in November 25th, 2007 @ 19:15I am not sure what technology they are using for the barn solar power, but many regular houses can even earn money by feeding extra power from solar panels into the grid system. Just from the panels on their roof, or some out on a hill that they aren’t using.
Work still needs to be done, but they can make solar panels for space satellites. The basic technology is there, we just need to keep working on it.
Solar panels really need to be on the roof of your house, not in some distant land over the horizon as we want the coal plants to be. The fact that they put power plants far from most houses shows how nasty they are. But to have enough solar panels to account for power loss over the distance in the power lines would be impractical, as you cannot have sqaure miles of land just for solar panels. Roofs aren’t used for anything else, so it seems quite logical to put the panels on the roof.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
292
agagabagabag
in November 25th, 2007 @ 19:46l made an electronic design for a solar module that stores electricity.
0
0
-
293
Cat's Meow
in November 26th, 2007 @ 15:06Let’s just build a giant sphere around the entire earth that’s covered in solar panels. That should provide enough electricity. Of course, it would probably kill us in some other way, so maybe that’s not the best idea.
0
0
-
294
Beavo (and such)
in November 26th, 2007 @ 15:26291-“Some hill that they aren’t using?” The little hills that are left not in use are covered in trees, and we can’t cut down all the trees, can we?
0
0
-
295
Dancergirl13
in November 26th, 2007 @ 16:38Oh man I am sooooooooooo ticked. I live in a small town, and when my mom was growing up it was so much smaller and if we drove 5 minutes in one direction there would be tons of trees. Wll now they are cutting down like……..ALL OF THEM for stupid subdivisions when people ARENT EVEN BUYING HOUSES!!!! *throws the tv across the room* ARG! I hate the dude who does all that, the guy who keeps buying all the land and cutting down the trees, etc etc is rich, has a ginormous house, and lives on a huge amount of land on which there are no trees except little ones they plant in certain spots after they cut down like the other hundreds. RRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! Who else is extremely ticked?
0
0
-
296
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK! 
in November 26th, 2007 @ 19:19295-Me. There’s a rich guy in my town, and he’s always finding another place to put a building. The latest is going to involve bulldozing at least five old (maybe close to historic) houses farther down on Main street to build a shopping center. Across the street from the giant gas station, another shopping center, and just up the hill from the massive shopping center including a huge walmart and *chokes on own spit* TWO starbucks, in my tiny little town. One is in a store, the other, a mere 500 feet or so across the parking lot, its own building w/ drive-through. There is so much commercialism in that whole stretch it could make you want to…throw the tv across the room. Only we don’t have one. Anyway.
293-Do I sense sarcasm?
294-No, leave the trees, please, the hills people have in their yards that are so steep they kill themselves trying to mow them. The bare eroding ugly slopes they create when they perch these new homes on hills that would otherwise be too lumpy to build on. You can’t sit on that portion of lawn, why not put solar panels on it? I did not mean a hill of solar panels to power many homes, the best way to use solar is to have the panels right where the power is needed.
And living along the coast isn’t a good idea because of natural disasters. I’m not saying you don’t have a good reason to want to live there, but there are many reasons it is not a good idea.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
297
agagabagabag
in November 26th, 2007 @ 22:24293- That’s stupid. When has anyone said anything like that? Oh! How about, “Lets kill the civilians of a country and turn a great cultural city into a hellhole to defeat terrorists!” Or maybe “Let’s force everybody to buy different health insurance! That’s good for individual companies that have hospitals far away from each other, and it solves overpopulation!”
294- Yet you ignored the roof part. Are you admitting that that part was rational? Or can you only point out the bad in it cause you’re hardwired against it?
0
0
-
298
Dancergirl13
in December 10th, 2007 @ 08:42Um this is random, but I saw posts earlier on this thread that said going veg is about animal rights, not the environment, but actually TONS of people go veg to help the environment. All those meat factories cause a ton of pollution, and then they have to transport the meat which also causes polllution, and there is the growing of food for the animals which uses over 70% of our farmland. Etc. Just thought I would point that out.
0
0
-
299
Unintended Pun
in December 14th, 2007 @ 11:11I have to do a speech on the effects of global warming. It’s actually quite interesting.
251 million years ago the global temp. rose 6 degrees and 95% of living species became extinct.
In the worst case scenario this could happen to us within the next century.
Not only is there a hole in the ozone layer, but there is more low-level ozone.
The polar ice caps are melting rapidly because the poles warm faster than lower latitudes. The average temp. at the South Pole has actually risen several degrees, not just fractions like middle latitudes.There is a lot more but I don’t remember it right now.
0
0
-
300
nerdz__r00l, cheese lover
in December 18th, 2007 @ 21:53www. whatreallyhappened. com/globalwarming.html
www. junkscience. com/Greenhouse/
299-it might’ve rose 6 degrees,but also other factors contributed to the dieout.,
0
0
-
301
gryphon
in December 21st, 2007 @ 10:08My opinions are basically the same of E2MB’s in post 1.
2) Methinks E2MB is addicted to Museblog.
293) hee hee. Problem is, there isn’t that much silicon in the world.
0
0
-
302
KaiYeves
in December 23rd, 2007 @ 16:42This is a very serious topic and one that I care about a lot. But doing little things can help a lot.
If you’ve never heard of it, look up the essay “Pale Blue Dot”.
0
0
-
303
Lord de vere
in December 30th, 2007 @ 18:40Global Warming is a serious danger to “ourselves and our postarity”(from the preamble of the constitution of the United States of America),so indeed we must reduce this danger this effect which could effect the future generations for the worse.We can do this by reducing our use of the item(s),service(s),and ideals that effect the world,and instead may use Geothermal Energy, Solar Power ,and water to power our earth,Got to Go for dinner.
P.S. I hope this isn’t to complicated.
0
0
-
304
The Man For Aeiou
in January 7th, 2008 @ 10:59301- thats cus Your E2MB!
0
0
-
305
KaiYves
in January 7th, 2008 @ 18:59In the past fifty years, we’ve seen a lot of planets, moons and other sorts of worlds. We’ve seen worlds so cold the atmosphere itself freezes and worlds where the air is sulfur. We’re seen moons scorched by sun and torn apart by tidal forces.
But we have NEVER seen another world upon which humans could live unaided.
And that is why this one is so important.
0
0
-
306
Beavo
in January 13th, 2008 @ 15:54297-I doubt that roofs are big enough. And plus, even if solar panels were smaller, they’d need a lot of replacing. Roofs aren’t the best place for fragile items. Not like sliding off or something, like there’s a lot of stuff that can happen up on a roof.
0
0
-
307
agagabagabag
in January 20th, 2008 @ 20:11Read As the world Burns: 50 ways to stay in denail.
0
0
-
308
nerdz__r00l
in January 24th, 2008 @ 19:25face it, not all data points to global warming…
but I do believe in changing the polution in the cities, just not that it causes global warming.
0
0
-
309
KaiYves
in January 27th, 2008 @ 14:50307- Why. I don’t want to be in denial. Denial is dangerous.
0
0
-
310
agagabagabag
in January 27th, 2008 @ 23:54The title is a joke. lt’s about how doing things like recycling aren’t enough to stop our problems.
0
0
-
311
KaiYves
in January 28th, 2008 @ 15:58310- But that doesn’t mean you SHOULDN’ T recycle.
0
0
-
312
koko's apprentice
in January 29th, 2008 @ 16:31recycling does help, but you need to do other things to, like carpooling.
0
0
-
313
agagabagabag
in January 29th, 2008 @ 17:53Ironnically, that’s another too-small thing.
311- Soda production pollutes. lf you recycle soda cans, you only make more soda.
0
0
-
314
koko's apprentice
in February 2nd, 2008 @ 17:34yea, but if you don’t recycle soda cans, they will pile up in solid waste and create even more pollution then they would. plus, the company is going to keep making soda regardless of whether you reycycle the cans+bottles or not. so, we come to the conclusin we should reycycle soda bottles+cans, or else it will get plenty hotter!
0
0
-
315
KaiYves
in February 2nd, 2008 @ 20:13A friend of mine on another forum said that if everybody sent him their used soda cans, he would probably have enough metal to build a moon rocket.
0
0
-
316
agagabagabag
in February 3rd, 2008 @ 17:04314- lt’s just as bad either way. Solution: don’t drink soda.
0
0
-
317
Piggy
in February 7th, 2008 @ 07:45There is simply not enough evidence to support the fact that global warming is caused by human activity. The Earth is coming out of an ice age. Humans are not causing the Earth to heat up because human carbon dioxide emissions make up less than 4% of all greenhouse gases. The rest is natural. End of story.
0
0
-
318
KaiYves
in February 7th, 2008 @ 10:48317- Are you accusing National Geographic and the United Nations of lying?
0
0
-
319
Bobbyjkl
in February 9th, 2008 @ 00:42There have been many ice ages and warm periods. Unfortunately, we are switching between the two. I don’t know if our man made global warming is a major factor in this, but I am assuming that water levels will rise and people will die, even if we all stop polluting this second. Which is not possible. IT would take a long time for our own pollution to go away.
0
0
-
320
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon
in February 11th, 2008 @ 14:57319- man made global warming is the major part in this.
I’m scared. The ministers are considering utting a team of scientist on the job of making the evacuation plans, as københavn will be right after the netherlands in the race to get flooded.
0
0
-
321
KaiYves
in February 11th, 2008 @ 15:43320- I feel for you, Vixen. I live in a low sea level area, too. We can stop this from getting worse, but first the deniers in high places must admit that it is a real and very serious problem.
0
0
-
322
nerdz__r00l
in February 14th, 2008 @ 19:25then again, people will have plenty of time…
come on, even if the sea is rising, people will have DECADES to prepare for this…they’re not just going to stand around and waint for the sea level to flood towns….
0
0
-
323
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [9,637 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points]
in February 15th, 2008 @ 20:00I really don’t have time to say much here, but I have been plenty active enough in the past. Try to find some of my posts, and understand them. They may help.
But in the mean time, Yes, our pollution is only a small part of the whole spectrum of greenhouse gasses. But it’s just enough to tip us over the balancing point.
When a planet survives and adjusts itself for billions of years, it begins to fall into a cycle. A balanced cycle starts up, and because generally natural occurrences will not change this pattern, or will eventually work into the pattern that repeats, the planet will remain stable in its own way. Life will have time to change its ways to fit new circumstances that arise. OUTSIDE FORCES come in and interrupt this pattern every now and then. The dinosaurs went extinct because an outside force–one that was not part of the Earth and didn’t come in in a way that allowed for adjustments–came, an asteroid. Then, a while later, another huge bulk was chunked at the Earth and its main inhabitants. People. Burning coal. And wood. And cutting trees. Etc.
I will happily address any concerns that arise later, and I hope I am being understood.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
324
Piggy
in February 18th, 2008 @ 13:45I state again that humans are not the main cause of global warming. I do believe the earth’s temperature is rising, but man’s contributions are a very minor part to this rise. Even if man was causing it, there is nothing we can do to get the environment back to “normal”.
I’m not saying the world government are lying to us, keeping us scared and controllable, like during the Cold War, but even governments and scientists are affected by peer pressure. Like I am, any scientists who argues against man-made global warming is ridiculed and not believed. And must I remind you that the U.S. Congress has only one scientist in it?
However, I am all for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and getting rid of as much pollution as possible. Oil will not last forever, and pollution is killing animals. Our cutting down of forests are destroying species that have not even been discovered, as well as possible medicines that could save millions of lives around the world.
(In keeping with the extemp spirit-) Today, we have looked at the fact that humans are not and can not cause global warming, how our governments are not always right, and why living “greener” is still an excellent idea. I hope that my schpeel has opened at least one person’s eyes to the unpopular truth: global warming is not caused by man.
0
0
-
325
Daisy*chain
in February 19th, 2008 @ 21:42I personally think that global warming is caused by man, not completely, but a great part of it…
We are basically the dominant species. We have gone mad with power. We are killing forests. We are killing animals. We are even killing each other!! Humans are the only species that kills its own kind. I don’t mean species killing for food. We are the only species that kills for vengeance or for power. At least animals eat what they kill, so they have a reason.
I do agree with you, Piggy, that global warming is not completely caused by man. Just like the Ice Age was not caused by man, this coming Global Meltdown is not caused by man either. Well, not completely. We have speeded up the process quite a lot.
These are my thoughts, and I do not mean to disprove anyone or anything like that.
0
0
-
326
agagabagabag (1 piepoint)
in February 20th, 2008 @ 09:55324- People don’t understand that global warming is not an issue of belief. lt’s proven to be man-made, and to say otherwise is unnescessary stubborness.
0
0
-
327
agagabagabag (1 piepoint)
in February 20th, 2008 @ 10:0244- Waah! l just reread that! New York can speak for itself, but that you saw at SF was fog.
0
0
-
328
KaiYves
in February 23rd, 2008 @ 20:57326- Indeed. It has been proven scientifically. Sure, I would LIKE to believe that it wasn’t happening, but that wouldn’t be true.
The idea that I could stop doing all I do to help, the idea that I could just back down, is tempting, but I’m strong in the Force and I will not give in.
0
0
-
329
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [9,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points]
in February 26th, 2008 @ 20:35A couple of points:
We should be headed towards an Ice Age, so there are no natural processes which would be supplementing the human influence on global temperature rise which has in recent years become accelerated much beyond the historically acceptable rate.
I do not see what the great absence of Scientists in the United States Congress has to do with anything. That is the PROBLEM. Scientists are trying to show us how global warming is real, the government has done very little. The US is THE BIGGEST contributing nation in the world to greenhouse gasses released, besides the obvious natural instances which have been present throughout history. Yet, though we are very forward-thinking on many of the major issues, we are the ONLY COUNTRY which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol (Australia signed, I said before they were the only other country, well, now we’re alone. Something to be proud of?
)Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
330
KaiYves
in March 6th, 2008 @ 07:09Yay Australia!
0
0
-
331
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [9,237 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points]
in March 6th, 2008 @ 17:06330-Yes!
There is a really neat site packed with information about (mainly) garbage and recycling and where it’s going and such. It has so much information it would be impossible to bring it all here, and there is a 20 minute video which is quite funny.
GAPAs, below I will say how to get to the site without using a link, do you think it’s okay?
The website is: www dot story of stuff dot com
You will want to remove the spaces and change the “dot”s to “.”s
I hope you enjoy it, if the GAPAs approve of it…
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
332
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [9,237 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points]
in March 12th, 2008 @ 19:39331-Wow, that’s really amazing. Thank you sooo much for providing me with this cool resource! I really appreciate it.
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
333
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [9,237 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points]
in March 15th, 2008 @ 17:35Yipeee!!!!! My very own thread!!! *Jumps up and down*
332-You’re soooo welcome, I’m glad to help
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
334
Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon (of the 2 spdzk)
in March 15th, 2008 @ 17:46331* will definately check it out, but is watching vampire movie currently.*
0
0
-
335
Alice
in March 15th, 2008 @ 17:48Hi HAWK.
Mum and I are going to work on reducing our carbon footprint. It’ll be easier in the summer. No bus to ride, fresh food available, no need to heat the house, etc. On one of those calculator thingies we calculated that the carbon footprint of our household was about 11 tonnes a year! 0.o The scary thing is, that’s almost half of the average carbon footprint for people in the US!
One problem with CFPC (carbon footprint calculators) is their view on meat. Perhaps it takes more energy to produce meat than vegetables, I understand that bit, but depending on your region, eating vegetarian could cut out a lot of your local food options, thus not lowering your carbon output at all.
0
0
-
336
KaiYves
in March 15th, 2008 @ 18:25March 29th 8-9 PM is Earth Hour. If you want to participate, turn off all nonesential electrical devices during at eight, local time. Here’s the de-linkified site:
www . earthhour. org /
0
0
-
337
The Man For Aeiou
in March 22nd, 2008 @ 19:49Just came up with this:
5 steps to stop Global Warming:
1. make Solar Power the cheapest option for power.
2. Have the UN pay to install these.
3. create solar cars.
4. have gas fazed out over ten years.
0
0
-
338
ZVX, formerly known as Mouse. (210 piepoints,
in March 29th, 2008 @ 17:53KaiYves, i just took a look at earth hour. COOL.
0
0
-
339
agagabagabag (101 piepoints)
in April 19th, 2008 @ 21:43337- That’s for steps.
0
0
-
340
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,937 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 17th, 2008 @ 14:42GAPAs, when you have a chance to make threads, could we have a new Global Warming thread? Sorry to make two thread requests in a row!
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
341
Logogeo96
in July 21st, 2008 @ 08:04My dad wants a electric car with four seats (smart car eliminated).
the problem is most electric cars like that can usualy only go 25mph so the only car we can find acceptable is the zap xebra which can go 40mph but zaps aren’t exactly legal everywhere. *sigh* When I’m old enough to drive I’m going to try to get a Zap Alias, a finaly more practacle electric sports car that comes out next year! top speed 100mph battery lasts 100+ miles! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
342
Logogeo96
in July 21st, 2008 @ 08:12To see that there really is a wide variety of electric cars on the market contrary to popular belief here is a list of american electric car companies:
-Zap
-ZENN
-Miles
-Tesla motors
-Dynasty
Go to green caar congress’s website for more! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
343
Logogeo96
in July 21st, 2008 @ 10:10342- There should be a period inbetween belief and here, and there’s only one a in car! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
344
Logogeo96
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 07:23Did anyone here know that 1/4 of all mammals, 12% of all birds, one in three fish, and probably more than 50% of all flowering plants and insects! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
345
Veni, Vidi, Vici
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 07:52344- Are Endangered (forgot to finish)! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
346
Logogeo96
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 08:08365- Oops, the last time I posted using this computer I was Veni, Vidi, Vici! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
347
Logogeo96
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 08:37Did anyone know that if global warming continues scientists predict it will kill 6.5 billion HUMANS (that means you) in the nex century and there are only 6.4 billion people who live on this earth today! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Also, does anyone remember last summer when scientist predicted an ice free arctic ocean by as early as 2040 well there was a revision made so now it is predicted that there will be an ice free arctic ocean by 2012, no lie, if global warming continues! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
348
KaiYves
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 08:38342- Elon Musk, the guy behind Tesla Motors, is AWESOME! Most people would get rich of the Internet and then retire, but he started a company to create electric cars and THEN another company that does satellite launches.
0
0
-
349
Logogeo96
in July 22nd, 2008 @ 10:20348- Yes, according to one online article starting electric car companies is the latest hobby for the super-rich! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
350
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 08:37EPA recently anounced that Global Warming will happen in the US and things will heat up! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
351
 ¡Red-tailed HAWK!  [6,537 piepoints ©, 16 spdzk points and 22 KAG points] �|�
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 08:49350-And did you see how certain people in the government tried to stop them from releasing it?! That really proves something’s being kept from us. If it’s not happening, why are they so worried about it getting out?
Red-tailed HAWK
0
0
-
352
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:04351-Maybe they don’t want to raise an unnecessary uproar.We don’t need any more people freaking for no reason!
Look, I don’t mind the electric car idea and all, but there is NO such thing as global warming. It is a perfectly natural fluxuation of the temperature of the earthen core.The earth cools and warms in a normal cycle. Back in the 1970’s they said we were going into the next Ice Age. Hey, no Ice Age. What does that say? There have been many ice and heat periods in the history of the world, and this is certainly no different.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. 800 AD to 1250 AD? During this period, just before the “Little Ice Age†(about 1300-1850), temperatures were about 2º C higher than present days, something that opened vast areas in Europe and Russia for agriculture and trading, and allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland, because it didn’t have the present thick ice cover. Those were not Apocalyptic years, as shown by the huge leap forward experienced by makind in terms of agriculture productivity, commerce and opening of new territories for all kinds of human beneficial activities!It’s not us killing the polar bears, nor is it the CO2. It’s the fact that the core of the earth is heating and cooling in a perfectly natural cycle. What seems clear is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not high among them.
0
0
-
353
Agrrrfishi
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:06Sorry for being so strong worded. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I speak only the truth.
0
0
-
354
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:13Sources of information, both sides?
0
0
-
355
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:39351- The government has been trying to deny it forever when its been scientificaly proven that speicies of animals have been dying out due to it since the 1970’s. I learned this from the “A Warning From The Golden Toad” article in the September 2006 Global Warming issue of MUSE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
356
100% cotton
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:43i’ve always wanted to do a survey of my town (or anytown really) to see how much people new about the environment and globla warming, what they could do to lessen their impact, and how much they actually did.
0
0
-
357
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:43352- Even if its natural and not killing polar bears its still killling other species of animals like toads! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
358
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:49352- Did you even read the september 2006 issue of MUSE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
359
Logogeo96
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 09:564- Yes, read post 347! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
0
0
-
360
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:02(358 and earlier) 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
-
361
Robert Coontz (Administrator)
in July 23rd, 2008 @ 10:20I think it’s time for a new Global Warming thread.
0
0
