The other side of global warming

[Jscotty]

So when I fart, exhale, use the air duster can, drink a soda and burp, or mix vinegar and baking soda, I am essentially creating greenhouse gases. So with 7 billion people on the planet and less than 1% of all of the people of the world have cars, I doubt that the cars are causing the problem directly.

[kylebes1]

so if fossil fuel burning makes C02, and C02 is proven to be a "greenhouse" gas, this is proven to trap heat, then A=B=C.

Too simple for anyone to accept

[ptownTSI]

There is just such a simple way to get to the bottom of this. Does burning fossil fuels create C02... yes, is C02 proven to be a "greenhouse" gas meaning it helps trap in heat on the earth... yes.

so if fossil fuel burning makes C02, and C02 is proven to be a "greenhouse" gas, this is proven to trap heat, then A=B=C.

there is global warming due to human actions. Whether its happening now, or later could be debated, but the simple equation i laid out stays true.

[kylebes1]

here is nothing we can do about anything to do with nature...

Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes (other than Bush sending the one to Louisiana), Volcanoes, all that shit.

When all the ice melts I will own new ocean front property, so yea it is about money to me as well!

I understand there is a change in the world's climate, if you don't see trends then you are a fool and I have a bridge I will sell you. However, there is nothing you can do, but live life.

[JPL]

half of your family won't make it to america.

pwned

[DEV0 E30]

half of your family won't make it to america.

[s0urce]

half you fucks never made it out of junior college.

half of your family won't make it to america.

[Jscotty]

half you fucks never made it out of junior college.

I never made it out of community college.

[e30sd]

half you fucks never made it out of junior college.

Except it's consensus. Every finding from any respected scientific institution is examined by a process of scientific review, just like any academic finding is subject to academic peer review. Bad experiments are weeded out, findings are challenged and experiments and research methods are repeated and revised.

blah blah...still haven't seen any "facts" (the definition you libs use) that support global warming.

[eurostyl e30]

Thats a crap cop out you lib. All the definition of science I have ever read was based around "Facts"

Except it's consensus. Every finding from any respected scientific institution is examined by a process of scientific review, just like any academic finding is subject to academic peer review. Bad experiments are weeded out, findings are challenged and experiments and research methods are repeated and revised.

Actually, science is not fact, it is concensus. Nothing can be proved either way. Something cannot be tested infintatly many times in infinatly many situations. But, since a theory has been proved to work in so many situations (ie. conservation of mass) it is called fact, based on the consensus of scientists.

Thats a crap cop out you lib. All the definition of science I have ever read was based around "Facts"

[cthulu703]

Between 1940 and 1977 scientists were worried about global cooling because the mean temperature had gone down a few degrees. Even Time magazine published an article on this "crisis". They believed that all of the dust particles from cars and industry were blocking the sunlight out partially.

Why can't mother nature cycle like all the other women of the world. Right now she's having a hot flash. BFD.

They were right, it is called global dimming, and has been proposed as a solution to the problem of global warming through the release of particulates into the upper atmosphere. I don't happen to agree with its use to mitigate climate change myself.

Do you work at JPL?

[MattE30]

SCIENCE IS FACTS, NOT "consensus" There are ZERO facts to show the story either way.

Actually, science is not fact, it is concensus. Nothing can be proved either way. Something cannot be tested infintatly many times in infinatly many situations. But, since a theory has been proved to work in so many situations (ie. conservation of mass) it is called fact, based on the consensus of scientists.

[cthulu703]

ok...

lets clear this up.

*FUCK* Al Gore, one of the most two-faced lying sacks of shit that the world has ever seen. Thinking he is the man buying carbon offsets from his own company. Somebody look up his own energy use and compare to yours. Interesting stuff.


SCIENCE IS FACTS, NOT "consensus" There are ZERO facts to show the story either way.

Science is consensus. It is called peer-review, it is also captured by a thing called repeatability, as applies to data or experiment. The rest is not necessarily for you Trent.

On another note, I am chagrinned and a little pissed that the same people who type on a computer relying on transistors 90 nanometers wide and millions of them (brought to you ala scientific method), flip the switch and expect their lights to come on everytime (ala scientifice method), will get on a plane and trust their life to it (ala scientific method), get sick and will seek treatment.. and so, on. Deny a piece of information brought to them via the same method of peer review, repeatablity, minimization of error and so on..because it is inconvenient for them to believe it. Accept all the conveniences and deny the inconveniences. When the information doesn't make your life easier, science is now, all of a sudden , a religion. I have reviewed some of the data supporting global warming and based on an objective analysis I would say I am quite sure it is happening and it is man-made, and it is atypical. You might say I am prone to religiosity just because I am a priest of the religion, but have you done any of the hard work necessary to even determine what bogus data might even look like? Are you familiar with the techniques that are used in the determination of global temperatures over large time-scales? Do you know the difference between causation and correlation? End of screed.