I am no scientist but I have a theory on global warming: I speculate that on most days (not all) that part of the globe warms in direct correlation to the a broad spectrum of visible and invisible light from sun rise to sun set.

Think I might be able to get some grant money? :)

Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence but I dont think there is any universal agreement on this...not even a consensus. There seems to be two camps with firm opinion and highly credentialed folks in each.

What I do think is that the knee jerk reaction to the fear of global warming will end up costing us far more then the actual and natural results of the phenomenon itself...if indeed it exists.

One sure way to reduce global warming would be for all the pundits to just shut up...that would reduce the amount of "hot air" strirring around ;)

Best regards,
Riposte

If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

Well this discussion is interesting. I think it is safe to say that just about everyone agrees there is global warming taking place. The bone of contention is whether it is man caused or a natural phenomenon taking place with perhaps a bit of a hand from man.

There are definitely two main camps...........both with the posters and the scientists...........those who think it is mostly just a natural planetary occurence and those that think mankind is systematically killing the planet. I do not think that anyone on here is going to convince the campers one way or another.

Not too long ago there was a group of scientists that proclaimed the beef industry was responsible for a significant portion of the methane gas emissions on the planet. My god, there were millions of cattle in North America that were burping and farting methane into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. I never saw it in print, but I often wondered how they decided that the methane produced by the domestic bovines was somehow more destructive than the methane produced over the millenia by the 60 million bison that previously roamed the continent.

I think that as the decades go by, we will find that the current 'truths' held close to the heart by both camps in the greenhouse gas debate, will in fact prove to be partial truths........with reality somewhere in the middle.

Oh I think there is a point to the discussion. There is probably no point to discussing whether there is in fact global warming due to things we can change - because all of our arguments will most like fall into the "appeal to authority" type and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash.

The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future?

For a minor matter, things sweetened with corn syrup will now cost more than double...and to what gain? Most of us will never see "alternative fuels at the pump".

Riposte

"The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future? "

Like stopping someone from using his weapons of mass destruction? Like driving on the right even when we can't see someone coming? The future is always uncertain, but we act in the present on the best evidence we have about what the future will be like. That's life.

And lowering our pollution levels will hardly "destroy civilization as we know it."

"and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash."

That is the very illusion I am trying to dispell.

Since you are clearly NOT succeeding in dispelling anything here on this board, may we call it quits?

Not permanently, I promise. You may reopen the discussion if and when Florida is under water and we're growing bananas in your home town.

Cooper... Give it up.... will you.. there isn't any criteria to support what you say, what they say, and yes times and all mainstream media are hard left media with an agenda against capitalism and free enterprise. Look at the solution to Global warming according to them. What does that do for us???? yes the solution is WE PAY MONEY TO OTHER COUNTRIES VIA THE UN. Screw that, screw the UN... screw anybody who promotes Kiyoto and screw anyone who won't look at ALL THE DATA that is out there. There is more data to explain why its happening and it aint because of man...

I don't want to lock this because I've posted in it, but I may have to. Just drop it...EVERYBODY

Hey Rocky..
 

I like the beating a dead horse. Where can I get one of my own? I've already killed the horse..just the emoticon or whatever it is:D :D

Rocky a little humor
 

Well there was "The Law of Conservation of Mass" and the "First Law of Thermodynamics". Let's try "Boyle's Law":D

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of
Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so
"profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying
it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a
soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state
that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to
Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of
change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order
for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of
Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take
into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2
must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over.


The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it
follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Muledeer
 

I love that one!!

I did too... someone please send it to al... :)

Aloha... :cool:

OK, I'll stop.

But you guys started it!

;)

Muledeer
Excellent post:D . Ok Rocky lock this one down. MC

We probably did.. but really... Al Started it .. so Rocky... instead of beatin my compadre into submission... start beatin on Al... this is all his fault... :)

Aloha ... :cool:

Skeet, just right-click and save it. Here's another...

Thanks Rocky.
 

Saved 'em both. One for the high brow arguments and one for the down in the dirt kind!!

I stayed out of it :p

Even though I know the TRUTH behind it all!!

Its the Gremlins....they are doing it.....but the Government wants to keep it all hush-hush....

Heres a pic of what to look for.....If you happen to see one, sunlight kills em.......

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...in-160x200.jpg

Who Believes
 

There is little doubt in my mind that there is some warming going on and the strange weather patterns here in the US are a result of it. How much man has to play in all of this may never be known, however.

Personally, I believe mankind is in more danger of being wiped-out by an astroid than global warming; or perhaps by one of the Captain's gremlins - one of which should be sent with great dispatch to Al Gore.

I agree with you that there is global warming... that there is global cooling ... that the earth is changing no doubt. It is interesting that while they were cutting hundreds of acres of native forests in south america about 3-5 years ago, there was this stupendous growth of trees in siberia. Could it be the earths natural balance beam stimulating more growth because there is more supposedly carbon dioxide in the air?

We are actually not at optimum levels of carbon dioxide according to a lot of scientists... we are still a few parts per million short for trees especially to benefit, and as well as bushy plants which could grow 10-15% thicker. Keep an eye out on your plants. Are they growing faster under normal circumstances... hmmmmmmm

Aloha... :cool:

This debate demonstrates perfectly all that is wrong with the internet. Only a tiny fraction of what can be found on the web is scientificaly verifiable. People believe what they find on their favorite sites. There is more unverified and purely wrong information on the web than peer reviewed data. The ignorant (do not read stupid, there is a huge difference) just don't know how to tell the difference.

Myself, I am not sold either way. I am not a cynic of one side or the other, I just don't believe there is enough data.

I reckon that one way or another people will destroy their environment to the point most of us won't survive. This may take place 10 years from now or 1000 years. I am not betting for 1000. As always, the poor will suffer the most.

If you don't believe me, look at the debate over marijuana. 10,000 sites discussing the benefits far outweigh the 4 or 5 proving the damage done by the crap.

People believe what they want to believe.

If you don't believe that, you don't want to believe that!;)

Al Gore is right, only if you beleive in him.