Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Burning oil creates carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide naturally goes back into the Earth to form carbonate. The problem is that the amount of CO2 we're putting into the air is greater than the amount which can be reabsorbed back into the Earth.
I'm actually looking forward to the day oil runs out. It's one of the main reasons all this crap in the middle east is going on to begin with. Considering the ballooning demand that China and India are having with oil, it'll happen earlier than many think.
Once it finally does run out, we'll be finally forced to consider alternatives. It's a 100 year model that needs changing.
We all choose to deny and ignore what is convenient for us.
There is much scientific evidence that a fetus is everything a human being is within 2 weeks of conception, but doctors and scientists ignore those facts in favor of the politics of the right to choose crowd.
So how do you explain that?
I choose to ignore the science of climate change and man's culpability in it because I feel there is a huge lack of evidence that links man to climate change. I don't believe that CO2 has anything to do with surface temps, CO2 levels are simply an indication of temp change.
The Earth has had major ice ages with CO2 levels many times higher than they are now, but no one has an answer for that.
There are many, many inconsistencies in science. That's why it is called science and that means to study the world around us. But too many scientists are bought and paid for and given their marching orders and their results before they even begin to study.
Why is Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the sun? It's accepted among many in the science community that CO2 is capable of trapping heat.
We all choose to deny and ignore what is convenient for us.
There is much scientific evidence that a fetus is everything a human being is within 2 weeks of conception, but doctors and scientists ignore those facts in favor of the politics of the right to choose crowd.
So how do you explain that?
I choose to ignore the science of climate change and man's culpability in it because I feel there is a huge lack of evidence that links man to climate change. I don't believe that CO2 has anything to do with surface temps, CO2 levels are simply an indication of temp change.
The Earth has had major ice ages with CO2 levels many times higher than they are now, but no one has an answer for that.
There are many, many inconsistencies in science. That's why it is called science and that means to study the world around us. But too many scientists are bought and paid for and given their marching orders and their results before they even begin to study.
First of all, that's not even remotely true, but even if it was, why would it matter? Until a living thinking thing leaves ones body, it is simple part of that persons body regardless of what you may believe. If I decided to self mutilate a living growing part of my body that is 100% depended on the rest of my body, it's nobodies business but my own. If one chooses to terminate a fetus growing in their body, it is no different than one choosing to cut their own arm off. People that have trouble understanding this concept don't understand how life works at the cellular level because they're jaded by religious nonsense.
As far as you're beliefs on climate change go, I stopped reading after you stated that CO2 has nothing to do with surface temps. Even crooked Russian climatologists being paid to to deny climate change would laugh at that statement.
The fact that the temps. have not risen in 15 years prove the myth of global warming is just a big lie.
This statement is an example of the sort of thing that fuels endlessly pointless blabbering. It asserts a claim, but there are two big problems:
(1) There is no reference to any scientific sources that substantiate the claim.
(2) There is no evidence that the person posting the claim has made any effort whatsoever to understand the other side of the issue.
I assume that problem #1 is so obvious that I don't need to explain it. It seems to me, however, that most people ignore, or don't even understand, problem #2. From what I can tell, the vast majority of people who make scientific claims in internet discussions are ONLY familiar with one side of the debate. They simply parrot the opinions that sound good to them without ever taking a serious look at the arguments or evidence presented against this point of view. The result is a flood of pointless arguing in most threads. The ONLY way to get out of this endless loop of drivel is for people stop and do some research before posting a claim. EVERYONE who makes a claim should stop, before they post, and ask three important questions:
(1) What evidence can I offer to support my claim?
(2) What are the BEST arguments against my claim? (Try to avoid "straw man" arguments, if you can.)
(3) How do I respond to the best arguments against my claim?
Then, when you post your claim, you can include a response to what you think is the best argument against your position. Yeah, this is not nearly as fun and just blasting your opinions willy-nilly all over the place, but this is the only way we can all avoid wasting our time reading unending strings of empty rhetoric.
I tried to encourage this sort of structure in my thread called [ http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...iscussion.html ]The results were far from perfect, but I think that, on average, that thread ended up with more useful posts than the average thread. I would encourage all of you to consider employing a similar standard here.
When you want to make a claim, try to find the BEST arguments against your position and give your best response, along with scientific references to support your position.
the only ones denying science are the fascist liberals
everyone knows (and its scientifically proven) that climate has changed many, many times
and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming
the globe evolves. The global environment changes..periodically...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher
guess what our co2 levels are currently around 360-390ppm
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....700-1500 ppm
The air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of net photosynthesis and biomass production. Moreover, on a per-unit-leaf-area basis, plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductance. Hence, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises. In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. Thus, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.
In summary, it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency. It is thus likely that food and fiber production will increase on a worldwide basis, even in areas where productivity is severely restricted due to limited availability of soil moisture. Therefore, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.
so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theory, its scientific fact
science shows that humans use oxygen and expel (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expels o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 375 of today is is much lower than the 750-900 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush fertile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that Greenland was once a green lush fertile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of glaciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER
The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1000 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
Commercially available CO2 generators are available for enriching indoor gardens. Using atmospheric control systems in conjunction with CO2 generators, ensure the most effective production and use of CO2. ....hmmm co2 GENERATORS...yet the fascist liberals scream about too much co2
SCIENCE SHOWS As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
common sense states that as the earths population expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exhaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful..........
simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, removing the guns from the people,,blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),,duty of the state(government) to PROVIDE for the people,,division of profits (redistribution of wealth), nationalized health care,taxing energy ,......,,, DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THEY ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG...............THEY ARE ALSO PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS of Nazism which is fascism
the only ones denying science are the fascist liberals
[...]
guess what our co2 levels are currently around 360-390ppm
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
This post contained a long list of claims, but I've picked this one to serve as an example. Instead of just making a claim, you should look to see what climatologists have said in response. (Hopefully all of you realize that, for every claim made against the reality of global warming, climatologists have responded.) Your job is to understand the response made by scientists, and then to show us why their response is inadequate.
BTW, this "skepticalscience" site is maintained by a scientist and it is an easy "one-stop-shopping" site for responses to the anti-AGW claims. It lists all of the major arguments and gives links to scientific references. In other words, this site makes it easy to find the arguments that you need to respond to if want to say something useful in the AGW debate.
General rule: If you want to make an anti-AGW claim, go to this site [ Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says ] and find out what scientists have said in response to your claim. Then, you can respond to the arguments, and hopefully include links to some science that supports your views. (Notice the difference: In the quote above, Workingclasshero is simply making a claim. This accomplishes almost nothing. But if you follow my general rule, you will be responding to some fairly good scientific arguments and data. Hopefully you will also offer some links to other scientific sources to support your claim. This is a far better use of everyone's time.)
This post contained a long list of claims, but I've picked this one to serve as an example. Instead of just making a claim, you should look to see what climatologists have said in response. (Hopefully all of you realize that, for every claim made against the reality of global warming, climatologists have responded.) Your job is to understand the response made by scientists, and then to show us why their response is inadequate.
BTW, this "skepticalscience" site is maintained by a scientist and it is an easy "one-stop-shopping" site for responses to the anti-AGW claims. It lists all of the major arguments and gives links to scientific references. In other words, this site makes it easy to find the arguments that you need to respond to if want to say something useful in the AGW debate.
General rule: If you want to make an anti-AGW claim, go to this site [ Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says ] and find out what scientists have said in response to your claim. Then, you can respond to the arguments, and hopefully include links to some science that supports your views. (Notice the difference: In the quote above, Workingclasshero is simply making a claim. This accomplishes almost nothing. But if you follow my general rule, you will be responding to some fairly good scientific arguments and data. Hopefully you will also offer some links to other scientific sources to support your claim. This is a far better use of everyone's time.)
Anyone can make a website like this Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and spin out excuses. This topic will end one way, it will be the climate/warming conspiracy theorists that lose the argument, due to too many people that have zero credibility.
Anyone can make a website like this Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says and spin out excuses. This topic will end one way, it will be the climate/warming conspiracy theorists that lose the argument, due to too many people that have zero credibility.
It doesn't matter who created the site, so long as it offers scientific responses (with links to sources) to the claims made by anti-AGW folks.
Just to be clear:
Merely posting claims is a waste of everyone's time, so don't do it, unless your plan is to waste everyone's time. Before posting an anti-AGW claim, look to see what the scientists have already said in response to the claim. If you can show that the scientists' responses are inadequate, then that's great! You might help push the debate forward to a new level. But, to do this, you need to see what the scientists have said, then respond specifically to what they have said. Anything else is, at best, just pointless posturing and fluff. (Of course if your goal is to muddy the waters because you know that you are incapable of responding to the scientists, then I guess it makes sense that you would want to keep posting claims without any consideration for what scientists have already said in response.)
It doesn't matter who created the site, so long as it offers scientific responses (with links to sources) to the claims made by anti-AGW folks.
Just to be clear:
Merely posting claims is a waste of everyone's time, so don't do it, unless your plan is to waste everyone's time. Before posting an anti-AGW claim, look to see what the scientists have already said in response to the claim. If you can show that the scientists' responses are inadequate, then that's great! You might help push the debate forward to a new level. But, to do this, you need to see what the scientists have said, then respond specifically to what they have said. Anything else is, at best, just pointless posturing and fluff. (Of course if your goal is to muddy the waters because you know that you are incapable of responding to the scientists, then I guess it makes sense that you would want to keep posting claims without any consideration for what scientists have already said in response.)
The UN has zero credibility. You climate/warmers want it one way, and that is your way.
987-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report mentioning the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” 1300 times and “key uncertainties” more than 50 times. If IPCC scientists admit the science is not settled
Like I said, you have data that can be fiddled with to get your desired outcome. That is the top reason why it's not trusted. The next reason is carbon taxes, that will further destroy the fragile economy. Do you climate/warming conspiracy theorists ever think of the hardship your "green agenda" will create?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
