Originally Posted By woody I need to change this thought. >>My opinion is that the people who actually study this issue know best. If your opinion is different than that, then no, it's not better, it's idiotic.<< The people who study this issue have real disagreements. My opinion reflects the detractors. If you don't get there's a debate, then you're the idiotic one.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I'm stupid, i just know what i see in the movies, and i keep remembering this one movie. It was about a guy who goes into his garage, shuts the door, turns on his car engine, and the exhaust fumes kill him.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And where did you get this? From the radio?" Yes, woody, I got it from the radio. You're simply ingenious. "Yes, and there is real disagreement with this." Actually, no, there isn't. If you bothered to actually look it up, you'd find out there wasn't. You can go read the topic on it, if you want.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<The issue of Global Warming isn't that it is happening, but what is causing it.>> I agree. And the answer probably involves a lot of cyclical change with perhaps a bit of help by us. <<I don't see how green house gases can be the cause.>> Do you mean “the cause†or “a cause� Because there is some good science in the greenhouse effect. Simply put, the Earth usually reflects a percentage of the Sun’s radiation back into space. But CO2 emissions in the atmosphere absorb much of the IR and don’t allow it to escape the atmosphere. This radiation is then refracted back to the Earth again. Presumably, as CO2 emissions increase so to will the warming effect. But how much of an effect it would have and whether it works on such a large scale is still being debated. <<Global temperature rise/fall are cylical. Just because it is happening doesn't mean it won't reverse itself. There may be nothing we can do about it, but people are willing to ruin the economy or spend tons of money fix a problem that may be out of their control.>> Certainly climate changes are cyclical and the Earth may indeed reverse itself. And there also may be nothing we can do. But we also have to be cautious. We may be doing more damage than we even know or nothing at all. We need to know for sure, and in the meantime, display caution.
Originally Posted By jonvn "And the answer probably involves a lot of cyclical change with perhaps a bit of help by us." Nice sounding idea. It isn't what the people actually studying this have to say, though. Not at this time. In any case, this topic isn't about global warming.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If you don't get there's a debate, then you're the idiotic one." Just noticed this. I called your opinion idiotic, but then you turned around and called me idiotic. Always good to talk to a right winger here on this board because it again shows that they are not able to have a conversation without resorting to this sort of thing. We do have maybe one on the left side of things here that is off in never never land, but it seems that most of the right wingers are there all the time. They don't understand, they can't communicate without being insulting, they are unable to hold a conversation with anyone who even mildly disagrees with what they say without calling them names. It's actually amazing. Oh, and by the way, woody, there isn't a debate anymore. You can go read the global warming topic, which this isn't, and go look up the many places I've quoted that all say basically the same thing. As far as the rest of the comments about what global warming is and is not, really, it makes no sense for someone to make statements about what their opinion as to what is happening is unless there is science to back it up. Personal opinion on something like this is of little worth when you don't really have knowledge in the area. The people who do have knowledge in the area are in agreement, and there is a consensus opinion on the subject that says a certain thing. Now you can believe that, or continue going on thinking the world is flat. But it is what it is, and there really isn't much room for debate on the subject.
Originally Posted By woody >>Actually, no, there isn't. If you bothered to actually look it up, you'd find out there wasn't. You can go read the topic on it, if you want.<< Jonvn: You're very predictable. You don't have a response so you ask me to do your research or even better... debate myself to your position. Is that logical? Maybe for you. >>The people who do have knowledge in the area are in agreement, and there is a consensus opinion on the subject that says a certain thing.<< >"Didn't you know? Consensus means nothing."< You've been all over the place with this. >>Just noticed this. I called your opinion idiotic, but then you turned around and called me idiotic. Always good to talk to a right winger here on this board because it again shows that they are not able to have a conversation without resorting to this sort of thing.<< Wow, you started the insults and now you can't take it. Typical of liberals and left wingers. I only resorted to your tactics. If you don't like it, don't start it.
Originally Posted By woody >>Do you mean “the cause†or “a cause� Because there is some good science in the greenhouse effect. Simply put, the Earth usually reflects a percentage of the Sun’s radiation back into space. But CO2 emissions in the atmosphere absorb much of the IR and don’t allow it to escape the atmosphere. This radiation is then refracted back to the Earth again. Presumably, as CO2 emissions increase so to will the warming effect. But how much of an effect it would have and whether it works on such a large scale is still being debated.<< I would love to narrow the cause. If that would be the case where greenhouse gasses cause by humans is such a small factor in the whole thing, everyone will just stop with the Global Warming hysteria.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Cars are killing people by poluting the air. End of story. More: The earth is a lot more delicate when 9 billion people are trying to live on it, and all want to drive poluting devices. Only someone with criminal intent would try to trivialize the obvious. The fear is of reprisal to the oil companies and car companies, that is the only reason these traitors, would deny global warming. They know they are guilty of making their profits and livelyhoods out of poisoning the air. Same guilt most republicans have, cause they make their money off of industries that kill people, that make war, that manufacture enemies. Bomb makers, who cry unfair, when people start making their own bombs, without their factories. Fantasy worlds are not conductive to any form of responsible thought. Fanstasy is only good for reflection of what your real values are. The fantasy can not be the basis of your values, or you disappear in a puff of imaginary smoke.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Nice sounding idea. It isn't what the people actually studying this have to say, though. Not at this time.>> Actually there is. In fact, any science dedicated to forecasting will almost always be open to debate. We are dealing with something that has never been studied first hand by scientists. They aren’t completely sure how the geophysical forces will compensate for increased CO2 emission or increased radiation. Nor have they been able to view first hand how cyclical climate changes occur. For example, CO2 level have actually been on the rise for centuries due to deforestation and industrial progress (much more dramatic in recent years though, hence the concern). However, during the same period, there have been numerous fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature, some warming trends and cooling trends. Obviously, the Earth has made some adaptation to the CO2 levels; otherwise, according to the greenhouse effect, there would have been a gradual increase in temperatures throughout the period. Global cooling is really where the debate gets murky. They know how CO2 can cause warming (run-away greenhouse effect is good science), but they are not sure how the Earth manages to cool itself despite rises in CO2 level over the years. And that is a major reason why global warming theories are still up for debate. <<I would love to narrow the cause. If that would be the case where greenhouse gasses cause by humans is such a small factor in the whole thing, everyone will just stop with the Global Warming hysteria.>> I like to think of it like a pine tree. When a strong wind blows, you can see the tree sway from side to side. Sometime, so badly that we wonder how the tree doesn’t snap. Add a human element with ropes yanking at the tree. If the tree snaps, who do you blame, the wind or the human? We would all like to know the primary reason for global warming. But given that we know cyclical event have occurred frequently in the Earth’s history, and we also know how increased CO2 emissions can effect the atmosphere, it’s difficult to say which is “more†to blame. The fact is, A) we know how much CO2 gas there is in the atmosphere, what we don’t know is B) how much the Earth can absorb and C) how much cyclical forces are playing in global warming. And just like in algebra, if you only have “A†there is really no way to get B or C.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You don't have a response so you ask me to do your research or even better... " Oh, I have a response. But it's wasted on you. So I'm not going to bother.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Actually there is. In fact, any science dedicated to forecasting will almost always be open to debate." The main tenet of science is that it is always open to challenge. But there really is no credible challenge to the ideas of global warming anymore. IF there were, then they'd be considered and looked at. That's absolutely important. But that's not what is happening outside of the world of politics.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << But there really is no credible challenge to the ideas of global warming anymore. IF there were, then they'd be considered and looked at. That's absolutely important. >> Do you mean a current heating trend that happens all the time or man made global warming due to the release of CO2 gas?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Why be a jerk? Just answer the question because I honestly have no idea what you are saying because you are all over the place. Here... Do you mean a current heating trend that happens all the time or man made global warming due to the release of CO2 gas? Which is it?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Just answer the question" Not again. It's been answered, and after answering you multiple times already on various topics, with you simply asking the same question again, you have shown that there is no point in answering you.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Now you are refuse to answer a simple one line question just for clarity purposes. Not exactly a way to show you are very confident in yourself. Why not just tell us you think man made global warming is what the scientists have a consensus on?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Now you are refuse to answer a simple one line question just for clarity purposes." Yes, that's right.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Fine, shows you are afraid to answer a direct simple question for some reason. The reason is that if you are forced to be very clear ( for once ) in what you are saying you are going to get nailed with your own words and you know it. Otherwise you would simply answer the question since you like to type so much.
