Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/6/07 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

:: Why is that are paradigm that allows for our existance is somehow not suceptable to the natural constant of change?

Should be:

Why is that our paradigm...

sorry for the typo! I'm pretty tired right now and feeling a little under the weather!

At 1/6/07 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote: Plant life did not appear and in the space of 400 years pump enough O2 into the atmosphere to kill off almost all life on Earth! It took eons, why can't nature still be doing this? Why is that are paradigm that allows for our existance is somehow not suceptable to the natural constant of change?

when did that happen? i'm not doubting it its just that i've never heard of that before.

At 1/6/07 08:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/6/07 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote: Plant life did not appear and in the space of 400 years pump enough O2 into the atmosphere to kill off almost all life on Earth! It took eons, why can't nature still be doing this?

when did that happen? i'm not doubting it its just that i've never heard of that before.

I first read about it in Jurassic Park (please don't think the only thing I read on the environment is from Crichton! lol). However, since then I have heard about it in several sources.

I'll have to look it up sometime...

At 1/6/07 08:15 PM, TheMason wrote: Correlation does NOT prove causation; it only implies it. The Y2K virus and terrorism involve infinately less variables than climatology and rising sea levels. Therefore it is quite easy to identify the cause and effect processes at play.

True, but I was only using them as comparison. Many people still believe the Y2K "bug" was propaganda of the government to stimulate the Tech economy after the bubble burst. Many people think that the current and former governments do little or nothing about terrorism despite the fact that VERY few attacks ever succeed on American soil. This is mostly because those people have little grasp of the actual information.

This is the same way that many people (without the capacity or inclination to gather the data) think that climate change is all propaganda and hot air (pun intended).

This is not propaganda; it is the scientific method. Yes I am a political scientist and not a natural scientist. But I have taken the hard sciences (I started by collegiate career as an engineering student) to include geology. Furthermore, behavioral sciences such as poly sci do rely upon the scientific method to design and test phenomenon that we observe. However, more often than not we have to deal with phenomenon that involve a multitude of variables that (like environmentalist sciences) cannot be fully controlled for.

Physics major turned music major here (with healthy doses of anthropology, philosophy)... Believe me, I know. Climatology is much like Economics. Your job is to take a big old WAG at future trends using past paradigms, when there are an infinite number of variables. When you're right, you get the Nobel, when you're wrong, you're those dudes that said they made Cold Fusion.

I do not say that environmental sciences are completely useless. But how long of a history of failure do you need to realize that the discipline is fundamentally flawed? This is not science nor rational. The scientific method dictates that the fundamental tenets the science is built upon must be re-evaluated and figured out where things went wrong, since the current refinements are built upon these grossly erroneous predictions and models...

Then the question remains... where is this fundamental flaw? What about our view needs to be altered to better fit the data?

Serious question.

No its not. Newton's laws on gravity and motion could be tested and is not negated. Things still accelerate towards the Earth at a fixed speed when dropped. The new models you discuss give a refined description of the phenomenon Newton observed; not prove them wrong. Furthermore, Newtonian physics did not make claims that have proven grossly erroneous!

Except they have. An infinite amount even. Gravitational forces should cause the universe's expansion to slow (if not stop and reverse altogether)... but all observational evidence shows that it's accelerating. Even on a local (planetary/solar system-wise) level, Newtons work only predicts things in a general sense. Relativity explains gravitational motion better. Granted, it's not off by 300% (wherever that number came from)... but it's still off.

Calculus, however... now THAT'S where his genious really shines.

Science's history is one of ever smaller failures. That's all science does, prove past observations wrong. All science is failure. Some are bigger than others... and the sciences that deal with non-reproducible results are the most prone to it.

That is not just 'scientific consensus', but common sense! This is where the discussion degenerates. Do you really think that just because I reject enviromentalism I want to see pollution rise? Do you really think I want to live in filth? The answer is a resounding 'No".

Glad to hear it ;-)

I ask again why everyone has such a hard time accepting this?

That environmentalism is not fundamentally flawed? Or that we need to keep the planet clean as possible?

That we, as inhabitants of this planet, cause, through our actions, changes to the planet itself, including to it's climate... and that we, as a people, could, by changing our ways, slow or even stop the climate change that may well threaten all life here.

People rant and rave that global warming isn't caused by humans, as though we're to small an influence on the world to actually effect such change. They rail against the 1 degree change over the last 100 years (even though, as was previously stated, it was an average temperature difference of less than 10 degrees that brought about the last ice age) as propaganda, and indicitive of nothing.

It's not that those of us shouting at the top of our lungs that we need to stop polluting don't believe that there are other factors contributing to climate change. It's that we realize that our factors are the only ones we can control. And that we have a responsibility to do so. It may (or may not) keep us from some tipping point that does, in fact, melt the icecaps, drowns cities, or creates deserts in previously fertile regions. We don't know WHAT will happen... we're just reasonably sure that whatever does happen will be unpleasant, and doing whatever we can to avoid that is probably a good idea.

At 1/6/07 07:08 PM, Imperator wrote: And has anyone else noticed the surge of Michiganders hitting the forums lately? Seriously, I've been talking to quite a few of us recently. Or maybe I just never noticed before?

It's not just you... I thought it was just the two of us. Well, huzzah on more representation.

At 1/6/07 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/6/07 08:01 PM, AdamRice wrote: If you really want I can outline the chemical reaction sequences of how a CFC destroys and ozone molecule.

No I took the same chemistry class. I also know greenhouse gasses are released by cattle when they fart!

Yes methane, it has about 23 times the greenhouse effect of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

LIFE CHANGES THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE BY ITS VERY EXISTANCE IS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT FLUX!

Humans are very much a part of nature as a cow or anything else, you seem to imply that changes in our environment are everything's fault except human's. Considering that humans have altered the environment they live in more then any other creature in the history of planet earth, it seems foolish to live in this buble of delusion that we have little or nothing to do with atmospheric problems.

This is the problem with environmental reasoning; it is so wedded to the idea that global warming and climate change is solely the fault of mankind! You do not look at (or even consider) alternative explanations! If someone frees their mind from the shackles of dogmatic thought on this issue they are treated as uncaring and uneducated buffoons!

Let me try and break this down for you Mason.
There are some naturally occuring chlorine sources that cause the destruction of ozone. You were right about that. Emissions of chlorine resevoir compounds (HCl and ClONO2) from volcanoes do exist. But the cholrine is only liberated from these compounds under the right conditions of extremely cold stratospheric clouds. Basically it was identified that these natural sources did not present enough ozone depletion that natural processes couldn't replace each year. So we can conclude that naturally occuring chlorine resevoir compounds to not contribute nearly as much ozone destruction as man made freons and halons. Do you understand?

But there is also the man made portion of ozone destruction brought about by CFC's(freons) and bromofluorocarbons(halons). These are man made compounds that were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's for use in refrigeration, propellants, and cleaning solvents. no significant natural sources of CFC's have EVER BEEN FOUND
This is the chemical reaction of how one CFC molecule destroys ozone. To start off, ultraviolet radiation liberates chlroine atoms from the chlorofluorocarbon. So you end up with a bunch of free chlorine atoms up in the stratosphere. These chlorine atoms then go ahead to react with an ozone molecule like so... (ozone and chlorine are both very reactive so the love to bond with each other)

Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

ClO + O → Cl + O2

O3 + O → O2 + O2

I hope that explanation clears it up. I'm not trying to say that environmentalists are unable to overexagerate things, they most certainly do. My personal favorite is how much environmentalists exagerate the dangers of nuclear power. But my point is that man kind is the primary cause of the ozone hole. We identified the problem, came up with a solution, and whooped it's ass. The ozone hole is now repairing itself and should be back to normal by 2050 assuming everything goes to plan.

Wow the forum didn't properly interperate my reaction arrows on those chemical equations and instead replaced them with some type of text code. My appologies for these technical difficulties.

This is how those CFC ozone depletion equations are supposed to work.

First, ultraviolet light splits chlorine atoms from a chlorofluorocarbon molecule.
The free chlorine atom radicals then go on to react with ozone molecules as follows.

Cl + O3 --> ClO + O2
ClO + O --> Cl + O2
O3 + O --> O2 + O2

At 1/7/07 08:45 PM, AdamRice wrote:

At 1/6/07 08:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/6/07 08:01 PM, AdamRice wrote:

No I took the same chemistry class. I also know greenhouse gasses are released by cattle when they fart!

Yes methane, it has about 23 times the greenhouse effect of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.

This is the problem with talking with environmentalists; they have no sense of humor!

LIFE CHANGES THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE BY ITS VERY EXISTANCE IS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT FLUX!

Humans are very much a part of nature as a cow or anything else, you seem to imply that changes in our environment are everything's fault except human's. Considering that humans have altered the environment they live in more then any other creature in the history of planet earth, it seems foolish to live in this buble of delusion that we have little or nothing to do with atmospheric problems.

I'm not saying that at all; humans have a long history of destroying the environment. It is in our blood. It was common for native Americans to make the area they were living in uninhabitable, then they would move on. And I do not deny that we contribute to atmospheric problems. Smog does not come from flatualant cattle...

This is the problem with environmental reasoning; it is so wedded to the idea that global warming and climate change is solely the fault of mankind! You do not look at (or even consider) alternative explanations! If someone frees their mind from the shackles of dogmatic thought on this issue they are treated as uncaring and uneducated buffoons!

Let me try and break this down for you Mason.

Thanks but no thanks...like I said before I had that chemistry class in HS and then in College...

I hope that explanation clears it up. I'm not trying to say that environmentalists are unable to overexagerate things, they most certainly do.

Didn't really clear up anything since it was information I already knew. It also didn't do anything to answer my point in my post you quoted.

The point is climate and environmental processes are so complex and involve so many variables that we can say NOTHING definitive about why the weather is warmer in the NE this year than in the past 100-200. This is why I think environmental science is fundamentally flawed; it cannot produce stable results...

Also on Friday NBC nightly news had an NOAA meterologist (you know a real scientist according to some of the enviromentalists) who said that this was not Global Warming, but to use his words: "El Nino, el Nino, el Nino." On Monday NBC had to do another special on this because of howls of protests by the tree huggers (who otherwise live apart from nature) that this was in fact Global Warming. Oh yeah, Global Warming is also responsible for record snow fall elsewhere. This is indicative of the fact that enviromentalism is as much (if not more) of a political ideology rather than science; the conservatives use terrorism to scare its base while liberals use environmental calamity to scare its base...

At 1/7/07 01:43 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/6/07 08:15 PM, TheMason wrote:

This is the same way that many people (without the capacity or inclination to gather the data) think that climate change is all propaganda and hot air (pun intended).

Hey I'll give you that people have changed the environment, and that many anti-environmentalists don't seek out the data. However, many environmentalists only get highly politicizied data that is designed to illicit an emotional response...

Then the question remains... where is this fundamental flaw? What about our view needs to be altered to better fit the data?

Serious question.

Since 1895 scientists have been saying that we are headed towards an Ice Age (Global Cooling)...then in the 1920s they started talking about Global Warming...then in the 1940s it was Global Cooling...then in the 1960s/70s we were back to Global Warming. For 100 years science cannot definitatively say whether we need to worry about glaciers or rising sea levels...

2006 was to be the year of killer hurricanes...it fell flat.

The flaw is that they have a track record of predictions that have consistently gone wrong. While Newtonian physics has become more sophisticated, no one has shown that in nature the apple will fall up because of human behavior. Then they present their "findings" as fact when in fact they cannot be reproduced in accordance with the scientific method.

The simple truth is when I was an undergrad poly sci student we talked about poly sci being a true science because we cannot control for all variables and therefore we cannot complete all the steps required by the scientific method. So we are considered a "soft" science compared to the "hard" sciences of physics and chemistry. Using this standard climatology and other environmental sciences (excluding geology) are not "hard" but "soft" science because they cannot complete the steps required by the scientific method. Therefore if there is a consensus among these scientists it is a consensus of opinion rather than a consensus based on fact and an empirical data set.

Except they have. An infinite amount even. Gravitational forces should cause the universe's expansion to slow (if not stop and reverse altogether)... but all observational evidence shows that it's accelerating. Even on a local (planetary/solar system-wise) level, Newtons work only predicts things in a general sense. Relativity explains gravitational motion better. Granted, it's not off by 300% (wherever that number came from)... but it's still off.

300% is roughly how wrong scientific predictions concerning rising sea levels. They predicted it in feet, but hasn't it only risen by a fraction of an inch?

At 1/9/07 12:40 PM, TheMason wrote: Hey I'll give you that people have changed the environment, and that many anti-environmentalists don't seek out the data. However, many environmentalists only get highly politicizied data that is designed to illicit an emotional response...

True, and as a liberal democrat environmentalist (read: pinko commie hippy), I am well aware of the retarded extremes "my" folk will go to get their "viewpoint" heard. I do not defend them in any way whatsoever.

Since 1895 scientists have been saying that we are headed towards an Ice Age (Global Cooling)...then in the 1920s they started talking about Global Warming...then in the 1940s it was Global Cooling...then in the 1960s/70s we were back to Global Warming. For 100 years science cannot definitatively say whether we need to worry about glaciers or rising sea levels...

Well, much of the new ice age stuff has come from extrapolating timelines of previous ice ages. If we consider their occurrence cyclical then yes, we're a little "late" for the next one (but not yet outside the margin of error for such a prediction).

2006 was to be the year of killer hurricanes...it fell flat.

2005 did a fine job, methinks >_>... And the prediction for 2006 only came from extrapolating the pattern of the previous few years, nothing more. Again, I don't defend the reactionaries that don't use all the pertinent information to make predictions.

The flaw is that they have a track record of predictions that have consistently gone wrong. While Newtonian physics has become more sophisticated, no one has shown that in nature the apple will fall up because of human behavior. Then they present their "findings" as fact when in fact they cannot be reproduced in accordance with the scientific method.

Well, when the flaw is previous incorrectness, there must be something wrong with the paradigm they're using, some fundamental methodological flaw. It's the nature of what they study not the science itself that makes their work unverifiable, unrepeatable. When they use what they can to predict things with a bajillion variables, that they're even marginally right is amazing.

Thing is, I don't believe that they base future predictions on past predictions known to be incorrect. They take an enormously large and complex data set and try to extrapolate from there. Only if they continued to use past failed predictions as working models for their work would the science itself be flawed.

The simple truth is when I was an undergrad poly sci student we talked about poly sci being a true science because we cannot control for all variables and therefore we cannot complete all the steps required by the scientific method. So we are considered a "soft" science compared to the "hard" sciences of physics and chemistry. Using this standard climatology and other environmental sciences (excluding geology) are not "hard" but "soft" science because they cannot complete the steps required by the scientific method. Therefore if there is a consensus among these scientists it is a consensus of opinion rather than a consensus based on fact and an empirical data set.

True. But even in poly-sci, wouldn't you better trust the consensus of scientific opinion than the cultural meme?

300% is roughly how wrong scientific predictions concerning rising sea levels. They predicted it in feet, but hasn't it only risen by a fraction of an inch?

Yes, the whole "oceans will rise 10 feet" (or whatever it was) bit was one part reactionary BS and one part borking the timeline. If the climate warms to a point where the icecaps can no longer stay frozen during their summer, then yes, the oceans will rise about 10 feet. It's certainly not going to happen within a single generation, however. Change of that magnitude takes a while. Climate change won't kill us like in the movies (see: Day After Tomorrow), it'll be the slow, creeping death that we never see coming.

At 1/4/07 07:34 PM, Imperator wrote: And 500 years ago the scientific community was of the consensus that the Earth was flat. What's your point?

Um.... What.... No wonder you don't believe in something as obvious as global warming.

The earth has not been believed to be flat since the early first century. It is a myth that the king thought columbus would sail off the edge of the earth, the fact was based on basic arithmetic of New Age Greece where an object on the horizon will bend down. and not fall.

At 1/9/07 12:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

that this was in fact Global Warming. Oh yeah, Global Warming is also responsible for record snow fall elsewhere. This is indicative of the fact that enviromentalism is as much (if not more) of a political ideology rather than science; the conservatives use terrorism to scare its base while liberals use environmental calamity to scare its base...

Snowfall is not dictated by the amount of cold, it only needs to be under 32 farenheit to snow. And these 'record' snowfalls, where are they? Certainly not Chicago where I am, one of the most infamously coldest winters experienced by the country. You know, It has snowed a total of one time this season and has rained countless times. The temp hovers at around 50+. Here we really miss snow. It turns out, it's just a really rainy winter across the country.

Certainly not Chicago where I am, one of the most infamously coldest winters experienced by the country.

I heard it was happening in Siberia and way out east. I remember one report saying Siberia was experiencing "Global Cooling" or somethin along those lines.

At 1/9/07 04:11 PM, EKublai wrote:
Um.... What.... No wonder you don't believe in something as obvious as global warming.

Who's to say I don't believe in it? I haven't said one way or another, I'm just trying to get prick arguments like that to stop insulting my intelligence.....

You don't convince me by saying it's "obvious", calling me a simpleton, etc. In fact, that makes me (and others) turn the OPPOSITE way........

The earth has not been believed to be flat since the early first century. It is a myth that the king thought columbus would sail off the edge of the earth, the fact was based on basic arithmetic of New Age Greece where an object on the horizon will bend down. and not fall.

Whatever, you got my drift. If you want a more accurate and modern example of scientists fuckin things up we'll talk about Pluto.....

At 1/9/07 05:49 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/9/07 04:11 PM, EKublai wrote:
Um.... What.... No wonder you don't believe in something as obvious as global warming.

Who's to say I don't believe in it? I haven't said one way or another, I'm just trying to get prick arguments like that to stop insulting my intelligence.....

The big thing about global warming that seems pretty convincing to me is the huge influx of research that has been done on it in the past six years. You are right that people used to jump back and forth on the whole ice age, not ice age thing, but these last few years have really made global warming one of the most researched topics around.
Many of those before predcitions were just rough estimates or the exagerations of crazy environmentalists screaming for us to live in caves. But recent years have put a lot more time, money, and research into the global warming idea and the results usually come back saying that it's true.

It's hard to predict this stuff because of all the variables, to some extent only time will tell, but I would worry that if we wait too long for time to tell it will be too late to do anything about it.

And just to clarify for all you other people out there that seem confused, the el niño effect is the reason for unusual weather this year and is a completely isolated incident that should not be connected with global warming trends.

The big thing about global warming that seems pretty convincing to me is the huge influx of research that has been done on it in the past six years

That's just the opposite for me. The fact that there has been such a huge rush on this tells me it's a fad. I'm skeptical of jumping on the ever-filling bandwagon here.....

But recent years have put a lot more time, money, and research into the global warming idea and the results usually come back saying that it's true.

Again, that's why I DIStrust it all. Judgement Day has been prophesized like....3818319057 times now, each with a range of popularity, and obviously each and every prediction has turned false.

The last big one? 9/11, the start of the end. Everyone starts looking and correlating, and then the predictions come in. I think CNN even did a special on the "End of Days" to come, supposedly starting with 9/11.

The big one before that? Y2K.

And on and on we go, which is why when you say a lot of time and money have recently been put into GW research, I'm gonna sit back and wait till the dust settles to see results......

At 1/12/07 05:00 AM, Imperator wrote: That's just the opposite for me. The fact that there has been such a huge rush on this tells me it's a fad. I'm skeptical of jumping on the ever-filling bandwagon here.....

Absolutely.

[rant]I honestly despise the global warming fad. Have any Brits here seen those Sky News adverts where people send in videos of themselves taking measures against global warming? Totally fucking pathetic. Oh wow, little girl, you'll actually be walking to school tomorrow? Well call the shitting marching band, and I hope your guilt is overridden! I mean jesus, as if that's anything to be proud of. And what about the little kid that turned off all the lights in his living room before going to sleep? What, does that imply he didn't do that before? What a stupid little jackass, as if the main problem that would be contributing to is global warming...what about the fucking electricity bills, you little cock? GAGH!!! It's like a hole of self-righteousness.

I'm not going to change any of my habits. Not one. Especially since I already walk / cycle everywhere and use as little electricity as possible anyway, and have been doing so for years, before everyone got cocked up about global warming. And heh, the people who send in these kind of videos probably don't know about the process of global warming or the effects it has in the first place...like you said, they're just jumping on the bandwagons like the sheepish, twatty little arses they are...[/end rant]

There are perfectly good reasons why I believe that global warming is taking place. As I implied earlier, I've known about it for years, and since then I've been looking at the facts myself and have come to the conclusion that it is a real phenomena rather than just media sensaionalism. Evidences:

-Global temperature rise [1 2]
-Disappearance of glaciers [3 4]
-Sea level rise [5]
-Increase in extreme weather [6
-Increased evaporation [7

I think my point is made.

In a sense, I'm glad about people jumping on the "global warming bandwagon" (even if it chiefly because recently people have been talking about economic effects rather than environmental ones...) because it means people will make more of an effort to prevent it from happening...however, what pisses me off is that many of these people are doing it out of blindly shameless self-righteousness rather than actual caring about the environmental, economic and health-related effects of it.

"Oh look at me, I care about the environment and all the beautiful little animals! I'm such a unique hippy!" Go to hell.

There's also the fact that fucking walking to school rather than being driven isn't going to do shit...even if everyone did that, it wouldn't have a great effect. It is more the responsibility of the corporations than the general public, as a) the money to help prevent it is in their hands, and b) particularly with secondary labour, they're also the main contributers to the greenhouse gas emissions.

At 1/12/07 12:37 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 1/12/07 05:00 AM, Imperator wrote: That's just the opposite for me. The fact that there has been such a huge rush on this tells me it's a fad. I'm skeptical of jumping on the ever-filling bandwagon here.....

Absolutely.

[rant]I honestly despise the global warming fad. Have any Brits here seen those Sky News adverts where people send in videos of themselves taking measures against global warming? Totally fucking pathetic. Oh wow, little girl, you'll actually be walking to school tomorrow? Well call the shitting marching band, and I hope your guilt is overridden! I mean jesus, as if that's anything to be proud of. And what about the little kid that turned off all the lights in his living room before going to sleep? What, does that imply he didn't do that before? What a stupid little jackass, as if the main problem that would be contributing to is global warming...what about the fucking electricity bills, you little cock? GAGH!!! It's like a hole of self-righteousness.

I'm not going to change any of my habits. Not one. Especially since I already walk / cycle everywhere and use as little electricity as possible anyway, and have been doing so for years, before everyone got cocked up about global warming. And heh, the people who send in these kind of videos probably don't know about the process of global warming or the effects it has in the first place...like you said, they're just jumping on the bandwagons like the sheepish, twatty little arses they are...[/end rant]

Haha, that makes me remember an action my (christian) high school once took. In order to support the war against global warming, they lowered the heating by a couple of degrees. So we were all in class in winter gear, nearly freezing. And then they told us they saved 8% on electricity by doing it. The rest of the year the heating was up so much that we actually had to open the windows to avoid being fried, but that day we saved 8% on the electricity. I felt very warm and fuzzy inside, doing my part for the world!

There are perfectly good reasons why I believe that global warming is taking place. As I implied earlier, I've known about it for years, and since then I've been looking at the facts myself and have come to the conclusion that it is a real phenomena rather than just media sensaionalism. Evidences:

-Global temperature rise [1 2]
-Disappearance of glaciers [3 4]
-Sea level rise [5]
-Increase in extreme weather [6
-Increased evaporation [7

I think my point is made.

Quite.

In a sense, I'm glad about people jumping on the "global warming bandwagon" (even if it chiefly because recently people have been talking about economic effects rather than environmental ones...) because it means people will make more of an effort to prevent it from happening...however, what pisses me off is that many of these people are doing it out of blindly shameless self-righteousness rather than actual caring about the environmental, economic and health-related effects of it.

"Oh look at me, I care about the environment and all the beautiful little animals! I'm such a unique hippy!" Go to hell.

Haha. The funniest part is that it all doesn't really matter. Unless DRASTIC measures are taken. Even the Kyoto protocol barely helps anything, and plenty of countries (damn you US!) refuse to ratify it. If the government doesn't make an effort to reduce emission by a couple of percents, turning off the light when you're not in your room might be a very nice symbolic gesture, but it means jack faeces.

There's also the fact that fucking walking to school rather than being driven isn't going to do shit...even if everyone did that, it wouldn't have a great effect. It is more the responsibility of the corporations than the general public, as a) the money to help prevent it is in their hands, and b) particularly with secondary labour, they're also the main contributers to the greenhouse gas emissions.

Traffic is quite an important part in CO2 emission, and that's something the general public (or better yet, the government, through taxes and limitations) can do something about.

sourcage!

And here I thought that the record temperature was highest 4 billion years ago when Earth was a molten ball of lava.

At 1/12/07 01:56 PM, Togukawa wrote: Traffic is quite an important part in CO2 emission, and that's something the general public (or better yet, the government, through taxes and limitations) can do something about.

sourcage!

Yes, I was getting a little carried away there wasn't I? I do agree that children should walk to school if they can, and if not, use public transport. However, what I don't agree with is letting yourself have that warm little feeling and feel less guilty just because you're walking to school. If you're seriously that bothered about reducing global warming on an individual basis, walk / cycle / use public transport all the time, like I (try to) do.

As your source also states, the largest contributer to C02 emissions are energy industries, and given that they're industries rather than individuals, they can make the biggest difference.

And here I thought that the record temperature was highest 4 billion years ago when Earth was a molten ball of lava.

Yes, because of the incredibly high levels of carbon dioxide.

At 1/4/07 04:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/4/07 04:46 PM, patriotextremeist wrote: Hey. It's 20 degrees above normal temperature in New Jersey.

and its one degree above the record high of 1915. whats your point, freak weather happens.

i have no idea if the record was set at that time, i'm simply stating that other heat records have been set prior to all this global warming stuff, way prior.

Not to be a nudge but I believe it was 1950 actually, but that's irrevelent because the Earth has always had periods of cooling and heating. In fact after this blows over, I wouldn't doubt the scientists predicting another ice age.

Dynasaurs need really big cars to get around, which explains why it was so warm back then.

At 1/12/07 11:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Dynasaurs need really big cars to get around, which explains why it was so warm back then.

What happened to the dinosaurs is indeed a sad story. And to think, the Raptors were only two years away from perfecting that asteroid defense system they had been working on for so long.

At 1/13/07 11:01 PM, AdamRice wrote:

At 1/12/07 11:59 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Dynasaurs need really big cars to get around, which explains why it was so warm back then.

What happened to the dinosaurs is indeed a sad story. And to think, the Raptors were only two years away from perfecting that asteroid defense system they had been working on for so long.

:D sO TRUE MY FREIND! so true...

NOW! back to the topic.

arguing about global warming is one thing, but, on the pretense that global warming is true, what is a government supposed to do about it without making the people feel like they are being oppressed. [maybe green peace should fly a plane into the ice cap, if you get that sarcastic joke]

At 1/13/07 11:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: NOW! back to the topic.

arguing about global warming is one thing, but, on the pretense that global warming is true, what is a government supposed to do about it without making the people feel like they are being oppressed. [maybe green peace should fly a plane into the ice cap, if you get that sarcastic joke]

The government can basically put up stricter emissions regulations.
Some easy places to start would be:
Make all newly built coal plants sequester their CO2 emissions into the ground.
Build more nuclear power plants which emit zero global warming emissions.

And as a matter of fact, we are building more nuclear power plants, the government isn't, but GE atomic and Westinghouse already have several new ones scheduled to be built or something like that. I read a short article on it in business week.

Since I aspire to be a nuclear engineer, I'm basically going to have no trouble finding a high paying, benefit filled job. There is currently a shortage of nuclear engineers and the problem is only going to get worse as new plants are added to the grid.

I love the fact that I picked the right line of work to go into! And I enjoy the subject matter as an added bonus.