Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/18/07 11:34 AM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 3/18/07 10:54 AM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: What we need to do to stop this is to stop poluting the oceans and stop cutting down all of the trees. That's the biggest harm to the planet. People don't seem to realize how important the oceans are and we need to stop destroying them. How else do you think carborn dioxide is recicled into oxygen?

This is a joke right?

... Maybe the sea weed lol... But I don't think that there would be much oxygen down there lol.

i think a little more heat wont be so bad. i enjoy it.

We're definately destroying our planet somehow.

Today in the UK every 30 minutes the weather switched between very sunny to major hail to snow to rain and then back all over again. Crazy!

At 3/20/07 01:20 AM, Alphabit wrote: ... Maybe the sea weed lol... But I don't think that there would be much oxygen down there lol.

You are aware that the alge in the ocean produces about 75% of our oxygen, right?

Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate
by Joseph Bast (January 30, 2001)

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." [The names of persons who have signed the petition can be viewed at http://www.oism.org/pproject.]

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry.

Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.

The qualifications of the signers of the Oregon Institute Petition are dramatically better than the qualifications of the 2,600 "scientists" who have signed a competing petition, circulated by Ozone Action, calling for immediate action to counter global warming. An investigation by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that more than 90 percent of the Ozone Action petition's signers lacked credentials to speak with authority on the issue. [Citizens for a Sound Economy, "Analyses Finds Only 10% of Ozone Action 2600 are 'Experts' on Global Warming," news release, October 29, 1997.] The entire list included just one climatologist.

Over one hundred climate scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration, which stated in part, "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from Earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." [Dr. S. Fred Singer, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 1997), pages 40-43.]

A survey of 36 state climatologists--scientists retained by state governments to monitor and research climate issues--conducted in September and October 1997 found that 58 percent disagreed with the statement, "global warming is for real," while only 36 percent agreed.[ American Viewpoint, "Survey of State & Regional Climatologists, September-October 1997, Annotated Questionnaire," October 1997] A remarkable 89 percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors."

The same survey found that none of the climatologists strongly agreed, and only 11 percent "somewhat agreed," with the following statement: "Reducing anthropogenic or man-made carbon dioxide emissions among developed nations such as the United States to 1990 levels will prevent global temperatures from rising." Eighty-six percent disagreed with the statement.

Global warming alarmists have sought to silence their critics by calling them a small group of industry-funded dissenters from the "scientific consensus." [Ross Gelbspan, The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate (New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1997).] The Oregon Institute Petition, the Leipzig Declaration, and the survey of practicing climatologists prove these claims are false. We should keep in mind, however, that scientific truths are not found by polling scientists, but through rigorous debate recorded in peer-reviewed journals. As the following points show, global warming skeptics can win that debate, too.

Made available from http://www.heartland.org/

well here is a video from another point of view.

LINK

At 3/20/07 06:10 PM, Heritage wrote: Scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate
by Joseph Bast (January 30, 2001)

Thats over 5 years old. When all the leading experts did their study of it much more recently they found human activities were causing global warming.

At 3/18/07 03:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

So what accounts for the rise in CO2 (according to your own source) that happened 140,000 years ago...WAY before man started increasing CO2? The chart also shows that in the period between 140,000 and 115,000 years ago the CO2 levels remained the same, but the temperature was decreasing. And all this happened without man's involvement and the industrial revolution...which is the benchmark most environmentalists point to as the start of the latest cycle of warming.

I don't know. but when it happened the temperature went up. You accept this. therefore, your argument must be based on "Humans are not emitting large volumes of CO2". This is flase an easily proven so.

Many things can have an effect on global temperature - Volcanic reactions, meteor strikes, solar cycles etc but what the graph proves is that if you increase Co2 the temperature increases. SO what happens when the Co2 from our cars, aeroplanes and powerstations if spewed into the atmosphere?

As for your argument that its impossible for humans to change the climate because other things have changed it in the past, I doubt that even you believe something that naive. Of course, I also expect that you have not bothered to research what DID cause these temperature changes......................... So here's what happened. 120000 years ago the earth warmed up from an ice age, causing many glaciers, ice and snow to melt at once. When a tudra area melts it releases trapped Co2(the more melts, the more co2 released). This massive increase in Co2 caused the temperature to rise(and it took about 40,000 years to stabilise). Of course, we are not recovering from any ice age and this cannot be applied to what we see in the last part of the graph.

It's all bullshit anyhow.

At 3/18/07 12:43 PM, TheMason wrote: Our oceans play a part in our climate, but only a part. However, they play about ZERO in controlling the level of oxygen in our climate. The process of turning CO2 into O2 is done through Photosynthesis, and that is a biological process that is done exclusively through plants.

The oceans are full of Phytoplankton, photosynthetic single celled plants which are responsible for a lot of Co2 - O2 conversion (I'm not like specifically going after you here lol)

At 3/18/07 06:37 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/18/07 06:32 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

And the hundreds of millions of plants and alge that are in the ocean go through the process of photosynthesis. If the oceans are poluted, these plants die. Less plants = more CO2.

New plan: Lets get everyone to stop breathing.

New plan: Lets ignore the situation until it's too late.

At 3/19/07 06:50 PM, Memorize wrote:

yeah... doesn't work that way. Might I had that earth is over 70% water.

;
I'm not trying to be nasty here.

BUt the world is definately not 70% water.

THe surface of the planet is approximately 70% covered by water.
The large portion of the surface covered by water, equals approximately 326 million trillion gallons (from the how stuff works web page)

At 3/20/07 06:10 PM, Heritage wrote:
Made available from http://www.heartland.org/

You know, I pressed back after reading the editoriaal strip they had.

The difference between Galileo and Global warming sceptics is, that Galileo was persecuted by a dogmatic religion that relied on ancient accounts for fact, and the Global warming sceptics are mostly just ignored by peoplewho are qualified scientists that have long researched the subject at hand. The fact that they're also, quote: "-- a nonprofit organization devoted to discovering and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems"

Now, I'm not saying that would make them unreliable. But biased for sure.

Now, for my own view on the subject:
Global warming is a fact. It happens periodically, naturally, yes. But to say that there's no relation between global warming and human action is pretty blind. Just the sheer amount of carbon dioxide we pump in the atmosphere (and the amount of vegetation - carbon dioxide sinks - we destroy) cannot go completely unnoticed.

Global warming will happen, you cannot stop it. But you can soften the blow.

At 3/21/07 11:13 AM, emmytee wrote:

At 3/18/07 03:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

I don't know. but when it happened the temperature went up. You accept this. therefore, your argument must be based on "Humans are not emitting large volumes of CO2". This is flase an easily proven so.

Yes I think humans are emitting large volumes of CO2, however this does not mean that humans are the cause of GW.

Many things can have an effect on global temperature - Volcanic reactions, meteor strikes, solar cycles etc but what the graph proves is that if you increase Co2 the temperature increases. SO what happens when the Co2 from our cars, aeroplanes and powerstations if spewed into the atmosphere?

As I have recently learned, the oceans act like a large carbon filter where microorganisms convert CO2 into O2. As I have learned recently, this activity accounts for providing about 75% of our atmosphere's O2 content. As a result of increased CO2 there will probably be more algae and plankton which will convert more CO2 into O2, thereby providing a negative feedback that will keep GW in check (this could also be what accounts for a temp drop before atmospheric CO2). Just like more CO2 will result in more clouds, another negative feedback for GW that keeps it in check.

As for your argument that its impossible for humans to change the climate because other things have changed it in the past, I doubt that even you believe something that naive. Of course, I also expect that you have not bothered to research what DID cause these temperature changes......................... So here's what happened. 120000 years ago the earth warmed up from an ice age, causing many glaciers, ice and snow to melt at once. When a tudra area melts it releases trapped Co2(the more melts, the more co2 released). This massive increase in Co2 caused the temperature to rise(and it took about 40,000 years to stabilise). Of course, we are not recovering from any ice age and this cannot be applied to what we see in the last part of the graph.

So what is the reason for what we see in the last part of the graph? It sure as hell isn't manmade! Unless of course Atlantis existed and spewed massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Because look at that graph again...the current spike in CO2 levels it describes happened about 14,000 years ago...well before the industrial revolution (the watershed human period most environmentalists point to as the downfall of the planet). But wait...did the last ice age end something like 10,000 years ago? So I guess it is your argument, not mine, that is false!

At 3/21/07 03:05 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: The difference between Galileo and Global warming sceptics is, that Galileo was persecuted by a dogmatic religion that relied on ancient accounts for fact, and the Global warming sceptics are mostly just ignored by peoplewho are qualified scientists that have long researched the subject at hand.

I think you over estimate the qualifications of these scientists. Physicists, Chemists and Biologists are not necessarily well suited to study the climate. These three disciplines involve studying phenomenon that can be quantified down to just a few variables and tested in a controlled environment and then duplicated at any point on the planet.

Climatology is not. A single phenomenon in the climate is effected by an infinite number of variables which means it cannot be reduced to one or two readily examined and controlled variables. This requires a whole set of intellectual and problem solving though patterns and analysis that is simply 180 degrees counter to way Physicists, Chemists and Biologists think and approach science and the scientific method. In fact, I think sociologists, political scientists and psychologists are better suited to apply the scientific method to the climate than people in the "hard" sciences. The reason, whe study phenomenon that involve many variables that cannot be controlled for and change from region to region and country to country. Just like the climate.

Also in Physics, Chemistry and Biology; something has to behave the same way at any point on the globe to be valid. This is simply not the case with the weather.

Did anyone think that the warming could be caused by the Sun?
(shock)

The icecaps on Mars are receding. Oh no, it must be the rover we sent up there. Boy are we bastards.

The sun radiates heat and light with the process of hydrogen fusing to form helium with more than enough energy to destroy the world 1,000,000 times over. It is by no means a stable process. It fluctuates quite frequently.

Also, as a side note, the world panicked about Global Cooling 40 years ago, when there were far less restrictions on polution.

This is all bunk spread by environmentalist commies. Al Gore is a freaking hypocrite and a pathological liar. Getting an award in hollywood just proves what kind of idiots are in show business.

At 3/21/07 11:19 AM, emmytee wrote: The oceans are full of Phytoplankton, photosynthetic single celled plants which are responsible for a lot of Co2 - O2 conversion (I'm not like specifically going after you here lol)

LOL! I think you missed on of my posts. I'll quote it here for your enjoyment:

At 3/18/07 08:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/18/07 07:49 PM, Ravariel wrote: Sorry dude, marine algae is responsible for 70-80% of the oxygen in our atmosphere, making the oceans EXTREMELY important in the preservation of the atmosphere.

Mea Culpa Ravariel & Funny Name. I was wrong, I've done some quick research and I spoke out of turn.

So was it good for you?

justsomestupidfillerbecauseNGhasthisrequireme ntabouthowmuchtextyoucanquoteinasinglepost.is thishardtoread?didyouknowthisishowthebiblewas orginallywritten?nowcanyouseehowtherehavebeen moremistakesduetotransmissionthanthereareword sinthebible?

Yeah, it still was ... damn you "Ravariel" if that is your real name........

-_-

The first guy probably never knew this anyway.

goddamit.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

At 3/21/07 11:13 AM, emmytee wrote:

I don't know. but when it happened the temperature went up. You accept this. therefore, your argument must be based on "Humans are not emitting large volumes of CO2". This is flase an easily proven so.

Dude... YOU'RE MADE UP OF CO2.

What I thought was hallarious was how that video on the 1st page took the same Data from Al Gore and instead of spreaking it for 650,000 years, they narrowed it down to a few thousand. And when looking at the graph, the termperature went up BEFORE co2 by 800 years.

T'was funny. And you're a twat.

I saw a calculation that said in the middle ages the average temperature was higher, let me find it.

Also, Al Gore is not a good person to listen to.

At 3/21/07 10:28 PM, Scotty1542 wrote:

no your wrong and right, u are right in one way, the earth does heat up and freeze every something years, and the part your wrong is that we are helping to SPEED it, that means we will make the warming alot worse then it actuly should be

CO2 comes mainly from water vapor. Depending on who you ask it can range from I believe 70-90% of greenhouse gasses.

Secondly, it has only been a .5% C increase in temperature. Now, lets take greenhouse gasses. First, CO2 comes from ALL LIVING THINGS (hell, you breathe out CO2). You would have to isolate how much of the change is caused by greenhouse, then you would have to then isolate again how much of it are human contributions making that percentage much smaller.

You do realize of course that in the 70's and 80's, people were calling Global Cooling as much of a problem as this so called Global Warming.

And according to the movie "The global warming" swindle (posted on the first page), CO2 lags BEHIND temperature change by 800 years! Basically that means that the temperature increases and decrease 800 years before CO2 increases and decreases to those levels.

AND! *inhales deeply* ...I'm done.

1: Humans are emitting large volumes of co2

2: Temperature and Co2 are linked

.................

At 3/21/07 03:05 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Global warming is a fact.

Har har har!

At 3/21/07 06:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

Dude... YOU'RE MADE UP OF CO2.

lol, no I'm not you twat. 70-80% water, and lots of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. BUT not in the form of Co2. Very little Co2

What I thought was hallarious was how that video on the 1st page took the same Data from Al Gore and instead of spreaking it for 650,000 years, they narrowed it down to a few thousand. And when looking at the graph, the termperature went up BEFORE co2 by 800 years.

Thats a hypothesis, but not one that is supported by the majority of the scientific community. the IPCC are THE global authority on these matters, and while there are scientists on both sides,the better ones are on mine which is why the theory I support is the accepted one. Kinda like 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are many college professors who say that demos brought down the trade center. Its funny how people like you are quick to dismiss them as liberal nut jobs when they disagree with you, but cling to similarly qualified individuals when they support you.

T'was funny. And you're a twat.

When its too late to do anything to stop it (which is only about 20 or more years down the line, I am going to laugh at everyone's vainty.

At 3/22/07 05:55 AM, emmytee wrote: 1: Humans are emitting large volumes of co2

2: Temperature and Co2 are linked

All living things emit Co2 just in case you didn't know. May I refer you to the video posted on page 1 which you conveniently skipped. Which states that the temperature rises to a point 800 years before Co2 reaches it. According to them, Co2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

But I guess you just have to skip those things when you have nothing to back yourself up.

well it cant really be denied as entirely proven...but the fact that we are over 1100 years ahead of schedual for this climate shift.....kinda scares me a little.

http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/great_global_

warming_swindle.htm

This movie completely changed my mind, I've seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' several times and even went to see Al Gore in person when he came to my hometown, he gave a presentation 'After An Inconvenient Truth' where he basically went through his whole slideshow and mentioned just a few other pieces of scientific data.

I was completely convinced that he was right, and that Global Warming was the real deal.

After watching this movie, my eyes are open! Now I believe that Al Gore grossly misrepresented the issue for his own monetary profits, to advance his political agenda, and other personal agendas (I'm not talking from a conservative view, I would have preferred Gore to Bush in office).

One notable thing is when he is showing the relationship between temperature and Co2, he says the relationship is 'complicated', and yes, they do fit together, but he never mentions that Co2 FOLLOWS temperature by 500 to 800 years, meaning, first temperature rises, THEN Co2 rises, the reason is because the oceans contain the majority of Earth's Co2 and it literally takes them hundreds of years to warm up when temperatures rise, when they warm up, they evaporate more, thus releasing more Co2--- but Co2 does NOT cause the temperature to rise.

#1.For one thing, there are many cases in which there was a LOT more Co2 in the atmosphere than there is now, even 10 times more, and temperatures were not much affected.

#2. People are not the biggest cause of Co2, Volcanoes release more than all humans and all industry combined, animals release more than volcanoes, plants release more than animals, and the oceans release more than all of them. So the idea that humans are causing huge Co2 levels is ridiculous.

#3. There is an extremely small amount of Co2 in the atmosphere anyway, just a few parts per million, and a very small percentage of atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases, thus their temperature effect, especially compared to solar radiation and cloud cover is very minute.

#4. There are times in history when the globe was much warmer than it is now and the end of the world never happened.

#5. The link between industry and rising temperatures doesn't fit, most of warming happened between 1900 and 1940, 1940 to 1970- the post war 'boom', which had about the most intensive industrial action ever, temperature was actually getting cooler, total warming for the 20th century was about .5 degrees Celsius, or .9 degrees Farenheit (which is not that significant, on a comparative historical basis).

#6. Different species, like the polar bears for instance, survived warmer temperatures in the past, coral reefs dying is linked to pollution, but probably has more to do with the ph of the oceans changing (because of pollution).

#7. As far as glaciers and ice caps go, including the 'disappearing' arctic ice cap, they have always fluctuated and are in a constant state of change, many experts say there is absolutely nothing alarming about today's situation.

So basically, much of the 'science' presented by Global Warming campaigners is totally bunk, and has its actual roots in propaganda, sensationalism, political agendas, industry, and beurecratic profiteering. ---

The sick part is, it is a huge force in keeping developing countries from developing (by stunting their industrial growth). Meanwhile 2 billion people are without electricity and barriers are being put up to prevent them from ever getting it, because of this Global Warming fiasco, millions of people die every year because they have to cook with fire in their homes, they die from cancers and other diseases caused by breathing smoke, or just straight up carbon monoxide poisoning-- indoor smoke is the DEADLIEST form of pollution in the world-- because they don't have access to cleaner energy.

All this, and Global Warming sensationalists are helping to prevent them from escaping misery, poverty, and death.

Seems pretty sick to me.

At 3/22/07 05:39 PM, Nagneto wrote: When its too late to do anything to stop it (which is only about 20 or more years down the line, I am going to laugh at everyone's vainty.

In 1987 I heard an environmentalist say the exact same thing and at the time I agreed with him. However, I haven't heard him laugh yet and it's 20 years later...