global warming

[lobo]

I'm not poking fun at the "warming nuts" but #####, a year ago today it was 85 degrees outside !! I'm not as far north as many of you are and I can still ice fish !

When you guys up in northern minnesota and ND see some global warming let us know - I'll be packin and movin !

How'd the gophers fare today ??

Steve

[FlyBoy]

lobo, I'm with you.. We had a few mild winters, and the whole globe is going to he!!... I always wondered, if global warming really is happening... Where are all of the 120+ days during the summer? We have BARELY gotten near 100 for a couple of years now. I can remember summers years back that were MUCH warmer.

-John

[Backwater Eddy]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-01 AT 08:15AM (CST)[p]Global warming is a fact of life we have induced and execrated.

Glacial records show this without any guess work, we have warmed more in the past 300 years then the past 100,000. No place in the glacial record has this ever happened, ever.

We as citizens of this planet best open our eyes soon or we will eventually find ourselves flooded by melting ice caps and fried by UV radiation.

We are guilty of not focusing on the future, and the future it much worse and closer than we had previously though.

You know it is real when the petroleum industry is concentration larger recourses to alternative fuels and research all the time. They need to make cash in the future too. They see it!

I am not a "Green person" any more then the next man who wants to see a future for his kids, and there kid's children.



Backwater Eddy

[Lund_Dude]

Global warming is a steaming load of you-know-what...

First, there is inconclusive evidence of the warming. We have only been keeping accurate records of temperatures for less than 100 years. Based on the history of the world, we are looking at a snapshot not a trend. Most things in nature are cylclical and temp is one of them, we are likely only on the warming end of the cycle.

As far as greenhouse gasses. Man only contributes a small portion of them. A sizable volcano eruption, produces more greenhouse gas than man can produce in a couple years. There are many other sources of these gasses that include decaying plant and animal matter. We are only a small portion of the problem (not that I don't believe that we should minimize our emmisions, because we should).

When I was in school, many years ago, they taught us that the next ice age was comming. They turned 180 degrees in about 20 years.

[Mr coal]

Buying oars for your clean air burning boat and motor Eddy?
Scientists are still arguing amongest themselves if there really is a global warming.

[vetspet(ind)]

well...back in the eighties when we suffered thru some very cold winters the enviro song was all about returning to the ice ages....now let a few warm seasons prevail and it is a global warming problem...the problem is we humans look at the weather from a period of only a few yrs...we arrogantly think that mother nature is so fragile that we can cause irreversible damage to our planet and altho technically this is true we overestimate our harmfulness by listening to the enviro disaster crowd...case in point...in the fifties or sixties lake erie literally caught fire...it was considered a dead lake...not many years later and after much hard work...it became the number one walleye fishery in north america....mother nature somehow had the ability along with prudent stewardship on our part to correct a major problem...man is resilient...so is earth...many scientists portend to speak on environmental issues which they represent to be expert authorities about...case in point..carl sagan...one of the enviro authorities....he is an astrophysicist i believe...he predicted that if iraq invades kuwait and ignites the oil wells...which he did...there would be catastrophic environmental consequences....soot from the smoke would lower global temps...and it would take 5 yrs to extinguish the flames and that sulfur in the soot would combine with rain and destroy crops for thousands of miles...well...scientists did take measurements....wall street journal..may15, 1992....scientists for the national center for atmospheric research...took measurements ...they found that global enviro damage was insignificant...altho local damage did occur....the soot from the fires was 13 times the soot emitted daily from all cobustion sources in the usa...yet there was no significant global damage...the reason is that rain cleared up the soot...see..mother nature can handle even catastrophic levels of pollutants which we terrible humans keep creating....your enviro experts were wrong on this one and so many more of their predictions over the years...acid rain...was going to sterilize all our waterways and lakes in the east back in the 70's....a book worth reading is "trashing the planet"..by dixy lee ray...former chairman of the atomic energy commission....the earth has always had its warming and cooling trends...we have been measuring (accurately) only a few hundred years...what went on over 100,000 yrs or more is still speculation...yet our enviro experts like to think they can accurately state what really happened...i have studied much more in depth what other experts..anthropologists...say happened long ago and the overwhelming view by these "scientists" is so skewed as to question any reliability, for me, of our ability to know our distant past their speculations are pawned off as facts in most of our present day schools and colleges and yet if any one really digs into the truth they will easily see so many holes in their theories that it becomes a farce...steve

[cisco]

"Truth" by revelation, or knowledge gained through systematic inquiry?

Why research anything when set-in-stone revelations come easily to the chosen few.

[Backwater Eddy]

:)

Backwater Eddy

[Backwater Eddy]

Rather buy oars than try to grow gills.

They excepted theory was the earth was flat too, but guess what, they found out differently.

A volcano erupts every so often, we spew forth tons on a daily basis, every day, all day long. It is about frequency and severity of global contamination. Now add a big eruption compliments of mother nature to our own contribution's to the atmosphere, then what?

Most people look at it like smoking, it may kill me but that's the risk I take. Global warming is like second hand smoke to the world, we all should be concerned.

I am not preaching the sky is falling just we need to change our ways ASAP or we all will suffer.

This we all will be dead and gone is 60 years crude it's not my problem crap is a ##### of a way to look at out children's future!

Backwater Eddy

[chrism]

Anybody that believes the earth is warming should come and spend a winter here in Winnipeg.....

[FlyBoy]

First and foremost, I'm not saying we shouldn't do everything in our power to limit emissions and such... It's just that I don't buy the Global Warming ideas....

14,000 years ago, there was a great big chunk of ice over were I am standing right now... When it left, a whole bunch of lakes were left behind. In the big picture, 14,000 years isn't that long ago. AND THERE WAS A GLACIER HERE.

Logic would tell me, that if the glacier is now gone, it must have warmed up some, or it would still be here.

Scientists can't even tell me what the weather is going to do tomorrow with any better than a 50/50 guess. But you expect me to believe they can tell me what is going to happen a couple hundred years from now?

I'd still like an explaination for my missing hot summer days, any of you global warming guys have an answer? Throw dinosaurs in there too... I'm feeling lucky :)

-John

[Bottomfeeder]

My wife says"what's wrong with golbal warming? Woulden't we all like to live in Hawaii??"

[River_eye]

Where are you getting this info? Man only creates small amounts of greenhouse gasses? Are you nuts?

My plea is this. So there isn't rock solid evidence of global warming, does that mean that it's not happening? With an issue as big as this, it really isn't worth taking the chance.

Here's an analogy. You are at your place of work and it's 4:30. Two of your co-workers tell you of reports they heard about the main freeway home being blocked, meaning a 4 hour delay in getting home, which would mean that you would miss your son's playoff baseball game. Then two other co-workers tell you that they havn't heard anything and that they doubt that there is a blockage. You have two opinions, both from sources of equal merit, that contradict each other. Do you take a different route that's a little bit longer, just to be sure you make it to your son's playoff game, even if you are 15 min late, or do you decide that there is insufficient evidence that there is any blockage on your normal route, and risk missing a very important event.

Similarily, would you want to gamble with your kid's futures, just because there is insufficient evidence of global warming.

River eye

[River_eye]

Here's a bit of decision theory for you guys.

Okay, you can either believe in global warming or not believe in it, but quite independant of this is the fact of whether it is happening or not.

If you believe in Global warming and take counteractive measures to prevent it, and it does exist, then you are in very good shape and getting much utility from the decision that you made

If you believe in it and it doesn't exist. Then you get some disutility, having wasted some time and energy on it, but hey, at least your environment is cleaner.

If you choose not to believe in it and it does exist. You are getting maximum disutility, mostly for your children who will have to live with your mistake.

If you choose not to believe in it and it doesn't exist, you get some utility for not having wasted any time and effort on it.


If you choose to believe in global warming, there is much to be gained, and a little to be lost

If you choose to not belive in global warming, there is very little to be gained, but very much to be lost.

Now it's time to make your decision, what do you do?
River eye

[ufda]

:D

[Hans]

Everyone has to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer.

Hans

[Leechboy]

The vast majority of climatologists and other scientist who study enviromental and weather trends agree that global warming is a reality. Being a conservitive, I logically want to error on the side of caution when it comes to how we treat our enviroment a.k.a. life support system. Some of you sound happy to gamble with all of that. I consider those of you who would take that gamble to be exteme enviromental liberals, willing to spend our resources for selfish reasons. It's time to deal with these issues like adults instead of ostriches.--Leechboy

[Lund_Dude]

My wife's uncle is a biochemist who was a contributor to the "global warming" paper that Algore routinely cited. We have had some extensive discussions on this topic. As an aside, Algore recited a lot of pieces out of context as the report stated (Page 1) that the findings were inconclusive.

I did state that we should try to limit our emisions, I just don't believe that we should give much credence to the "sky is falling" crowd. Just remember that when it comes to scientific research, there is little funding for people who conclude there is no problem.

[SUPERTROLLER]

Last summer in SW lower Mi. we had 1 Day over 90 degrees. ONE ! How can we warm the whole global environment and then cool it so much that we couldn't even break 90? Normal temp.'s would have been 15 to 20 days over 90 and several over 100. We weren't even close to above normal temp.'s here. Are you now going to pick and chose where "Global Warming" is occuring? It should be Globally. I have to agree that the winters have been warmer than in the sixties and seventies but I think it's all in the cycles they talk about. How come the Dust Bowl days occurred in the early 1900's? What caused the lack of rain then? Could that have been a low point in the precipitation cycle. The Great Lakes are on a downward trend in levels now but still is in the level cycle of the records. Why were they lower in past years if it was colder and should have evaporated less? The best answer here was that there is not a long enough history of RELIABLE weather facts to base these dire predictions on.
All the fear mongers are screaming about droughts and high oceans causing floods. When these low lying areas flood the waters there will warm up and cause more evaporation. More moisture in the air means more rain if you ask me. How does more rain cause bigger droughts? More rain and snow will replenish the lakes, streams, and aquifers, we rely on for water. More snow will also fall at the poles from this excess moisture.
All the computer models call for exponential growth in temperatures. When more snow falls on the poles the glaciers should have added mass to push toward the equator as they melt. This will cool the poles as they creep further away, not warm the rest of the planet. All ice ages were preceded by a period of warming where moisture was collected at the poles prior to their unstoppable surge. If man wasn't around to warm the globe before those ice ages happened, then why should we believe man is causing this cycle to repeat itself.
I would like to see less things emitted into the atomosphere too, but there just seems to be so much speculation and so few hard facts that I don't know what to believe anymore. El Nino and La Nina cycles didn't just start happening. This has been going on forever. To scream like maniacs everytime it switches one way or the other is ludicrous. Weather has it's ups and downs. We just have to roll with the punches of Mother Nature as she pummels us into submission or die from ulcers worrying about things beyond our control.

[Buckeye]

Hans I was thinking the exact same thing after reading that last post!! Problem is I gave up beer for Lent. I'll give myself a rain check. If I keep taking rain checks, Easter is going to be a blur.

Not sure if a CO2 beer induced burp is considered greenhouse gas but if it is I am doing my part to combat global warming during this lenten season.

[EAGLE EYES]

One day human beings will be extinct. Guess what? Mother Earth will still be there. It's called evolution! the solar system will get rid of us if we don't destroy ourselfs first. We can all do our best to prolong the human race. But to face the facts, one day: all the children will go away! So, be happy and greatful your here today, because tommorro may never come! EE

[GullGuide]

I firmly believe that there is some type of problem with pollution and even the ozone layer. My problem is with using weather records to predict GLOOM and DOOM.
How long have we been keeping accurate world-wide records? 150-200 years tops. Think about that in the context of time....it's a nanosecond...a blip....the length of one of Hans' beer burps..:).....
It is insane to say these trends in weather patterns point to catastrophy. yes, we do need to clean up our act, but don't use weather records as a basis for predictions.
>"////=<

[GullGuide]

I firmly believe that there is some type of problem with pollution and even the ozone layer. My problem is with using weather records to predict GLOOM and DOOM.
How long have we been keeping accurate world-wide records? 150-200 years tops. Think about that in the context of time....it's a nanosecond...a blip....the length of one of Hans' beer burps..:).....
It is insane to say these trends in weather patterns point to catastrophy. yes, we do need to clean up our act, but don't use weather records as a basis for predictions.
>"////=<

[Leechboy]

Do those of you who don't believe in science use wholist medicines when you're sick? Or is this just a particular area of science you choose to ignore because it's convienient? Again, the overwelming majority of scientist who study related areas believe GW is happening.

[Gunga Din]

A few years ago I was in South America climbing, and after coming down off the mountain I met up with the man who is considered the father of mountaineering in Argentina. Even though he's an old geyser, we hit it off pretty well and spent the better part of a day driving around in his Range Rover to all the lookouts in that part of the Andes range. He then started commenting on the rapid decline of the glaciers.

We were at about 11,500' looking up at mountains reaching 16,000' in that valley. He knew them all by name and could point out how much they had receeded in his lifetime. And though pictures may date back to over a hundred years, it is true that our snapshot window at all this is very short. However, what's of concern is the acceleration of the decline in more recent years. And even though we have a short perspective on all this, we can still figure out that, if the global warming trends continue at the same rate of acceleration for ten, twenty, thrirty, or even fifty years, then our view of the landscape is going to start to change drastically.

Hey, I don't know the answers or the causes, or even what I can change to make it different other than the obvious. But I'm not blind to the evidence of it, nor can I pass it off as a geological anomaly that coincides with man's impact on the environment. Though it will all iron out in a few billion years, personally, I'm more interested in the next few hundred.

[Scott Richardson]

Global warming is fact. Its consequences will be dire. Unfortunately, lots of people have self interests in keeping youin the dark about it. Disinformation campaigns are carried out. Scientists supported by the major pollutors are paid to confuse the general public.

In a report this month, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said temperatures may increase by 2.5 to 10.5 degrees in this century. That rate is much faster than previously thought. Among others, consequences may include mass death of forests, widespread coastal flooding, more severe storms and the the disappearance of countless animal and plant species. In some regions, farmland will turn to desert. Coral reefs face destruction.

About 700 of the world’s leading scientists participated in the report's production.

Make fun of those who are sounding the warmings, pop another brew and vote for anti-environmentalists like Bush all you want. It's not my job to convince you otherwise. But, many of you reading this will live to see the negative impacts of global warming. At that point, don't be surprised to hear, "We told you so." Unfortunately, it may be too late for all of us by then.

Have a nice day.

[Lund_Dude]

Scott:

Although I have argued my point and I have respect for you, I must point something out. Global Warming is NOT a fact. At best it is conjecture and speculation. The scientific community cannot agree, so it cannot be called a fact at this point. Thank you.

[lobo]

GGGEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZ !!

I guess it's safe to say the trip to MN or ND is off !!

I'm with Hans and believe I will have a barley pop and try and find out who won the dam game myself. (I think I need to fish with Hans !)

For the record, I don't really believe there is any proof that our current state is anything but cyclical BUT at the same time I do believe that a guy ought to conserve whenever possible and ATLEAST recycle and re-use (don't know about taking the bus to work etc etc).

lobo

[jb]

Lets go back to the ice age. I don't think they worried about global warming then. After this winter, where the weather was cold even in the south, I don't know how anyone could believe in that b.s. All you global warming freaks can now go hide under your beds til the iceman comes..

[ezmarc]

Global warming seems to have been going on for Thousands of years, according to scientists (which I am definately not). This is much much longer than combustion engines have been around. There are some really neat glacial gooves on Kelleys Island on Erie that seem to support that fact. Here is a link to an image of where the ice caps were over the last 14000 years. I don't remember the link it came from but it was one of the Great Lake sites.

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/liquisity2?e&.intl=us&.flabel=fld9&.from=d&.pindex=1&start=1&.src=ph&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/liquisity2%3fd%26.flabel=fld9%26.intl=us%26.src=ph


It appears to me that my Great Great Greats may be walleye fishing in the Arctic, and people in Ohio may be fishing for Marlin

[Neanderthal]

Maybe it was dinosaur farts that got the whole global warming thing going 65,000,000 million years ago. After all they lived in a tropical climate in what is now present day South Dakota. I'd say we have a pretty good case for global cooling. Oh yeah...I forgot. The last ice age is still receding. Maybe the world is warming and we will get to troll for marlin around the Bass Islands in another 40,000,000 years. But then again it was pretty cold today. But then again the forcast is calling for 40 and sunny tomorrow........OH NO IT IS WARMING!!!!!

This cycle will repeat itself some time soon....like in the next several hundred million years.

[curt quesnell]

if you claim the world is comming to an end long enough you will
one day be right. and you will be able to say "i told you so".

one group or another has claimed the end is near since the
beginning of it all, and they all were backed up by solid, dead on scientific facts.

these arent kooks (all of them). solid thinkers, good people,
science-types, clergy. yet here we are.

we do need to keep the yard cleaner. some of the old problems have been solved, some ecological disasters have been cleaned up
...but we find worse toys to play with, new chemicals to let loose on mother nature and more and more knuckleheads with the
BIG bomb.

they said....ddt would kill us
they said...(in the 60s) all drinking water would gone in 20
years.
they said..in 1899 and 1999 the end of the world
would come with the turn of the century.
they said...kohotek the comet was suppose to polish us
off too.

thats why people dont buy into global warming...because people
will make stuff up. and always have.

global warming (real or percieved) is one of many things the
human race will need to deal with.

i will apologize to my friend scott richardson if he thinks
i am disagreeing with him (im not sure i am)
and invite scott over to hans house to have a beer.

lets hope that science (the bunch that started this mess) will
hurry up with cleaner burning outboards and suburbans.

curt quesnell

[FlyBoy]

I don't know Leechboy. I get sick, go to the doctor, get medicine, and I get better. Seems like pretty good results to me. I can SEE the results, and measure them. I KNOW what he did worked.

I don't choose to ignore something because it is convinent. I choose to ignore it because I think its crap. Got any proof? Answer my 1st 2 questions, 3 questions if you read closely.

-John

[FlyBoy]

Scott,

If its heating up so fast, where are our hot summers? What are the scientists using for a unit of measure? A couple hundred years? Huh, that seems pretty strange when mother nature has been around for several million.

It wasn't that long ago when scientists sold the general public Coca-Cola with COCAINE in it. They all believed it was good for us.

Do you and Bill hang out on the weekends?

-John

[cisco]

How are we going to get cows to stop blowing farts?

Incidentally, do fish fart?

[lobo]

>How are we going to get
>cows to stop blowing farts?
>
>
>Incidentally, do fish fart?


Gotta love happy hour !!!!!!

lobo

[Mike]

I don't for a minute believe that global warming is fact. Every report that the UN panels come up have the same conclusion. Things on Earth are bad and the cause for this is that developed nations cause all of the problems and they should pay. If the UN had their way, the US would be paying all undeveloped countries billions of dollars for every problem on Earth. All the UN wants to do is charge us $5.00 a gallon gas tax. I get so sick of pseudo science. I believe we are a bit arrogant to think we have so much influence on this planet.
All I know is that in the last 20 years that the air is cleaner and we manage our waste much better. You know what? Last year I caught world class walleyes on Lake Erie. Wasn't that lake once a fire hazard??

Don't get sucked up into bad science. Global warming is just a scam.

[stop]

maybe they should stop shooting that ##### rocket up twice a month,it couldn't hurt.

[Buckeye]

Saw a carp fart once.

[vetspet(ind)]

river eye....for me i can understand where you may be coming from and respect that point as i know you are sincere and very concerned about the environment....the main thought i rebut is best seen in our change in the type of freon used in air conditioners....some enviro group decides to use an alternate bio friendly type of freon instead of the old type...this means we all have to buy new and more expensive units as they are having problems fixing old units...the older freon was very cheap....if i want to fix the old units i have to dispose of the toxic wastes and recharge the system....this may have all been a scheem thought up by the companies which produce air conditioners and their side effects....nobody ever has shown that the ozone holes were not always present....when mt pinatubo erupted it spewed huge amounts of ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere...more than all the fluorocarbons manufactured in history....scientists said tha 4-6% ozone loss occurred....remember that volcanoes have been doing this for millions of years....and we still have a healthy ozone layer...sure enough the holes got somewhat larger after the eruption but they closed back up w/in several yrs to what they have traditionally been....so did we really need to change from the older freon...or was this some politically correct idea that was spawned by paranoid enviro people...i guess i believe it was the latter so i do not want to be included in a group of people who just want to do some unscientific change just to be sure i dont ruin mother earth...steve

[vetspet(ind)]

scheme

[vetspet(ind)]

that co2 was recently in the news because the peta people i think got on their bandwagon about cows producing sufficient co2 as to add to the greenhouse effect...i remember this making the news sometime in the last yr or so...they were serious about their claim that having all these cattle around would ruin our atmosphere....so should we do away with cattle just in case they are right???? that seems to be the idea one would deduce from the post...

[vetspet(ind)]

we have been measuring ozone since 1956 (a.d.)thats it

[Al]

The global warming sky is falling crowd is the same bunch telling you that cattle farts are a major source of pollution. If you saw how some of these vultures gobble up research grants, or the opportunity to, you'd puke. They need an agenda to keep them in the loop and in the money. As long as they can scare you, they will get money. I've done consulting work with AC/Refrig. companies on pollution equipment. Global warming is far from a consensus of agreement in the scientific community. The largest contribution it has had is the retooling and revamping of major industry all because some guys in blue coats in a lab told you they know what is happening and what will happen in the future. It has really added to the expense of living. Who do you think pays for the redesign, testing, research and manufacturing of the alternative refrigerants? We do. It's a "pass the buck" scenario. It keep lots of guys with pocket protectors and horn rimmed glasses in a secure vocation.

[OK]

To tell with them

[vetspet(ind)]

the overwhelming no. of scientists in columbus's day said the earth was flat....when scientists speculate...that is they make a hypothetical statement and then put that hypothesis to the test....sometimes their conclusions coincide and can be proven to accurately show their hypothesis was correct...it is then called scientific fact...the global warming hypothesis is a long, long way from being factual.....you can use the same rational when describing evolution and anthropology...many scientists ...maybe most scientists...teach that we all evolved from some simian ancestor....that does not make it science...yet they want to be accepted as if it is pure science....most people who believe we evolved have never really looked at arguements ..scientific ones....which give credible evidences that refute evolution....just today i had a young college student at my veterinary hospital who stated she wants to go into anthropology....i asked her just a few questions on darwinian theory and how that could account for such things as how blood clots....she had no idea...we discussed biomolecular evolution and she now has some serious questions for her professor to find answers...which i know he can not find...because they don't exist....yet they think they are the scientists with the answers and creationists are just a bunch of crazed bible thumpers with their heads in the sand...many of my college kids have stumped their college profs on stuff i tell them to get explanations for....one prof even said.."do you know what all your arguements mean?...they mean all that i have devoted my life to is a falsehood"...he could not answer the questions my son-in-law posed so he put it on a personal level... when you go prepared to debate many of these so called scientists have very little fact and much more hypothesis when the truth be known...steve

[River_eye]

You are right, weather is a crazy thing and if one thing drastic happens it's like a chain reaction. Personally, I believe that we could just as easily send the planet into another ice age as we could flood it with increasing temps.

To tell you the truth, I'm not scared about global warming that much at all, I am scared about the fact that we have so much influence on this planet, but we are not worrying about it in the least bit. We have reason to believe that our actions could cause mass extinction for our species along with many others. The truth is, we have no idea what we are actually doing to this planet, and by the sounds of it, we really don't care.

River eye

[River_eye]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-01 AT 10:55PM (CST)[p]You honestly believe that our day to day actions aren't impacting on the planet?

What if any education do you have? Do you even have a grade 12 education?

I'm not going to say global warming is or isn't happening, but to say that 60 billion of us on this planet consuming what we do, don't have an impact on the planet is pure ignorance. Have you no concept of the planet that we live on and exactly how big of a number 60 billion is? BTW, in 2050 it will be 100 billion.

River eye

[Nofish]

Hey BE,

I agree that no one wants to pollute the planet out of existence.

However, to the point of scientists arguing among themselves, it does happen. Well maybe not argue, but who knows.

I saw a show on cable where a bunch of scientist types were drilling in the ice core down Antartica way. They have discovered that several times in the planets history, there have been periods of dramatic climate change where there was drastic melt off's.

They said this occurs over a period of 100's of years not 10's of thousands (or more) as they previously thought.

Say what you want about Global warming, but the air we breathe and the water we drink is generally cleaner than the recent past. For me the jury is still out, but that doesn't mean I am gonna drive down the expressway, spraying aerosol cans as I go...:P

Have fun......R

[River_eye]

Steve, I didn't jump into this discussion to defend global warming, so much, as to try and let people know that what we are doing on this planet actually does affect it, and in ways that are not good for us.

Honestly, I don't know whether this planet is heating up, or cooling down or what, but I do know that it will do somthing, and more than likely, it won't be favourable for human life on this planet.

Right now, conditions on this planet are optimum for human life. We know that the conditions havn't always been this way, but what caused these different conditions, who knows? Do we really want to just throw the dice and gamble on us being one of those things that causes the world to flood or a new ice age?

All I'm trying to say is that right now we are gambling with the future of our species, and the odds are most definately against us.

If you argue against this, you are saying that there is nothing that humans could possibly do to affect our biosphere.

You say that nothing bad has ever happened before, even when forcasted. Well, the world has never had 60,000,000,000 people on it before.

BTW, do you have an answer for that last question I sent you?



River eye

[vetspet(ind)]

an answer is coming...been workin on what to say...by the way its 6 billion people...steve

[Sampson]

Do you think everybody agreed that the clean water act and the clean air act were necessary?

Do you think that industry hired scientists to testify against those acts?

How many times was EPA sued while trying to pass those acts?

Whose science was pseudoscience?

Just some questions to ponder....

[FlyBoy]

Sampson, good questions, but don't expect an answer, I've been asking them all the way through this thread, and have yet to get one answered... I hope you have better luck with the democrats.

-John

[River_eye]

Nobody is saying that this planet is heating up fast right now.

The initial idea of global warming isn't based solely on temperature statistics. You are right that in the history of the planet, 100 years is nothing. Nobody is asking you to believe in global warming just because of this.

The main basis for global warming is Scientific theory. Somthing all of us depend on and use in our everyday lives.

If you know anything about atmospheric science, chemistry, physics and biology, you will understand how certain types of light and radiation from the sun can pass through different gas molecules in the earths atmosphere. Once this light and radiation hits the earth, it turns to heat. Life on this planet depends on a certain amount of this heat reradiating back into space, if this didn't happen, we'd all be toast, literally. CO2 hampers this reradiation back out into space. This is natural, as our atmosphere contains a great amount of CO2.

Fact: CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere.

Fact: Humans produce much CO2 through our actions.

Fact: Average temperatures on the planet have risen, from the first time we started measuring temperature, and continue to rise

Coincidence? You decide.

River eye

[River_eye]

1) Global warming is different than predicting the weather. And the more the planet warms up, the less predictable the day to day, season to season weather will be.

2) The theory of Global warming does not specify that every year in every location, it will be hotter, it merely says that the average temperature of the planet is going up.



River eye

[GullGuide]

Yea...thought 60 Billion was a bit high, considering China only has 3-4 Billion...man we would be up S**T creek without a paddle if it were 60 Billion.
That brings up a whole new debate on population control that I really do not want to start.....whoops, diddnt I just do that?
GullGuide
>"////=<

[GullGuide]

Yea, pretty ridiculos on what so-called scientists spend research grants on. Here's one of the more crazy ones I've heard of.....this is true....added a theroy of my own at the end though.....
They spent 3 million on finding out the odds on weather or not cats always land on their feet. They took 100 cats up to the top of a 10 story building...cat lovers, close your eyes and do not read this....they then proceded to throw each cat over the edge. 85% of the cats hurled over the edge landed on their feet..the others....well, sorry to say they lost all 9 of their lives. Unbelieveably, 79 of the 85 that landed upright walked away.
They did not take into account however if the cats who did not land upright farted in the process of trying to gain their equilibrum, thus the fart might have acted as a booster rocket, propelling the cats into an unwanted trajectory approach......oh man, is cabin fever a terrible thing...lol
>"////=<

[GullGuide]

Yea, pretty ridiculos on what so-called scientists spend research grants on. Here's one of the more crazy ones I've heard of.....this is true....added a theroy of my own at the end though.....
They spent 3 million on finding out the odds on weather or not cats always land on their feet. They took 100 cats up to the top of a 10 story building...cat lovers, close your eyes and do not read this....they then proceded to throw each cat over the edge. 85% of the cats hurled over the edge landed on their feet..the others....well, sorry to say they lost all 9 of their lives. Unbelieveably, 79 of the 85 that landed upright walked away.
They did not take into account however if the cats who did not land upright farted in the process of trying to gain their equilibrum, thus the fart might have acted as a booster rocket, propelling the cats into an unwanted trajectory approach......oh man, is cabin fever a terrible thing...lol
>"////=<

[CRN]

I thought that gas was methane.

[vetspet(ind)]

yes...i think you are right....but they were concerned about some environmental effects of the methane from the cows...

[Mike]

Apparently the only answers any of us are looking for are the ones we agree with.

[vetspet(ind)]

remember malthus...dire predictions....never happened...some say they still may happen....should we live like the sky may still fall because once it was predicted...didn't happen...but it still could?....i have enough to worry about with sick dogs and cats daily...four daughters...20 employees....and yet thru it all God continues to bless...steve

[vetspet(ind)]

don't know about that test...seems that the animal rights people would have raised a raucus...and should have if this really happened...i doubt it as i think i would have heard about it...however i do think i have camped with guys who would qualify for the retro rocket fart propullsion you describe...steve

[ezmarc]

Some comedian once stated " Cats always land feet first and toast always lands butter side down." "What happens if you strap buttered toast on a cats back?" I think it was Stephen Wright.

It's been a long winter but I'm boating and fishing but not catching on Erie.

[Backwater Eddy]

Well if enough people say it can't happen, well ##### maybe it won't EH?

LOL

YA

Backwater Eddy

[Leechboy]

There's no evidence of warming? Tax and spend, we have plenty of money in the bank!!

[Buckeye]

Lots of "what ifs" in this thread.


If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle! :-)

[Al]

I will try to find the link, but a buddy of mine at work yesterday had a site up from U of Virgina professors. There was a lot of information refuting the global warming, and how bogus some of the antics are to keep the research dollars flowing. I'll try and find it. Maybe a search of global warming u of virgina would bring it up. It was an easy read and seemed to make sense. But, if you are ##### bent on believing that we are all gonna be toast....nothing will change your mind.

[MIke]

I am not disagreeing that humans are raising the co2 level on earth. I do disagree of the sky is falling catastrophic effect that you environmentalist worry warts think are happening. Rather than spewing so called "facts" as you did, let me quote the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine from their paper called "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" January 1998.

"The review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no delerious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge."

One thing I thought of particular interest is they stated that by moving the carbon from coal, oil and natural gas from underground to the surface, we are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase.

If you want to read the whole paper with supporting data and references you can go to their website at www.oism.org/pproject/

[Eyez]

There may be a few who are bent on being toast, but I don't think they're the majority. What we're talking about here is the difference between believing something enough to do something about it, or not. My take? I think that I believe what I see, and at that point, that is pretty much nothing. We haven't been keeping records on this long enough to know what's really happening. There have been many, many cataclysmic changes in earth's environment over the course of it's existence, and I'm not inclined to believe that we are capable of destrying her over the course of a couple generations; But, I'm also not one to take chances. Most of the chemicals we spew into the atmosphere do not occur naturally in the concentrations that we put them there, and should not be there. Some of it is necessary for the human race to evolve to reach our own potential as a species. I don't want to undo the industrial revolution, but at some point we need to become aware that we are the most powerful species on this planet, and we need to accept the responsibility that comes with that. We still haven't reached a point where we understand exactly what impact we have on our environment, and until we get there, we had better tread lightly, or we stand a chance of destroying earth and not even knowing we're doing it. Science is not all facts, and somethings become true enough to believe, simply because you cannot prove them false.


For those who really are bent on being toast, just be careful that you don't find youself strapped to a cat. :)


Eyez

[EAGLE EYES]

Very interesting analogy Eyez, I do agree with most of your post! However I do not agree that we will ever destroy the earth. Mother earth has survived many more disturbances than any life form could ever bring forth. Cosmic flares, large meteores, mass volcanic activity, and others. The Earth will still be around for millions of years after we are gone. Will humans exist? Doubtfully so! The earth will heal itself after we have gone and start over with different life forms like it has done many many times over. I'm glad to be here today, and tommorro I will hope for the best. May the fish be with you! :-) EE

[Eyez]

That's pretty much what I mean EE, I don't think we could destroy earth either, but since I don't know for sure what we are capable of doing, I like to do the best I can to take care of it. You can drive a truck through a brick wall, and it may still get you where you're going after that (especially if it's a chevy :) ), but if it's avoidable, why would you do it? There's a sign ahead, it says "There may or may not be a brick wall ahead, but we're not sure." (I know, I know... stupid, but valid point) Would you slow down and go around? I'm not saying we all jump on the chicken little bandwagon, I'd just like to see people not discount a scientific hypothesis until they know it not to be true. We're still at the beginning of this experiment, we don't really know how it will end, but we have enough indicators to make the experiment worth doing.



Eyez