Man-made global warming...

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:19 pm

...seems to have affected an entirely different planet!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

Explanation: For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

Must have been Al Gore's jet plane tour that pushed it over the edge.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:37 pm

Global Warming is really scary...Here's some on Arctic ice that's cracking. Was in today's news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7417123.stm

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:48 pm

Maybe it’s puberty…

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Fri May 23, 2008 7:49 pm

Spidey wrote:Maybe it’s puberty…

I was going to maybe it's menopause. Complete with hot flashes and mood swings.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Fri May 23, 2008 8:27 pm

Man-made global warming is a scam made by Al Gore, environmentalists, Muslims that sell oil, and hybrid car dealerships. They are all working together to raise oil prices and sell hybrid cars to fund terrorism to turn the world into a Muslim-only world. The only way to stop this scam is to drill American oil, not listen to environmentalists who think doing such will ruin our environment, and not give $4.20 a gallon to people who hate us.

But seriously, we need to drill American oil, it will not hurt the environment as much as $4.20 are hurting the pockets of those who can't afford hybrid cars.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri May 23, 2008 8:46 pm

Aggressor Prime wrote:Man-made global warming is a scam made by Al Gore, environmentalists, Muslims that sell oil, and hybrid car dealerships. They are all working together to raise oil prices and sell hybrid cars to fund terrorism to turn the world into a Muslim-only world. The only way to stop this scam is to drill American oil, not listen to environmentalists who think doing such will ruin our environment, and not give $4.20 a gallon to people who hate us.

But seriously, we need to drill American oil, it will not hurt the environment as much as $4.20 are hurting the pockets of those who can't afford hybrid cars.

omg.. Really?!??

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 23, 2008 8:49 pm

Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group. So that's some scam Gore is pulling off - he's got every climate science organisation warped around his finger?
Do you also believe that evolution is a scam by biologists, genetic scientists, palentologists, geologists, etcetc?

As for Gore's jet:
Aircraft are typically more fuel efficient than cars.
They just go faster - so they go further. So people use them more.
ie: if the only way you could get across the country is to drive - people would be less inclined to take such a long trip.
If Gore's jet were a problem, the proper problem to identify would be that he's taking advantage of the jet's speed to visit so many more places than he would if he were using a car.
If he were using a car to visit all of those places not only would it take a buttload more time, it would cause MORE EMISSIONS. As aircraft are more efficient than cars.

I want to make sure this issue is understood. The problem is not one of inefficiency - the problem (if anything) is it's that jets are TOO convinient.
Gore has appointments to keep, and he IS using the most efficient method to keep them. If you want him to reduce them further - he would have to directly lower his sheer productivity.

Why is this thread in E&C?
I can't believe that ThunderBunny is seriously suggesting that man made climate change on Earth is effecting climate on Jupiter. Is this a serious topic?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri May 23, 2008 8:58 pm

roflmao

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri May 23, 2008 9:00 pm

Rising global temperatures have been noted upon several planets in our solar system- meaning there may be more factors at work and more variables to consider. Man (read: the evil USA) may not be as responsible as \"the establishment\" would want you to believe.

(baa baa goes roid it seems)

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 23, 2008 9:12 pm

Rising global temperatures have been noted upon several planets in our solar system- meaning there may be more factors at work and more variables to consider.

Neither any climate science group, nor I, are saying otherwise ThunderBunny.

These \"factors and variables\" are not extraneous to climate science - they are what it is based on! Climate scientists are the very people who study those factors & variables, who else do you think does it?

Manmade climate change - does not imply that climate change cannot happen without human intervention.
Nor does natural climate change imply that manmade climate change is not happening on earth.

Please go read what man-made climate change actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

Xamindar · Post by **Xamindar** » Fri May 23, 2008 9:27 pm

roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group. So that's some scam Gore is pulling off - he's got every climate science organisation warped around his finger?
Do you also believe that evolution is a scam by biologists, genetic scientists, palentologists, geologists, etcetc?

That's where I stopped reading your post....That kind of statement proves nothing and it's sad that people still fall for it.

There was a time everyone in the world knew it was flat, did you know that Roid? OH, and at some point in history the earth moved from the center of the galaxy to being just the third planet in a solar system that isn't even in the center of the galaxy. I wonder how all these amazing things happened?

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 23, 2008 10:18 pm

Xamindar wrote:
roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group. So that's some scam Gore is pulling off - he's got every climate science organisation warped around his finger?
Do you also believe that evolution is a scam by biologists, genetic scientists, palentologists, geologists, etcetc?
That's where I stopped reading your post....That kind of statement proves nothing and it's sad that people still fall for it.

There was a time everyone in the world knew it was flat, did you know that Roid? OH, and at some point in history the earth moved from the center of the galaxy to being just the third planet in a solar system that isn't even in the center of the galaxy. I wonder how all these amazing things happened?

I'm honestly not entirely certain what the point is you're getting at.
Until i understand where you're comming from - it may save time to assume your questions were not rhetorical and answer them: Yes i knew all of those things you asked, And "how all these amazing things happened" is basically answered as the refining and continued use of what we refer to as the scientific method.
The gradual identification and testing-against-evidence of assumptions we've previously always lived with. Often called Heresy by those who reject science.

AFAIK Creationists do indeed believe that evolution is a scam by biologists, genetic scientists, palentologists, geologists, etcetc. I mention this as a funny illustration of a huge conspiracy theory - I'm uncertain if there is any field of the natural sciences that DOESN'T rely on some way on the theory of evolution (and thus - any of these many fields would be able to provide evidence to disprove it, if such evidence existed). So i find it funny that some people believe that a conspiracy could honestly be THAT HUGE - that every single scientist in the whole world who's studied evolution is IN ON IT.

This is similar to uneducated (i don't mean that offensively, as neither am i a climate scientist) laymen claiming that the entire climate science field is wrong - effectively that these people - even with their years of study and research - actually don't know what they're doing, and Joe layman knows better.

I watch climate scientists answer questions by climate change skeptics and set them straight. I also watch climate scientists debate amongst themselves.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:36 am

According to a counter-video I watched, Mr. Gore misrepresented his facts when the heat and carbon dioxide charts were shown to be in sync in An Inconvenient Truth. The video said that the two do indeed correspond, but that he left out a very important part: the heat graph was trailing the CO2 graph by a considerable amount of time. Whereas in the video he gave no indication that this was so. Do you know what that would mean?

I've also heard that there is a direct correspondence between our warming trends and solar flare activity.

Roid wrote:AFAIK Creationists do indeed believe that evolution is a scam by biologists, genetic scientists, palentologists, geologists, etcetc.

Wrong. There may be some conspiracy theorists that believe that, or maybe even Christians that don't know better, but educated Creationists know that evolution is the result of irreproachable, unquestionable naturalistic pre-assumption. A deep-seated desire to discover a world without a creator and the accountability that would entail. The idea that evolution is fact would be laughable if it weren't so universally accepted.

Life is full of examples of people leading themselves to believe things that aren't true, so that they don't have to be wrong, or responsible. That's an established human behavior. I believe evolution is essentially the most pervasive example. The only difference is that this is an excuse that is "scientifically" sanctioned and taught as fact in schools.

Foil:

Code: Select all

void main()
{
  const string assumption = 'naturalism';
  string science = 'objective';
  science = universe->getExplaination(assumption);
}

Don't try to change the constant.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:45 am

Didn't we already have a topic on this not too long ago?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 24, 2008 7:22 am

roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group....

No, I think you are confusing man made climate change with global warming. There is a consensus that there is global warming (even though were in a global cooling period right now) there is however a great debate about how much affect man has contributed to the warming.
Does the by product of industry accelerate the warming? Literally speaking it certainly does but compared to natural causes of global warming mans contribution may be relatively insignificant and there are many scientists who either always offered that caution to Al Gores propaganda and more have recently changed their minds and called into question the urgency that Team Gore would have us swallow...

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Sat May 24, 2008 8:09 am

roid wrote:
As for Gore's jet:
Aircraft are typically more fuel efficient than cars.

It would be interesting to know what you base that statement on. A full commmercial flight cross country might be, but not a private flight, which is about all Gore takes . Per this article:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ne-flights

If we were to calculate the amount of carbon emitted from Al Gore's trip from Nashville to San Francisco, it would be 45,000 pounds of carbon. From Camarillo to San Fransico [sic], it would be 10,000 pounds of carbon, for a total of 55,000 pounds of carbon.

Notably the average car emits .916 lbs. of CO2/ gallon vs. Al Gore's 21 lbs. of CO2/gallon in his jet. So for the amount of carbon and gasoline that Al Gore emitted, the average family could travel back and forth from Nashville to San Francisco in a Station Wagon 15 times. Again, they could do that 15 times just to equal Al Gores "damage to the Planet" in one day. Worst of all, Sean Hannity and Fox News found out that there were 112 commercial alternatives that Al Gore could have flown to reach that exact destination.

Gore really makes a very poor environmental poster child no matter what you think about global warming or anything else. Read about his personal lifestyle here compared to the president who ISN'T environmentally friendly (or at least doesn't run around hypocritically tooting his horn about it):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:25 am

I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but is the reason why really that important? I mean it really needs to be addressed as Global Warming will have severe results no matter the cause.

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Sat May 24, 2008 2:42 pm

roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group....

I'm curious as to where you pulled that fact (and I'm using that term loosly) from. And please, no Wikipedia articles.

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:19 pm

People aren't responsible for making mistakes, but we are responsible for DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THEM! THAT INCLUDES CLIMATE CHANGE! It may not be proven that man is causing ALL of climate change, but we're definetely contributing a BIG PART OF IT! And no one else will fix it for us.

(I do think it would be funny if the entire human race was wiped out by climate change. It'd be the ultimate irony: we're wiped out by a disaster that we could have averted, but we chose to kill ourselves by not doing anything because it would decrease our standard of living. But no one would laugh, except the foxes.)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat May 24, 2008 3:51 pm

Cuda68 wrote:I am not the brightest bulb in the box, but is the reason why really that important?

Yes, actually it is if you plan to use the reason for the change as a guide to formulate your response...

I mean it really needs to be addressed as Global Warming will have severe results no matter the cause.

Sure address it all you want, but do it logically! A lot of the proposed solutions that we get ridiculed for resisting are barely veiled attempts at wealth redistribution...

Tell me, if rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic wouldn't stop the ship from sinking why should rearranging the ownership of wealth stop global warming?!?

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Sat May 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Sure address it all you want, but do it logically! A lot of the proposed solutions that we get ridiculed for resisting are barely veiled attempts at wealth redistribution...

Tell me, if rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic wouldn't stop the ship from sinking why should rearranging the ownership of wealth stop global warming?!?

Very good point. Everyone has to contribute, and a lot of the things people can do to combat global warming involve spending LESS money.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:08 pm

Alter-Fox wrote:It may not be proven that man is causing ALL of climate change, but we're definetely contributing a BIG PART OF IT! And no one else will fix it for us.

How much is a BIG PART OF IT?

The same video that I referenced in my previous post put mankinds CO2 contribution at an anemically low level. I don't believe it was even 2%.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:22 am

Will Robinson wrote:
roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group....
No, I think you are confusing man made climate change with global warming. There is a consensus that there is global warming (even though were in a global cooling period right now) there is however a great debate about how much affect man has contributed to the warming.
Does the by product of industry accelerate the warming? Literally speaking it certainly does but compared to natural causes of global warming mans contribution may be relatively insignificant and there are many scientists who either always offered that caution to Al Gores propaganda and more have recently changed their minds and called into question the urgency that Team Gore would have us swallow...

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

d3jake wrote:
roid wrote:Aggressor Prime, Man Made Climate Change is accepted by every single environmental science group....
I'm curious as to where you pulled that fact (and I'm using that term loosly) from. And please, no Wikipedia articles.

request denied, here's the answer you both seek and wish to ignore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:29 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Alter-Fox wrote:It may not be proven that man is causing ALL of climate change, but we're definetely contributing a BIG PART OF IT! And no one else will fix it for us.
How much is a BIG PART OF IT?

The same video that I referenced in my previous post put mankinds CO2 contribution at an anemically low level. I don't believe it was even 2%.

what reference? your post had no reference.
to save you some time collecting it, i'm willing to bet it's THIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle
If you didn't bother to check it's veracity, you did yourself a great disservice.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 26, 2008 7:47 am

So the nails in the \"Great Man-made Global Warming Hoax\" now has another spike added.:

An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with a curious title “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... l-cooling/

This is a interesting article as the authors are Chinese and state China has been having a cool down since 2000. Also they analyze all the climate data to date and come up with:

“The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes.”

So the authors are not a couple of cool aid followers of Algore and are published in a respected journal. So Roid, would you like to revise your \"Every Environmental group\" statement?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon May 26, 2008 8:14 am

roid wrote:...There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."...

Just on a simple literal reading that statement must be full of crap because if human activity is responsible for most of the warming then we should have never left the ice age until after the industrial revolution!!
I'm going to go out on a limb since I don't have a degree in the field but I'm willing to bet a lot that most of the warming of this planet is and always has been from that big fiery ball in the sky we call the sun!!
The degree to which humans are responsible for trapping heat in our atmosphere is nothing compared to the effect of natural causes like volcanoes and naturally produced methane gas.

Wikipedia can often be used like a blank wall is used by a graffiti artist/vandal. I once read on wikipedia that President Clinton was a saint who was framed by a right wing conspiracy...

From the link you posted I found this: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/451.htm
It reads like a giant disclaimer basically saying they could be way off in their assessment!

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:43 am

roid wrote:request denied, here's the answer you both seek and wish to ignore.

You forgot to add "because wikipedia is as reliable of a source for hot topic information as a turtle is for mass transit."

Will Robinson wrote:Wikipedia can often be used like a blank wall is used by a graffiti artist/vandal. I once read on wikipedia that President Clinton was a saint who was framed by a right wing conspiracy...

And this is why. Certainly they try to make sure that some articles are accurate, but there's a reason why many teachers will ban Wikipedia as a source for research papers, its not reliable. And most importantly, your link does not prove that every scientific group agrees with man made global warming.

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon May 26, 2008 11:26 am

Will Robinson wrote:
roid wrote:...There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."...

Just on a simple literal reading that statement must be full of crap because if human activity is responsible for most of the warming then we should have never left the ice age until after the industrial revolution!!
I'm going to go out on a limb since I don't have a degree in the field but I'm willing to bet a lot that most of the warming of this planet is and always has been from that big fiery ball in the sky we call the sun!!
The degree to which humans are responsible for trapping heat in our atmosphere is nothing compared to the effect of natural causes like volcanoes and naturally produced methane gas.

Wikipedia can often be used like a blank wall is used by a graffiti artist/vandal. I once read on wikipedia that President Clinton was a saint who was framed by a right wing conspiracy...

From the link you posted I found this: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/451.htm
It reads like a giant disclaimer basically saying they could be way off in their assessment!

Humans are contributing a lot more in the last 50 years because we've never before had so many machines/factories/vehicles that produce greenhouse gas emmisions. From the last Ice Age until then, we really didn't have as many ways to produce greenhouse gases. The Earth has been warming by itself too, but we're making it warm more than it should. I also heard somewhere (which wasn't wikipedia) that the Earth is actually SUPPOSED to be in a cooling period right now.

Natural sources can't produce close to enough greenhouse gas emmisions to match what modern technology does. Deforestation (especially clear-cutting) is a part of it too (trees "inhale" the CO2 in the air and release oxygen, thus reducing the quantity of that paricular gas, but when they're cut down en-masse like they are now, it really affects the Earth's ability to handle CO2).

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:48 pm

Aggressor Prime wrote:Man-made global warming is a scam made by Al Gore, environmentalists, Muslims that sell oil, and hybrid car dealerships. They are all working together to raise oil prices and sell hybrid cars to fund terrorism to turn the world into a Muslim-only world. The only way to stop this scam is to drill American oil, not listen to environmentalists who think doing such will ruin our environment, and not give $4.20 a gallon to people who hate us.

But seriously, we need to drill American oil, it will not hurt the environment as much as $4.20 are hurting the pockets of those who can't afford hybrid cars.

So according to you, huge amounts of greenhouse gases MAGICALLY appeared in the air, and the fact that your car releases those same gases in its exhaust has NOTHING to do with it. Or else, according to you, the surface temperature of Venus is much colder than has been proven, because greenhouse gases (which are present en-masse in the atmosphere of Venus) don't work. And the surface temperature of Venus, as well as the fact that cars release greenhouse gases, were known long before Al Gore could have come up with this supposed conspiracy.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:51 pm

Alter-Fox wrote:...The Earth has been warming by itself too, but we're making it warm more than it should....

Who decides the level of warming that is acceptable?
If 20 years ago we cut our emissions in half and held it to that level until now would we still be warming at the present rate and would we still be at the temp we are now? would it have helped reduce the temp and rate of increase by less than one percent? two percent? 10 percent?

Why is it the so called consensus of scientists can't answer those questions with any kind of certainty?
Instead they pull models out of their ass, engage in double talk, supress contradictory data and expect me to drink Al Gores KoolAid....

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:56 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:According to a counter-video I watched, Mr. Gore misrepresented his facts when the heat and carbon dioxide charts were shown to be in sync in An Inconvenient Truth. The video said that the two do indeed correspond, but that he left out a very important part: the heat graph was trailing the CO2 graph by a considerable amount of time. Whereas in the video he gave no indication that this was so. Do you know what that would mean?

It means Al Gore has Asperger's Syndrome*. I know someone who has it so well that that person might as well be me** and I know how people with Asperger's Syndrome think better than I know how normal people think. Sometimes the person I'm talking about will omit details like that because they don't think it's as important as the point they're trying to make. The ommision is probably just an oversight.

*I know for a fact that this is true.
**That person is me.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:29 pm

Alter-Fox wrote: So according to you, huge amounts of greenhouse gases MAGICALLY appeared in the air, and the fact that your car releases those same gases in its exhaust has NOTHING to do with it. Or else, according to you, the surface temperature of Venus is much colder than has been proven, because greenhouse gases (which are present en-masse in the atmosphere of Venus) don't work. And the surface temperature of Venus, as well as the fact that cars release greenhouse gases, were known long before Al Gore could have come up with this supposed conspiracy.

Alter fox, here is your homework assignment. Look up and read what volcanoes emit.What do you think put the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere? Humans? Plants? Cow farts?
You really need to train up your critical thinking if you are going to compete on this board.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:00 pm

You know I just had a thought (yea the first one) Maybe roid writes those Wiki articles…

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:25 pm

woodchip wrote:
Alter-Fox wrote: So according to you, huge amounts of greenhouse gases MAGICALLY appeared in the air, and the fact that your car releases those same gases in its exhaust has NOTHING to do with it. Or else, according to you, the surface temperature of Venus is much colder than has been proven, because greenhouse gases (which are present en-masse in the atmosphere of Venus) don't work. And the surface temperature of Venus, as well as the fact that cars release greenhouse gases, were known long before Al Gore could have come up with this supposed conspiracy.
Alter fox, here is your homework assignment. Look up and read what volcanoes emit.What do you think put the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere? Humans? Plants? Cow farts?
You really need to train up your critical thinking if you are going to compete on this board.

For your information, CO2 is NOT the only greenhouse gas. Venus' atmosphere is composed mostly of sulfur dioxide, which is another greenhouse gas. Maybe it was emitted by volcanoes. Maybe not. That doesn't mean that the thousands of vehicles/factories/machines on Earth could eventually do that to our planet. Besides, I just said this so that Agressor Prime couldn't say that greenhouse gases have no effect.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:28 pm

So edimacate me - What constitutes Green House Gas?

Alter-Fox · Post by **Alter-Fox** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:33 pm

Greenhouse gases are any gas that traps heat in the atmosphere of a given planet. The greenhouse gases are part of what creates the \"Greenhouse Effect\", where heat gets trapped and accumulates in the atmosphere. The other big part of it is clouds, which reflect the heat back to Earth, although some of it escapes (otherwise how would the heat get in?).

BTW - Methinks you made a serious typo.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Mon May 26, 2008 4:36 pm

Spelling issues, ME! - come on now, I am a 50 year old fat toothless red neck doing the best I can

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon May 26, 2008 5:47 pm

Cuda68 wrote:Spelling issues, ME! - come on now, I am a 50 year old fat toothless red neck doing the best I can

0_o

wow...TMI ...but..er thanks?

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Mon May 26, 2008 7:01 pm

Spidey wrote:You know I just had a thought (yea the first one) Maybe roid writes those Wiki articles…

ROFL

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:26 pm

roid wrote:what reference? your post had no reference.
to save you some time collecting it, i'm willing to bet it's THIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle
If you didn't bother to check it's veracity, you did yourself a great disservice.

Referring to something a reference does not make? My grammatical bad?

Yeah, that's the one.

I might use Wikipedia to get a vague idea about something, one way or the other, but to check its "veracity?" I don't think so.

Alter-Fox wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:... Do you know what that would mean?
It means Al Gore has Asperger's Syndrome*. I know someone who has it so well that that person might as well be me** and I know how people with Asperger's Syndrome think better than I know how normal people think. Sometimes the person I'm talking about will omit details like that because they don't think it's as important as the point they're trying to make. The ommision is probably just an oversight.

No. It would mean that increased CO2 levels are the result of climate change, not the cause.

Man-made global warming...

Man-made global warming...

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: