EricMM

No, of course I wouldn't publish that, even if I had heard of it. Check the thread title Mike. You know what I think. I'm not going to actively search for Luddites. But in all honesty, they should have ran the story. The truth is the truth, I'm not afraid of a group of scientists telling me the equivalent of "the world is flat." I know they're wrong, the majority of scientists know they're wrong. OR should I say think. You think I enjoy Global Warming but I don't. It's not like it's the only issue. I'd still be an environmentalist. This thread wasn't because I needed self-affirmation, it's because you need to learn something, and so does everyone else who prefers to doubt what they dislike. But they should have printed the findings.

Wow I really like The Fragile. We're In This Together The Day the World Went Away The Great Below The Pilgrimage Just Like You Imagined No, You Don't Wow those are all off Left. Well, I've enjoyed the whole album, I just never memorized the track names. Anyways I gotta get off my ass and buy this new CD, since I've liked his previous works so much.

I think he's just really worried about the quality of this new season. I think he's just going to keep doing "shows" til he has enough quality material to make a season. I can't fault him. At this point, I'm pretty sure CC will bend over backwards for him considering how fucking over he is.

So Mike, you don't believe that burning hydrocarbons produces Carbon Dioxide? Or you don't believe that it accumulates in the atmosphere? Because you seem to be sure that VOLCANOES put CO2 into the atmosphere, why then don't you believe that cars which are proven, actually, to produce carbon dioxide cannot put it in an atmosphere? And how the fuck don't you understand that the extra CO2 would accumulate. You know about the carbon cycle right? The sources and consumers of carbon in our environment? Hint: if you make more carbon dioxide than there are consumers, you will have an excess of carbon. Similar hint, whatever takes in any amount of carbon generally gives off a lot of it when it dies, like a plant. So most of the carbon a plant absorbs in it's lifetime, it will give off when it dies. It's a closed cycle. But we are mining millions and millions of tons of carbon from the earth's crust and burning it into a gas. There aren't millions and millions of new plants to absorb this gas. So it WILL accumulate, Mike.

And you all continue ignoring the point. Yes, the climate has phases. This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages. This is normal. However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent. My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions. Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past. I never once denied it. I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing. You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

The people who have problems, as far as I know, are people who see the bible as the exact, literal word of god and exactly how life began. Adam and Eve never happened literally, but to these people it must have because supposedly nothing in the bible could be untrue.

Fuck your pwned. Even a tiny percentage of a change would change our climate. Even a one percent change would influence temperatures, climate, and sea levels. The goal is to keep things as close to normal as possible, pollute the fucking least. Where is the disconnet in y'all's minds?

I referred to Global Warming in caps because I want to differentiate it from when the globe warms naturally. Global Warming is, to me, when due to greenhouse gasses, the earth is unnaturally warmed. Ergo it is NOT inevitable.

What, you think I didn't know who Cedric the Entertainer was before this thread? Come on...

The difference between CO2 emissions from cars and the CO2 emissions from volcanoes is that we can do something about one and not the other. Everyone knows weather and things like El Nino are cyclical and inevitable, but things like Global Warming are not. And GW is NOT something we want. Even if the earth is on a temperature upswing right now, there's absolutely no reason to worsen things, and cause relatively permenant changes. If people are going to go on about me dropping junk science then I demand a source for this as well. And it better not be anyone on smitty's ever growing list.

Nevermind. If it's someone's title, I'd expect it to not be in quotes. Like you wrote it, either all in quotes or none. Not Cedric "The Entertainer", which is how I wrote it, which elicited a comment because it is odd.

actually I put that in quotes because thats what CSPAN listed him as and I thought it was odd.

Oh shut up. I'm not saying I saw much of it. He made a joke about how black people love Bush, because if "...she were looking to have someone to BBQ, it'd be a black person." and this one lady in the bottom right of my screen totally blanched and looked at her friend and shrugged. Maybe she thought he was saying that Laura Bush wants to eat black people. His grammar sucked.

So what the hell do you think keeps Earth's heat from radiating into space? Christ's love!?

Mike do you even believe that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

I enjoyed watching the nice white republican ladies scared of Cedric "The Entertainer" I'm not making this up.

Mike, you have no idea, or claim to. I, and many other have some idea. Again, if there's calculated to be too much energy being retained, it's not a weather pattern causing the warmth. That's something else. This is pure energy. That excuse doesn't wash anymore. That's the whole point of this. Jingus, 1) Obviously, decrease and eventually (with a capital EVENTUALLY) eliminate net carbon dioxide gain in our atmosphere. This'll probably not be in our lifetime, but who knows what we can do thirty years from now? Right now the clearest, easiest choice is conservation. We just DO use more energy than we need to to accomplish what we currently have. I'm not just talking about cars although that is a part. Worldwide deforestation needs to be curbed, because plants absorb CO2. I'm trying to think here and I'm tired. Every bit of energy saved everyday is more oil or "clean" coal that doesn't have to be burned somewhere. More efficent lightbulbs, more efficent seals on windows, any energy wasted as heat is generally able to be done better. There's scads and scads more, I dunno, find some green website, they'll have info on energy saving. 2) Like I said previously. Heat influences the amount of rainfall in an area. In effect, a warming planet would move the weather around. Where I live, it would lead to more precipitation. More snowfall, more rain. In other areas it could lead to less. Some areas would profit agriculturally, some areas would hurt. The problem is, our agriculture is pretty fucking established. It does no one any good if DC is better for crops, but if the farmer in the midwest has generally less rainfall, he'll have to import more water or grow less crops. That's not deadly, it's just bad. We'd be best off keeping our weather the way we've gotten used to it over these last centuries. Yes, as Mike stated, some things are cyclical, such as periods of warming and cooling. But there's no reason to force things. As for greedy nations/people? what can we do? well first and foremost, be better than them. We as Americans can effect change here at least. For other nations, well, Kyoto was an attempt to get the world in on this thing. Unfortunately it was GROSSLY imperfect. We didn't sign anyways, and it didn't even cover China, who would most likely never voluntarily sign. But we can show them techs that will be more efficent, and who knows? Maybe we can influence world energy prices so that the cost of pollution would make energy too expensive to waste.

In their wildest dreams...

these people need to learn it's not about the why, it's about the what. This isn't about Islam OR religion, this is about a worldwide set of ethics. You've got to start somewhere, and if you've got a problem with this, they'll you probably have problems with us, and vice versa.

Jingus, believe me, a ten degree shift would change many things. Temperature dictates things like the weather, and both temperature and climate dictate things like agriculture. Plus the warmer the earth gets, the more the ocean's level will rise. And finally, it's not a good thing to be doing. It's just wrong to be dealing our children and grandchildren these kinds of problems. Like the report said, even if we stopped all carbon emissions TODAY, the temperature would still raise a degree F, let alone if we continue the way we are today, let alone if we let things increase the way they will when everyone in CHINA buys cars.

I guess teke is right. I feel kind of hypocritical for lambasting RJ for getting into stupid fights with Mike in the past and then posting like I did. Here's my point. bigolsmitty is right, this isn't just me saying this. This is a team of scientists studying Earth's climate. My point is, I don't think any proof would be enough for you, Mike. What would it take?

Even the President has admitted that with soaring gasoline prices, the energy companies do not need such large tax breaks. His crappy energy policy had more conservation measures than the one the house has proposed. All this thing is (~80-90%) is tax cuts for energy companies. If anyone thinks that that is what is going to somehow lower energy prices in this country, they're fooling themselves. One could possibly raise CAFE standards and actually lower the demand of gasoline, but no, they're just giving more money to the lobby groups. Give it a year people, if this thing passed. See how energy costs go. I can't believe that there are our political leaders on the house are so rediculous.

Look Mike, obviously we've always been taking in more than we've been giving off. But they can figure out how much energy is retained and how much that will influence the earth's warmth. But doubt it. Go ahead. But where's your proof. Where's your anything. Don't give me anymore doubts. I admit I don't have the scientists papers to post on the net. But where's your maths that prove or even show that the Earth cannot be warmed, that the sea levels cannot rise.

Mike, 1 + 1 will always equal 2. Even if we just work this out today, one plus one always equal two. This is why this is a smoking gun, because they've proven that the earth is absorbing more heat than it's giving off. Where in the FUCK do you think it's going?

I got mine from the Washington Post, actually. Thanks MrRant for the vote of confidence, I wouldn't fucking post something if it was of some scrubbish blog. Mike, it's fucking simple. Energy in minus energy out equals energy retained. The more energy retained, the hotter earth is. This isn't religion, this is M-A-T-H. This is S-C-I-E-N-C-E! Your arguments are merely disbelief, doubt, or God knows what else. Where you learned your doubt, I'll never know. Why you still believe it, ditto. You can scream false at empiral proof for the rest of your life, I just hope you and people like you aren't allowed to decide anything important, ever.