MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION!!

Global Warming-Yes
Man Made Global Warming-Not really!
The Earth is Ma**ive, and you believe what we have done in 100 measley years will effect how this planet will change, a planet that was here for billions of years! Imagine the size of your room, not very big huh? Now imagine the size of your room but make the ceiling 6 miles high! If you want to stop the change of our climate (like a mosquito swapping engine in your car) go kill a few million cows! Ever seen a cow in the wild? How many more cows do you think there are today as opposed to 200 years ago? Ever heard of warming periods? Ever heard of the ice age?

Originally posted by COKKENBALLS The earth has been warming for 50 years? How do you explain the "global cooling" scare of the late 70's? Also, the earth has come out of 7 previous ice ages. How did Exxon warm the earth on those occaisions?

The earth has been warming for 50 years? How do you explain the "global cooling" scare of the late 70's?

Also, the earth has come out of 7 previous ice ages. How did Exxon warm the earth on those occaisions?

The everyday use of the word theory does not mean the same thing from the the word theory in science: Wikipedia

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a cla** of phenomena, and
   
2. makes a**ertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this cla**.

Take evolution for example.  It is a theory in the sense that the causes of it are not totally understood.  We know evolution does occur by looking at fossils, bacteria becoming "immune" to antibiotics, even by the way every breed of dog came into existence (they all came from wolves).  So to explain this, a HYPOTHESIS is gathered to support the findings.  Such is the case in how natural selection explains evolution.
With global warming, you have a theory in that the world is warming.  The evidence is there no matter how you slice it (ice core sampling, the correlations of CO2 and temperature, etc.).  The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon.  It is why Venus is the hottest planet (its atmosphere is primarily CO2).  It is also why the earth is a perfect temperature to support life.  However, the equilibrium has been put into a tailspin because of the excess of CO2.  The hypothesis is that man is much to blame for this excess CO2 (about 25 billion tons a year).

And Cokk, nowhere did I say I didn't recycle because I do.  I said recycling really is not as good as people make it out to be.  It still takes energy (although less) to break down those recycled items into their components for reuse.  It is good from the sense of keeping it out of landfills.  But, the long term answer is finding cleaner ways to make energy. 
And as far as what Al Gore said, let me pose this question to you.  God forbid you or a loved one is told you have some ailment and are given, say, 3 months to live.  Are you going to do everything in your power to fight and live, or are you going to go home to die?
My central idea has not waivered one bit.  Even if this is crying wolf, the benefits of finding cleaner energy will pay for itself in the long run.  Not even the most of critics can deny that.

Originally posted by LOL-i-ZER 1) It is not a Theory: hundreds of reports and analysis prove that there is a global warming going on.... worst then the worst theory has predicted. 2) Exxon , Total... and other companies like this try to make people doubt about it, for their own benefit.

1) Discrepancy?  If it is not a theory, then is it a law?  A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements.  Climate Change models can't pa** these stringent conditions.

2) This is 1 of the 7 signs of pseudoscience - The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or work.
[URL]http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/01/the_seven_signs_of_pseudoscien.php[/ULR]

Can you show me 1 ad from either of these firms against anthropogenic climate change?

Didn't Al Gore say we already pa**ed the point of no return?

Rolltide, you say you don't recycle because it is essentially pointless. Why isn't your belief of the global warming folklore met with the same apathy?

Originally posted by SRC_ROLLTIDE law of conservation of matter... says matter cannot be created or destroyed.  Fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Fact burning fossil fuels releases CO2.  So when we fire up the factory, all those byproducts (ie CO2) don't disappear into Bunnyland.... At that point all those billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we put up there every day stay there.  If people can walk on the moon, a cleaner energy source can be found and utilized.

Your statement is accurate, if we add  the following segment after destroyed: "in chemical reactions."

Several nuclear processes destroy matter, converting it into energy - Fission, Spontaneous Fission, Fusion, and Annihilation.  These do not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, also called Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed only changed in form.
http://www.saskschools.ca/curr_content/chem30_05/appendix/glossary.htm

Regardless, you central point remains the same; CO2 is being created at an unprecedented scale, effectively accumulating in our atmosphere.
Total CO₂ emissions per day from all the coal fired power plants in India was 1.1 thousand tons per day in 1997-98 and annual emission has been computed to be 395 million tons.
http://www.osc.edu/research/archive/pcrm/emissions/thermalemissions.shtml

Originally posted by SRC_ROLLTIDE Yingyqng you sort of prove my point that I am trying to get across to Cokk. We are all guilty. At the same time we are set in our ways of life. That's why I said the answer lies at the head of the snake. Only if changes are made at the energy level can things truly change. It's either that or start stepping on civil liberties. The true problem is out of the average Joe's hands. We can all do things willingly to slow the process but the fundamental problem goes unresolved. However, I do feel the drum beat for change is getting louder. Cokk you make a good point b/c i could do more. We could do more. But unless we are all willing to go back to the stone age, fundamental changes must begin to take shape. Before you can walk you must crawl and the crawling part is changing the minds of those who don't think this is an issue. Only when people are on board with the idea can any ground be made.

World is a dangerous place when the water levels will rise due to global warming. But im not scared of global warming as much as i am scared of war breaking out for fresh water. i honestly believe the next war will be over water and not oil =o. Adding to the debate i must say that i do not do my part in maintaining the environment in my city. I take the easy way out and most people around here drive huge f***ing trucks and we have oil production which adds to the problem. Im sorry but greed outweighs any morals set in place. The earth might get warmer , but the majority of people's attitudes are cold towards change (for the environment that is).

As I said above, all those small things i.e. turning off unused lights, keeping the AC on 76 in the summer, not taking necessary trips in the car if I can carpool with someone else.  I told you that I recycle too last time, although recycling is not as good as everyone thinks.  How am I being idle?  I have a belief and I am telling it how it is.  I am in school in hopes of getting a general biology degree so I can devote a career in some area of environmental research (not sure which area yet).  The point as I stated is all these things only slow the process now.  Most scientists think global warming is irreversible at this point.  Until our government gets on board with the rest of the world and pledge to reduce carbon emissions what the hell else do you want me to do?  Luckily the Bush error is over and I read how Obama is going to require the federal government to cut their carbon footprint.  At this point, that's a great start.  I know you are trying to paint me in that light of "sitting on my hands."  Well good try. 
Lets be realistic.  We aren't going back to the horse and buggy era.  All those small steps are good and all, but not everyone follows them because it isn't mandatory.  The only solution is to go to the head of the snake and find new, cleaner ways of making energy. 

Originally posted by SRC_ROLLTIDE Originally posted by Fluffy Fluffington Originally posted by COKKENBALLS Fluff, I agree that there has been some sensationalism over terror in the post-911 era. There are quite a few people who point to things like the Patriot Act and complain about their civil liberties being violated. I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone. Do you personally know anyone who has had their civil liberties violated as a direct result of the Patriot Act or like legislation? Nobody has ever been able to truthfull answer yes. I'm not saying that the gov't should be able to perform a virtual body cavity search at will, I'm just saying that  it isn't nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. I agree  with you c0ck, however, its not that civil liberties have been violated or not .... but it's the precedent that's set. Once you take one step the next one is easier. Once the government takes the step towards a public option in health insurance ... the next step becomes easier, and the next after that. The Patriot act is the same, although our civil liberties are broadly in tact we have taken a step towards a dangerous direction. The next one will be easier. Global Warming is the perfect calamity to take dangerous steps in the economic sphere that the left has always wanted to pursue but never had a good enough justification.  The only dangerous step is to not take any steps at all.  Global warming is not just a United States problem...*deep breath* its global.  Sorry but your statement sounds a bit selfish to me.  Not to do anything because it may cause a slippery slope based on what your political agenda is?  I'm sure the people in the Maldives will care when their islands are overtaken by the seas.  What would Jesus do

Originally posted by COKKENBALLS OK, here is one of the biggest reasons why I have such a problem with "global warming". Most of the people that support the theory (yes, it is a theory), don't even believe it themselves. If they did, they would be doing more about it than posting youtube videos on a gaming website. Let's take a moment to put this into perspective. According to those who pray at the church of global warming, if we do not change our ways, we are headed towards imminent destruction of the earth. When I say destruction, I don't mean a fender-bender. I mean fire and brimstone, scorched earth, people dead and all that other fear-mongering hoopla. So, what is everyone that believes in the rubbish doing about it? Blogging? A while back, Rolltide and I went back and forth on this very subject. It was friendly and Rolltide and I remain friends. At that time, I asked him specifically what he was doing to combat global warming. Now, I am paraphrasing here, but he said "What can I do?" "I'm just a college student." I am using Rolltide as an example here. I am by no means attacking him. I find his response to be telling of how much he really does believe in man-made global warming. Seriously, if he truly believes that our current course will lead to the destruction of earth and the death of every living organism on earth, why isn't he doing more? This is the fate of our earth we're talking about here. We're not talking about using up all of the fluid in our Bic lighter and discarding it for a new one. We're talking about the end of life for everyone as we know it. If you truly believe that man is accellerating global warming, why are so many "activists" and "beLIEvers" sitting idle? It seems to me that most of the "activists" aren't on the side of man-made global warming because they believe it. They are on that side because that is what they have been told to believe. Far too many Americans rely on someone else's pontification for their own intellectual identity. The bi-product is an un-inspired group of pseudo-activists who don't really believe in the cause they champion. I already know what the global warming sympathizers are doing to help our earth (nothing). Here is a taste of what I do, every single mother-f()cking day. *I drive a vehicle that I converted to run on WVO. *I have converted four other vehicles to run on WVO. WVO is completely natural, renewable and emits less carbon emissions than ANY fossil fuel. *Do you know what the #'s inside the triangle mean on plastic? I do. Learn them. *Do you remove the caps from laundry detergent and soda/water bottles before recycling them? If not, you have rendered that item as un-recycleable. The cap is molded with a heavier (more dense) type of plastic that is recycled seperately from the bottle itself. Every bottle you have recycled with the cap left on is more than likely in a landfill somewhere. Nice work. *I installed a tankless water heater in my home. *When I do work on my house, I shop at House Parts first. They specialize in reclaimed (recycled) building materials. *I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. *We don't flush after we pee in my house just to save water. (except if we had asparragus) *I put a jam jar full of rocks in the tank of my toilet so it uses less water. (see the displacement theory) *I cut the chords off of every electrical appliance I am replacing. DYK that scrapyards send electrical chords, speaker wire, cat5/rj45 and cable to be recycled. Right now it's $0.80/lb @ALPCO in Macedon NY. *I take over 2 tons of scrap to ALPCO each month for recycling. This is metal that I find people tossing out to the curb just as I am driving around in my everyday life. Lawnmowers, hot water tanks, appliances etc. I toss them in my truck and take them to  the scrap yard. That's $0.075/lb. That's $150.00 per ton just for keeping it out of a landfill. I could go on and on about the lengths I go through to help ensure that we all enjoy clean air and water. Sadly, the word environmentalist has been hijacked by global warming sympathizers. Even though I am more of an environmentalist than any of the "environmentalists" I know. How many other Analysts for IBM do you know that pick through other peoples garbage to take out the ferrous and non-ferrous metals they have carelessly thrown out? If you really and truly believe in man-made global warming, own it.   The effect man has on the earth's core temperature is about the same effect one fly landing in the Atlantic would have on ocean levels. Cheers!

Actually my response after I told you what those plastic numbers mean was that I do all that I can being a college student (limited funds..hell it would be fun to have a bio diesel car)....While I do admire your "environmental approach" and all your recycling efforts and such... lets remember the basis of the problem.  All that recycling takes energy to convert.  The form of energy we are using now is the problem.  The bottom line is the problem must be hit head on from ENERGY not by if we are recycling the tops to our soda bottles.  If anything that is contributing more to the problem.  What is so wrong with wanting to have cleaner sources of energy?  As I have said before suppose the hypothesis of global warming being caused by man is false....so what?  The "side effects" of alternative energy are cleaner air, cleaner water and for you economic whores out there, not to mention the jobs it would bring with it.  The point is the correlations are there, the evidence is alarming.  For a vast majority of people, myself included, we can turn off the lights when we leave a room, turn the air up to 76, yada yada yada (which are good and all), but, until a REAL solution is allowed to pa** through all the red tape of government and the US gets on board with the Kyoto Protocol, we are only spinning our bio diesel truck in mud.  Not to mention fossil fuels are finite.  So yeah I am BLOGGING because my voice is being heard about this. 
If theories don't get you going how about an actual law...law of conservation of matter which says matter cannot be created or destroyed.  Fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Fact burning fossil fuels releases CO2.  So when we fire up the factory, all those byproducts (ie CO2) don't disappear into Bunnyland.  Now of course the oceans and lands and plants take up a lot of this CO2 but then another law is encountered...the law of diffusion which deals with particles moving from areas of higher concentrations to lower concentrations.  At some point the oceans and land have soaked up as much CO2 as physically possible.  At that point all those billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases we put up there every day stay there.  Equilibrium is reached with the earth and waters and the only thing occurring then is more and more CO2 being added.  Of course Han Fei seems like more of the chemist here than I am so if I am wrong feel free to correct. 
If people can walk on the moon, a cleaner energy source can be found and utilized.