21 replies to this topic

[Siara]

Critics of the global warming hypothesis:  what evidence would convince you that global warming was, in fact, a threat?

Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?

[greggK]

Quote

Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?

The evidence is the amount of junk cars.

[Heebrow]

this is rediculous, regardless of "global warmings" exsistence or  not theres no denying were raping the planet so why argue it, the more you disagree to conform to a cleaner new lifestlye the more you go to hell period.

and yes i truely mean that.

[aquatus1]

Quote

Critics of the global warming hypothesis:  what evidence would convince you that global warming was, in fact, a threat?

Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?

Personally, I have no problem with the concept that Global warming may be happening, or even that it is a threat (I'm not really convinced of it, because I believe that we have the ability to adapt ourselves to survive it).  My main question would be what supports the notion that anything we do in either direction would keep it from happening?

Quote

this is rediculous, regardless of "global warmings" exsistence or  not theres no denying were raping the planet so why argue it, the more you disagree to conform to a cleaner new lifestlye the more you go to hell period.
and yes i truely mean that.

Well, you are welcome to your opinoion and all that, but that isn't the point of the topic.

[IamsSon]

Well, part of the issue is that some of us may believe that the world is going through a warming period, but seriously doubt that human activity has had any significant impact on the current trend.

[Siara]

Quote

this is rediculous, regardless of "global warmings" exsistence or  not theres no denying were raping the planet so why argue it, the more you disagree to conform to a cleaner new lifestlye the more you go to hell period.

Ridiculous. I disagree.  I'm a firm believer in global warming, but I think it's useful to ask myself,  'what data would convince me that I'm wrong?'   For one thing, I'd like to think that I haven't become so opinionated that no amount of scientific evidence could change my mind.

I get the feeling that GW critics could not be convinced until the world as they know it turned into a cinder.  It would be nice to think that their opinions could be changed by scientific data.

In my case, if analysis of a number of ice cores showed that this rate of climate change has happened before (especially if it happened in a predictable cycle),  I would re-evaluate my opinion.  I don't think I'll have to, but I'd like to think I'm open to scientific data.

Edited by Siara, 19 January 2007 - 01:02 AM.

[greggK]

QUOTE
Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?


The evidence is the amount of junk cars.

More evidence is the amount of wars on the globe.  

The atmosphere of the earth is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen.  The Nitrogen in the atmosphere fused with the Oxygen in the atmosphere in vernal (springlike) temperatures creates Nitrous Oxide, laughing gas.  That little bit helps you get along with your neighbor.  When heat is added to the mixture along with carbon dioxide which is in the atmosphere also, you get Nitric Oxide or Nitrogen Monoxide.

Nitric oxide readily combines with oxygen or air to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can again be separated by ultraviolet light to produce nitric oxide and highly reactive oxygen atoms. These oxygen atoms combine with hydrocarbons producing noxious compounds that irritate the membranes of living organisms and destroy vegetation.

Nitric oxide can have a toxic effect on body cells and has been implicated in Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease.

So more evidence of global warming is the presence and growth of Altheimer's disease.

[frogfish]

Quote

The atmosphere of the earth is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen. The Nitrogen in the atmosphere fused with the Oxygen in the atmosphere in vernal (springlike) temperatures creates Nitrous Oxide, laughing gas. That little bit helps you get along with your neighbor. When heat is added to the mixture along with carbon dioxide which is in the atmosphere also, you get Nitric Oxide or Nitrogen Monoxide.

Nitric oxide readily combines with oxygen or air to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which can again be separated by ultraviolet light to produce nitric oxide and highly reactive oxygen atoms. These oxygen atoms combine with hydrocarbons producing noxious compounds that irritate the membranes of living organisms and destroy vegetation.

Nitric oxide can have a toxic effect on body cells and has been implicated in Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease.

Let me know when you actually know what you are talking about, Mmkay?

Nitrogen and Oxygen don't react. They are very stable elements, as you can see by looking at their filled orbitals.

[greggK]

Quote

Let me know when you actually know what you are talking about, Mmkay?

Nitrogen and Oxygen don't react. They are very stable elements, as you can see by looking at their filled orbitals.

WHO ARE YOU?

I use what is termed 'Stare Decisis.'

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.

What fills their orbitals? LOL

Edited by greggK, 19 January 2007 - 02:00 AM.

[BlueZone]

Quote

Believers in global warming: what evidence would convince you that, actually, humanity's impact on global warming was negligable?

I'm another believer.  My understanding is that the average temperature of the earth has literally risen a degree or two in recent history.  If I saw the average temp go down again (several years in a row) I would consider the possibility that the current high was a random fluke.  Evidence showing that this type of change has happened before (tree ring analysis, CO2 content in ice cores)  would make me question my beliefs.

I hope that someone who DOESN'T think we are contributing to global warming answers this.  I wonder how Bush would answer it?

[greggK]

I wonder how Bush would answer it?

He would give his little devilish grin and say, 'We'll let the scientist worry about that.  He-he.  Next?'

[aquatus1]

Quote

WHO ARE YOU?

I use what is termed 'Stare Decisis.'

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.

It's becoming pretty clear that not even you have any idea what you are talking about.  Incidentally, the concept of Stare Decisis doesn't really apply to science.  It is a legal term, not a state of action.

Quote

What fills their orbitals? LOL

Greggk...you really sound like someone who is trying to bluff his way out of not admitting he is out of his depth.

There's nothing wrong with not knowin something, as long as you don't try to pretend that you do and you are willing to learn.

[SilverCougar]

Quote

Well, part of the issue is that some of us may believe that the world is going through a warming period, but seriously doubt that human activity has had any significant impact on the current trend.

Hot hot hotter summers and seemingly coooolder winters *shivers*  It's weird... it's colder then a *censored* yet the ice caps keeps melting.  

Weeee We're all gunna die!! *goes to find some lawn chairs, popcorn, and assorted drinks then sits out to watch*

[greggK]

It's becoming pretty clear that not even you have any idea what you are talking about. Incidentally, the concept of Stare Decisis doesn't really apply to science. It is a legal term, not a state of action.

Yes sir, you are right.  It means my statement are based on the past decisions.  Every word I have said has come from scientific proof on the web.

Stare Decisis means that the rulings of the court are based on past decisions.

In my court, I make the decisions.

Greggk...you really sound like someone who is trying to bluff his way out of not admitting he is out of his depth.

You need to stick to your moderation.  You have no idea what I know!

Edited by greggK, 19 January 2007 - 02:16 AM.

[drakonwick]

Quote

It's becoming pretty clear that not even you have any idea what you are talking about. Incidentally, the concept of Stare Decisis doesn't really apply to science. It is a legal term, not a state of action.

Yes sir, you are right.  It means my statement are based on the past decisions.  Every word I have said has come from scientific proof on the web.

So then where are the links to this proof on the web?