The global warming lie

[Bearly]

No one acknowledged my earlier post, so I will try again.

Simply put, its a fact that CO2 traps heat, that deforestation is occuring (decreasing the uptake of CO2), that the amount of CO2 is rising rapidly (increased input-the most probable cause is from man's activities). When levels of CO2 were high in the past in earths history, the earth was much warmer. Many species are sensitive to increases in temperture and seasonal changes. The Earth's weather patterns are determined by temperture gradient driven cycles of air and ocean currents, and these two cycles are inter-related. The reason Venus's atmosphere is so much warmer than the earth is not because it is closer to the sun, put the fact that it's atmosphere has a much greater composition of heat-trapping gases.

Given these indesputable facts, what do you think the result will be as we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? My dollar is on an increase in global average temperatures causing climatic change. Are we observing any changes? Yes. Should we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly in the hopes that the earth can compensate somehow?

My answer: no

And the attitude that the earth is too "strong" to be affected by man's activity is understandable if a person is young, but very wrong. We have already caused damage to the ozone from cfc's, it is to our credit that cfc's were banned. We are already wiping out many species and acres of forests each year. Look at the smog in China and Mexico city. Consider the effects of acid rain. Consider the fact that overfishing is putting fisheries in peril of very servere drops in fish populations. Some rivers are extremely polluted by industrial activities. There are billions of people on this planet. Man can and has already affected this planet profoundly.

[Melioth]

Is this like when you spoke about having studied European religious history and you didn't know that Aristotle was Greek?

Romans and Greeks were very much alike.

[Mattshark]

Romans and Greeks were very much alike.

Only to someone who has never studied history

[Leah G.]

No one acknowledged my earlier post, so I will try again.

Simply put, its a fact that CO2 traps heat, that deforestation is occuring (decreasing the uptake of CO2), that the amount of CO2 is rising rapidly (increased input-the most probable cause is from man's activities). When levels of CO2 were high in the past in earths history, the earth was much warmer. Many species are sensitive to increases in temperture and seasonal changes. The Earth's weather patterns are determined by temperture gradient driven cycles of air and ocean currents, and these two cycles are inter-related. The reason Venus's atmosphere is so much warmer than the earth is not because it is closer to the sun, put the fact that it's atmosphere has a much greater composition of heat-trapping gases.

Given these indesputable facts, what do you think the result will be as we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? My dollar is on an increase in global average temperatures causing climatic change. Are we observing any changes? Yes. Should we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly in the hopes that the earth can compensate somehow?

My answer: no

And the attitude that the earth is too "strong" to be affected by man's activity is understandable if a person is young, but very wrong. We have already caused damage to the ozone from cfc's, it is to our credit that cfc's were banned. We are already wiping out many species and acres of forests each year. Look at the smog in China and Mexico city. Consider the effects of acid rain. Consider the fact that overfishing is putting fisheries in peril of very servere drops in fish populations. Some rivers are extremely polluted by industrial activities. There are billions of people on this planet. Man can and has already affected this planet profoundly.

Maybe because no one thinks your wrong? There just isn't a lot an individual can do, as a group we could accomplish something but getting everyone to agree to anything is a true chore. Look at this thread as a testiment. Is the damage caused to the ozone a huge factor, probably. Personally I think we are on the down side of the warming issue and we didn't act fast enough and there is nothing left to do other than duck and cover. We should have been living in harmony with nature years ago, we probably could have put off the global warming. I don't think we could stop the natural process but we could have had a little longer to figure out how to live thru the aftermath which is a new ice age. It's a cycle and we probably sped the process up by quite a bit by ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Once we learned we were contributing to the speed of Global warming, everyone fought about it and as far as I can see they are still fighting and it's going to be to late by the time anyone really gets their stuff together to do anything about it.

After reading and being involved in this thread, I have no doubt why we are in the mess we are. Again, I hope I'm wrong, I hope we aren't to late. The truth is we as individuals can't do anything with out the governments help. Probably due to over regulation but in their defence, 911 changed our world forever and we don't feel safe anymore.

[keithisco]

No one acknowledged my earlier post, so I will try again.

Simply put, its a fact that CO2 traps heat, that deforestation is occuring (decreasing the uptake of CO2), that the amount of CO2 is rising rapidly (increased input-the most probable cause is from man's activities). When levels of CO2 were high in the past in earths history, the earth was much warmer. Many species are sensitive to increases in temperture and seasonal changes. The Earth's weather patterns are determined by temperture gradient driven cycles of air and ocean currents, and these two cycles are inter-related. The reason Venus's atmosphere is so much warmer than the earth is not because it is closer to the sun, put the fact that it's atmosphere has a much greater composition of heat-trapping gases.

Given these indesputable facts, what do you think the result will be as we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? My dollar is on an increase in global average temperatures causing climatic change. Are we observing any changes? Yes. Should we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly in the hopes that the earth can compensate somehow?

My answer: no

And the attitude that the earth is too "strong" to be affected by man's activity is understandable if a person is young, but very wrong. We have already caused damage to the ozone from cfc's, it is to our credit that cfc's were banned. We are already wiping out many species and acres of forests each year. Look at the smog in China and Mexico city. Consider the effects of acid rain. Consider the fact that overfishing is putting fisheries in peril of very servere drops in fish populations. Some rivers are extremely polluted by industrial activities. There are billions of people on this planet. Man can and has already affected this planet profoundly.

Buenos tardes BEARLY

I will certainly acknowledge your post..... it is clear and indisputably correct.

Mankind is now a big factor in driving this planet's biosphere toward a very dangerous precipice. The naysayers (paid handsomely by fossil energy providers) have littered the entire problem with false claims and false research to the point that some people now cannot sift the wheat from the chaff. It is a deliberate ploy to remove science from the equation and to try and appeal to a largely uneducated populace, to gain political leverage. This is the most blatant affront to the science that is now universally accepted by the rest of the world.

It is fast becoming a war between concerned science and big - money multinational pseudoscientists who are truly lining their own pockets at the expense of the rest of world.

I, for one, will not go "quietly into the night" and allow this to happen, not at the expense of my fellow man....

[ShyByNature]

Would these be the companies that have had histories of producing false science to say global warming exists or ones who aren't involved in that?

Or a media who are famous for misrepresentation.

Or maybe Nature and Science, the two most prestigious scientific journals around.

Or maybe NASA, NOAA, CRU, Met Office, NSIDC are all just making things up as they go along.

lmao...There are many controversies within both Nature and Science dealing with publishing research and then withdrawing due to suspicious findings. Its like a rat race between them to publish controversial studies. The science gets sloppy and the researchers biased. Quite simply, scientific literature is full of disputes and retractions. As for NASA, NOAA, CRU, Met Office, NSIDC. Lets begin and end with Nasa. To even suggest Nasa of being credible is a joke in itself. Dont fool yourself.....It is always about the almighty dollar:) With that said, I find sarcasm to be humor of ignorance

[Mattshark]

lmao...There are many controversies within both Nature and Science dealing with publishing research and then withdrawing due to suspicious findings. Its like a rat race between them to publish controversial studies. The science gets sloppy and the researchers biased. Quite simply, scientific literature is full of disputes and retractions. As for NASA, NOAA, CRU, Met Office, NSIDC. Lets begin and end with Nasa. To even suggest Nasa of being credible is a joke in itself. Dont fool yourself.....It is always about the almighty dollar:) With that said, I find sarcasm to be humor of ignorance

I get the feeling you are not so well read with regards to science (the field not the journal).

Science and Nature are the most respected journals in world because they have very high standards not because they want to be controversial. They have retracted stuff yes, but so what, find me a credible journal that hasn't.

Why is NASA not credible exactly?

And why am I ignorant? I have actually worked in this field and I still am.

So do you have any worthwhile scientific evidence?

Edited December 21, 2008 by Mattshark

[Bearly]

Hi Keithisco and Hatch. Thanks for your replies. It's bothersome when a person presents facts, and then other people just ignore them rather than try to counter them. So I appreciate your replies and your concerns regarding the environment.

As others have stated, rather than global warming being a scam by scientists trying to get more research money, it is the oil and coal companies that are presenting bogus science to confuse the issue so that they can keep raking in their billions of dollars. There are plenty of other things to study, so to suggest that science is trying to hoodwink the public for research funds is ignorant and slanderous. I am thankful that George Bush is leaving office and is being replaced by someone that appreciates science and environmental concerns. It is shameful to me have the USA has been putting business interests ahead of safe environmental policies. Our current government has been trying to hush NOAA and other organizations from presenting evidence that supports global warming. A pox on the Republicans.

Science is constantly challenging research, and I consider that a good and healthy thing, it's what seperates science from religion. But the evidence for global warming has far outweighed any evidence to the contrary. So if you want to refute the evidence for global warming, you can not do so validly by statements like "the earth warms up, and the earth cools' down; or the earth is too strong to be affected by man, or by slanderous statements that the vast majority of scientists are trying to scam the public. The vast majority of scientists are objective and try to determine the truth, that is what separates science from politics and religion. Science, by trying to present facts that counter the status qo, has been in conflict with religion, the wealthy and the powerful for much of history.

[keithisco]

Hi Keithisco and Hatch. Thanks for your replies. It's bothersome when a person presents facts, and then other people just ignore them rather than try to counter them. So I appreciate your replies and your concerns regarding the environment.

As others have stated, rather than global warming being a scam by scientists trying to get more research money, it is the oil and coal companies that are presenting bogus science to confuse the issue so that they can keep raking in their billions of dollars. There are plenty of other things to study, so to suggest that science is trying to hoodwink the public for research funds is ignorant and slanderous. I am thankful that George Bush is leaving office and is being replaced by someone that appreciates science and environmental concerns. It is shameful to me have the USA has been putting business interests ahead of safe environmental policies. Our current government has been trying to hush NOAA and other organizations from presenting evidence that supports global warming. A pox on the Republicans.

Bearly.... you are doing a fine job of representing scientific reason in this debate. I think also that the whole world will be much safer and much greener under Obama.When I look back at the invective unloaded on Barack prior to the elections I am appalled, but too many people in too many states wanted him for president and the Reps. couldnt "fix" this election.

Barack has already made several statements in support of reducing the US' contribution to the release of the many different types of greenhouse gas - we must now hope that Reps and Big Business cronies are not able to derail this most important of crusades

[Leah G.]

Hi Keithisco and Hatch. Thanks for your replies. It's bothersome when a person presents facts, and then other people just ignore them rather than try to counter them. So I appreciate your replies and your concerns regarding the environment.

As others have stated, rather than global warming being a scam by scientists trying to get more research money, it is the oil and coal companies that are presenting bogus science to confuse the issue so that they can keep raking in their billions of dollars. There are plenty of other things to study, so to suggest that science is trying to hoodwink the public for research funds is ignorant and slanderous. I am thankful that George Bush is leaving office and is being replaced by someone that appreciates science and environmental concerns. It is shameful to me have the USA has been putting business interests ahead of safe environmental policies. Our current government has been trying to hush NOAA and other organizations from presenting evidence that supports global warming. A pox on the Republicans.

Science is constantly challenging research, and I consider that a good and healthy thing, it's what seperates science from religion. But the evidence for global warming has far outweighed any evidence to the contrary. So if you want to refute the evidence for global warming, you can not do so validly by statements like "the earth warms up, and the earth cools' down; or the earth is too strong to be affected by man, or by slanderous statements that the vast majority of scientists are trying to scam the public. The vast majority of scientists are objective and try to determine the truth, that is what separates science from politics and religion. Science, by trying to present facts that counter the status qo, has been in conflict with religion, the wealthy and the powerful for much of history.

Even if we don't agree on every single little thing at least we all know something is wrong. If your not in the thick of it, it's hard to know what is really going on, we can only go by what the media tells us and sometimes they are not right or they are misleading. A recent election comes to mind but that's another thread. We depend on the media for the truth and when it is confused by people with personal agendas or big business propaganda or even the government trying to keep the masses calm, the media has to find the truth and honestly I think they have been falling down on the job. It's the reason everyone has had such different opinions on this thread, they either have to much information or not enough. We have nothing consistant. Being no spring chicken and being blessed with a reasonably good memory, I remember the pendulm swings and it has been for years. So the only thing I am left with is my opinion and no real facts. The Old Farmer's Alamanc has been the most correct guide that I know of. I know some of the people that have been on this thread don't know what that is, it's an American weather longrange forcast, it started out just as a magazine but now is on line but it has been trusted and true thru the years. It started when this country was young for the farmers to plant by. If in doubt, I will go with what the Almanac says.

[ShyByNature]

I get the feeling you are not so well read with regards to science (the field not the journal).

Science and Nature are the most respected journals in world because they have very high standards not because they want to be controversial. They have retracted stuff yes, but so what, find me a credible journal that hasn't.

Why is NASA not credible exactly?

And why am I ignorant? I have actually worked in this field and I still am.

So do you have any worthwhile scientific evidence?

I said, I find sarcasm to be ignorant, and if the glove fits...

Now I see your ego is upfront and center looking to feed itself. I dont

care how smart you think you are. Apparrently not smart enough to realize its always about money.

Why is NASA not credible exactly? Are you joking? Go do your own homework and explain to me why they are so credible. Thus far with what I have read and learned about NASA. Is just how good they are with covering up the truth. Obviously you are a very single minded individual.

I just dont care for repeating myself over and over for an egotistical, closed minded individual who thinks he knows it all because science saids so. Unlike you I dont pretend to know it all. I just call it as I see it. No more or less. Being Open minded is always the best way to approach scientific matters.

Science has always been acceptable to manipulation due to $$$$$$$$$$$. That was my point from the beginning. But it seems your ego just couldnt let a fair and simple view fly. And I also get the feeling you are not so well read with regards to how the world works.

[MID]

So you think an increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution of 35% is sub-microscopic.

I actually said that human presence on this planet is sub-microscopic.

That is a fact. Humanity constitutes approximately 6 to 7 trillionths of a percent of the planet's mass, and they constiutute a mere 8/1,000,000 of a percent of the mass of the atmosphere.

That's not only sub-microspcopic...it's virtually sub-atomic in scale.

However, when one considers the use of percentages and how significant they seem, it might be accurate to state that a 35% increase in CO2 levels is equally insignificant.

After all, what we're really talking about is an increse in CO2 from 280 PPM to 380 PPM...over some period of time. Your 35%.

What it actually means is that the percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased from 28 to 38 / 1000 of a percent of the atmopshere.

The actual increase in atmospheric CO2 in real numbers is 1/100 of a percent of the atmopshere. 35% makes it sound far too ominous...and it works to influence people overtly.

Just a thought!

[Leah G.]

We need to plant more trees! Co2 consumption Edited December 22, 2008 by Hatch

[Tmars78]

I am not going to get into the heated debate about whether or not global warming is a farce or is real, but just to pose a question to the people who believe we are being scammed. Let's just say it is a hoax and a great big lie, why does it matter?? Look at what you constitute as a lie is trying to do. It is trying to make man as a whole realize we are doing something grossly negligent to the planet. They are asking for things that are harmful to the planet to be curbed. Asking for a cleaner, healthier Earth is not a bad thing, and if, as you state, lying about it is the way to get it, then so be it.

[4est4]

No one acknowledged my earlier post, so I will try again.

Simply put, its a fact that CO2 traps heat, that deforestation is occuring (decreasing the uptake of CO2), that the amount of CO2 is rising rapidly (increased input-the most probable cause is from man's activities). When levels of CO2 were high in the past in earths history, the earth was much warmer. Many species are sensitive to increases in temperture and seasonal changes. The Earth's weather patterns are determined by temperture gradient driven cycles of air and ocean currents, and these two cycles are inter-related. The reason Venus's atmosphere is so much warmer than the earth is not because it is closer to the sun, put the fact that it's atmosphere has a much greater composition of heat-trapping gases.

Given these indesputable facts, what do you think the result will be as we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? My dollar is on an increase in global average temperatures causing climatic change. Are we observing any changes? Yes. Should we continue to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly in the hopes that the earth can compensate somehow?

My answer: no

And the attitude that the earth is too "strong" to be affected by man's activity is understandable if a person is young, but very wrong. We have already caused damage to the ozone from cfc's, it is to our credit that cfc's were banned. We are already wiping out many species and acres of forests each year. Look at the smog in China and Mexico city. Consider the effects of acid rain. Consider the fact that overfishing is putting fisheries in peril of very servere drops in fish populations. Some rivers are extremely polluted by industrial activities. There are billions of people on this planet. Man can and has already affected this planet profoundly.

exactly as for the clear cutting thing

over 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day in the world. That is over 150 acres lost every minute of every day. Experts estimate that at the current rate of destruction, the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. Experts also estimate that we are losing 130 species of plants, animals and insects every single day

reference: http://www.rain-tree.com/

all those 200,000 acres could be helping reuduce Co2 amounts in the atmoshpere

[Cinders]

Right now.. it is sort of hard to swallow the Global warming stuff although I do see it happen here especially in the summer and watching Mt Hood basically lose all her snow and glaciers. However, maybe, we're making up for the last 20 years of loss of it all..

I am in Portland, Oregon and by NEXT Saturday (when we "might" get warm 40F weather) it will be 2 weeks of this white stuff in the Willamette Valley. We haven't seen so much and for so long in ages! It may not sound like a biggy to some of you, but we are in the Willamette Valley and it is RARE to get this like what we've had. The last time we were hit like this was on Jan 31 1950 of 17 inches. I think we have surpassed that now.

For fun, check out this funny recent flick of one of the MILD days here in Portland Oregon from on Dec 16th 2008 (complete with Benny Hill music tune)

http://www.katu.com/younews/36277384.html

And this is one is just as silly from Dec 19 2008- people at Seaside, Oregon in Surf Sand and SNOW:

http://www.katu.com/home/video/36523944.ht...deo=pop&t=a

Another MILD day before the real stuff hit us..

Video from our Oregon Zoo with SNOW.

I love all the animals in this.. especially the new baby elephant!

http://theportland.com/Oregon/?p=2814

Today was the worst days yet so far... Every time I say that, the next day is far worse! LOL

Dang it's cold! I'm freezing my bozozo off!

I never thought I'd say this, but I really miss our RAIN!

[4est4]

Right now.. it is sort of hard to swallow the Global warming stuff although I do see it happen here especially in the summer and watching Mt Hood basically lose all her snow and glaciers. However, maybe, we're making up for the last 20 years of loss of it all..

I am in Portland, Oregon and by NEXT Saturday (when we "might" get warm 40F weather) it will be 2 weeks of this white stuff in the Willamette Valley. We haven't seen so much and for so long in ages! It may not sound like a biggy to some of you, but we are in the Willamette Valley and it is RARE to get this like what we've had. The last time we were hit like this was on Jan 31 1950 of 17 inches. I think we have surpassed that now.

For fun, check out this funny recent flick of one of the MILD days here in Portland Oregon from on Dec 16th 2008 (complete with Benny Hill music tune)

http://www.katu.com/younews/36277384.html

And this is one is just as silly from Dec 19 2008- people at Seaside, Oregon in Surf Sand and SNOW:

http://www.katu.com/home/video/36523944.ht...deo=pop&t=a

Another MILD day before the real stuff hit us..

Video from our Oregon Zoo with SNOW.

I love all the animals in this.. especially the new baby elephant!

http://theportland.com/Oregon/?p=2814

Today was the worst days yet so far... Every time I say that, the next day is far worse! LOL

Dang it's cold! I'm freezing my bozozo off!

I never thought I'd say this, but I really miss our RAIN!

yeah i was about to say the same. we have over 7 and a half inches of snow in salem and whenever it snows in the valley we usually get only an inch or two

[Oen Anderson]

Actually water vapor is 80 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Earth gets hot water evaporates from the oceans causing clouds that block sunlight thereby causing the Earth to cool back down on its own. Water molecules are larger than CO2 molecules and that is why they are more efficient. An inversion holds clouds close to the ground trapping the heat in temporarily. The elite want a carbon tax so they can control our energy supply and get paid for nothing, like insurance. I give Matt credit for this one. Good job!

[4est4]

Actually water vapor is 80 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Earth gets hot water evaporates from the oceans causing clouds that block sunlight thereby causing the Earth to cool back down on its own. Water molecules are larger than CO2 molecules and that is why they are more efficient. An inversion holds clouds close to the ground trapping the heat in temporarily. The elite want a carbon tax so they can control our energy supply and get paid for nothing, like insurance. I give Matt credit for this one. Good job!

so then we would be constantly covered by clouds?

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

For a better understanding of global warming, read today's article in the NY Times, see the link to the article below. Some of the highligts of the article state that 99% of our atmosphere does not trap heat (the oxygen and nitrogen components).

And if co2 was not present at it's current level, the earth would be about 20 degrees cooler. So if the the amount of co2 were to double, it would increase the average temperature by another 20 degrees. So while the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere may be very small relative to the other gases, its impact is very significant.

I take measurements of co2 as part of my job. The average readings in Washington dc are about 450 ppm. The average use to be much lower. There is no question that we are putting tons of co2 in the atmosphere every year. As the co2 in the atmosphere increases, it sinks into the ocean and causes an increase in acidity, which is damaging to oceans species. So there are many variables to consider.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

Very good post I think this proves we are controlling the climate change. The Co2 we produce is at all time highs and the world is over populated so put two and two together. Anyone who does not think that global warming is happening has got be ignorant to the information out there.

[keithisco]

I actually said that human presence on this planet is sub-microscopic.

That is a fact. Humanity constitutes approximately 6 to 7 trillionths of a percent of the planet's mass, and they constiutute a mere 8/1,000,000 of a percent of the mass of the atmosphere.

That's not only sub-microspcopic...it's virtually sub-atomic in scale.

However, when one considers the use of percentages and how significant they seem, it might be accurate to state that a 35% increase in CO2 levels is equally insignificant.

After all, what we're really talking about is an increse in CO2 from 280 PPM to 380 PPM...over some period of time. Your 35%.

What it actually means is that the percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased from 28 to 38 / 1000 of a percent of the atmopshere.

The actual increase in atmospheric CO2 in real numbers is 1/100 of a percent of the atmopshere. 35% makes it sound far too ominous...and it works to influence people overtly.

Just a thought!

MID.... you of all people have done an excellent job in the "did we land on the moon" thread, but comparing the physical mass of the human population and ignoring what such "lightweights" can actually do???

CO2 is not the only protagonist here (as you well know) the real problem is with other hydrocarbons that we spew into the atmosphere by the billions of tons each year. Methane is far more deadly a greenhouse gas than CO2. Deforestation is another major blow to Carbon sinks, as the seas warm up they release their stores of CO2 adding to the problem.

A number of other posts keep referring to the weather, but local weather systems and Climatic Change are 2 very different propositions.

[MID]

yeah i was about to say the same. we have over 7 and a half inches of snow in salem and whenever it snows in the valley we usually get only an inch or two

Yes...

And here in Eastern PA, we've had 9 inches of snow and sleet and ice...this FALL! That includes the earliest snowfall we've experienced in decades (6" of it on NOV 20).

Right now, it's 12 degrees F...just ever so radically below nominal for this time of year.

It makes it difficult to fall into the hypothesis as fact of MMGW. Especially since the past two years have been demonstrably cooler. We haven't seen more than a handful of 90+ degree days in the summer here in two years, and no temperature above 93 has been recorded...which is wierd.

Edited December 22, 2008 by MID

[MID]

MID.... you of all people have done an excellent job in the "did we land on the moon" thread, but comparing the physical mass of the human population and ignoring what such "lightweights" can actually do???

CO2 is not the only protagonist here (as you well know) the real problem is with other hydrocarbons that we spew into the atmosphere by the billions of tons each year. Methane is far more deadly a greenhouse gas than CO2. Deforestation is another major blow to Carbon sinks, as the seas warm up they release their stores of CO2 adding to the problem.

A number of other posts keep referring to the weather, but local weather systems and Climatic Change are 2 very different propositions.

Thank you kiethsco...

But I am amazed at the amount of zeal which is put forth concerning this MMGW idea...an hypothesis, and nothing more.

As I've said, I consider it a valid one, but weak at best, and as to this point un-supported. There's a hell of a lot of bad science put forth in making this hypothetical a theory. It is not.

You realize I am addressing relative scales and capabilities here, don't you...when I make a comparison between the mass of humanity relative to this planet, or to it's atmosphere?

What I said was that humanity as a whole constitutes about 6-7 / 1,000,000,000,000 % of the mass of the planet. The idea was to give a sense of scale. Most people don't appreciate the scale of what they're attempting to talk about.

That's equivalent to 6 or 7 individual cells in the typical human body having an effect on the body.

Of course, someone will come along and say that only one cell can have an adverse effect on the human body.

They would be absolutely wrong in such an assumption, as it takes millions to have an effect...combined with an immune system that is weakened by various factors.

The Earth has an immune system that's been demonstrated eternally, as the Earth's "belches" themselves can make human influence looks ridiculously puny through its cataclysmic energies and pollution generating events...and yet, the Earth cleans herself up...and generally--in very short order.

Again, the hypothesis is valid, but it's a loooong way from being shown to be anything but an hypothesis, and a longer way from being shown to be Al Gore's doom scenario.

Personally, I think he's the latter 20th century's joke. Further, he has somehow been highly contributory to a minority of scientists with a decidedly political agenda being able to convince so many people of the MMGW hypothesis being a proven scientific fact.

That being said, there was another post here while although promoting an agenda, and extending what was observed in a local environment into a global situation, speaks to what I've also maintained:

I take measurements of co2 as part of my job. The average readings in Washington dc are about 450 ppm. The average use to be much lower. There is no question that we are putting tons of co2 in the atmosphere every year.

Humanity does indeed have an effect on its LOCAL ENVIRONS. That is an issue worth adrerssing. However, there is nothing indicating that the CO2 levels in any major city are having any effect on the GLOBAL climate. They are definitely having an effect on small local environments (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc...), and we should be doing something for the sake of the people who populate those concentrated areas of humanity en masse, but to extend that obvious abberation into the global climate is tandamount to saying that a pimple on your back is going to kill you.

[Cinders]

Yikes... I just had to say yesterday that it was the worst day..BUT TODAY IS! **figures!** I just had to open my big mouth.

They are saying Multnomah County (Portland, Gresham area) is now announcing a State of emergency and that this is the worst snow storm we've had in Decades.

You can watch LIVE stream news and other things submitted here: http://www.katu.com

The HUGE trees we have here in Oregon are falling big time.

Here is one example from today from a city nearby me from Lake Oswego - this guy definitely has a guardian angel:

http://www.katu.com/news/36574804.html

Check out this pic of a HUGE tree that came down here in Portland, Oregon

http://www.katu.com/news/36592054.html

Oh get this. ODOT (Oregon Dept of Transportation) is out of DE-ICER and asking if any one has any to call them! Oregon hasn't used SALT in MANY MANY years. We are allowed to use studs and chains but nothing is able to get up the steep hills we have here and the winds got up to 50 mph!

Also many stores now are shutting down because they are out of everything - trucks can't get through.

So much for last minute Christmas shopping. I wanted to take my 5 yr old twins out to see Santa.. oh well.. maybe next year.

This is so extreme. Just like the extreme hot summers we get without rain for MONTHS in the summer months here. It is all so out of whack and NOT the norm. I've lived here since the 60's my mom since the 40's. This is so NOT the norm...

Edited December 23, 2008 by Cinders

[Leah G.]

Gee Cinders,

It sounds awful, becareful out there! If you have to go anywhere I just heard they are requiring chains. A great portable heater is an old coffee can with a candle in it. We used to carry one all the time in the car when I was a kid, may not be a bad idea to start doing it again. It's hard to seperate the global warming and the nasty chill in the air.

Take Care

Hatch