GW: what evidence would change your mind?

[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]

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]

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?

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]

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 January 19, 2007 by Siara

[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]

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]

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 January 19, 2007 by greggK

[BlueZone]

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]

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.

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]

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 January 19, 2007 by greggK

[drakonwick]

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?

[greggK]

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

type in the words nitrous oxide and then nitric oxide, then type in the words 'atmosphere of the earth' and use your brain . . .

[Mattshark]

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

There is no proof, just evidence and models, which although I agree with I am willing to admit can be wrong. The major factor for me is the speed of temperature increase and the massive increase in CO2 emmissions combined with removal of carbon sinks like the mass destruction of rainforest.

[frogfish]

Nitric oxide is a small but reactive component of the upper atmosphere that affects the temperature and density of near-Earth space and may be important to the chemistry of the ozone layer

Key word: UPPER ATMOSPHERE

SNOE

[Siara]

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?

I 'm fairly sure that no amount of scientific evidence could change Bush's mind. Two things that could make him change his mind would be if (1) the changing climate begins to have a negative impact on the Texas oil industry (2) his fundamentalist spiritual counselors suddenly realize that, given the fact that "God made the heavens and the earth", trashing them might not be religiously correct.

[aquatus1]

IYes 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.

Stare Decisis means that, regardless of current situations, a precedent has been set and should be followed. It is far more than merely basing a decision on past decisions. In science, context is everything. What happened in one given set of circumstances before do not have any guarantee of having occurred in a different set of circumstances. One cannot claim precedent in science unless the situations are identical. One can in a court system, even if the situation is not identical.

In my court, I make the decisions.

And if you were in your court, that would be fine. However, you aren't so much in your court as in your are in your own world. While you are here, you are in a discussion forum, and around here, if you cannot support your claims, you have nothing more than opinions.

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

No, but you have made it abundantly clear what you do not know.

[Celumnaz]

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?

I don't fit in either of those categories.

I think we're in store for some possibly major geological/climate shifts and we'd better be prepared for that possibility... i.e. a threat, and science has already shown me that man's impact is negligable.

The evidence I see makes both of your questions true, it's a threat and man's role is negligable.

[SilverCougar]

Science has shown both actually... That humans have a greater impact then we think... and then there are the nay sayers that have scientists show that humans have little impact.

*shrugs* So if you believe in the "No we don't" aspect... then what's the harm in changeing our ways so that we actually won't become such a huge impact? It's like someone smokeing at age 15... yeah sure, no damage is shown... yet. But if they keep on puffing up two packs a day, by the time he's 50 or 60... the damage has accumilated up to the point where no matter what they do.. it's to late. Why get to that point?

Even with the natural cycles... there will come a point where the damage we do *now* will be irreversible because of all the buildup.