Global Warming is a hoax.

[ironmonk]

There is no such thing as "global warming" in the sense that it will send us into an ice age or just keep getting hotter.

Why do I say this? Because when we look back in history we see that the earth's temperature cycles vary from 100 to 250 years. Much longer than any of us will live. The earth cools and warms in cycles. We are living in a warming phase and it will start to cool back down within the next ten years, possibly five years.

The world is so many millions of years old, one volcano puts out more pollutants than we do in 10,000 years... more CFC's and more "green house gases" than we could ever do. 30 volcanoes erupt every year. So, for humans to do as much "damage" as one year of "damage" that volcanoes do it will take us 300,000 years... Now, what we do is a drop in the bucket when looking at the big picture.

What happens in our atmosphere to the bad gases? When the sun's UV rays hit oxygen they create ozone which is a bond between 3 oxygen atoms. Ozone is highly reactive and seeks out various gases, reacts with them, and turns them into somthing harmless - it's also a great way to kill germs. That is why if you put a UV light near the litter box it will help destroy foul odors. It is also why many safety glasses cabinets in chemistry classes have uv lights in them.

It's all a cycle.

Just look at the temperatures throughout history... grab a farmers almanac.

The media are a bunch of chicken littles and are very selective in what they show you. The "Sky is falling" gets more ratings than "We have nothing to worry about.".

As Public Enemy said "Don't believe the hype".

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Media zombie free

[zwergel88]

global warming is a condition that is accepted by most scientists and is believed to be a direct result of carbon emissins that humans produce. Global warming is real and denying it will not help the planet in any way. There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign. Because of this, the atmosphere is getting warmer, and will eventually make the gulf stream stop. The gulf stream is what heats the northern hemisphere so our area will consequently get colder becasue of global warming. Its real.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:58 PM']global warming is a condition that is accepted by most scientists and is believed to be a direct result of carbon emissins that humans produce.  Global warming is real and denying it will not help the planet in any way.  There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign.  Because of this, the atmosphere is getting warmer, and will eventually make the gulf stream stop.  The gulf stream is what heats the northern hemisphere so our area will consequently get colder becasue of global warming.  Its real.
[right][snapback]870497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


liberal garbage... blah blah blah

If people where more concerned with fighting Gay marriage, abortion, and less time fighting "global warming" The World would be a better place.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 31 2006, 04:59 AM']liberal garbage... blah blah blah

If people where more concerned with fighting Gay marriage, abortion, and less time fighting "global warming" The World would be a better place.
[right][snapback]870498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
we can talk about other things too sam

we shouldn't restrict ourselves with "gay marriages, abortions, liberalisms"

[Aloysius]

whether or not something is "accepted by most scientists" is irrelevant and a good scientist will tell you that.

regardless, I know some college science professors who have said global warming is not happening.

there is absolutely no evidence that human beings are having any effect at all on the earth's climate; it's all conjecture, and I think very arrogant on our part to think we are having such an effect.

if a single volcanic eruption causes more "greenhouse gases" than human beings have put up in our atmosphere combined, and the earth can sustain volcano blast after volcano blast and keep on its normal healthy climate cycle, what makes us think we are having any effect? simple: a scientist goes in with a hypothesis, sees a climate change, and determines that his hypothesis must have been the result of what he originally hypothesized. don't confuse this scientist with the facts though, like the fact that climate changes have always occurred on the planet earth. no, he was invested in a theory and since there is a climate change that validates his theory and he can claim credit and be called an environmental expert.. pah

politically, the Kyoto Treaty was flawed and President Bush has a great record protecting the environment. just not the way certain hippy-communists want him to do it.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:58 PM']global warming is a condition that is accepted by most scientists and is believed to be a direct result of carbon emissins that humans produce.  Global warming is real and denying it will not help the planet in any way.  There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign.  Because of this, the atmosphere is getting warmer, and will eventually make the gulf stream stop.  The gulf stream is what heats the northern hemisphere so our area will consequently get colder becasue of global warming.  Its real.
[right][snapback]870497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No it's not. Most scientist do not believe it. Some do, some don't.

It is not real. Do your own research and critically analyze the results... don't believe the media.

The kyoto plan is a joke... these scientist that are pushing it make money from the governments for their "research". It's another way to milk the government for all they can.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I have to take "envoirnmental Science" what a joke. Even my teacher said it was "politcally motivated" all we do is beesh and complain about Global warming, and how humans are horrible and how we are killing the enviornment. it is so annoying.

[ironmonk]

Please explain to me what bit of difference we are going to make by reducing anything when one volcano releases more than we can in 10,000 years.

30 erupt every year.

After 5 years volcanoes will have released more green house gases and CFC's than we can do in 1,500,000 years. Now, in the last five years volcanoes have released more than we can in 1,500,000 years...

Nothing we do is going to affect it.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Iacobus]

The 80 cent dollar again. geniuses.

[lifescanticle]

I find it hard to believe that man-made global warming is occuring. In the early sixties a new ice age was coming. Yes man was at fault for this also. This does not relieve man of the responcibility to care for the planet. Individual conservation is a good thing. Too often bad law and treaties are backed by people with special interests. These laws and treaties place undue burdens on commerce and individuals(i.e. wet land issues).

[philothea]

I think being efficient, clean, and responsible in energy use and emissions is wise choice. Efficiency, cleanliness, and responsibilty are good in [i]anything[/i].

But I'm not convinced of global warming. Even if it is happening, I don't know that the predicted results are reliable. The systems involved are incredibly complex. We have only a sample of one, and little good data on that sample.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:38 PM']The 80 cent dollar again. geniuses.
[right][snapback]870529[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I understand the 80 cent dollar argument fallacy you speak of, certainly you cannot prove something merely by comparing it and saying it is the best that can be done or any other way that logic applies...

but here it's completely different.

simple scientific ordered logic: are human beings affecting the climate? well, human beings put x amount of gases into the environment. volcanos have been and still put y amount of gases into the environment.

if y amount of gases have not hurt the environment, and x amount of gases are insignificant in comparison to y amount of gases, then the x amount of gases put into the environment will not have a catastrophic impact. why? because y amount of gases have not had a catastrophic impact.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:58 PM']global warming is a condition that is accepted by most scientists and is believed to be a direct result of carbon emissins that humans produce.  Global warming is real and denying it will not help the planet in any way.  There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign.  Because of this, the atmosphere is getting warmer, and will eventually make the gulf stream stop.  The gulf stream is what heats the northern hemisphere so our area will consequently get colder becasue of global warming.  Its real.
[right][snapback]870497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Kyoto does little to stop global warming. What it comes down to is we'll be forced to pay smaller nations in order to polute the same amount that we do now.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:47 PM']I understand the 80 cent dollar argument fallacy you speak of, certainly you cannot prove something merely by comparing it and saying it is the best that can be done or any other way that logic applies...

but here it's completely different.

simple scientific ordered logic: are human beings affecting the climate?  well, human beings put x amount of gases into the environment.  volcanos have been and still put y amount of gases into the environment.

if y amount of gases have not hurt the environment, and x amount of gases are insignificant in comparison to y amount of gases, then the x amount of gases put into the environment will not have a catastrophic impact.  why?  because y amount of gases have not had a catastrophic impact.
[right][snapback]870538[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And if it takes 506 K to burn paper and Y is 505.9 and x is 0.2 K then the paper burns, regardless of the fact that Y>>X.

[Socrates]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jan 30 2006, 10:04 PM']Kyoto does little to stop global warming.  What it comes down to is we'll be forced to pay smaller nations in order to polute the same amount that we do now.
[right][snapback]870597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
True. Even scientists convinced that "greenhouse gases" are causing dangerous warming agree that the Kyoto conference would actually do nothing to prevent further warming.

It (and similar proposals) would only have the effect of harming the U.S. economically. It was the brainchild of foriegn beaurocrats looking to "level the world economic playing field."

(And China and other major polluters would face little restrictions - the goal is mainly to punish the U.S.)

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:58 PM'] There are many things that we could do to improve the situation such as signing the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon emisions but your friends in Washington won't sign. 
[/quote]

(my assumption is that this was directed at Bush...most people take that stance on the issue)

Why should Bush sign it? Clinton declined to sign it as well.

It's all moot since the senate voted unanimously not to sign it either:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".

Edited January 31, 2006 by Cow of Shame

[Iacobus]

Clinton didn't sign it but the US still tried to obey it. They were not legally obliged to do so but sought to at least try. Bush said it wasn't even worth trying and in the act kind of killed the Kyoto Protocol in the US.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I tend to think global warming is a bunch of hype.

[JP2Iloveyou]

My only question then is, "Why are we experiencing the mildest winter in decades?" I love snow, and I can't remember the last winter that we've seen a considerable amount of snow in my area (Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, states that traditionally receive a good deal of snow).

Honestly, I had a science professor who was very honest about the whole situation this year. He said that there is evidence to show that it is happening, but that it has not been proven. Further, he said that the climate increase in a given year cannot be blamed for hurricanes, or one extrememly warm or cool season. It is something that happens over time. Then, I read an article in the paper where this guy who traveled across Antartica said that temperatures were routinely 80 below zero. He went on to say that in our lifetime, if we don't stop global warming, we'll have to take a boat across. Given that ice melts at 33 degrees, and taking 33 plus 80, that gives us 113. So, this guy wants to claim that the Earth's temperature is going to rise 113 degrees in our lifetimes. I think not. I do think, however, from casual observance on my own part that winters are getting warmer on average. This may be part of a cycle, it may be part of a bigger problem. If it is part of a bigger problem, can we legitimately ignore it and hope that it goes away?

[Aloysius]

evidence shows that it is part of a cycle. your very own statement "the mildest winter [i]in decades[/i]" shows that

the hurricaine season this year is analogous to huricain seasons earlier this century. same with the mild winter, the storm season, et cetera, they all have parallels to things that have happened before. science, being an observer of patterns, has no reason to think that this time is any different than the continuous pattern that has spanned the lifetime of the earth.

and since all of this fluctuates so greatly, the minor addition of human beings to the atmospheric "pollution" caused naturally by volcano eruptions and other natural phenomena, has little to no effect. we have not taken the levels of gases in the atmosphere of the earth to anywhere near where they have not been before. and we certainly haven't taken them accross some imaginary threshold by which a catastrophic global effect would result. that threshold is much farther away than our capabilities can reach. considering the conditions that the earth has gone through before, the amounts of volcanic blasts and earthquakes that have already been put up into the air, the only way a catastrophe could occur for the earth's climate is by natural forces. or, of course, by a nuclear war