so yesterday I pull up next to a hummer

12345679»

Comments

  • LikeAnOcean
    LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    onelongsong wrote:
    i come from a family of scientists. i suggest you do some research and look at the evidence.
    I haven't read your opinion, but that statement made me laugh..

    Einstien was my great uncle, so I know what the fuck I'm talking about! lol.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    onelongsong wrote:
    the volcanic activity in siberia warmed the earth 5 degrees which thawed frozen methane; this increased the temperature another 5 degrees causing the extinction. proof was discovered in greenland in 1998.

    Interesting. If you could provide me a source I'd be interested in reading it. As far as I understood it, it was still under a great amount of debate as to whether it was volcanic activity which could have led to either warmer or colder climate or whether it was a consequence of continental movement, or an asteroid. What was the proof discovered in Greenland? Also where was London oriented in Pangea? If it was closer to the equator, than it would not have been any surpise that it had the climate of the Sahara. There has been a LOT of plate movement since that time.

    I've been taught that the leading theory was that an asteroid hit the earth (they've found a crater which confirms a hit at around the same time) which caused a hell of a lot of chaos in the oceans and especially in terms of mixing more dense salt water from deeper oceans into the shallower portions which disrupted much of life on earth.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    hailhailkc wrote:
    Abortion on demand.
    Legalization of drugs.
    Re-educate and reform violent offenders.

    yet…

    That one law abiding citizen and the vehicle of their choice are the targets?

    let's see ... how does someone having an abortion affect you?? ... how does someone smoking marijuana affect you?? ... answer: it doesn't

    how does someone driving a polluting inefficient vehicle affect us? ... in air pollution and climate change ... again - this is the difference between people on the right and people on the left ... you only think of "me" - the only thing that matters is what is best for "me" ... if you consider the "we" - then, we might be able to make people understand ...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    let's see ... how does someone having an abortion affect you?? ... how does someone smoking marijuana affect you?? ... answer: it doesn't

    This is a perfect example of selfish shortsightedness. Everything we do - even our thoughts - affect people.

    Here's just a bit to scratch the surface using the examples you sighted. Abortion and drugs both contribute to pollution. Now they affect others in many, many other ways much more profound but I thought I'd use terms you might understand.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    This is a perfect example of selfish shortsightedness. Everything we do - even our thoughts - affect people.

    Here's just a bit to scratch the surface using the examples you sighted. Abortion and drugs both contribute to pollution. Now they affect others in many, many other ways much more profound but I thought I'd use terms you might understand.

    have you answered the greenhouse effect question yet?? ... as is typical of your posts - they tend to be facetious in nature but lacking any substance ...
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    know1 wrote:
    This is a perfect example of selfish shortsightedness. Everything we do - even our thoughts - affect people.

    Here's just a bit to scratch the surface using the examples you sighted. Abortion and drugs both contribute to pollution. Now they affect others in many, many other ways much more profound but I thought I'd use terms you might understand.

    To sorta go along the same stream as Polaris, how do thing examples listed affect the planet as a whole? Do we only care about consequences if they effect humans or do we care about issues that have a global consequence on things beyond people. What about long term sustainability of the planet which sustains human life?
  • hsewif
    hsewif Posts: 444
    An interesting study:

    http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

    It's very long but interesting. Here's a brief synopsis (I don't support the Reason Foundation)

    http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    have you answered the greenhouse effect question yet?? ... as is typical of your posts - they tend to be facetious in nature but lacking any substance ...

    What was the greenhouse question again?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    polaris wrote:
    does anyone doubt the science behind "the greenhouse effect"? ... if so - on what basis do you debunk this science?

    I think it was this one. The logic is that if you accept that the greenhouse effect is true and you accept the fact that we emit billions of CO2 into the atmosphere than we must accept that we DO have a role in climate change.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    sourdough wrote:
    I think it was this one. The logic is that if you accept that the greenhouse effect is true and you accept the fact that we emit billions of CO2 into the atmosphere than we must accept that we DO have a role in climate change.

    OK - so polaris is asking this big blanket question about accepting the science behind the greenhouse effect? Now I see why I didn't answer it - it's not specific enough.

    Here's what I think about the greenhouse effect. It does exist. I do not know that we can accurately measure the effect of humans on the ozone layer. Furthermore, I thought I just read recently that the hole in the ozone would be closed soon. Did humans change that much just in the past few years that the hole would close back up? I doubt they did and that's why I doubt how much impact we have on it.

    Furthermore, I believe I've read that volcanic eruptions throw much more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than humans do, so even if we cut ours out completely, would it make much of a difference with regard to the greenhouse effect?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    sourdough wrote:
    I think it was this one. The logic is that if you accept that the greenhouse effect is true and you accept the fact that we emit billions of CO2 into the atmosphere than we must accept that we DO have a role in climate change.

    exactly ... all the naysayers keep bringing up the same tired stuff that has absolutely no relevance or substance ... it's like a crutch in a way ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    know1 wrote:
    OK - so polaris is asking this big blanket question about accepting the science behind the greenhouse effect? Now I see why I didn't answer it - it's not specific enough.

    Here's what I think about the greenhouse effect. It does exist. I do not know that we can accurately measure the effect of humans on the ozone layer. Furthermore, I thought I just read recently that the hole in the ozone would be closed soon. Did humans change that much just in the past few years that the hole would close back up? I doubt they did and that's why I doubt how much impact we have on it.

    Furthermore, I believe I've read that volcanic eruptions throw much more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than humans do, so even if we cut ours out completely, would it make much of a difference with regard to the greenhouse effect?

    how much more specific do you need it to be? The ozone layer has a nominal relevance when talking about the greenhouse effect ... this is why i implore people to educated themselves on the topic ... your response clearly shows you have not ...

    But, seeing as you brought it up - since we banned the CFC's and other ozone depleting substances - guess what? ... the bloody thing healed ... is it just a coincidence? ... science have nothing to do with it?
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    know1 wrote:
    OK - so polaris is asking this big blanket question about accepting the science behind the greenhouse effect? Now I see why I didn't answer it - it's not specific enough.

    Here's what I think about the greenhouse effect. It does exist. I do not know that we can accurately measure the effect of humans on the ozone layer. Furthermore, I thought I just read recently that the hole in the ozone would be closed soon. Did humans change that much just in the past few years that the hole would close back up? I doubt they did and that's why I doubt how much impact we have on it.

    Furthermore, I believe I've read that volcanic eruptions throw much more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than humans do, so even if we cut ours out completely, would it make much of a difference with regard to the greenhouse effect?

    Wooooww... Okay, first off, ozone layer and greenhouse effect is two differnt things. Ozone layer has to do with cancer and unfiltered insolation, whereas greenhouse has to do with CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses leading to climate change. Ozone has very little to do with climate change if any at all. Very different problem which does nothing to do with green house gasses but rather CFC's etc that were largely banned. I repeat, Ozone and Greenhouse are different beasts.

    Secondly, about volcanic activity (I've mentioned this previously), the vast, vast majority of gas that is expelled from volcanoes is water vapour. Although, water vapour IS a greenhouse gas, it does not change the atmospheric composition. It condenses and rains. Furthermore, there is no huge spike after major eruptions in CO2 content in the atmosphere. Even in years of major eruptions there is no huge spike. Lastly, ice core samples taken from Antarctica have shown that the CO2 level is at its highest in 650000 years. During this time, volcanic activity has declined yet, CO2 has risen and only dramatically only recently. There is a negative correlation. Less volcanic activity, higher CO2.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    polaris wrote:
    how much more specific do you need it to be? The ozone layer has a nominal relevance when talking about the greenhouse effect ... this is why i implore people to educated themselves on the topic ... your response clearly shows you have not ...

    But, seeing as you brought it up - since we banned the CFC's and other ozone depleting substances - guess what? ... the bloody thing healed ... is it just a coincidence? ... science have nothing to do with it?

    By specific, I meant which part of the science behind the greenhouse effect are you referring to?

    I do think humans contribute to climate change, but I am not convinced as to the scope of our contribution.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    I think (Polaris correct me if I'm wrong) whether you accept whether this phenomenon is correct. Do you accept the process and the science that there are greenhouse gasses and that greenhouse gasses trap insolation and therefore heat the earth? Do you believe that if you add more greenhouse gasses, the greenhouse effect will be increased? Do you think that we are adding greenhouse gasses? Do you accept that we are adding billions of tons of greenhouse gasses while eliminating carbon sinks (deforestation or instance) and therefore altering the composition of the atmosphere? Has our output of CO2 increased and is continuing to increase while at the same time the natural mechanisms to remove or store carbon are being damaged or removed? Have we found an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? If yes to any of these questions, than we cannot deny that we are having an adverse effect on our planet.

    The portion of the atmosphere where greenhouse gasses is tiny. Extremely thin which makes it much more vulnerable to us.

Categories