So, what do you think. Man made disaster that's destroying our planet, or maybe if you would prefer, an American made disaster?
Or, bullshit?
My vote is for bull shit.:thumbsup:
Printable View
So, what do you think. Man made disaster that's destroying our planet, or maybe if you would prefer, an American made disaster?
Or, bullshit?
My vote is for bull shit.:thumbsup:
here's hopin its bullshit:jointsmile: Georgia's winter is pretty much non-existent now though. 70's in february is just ridiculous.
It's a natural occurrence for our planet. However, also take note of the changes that are taking place elsewhere in our solar system. (The melting ice-caps on Jupiter's moon.)
Not just Jupiter, each planet in our solar system has shown an incrimental increase in relative temp. Unless someone can explaing how people are causing that, simplest explanation seems the most logical, might have something to do with the GIANT BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!!:jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Innominate
Random articles about global warming were pulled from 983 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and NONE of them question its existance.
Yes, temperatures (along with CO2 levels) naturally fluctuate. However, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded throughout this planets entire history. Surprisingly enough, it is also the year with the highest CO2 levels ever recorded. It is also a well established fact that greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation from the sun, and trap it in the atmosphere.
Once again, global warming's existance is not disputed (even though the politicians may suggest it is :thumbsup:)
Do some research.
I think the "cause" is what is at question. How do you account for "solar system warming"? 2005, hottest year recorded, what percentage of the earths climate history has been offically recorded? Hottest year since they started recording? All living organisms aside from plants, exhale CO2 every time they breath?Quote:
Originally Posted by r0k
By the way, I could easily post many many articles that dispute WHY global warming is happening. I guess it comes down to whether or not one would care to read them.
And from what I see, most politicians accept the myth blindly on both sides of the isle for fear of political suicide if they question it.
So I say to you, do some research!:thumbsup:
Global Warming is real, and it is man-made.
We know for a fact that human activity has altered the compostion of the earth's atmosphere by removing carbon from under ground and adding it to the air in the form of CO2 --- that fact is not in dispute by anyone, not even those who doubt the end result of Global Warming. The only dispute is whether that extra CO2 can actually alter the climate. Most scientists say it can, while others say it is unproven.
I think it can alter the climate, and it has already begun to do so. It is possible to measure the historical concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years, and it is also possible to measure the historical temperature. Those measurements have shown that periods of higher CO2 concentration have corresponded to periods of higher temperature and vice versa. Those measurements also show that the CO2 concentration has spiked up in less than a century to the highest levels in the record. The temperature is begining to catch up to the rapid CO2 spike, and I think it will result in rapid and upredictable climate change.
BTW, 8182KSKUSH, if you want real responses to your survey, you should try not to build a bias into the answers. If you want it biased toward your own way of thinking, leave it as is.
Fact is co2 levels spike in relation to temp increase, but not as presented in that propoganda film. CO2 levels increase AS A RESULT of temp increase, they don't cause the increase. Can any of the believers explain how we are warming our entire solar system? It's a natural occuring event. How can multiple periods of warming and cooling be explained that pre-date the modern industrial age?:wtf: Please someone explain how WE are warming all of the other planets in our solar system!:D
This is not intended to be an unbiased survey, remember I openly stated that I think it's bull shit!:thumbsup:
Seriousely I will sell anyone that wants them some carbon offsets, c'mon it will make you feel good!:D
Temperature increases do release CO2 trapped in permafrost and can increase decomposition of organic matter into CO2. There is some concern that this feedback loop may exacerbate the human caused waming by dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere as warming procedes. But what is the evidence that historical CO2 levels have spiked as a result of temperature increases? For someone who doubts that CO2 effects temperature, which is a fairly well modeled phenomenon, you seem pretty confident that warming affects CO2. You don't believe that the past century's increase in CO2 concentrations are the result of warming, do you? I think that it has been proven that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is fossil carbon, not carbon from the normal atmospheric carbon cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
What evidence is there that the whole solar system is warming? I heard someone else say that the other day. First I've heard of it. The sun does vary its output over time, but I have not heard that it has been measured actually doing so to the point of affecting global (or solar system) temperatures. And I have not heard that other planets have been measured to be experiencing warming. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. It seems amazing to me that we could actually prove that other planets are heating up, but according to some we can't prove that our own is heating up. Maybe we need to get some of those thermometers they are using in space.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Climate variability is a naturally occuring phenomenon --- everyone knows that. There have been multiple ice ages and warmer periods throughout geologic history. There are long term periodic cycles that have to do with changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun and the angle of the axis on which the earth spins. There are also cycles within the atmosphere and oceans that change the climate over time. The rise of a mountain range over millions of years alters climate for entire continents and even the whole planet. Catastrophic events like meteor impacts alter the climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
But just because climate change occurs naturally does not mean that human activity is not also affecting the climate. Human activity has indisputably alterd the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Why is it difficult to believe that changing the atmosphere would have consequences?
Certainly no one has ever claimed that we are warming all of the other planets in our solar system.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
that's got my vote...Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of the warming trend on our planet or any of the other planets in our solar system. I believe that there is just as much data that better coorlates the temp increase with measured sun activity. I still say the giant glowing ball of fire in the sky is the real cause. It is human nature to assume that we are the cause. What about the rise in co2 levels that coorspond with temp increases on earth that predate the use of fossil fuels? I look at global warming as if I were on a jury, I am not going to convict human civilization without rock solid conclusive evidence, and yes there are plenty of scientests that oppose the popular theory that actually study climate change. This is by far not an open and shut case. Until someone can explain the warming trends that are happening throughout the entire solar system as well as the ones that predate the use of fossil fuels, I am calling bull shit!:) Even NASA, who does know a thing or two about the atmosphere and our planet has provided evidence to the contrary or the popular belief. It's also HIGHLY suspicious that now there are people out to make money on global warming, they are also the same people that are pushing this dogma down our throats, do I need to name names?:jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
I have a bridge that I can sell you too with that carbon offset!
It's not the "solar system" per say, it's the temps of the individual planets, and yes that is easily measurable. Check out some of the studies that NASA has done, or better yet just google search "global warming debate" there is plenty of contradictory evidence for it being an open and shut "consenses"? The New York Times also ran a story on this as well as The Boston Globe last summer, and they aren't exactly right wing schills. The fact is that sure there is alot of evidence that can be interputted to support the popular theory, ONLY IF you disregard anything else that contradicts it. I am just speculating that it's bull shit just like anyone else would speculate that it's real. Fact is no one, nobody, really knows. Everytime there is a "New" piece of evidence there is always a contradiction that can be found. But thank you for being civilized despite the fact that we disagree, that's more than I can say for some people!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
here is a link to just a random story about it that I clicked on with a google search on said topic. Offers both sides, the fact that there is evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that someone is just out to make a buck!:)
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience
Looks like there is plenty to debate.:)
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
To read the entire report, click here.
I don't know if this talks specifically about what I am going to say or not, but it should be noted that the UN study that everyone claims proves beyond a doubt that it's real, was HEAVILY altered from it's original content, and that multiple scientest that have their name attributed to that study threatened law suits over what they claim was a misrepresentation of their findings. It should also be noted that not all the "names" on the study are names of people that are even remotely scientests. To my knowledge, no one has actually seen the original un-edited study, I wonder why?:wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fencewalker
I had to go look up this solar system warming thing because it was pretty much the first I had heard about it. This is the first article I found: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScienceQuote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Sounds like it basically says the other temperature changes on other planets have alternative explanations specific to each planet, not a result of solar increase, and they are also not of the same scope as what we are experiencing here on earth. The solar variation is about 1/10th of 1 percent --- not enough to cause significant climate change. The big glowing ball of fire is too stable to account for the temp increases we are getting here.
You said, "It is human nature to assume that we are the cause." I actually think it is the opposite. Most sceptics I have spoken to seem to think it is impossible that human activity is significant enough to affect the weather of the entire planet. They think the world is too big for us to fuck it up. It's not. Six billion of us digging carbon out of the ground and putting it up in the air has changed the atmosphere of the entire planet. Human activity has nearly doubled the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and is proceding at an increasing rate. If this were a jury trial, the defense would have to at least stipulate that part because it is conclusively proven. The only question is what will the affect be.
I don't think of it as if I'm on a jury and need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think of it more as a bus driver who has been warned that the bridge around the bend may be washed out. Should I put on the brakes until I know for sure what is up ahead? Or should I keep my foot on the gas even though it might be too late once I verify for myself if it is safe ahead? I don't typically gamble more than I can afford to lose. I'm the kind to heed the warning.
There are a lot of very smart people working on this who DO NOT have a financial incentive to come to one conclusion or another. Most of them think the warming is real. Our dumbass president likes to let market forces solve the world's problems, and that is where we are getting those jumping in to make a buck offereing solutions --- I say more power to them, but it probably won't be enough. The real people with a financial stake in this debate are the fossil fuel companies and auto comapanies and large users of energy (just about all industry and consumers) who don't want to have their business disrupted to make the changes that may be necessary. That is where the real money is, and I think that where this sceptical crap about lack of conclusive proof comes from.
EDIT: Looks like you found a lot more links while I was posting. I'll take a look at those later. Gotta go to bed now.
It's funny you say that, because Al Gore sits on the board of his own carbon offset company.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Please keep on reading, I used to buy the global warming myth along with the rainforests are disappearing myth. In the gov screwls that I attended they taught both as if they were fact. I believe that this all has more to do with fear mongering than anything. It's now a core democrat issue, however I cringe when I hear republicans falling in line as well, just tells me who has integrity and who is just there taking up space. The fix is in, please keep on reading, did you read what fencewalker put up? I know it's from the government black helicopters blah blah, but seriousely this is a political scam, politicians are trying to use to take advantage of people. Scientific evidence at one time conclusively proved that the next ice age was just around the bend, well? What happened? Science conclusively proved at one time that ALL the worlds rainforest would be gone in 25 years, well? Satellite imagry shows that there is actually more rainforests today than their were during the 80's when that fear mongering was going on. Lots of people made money on it though, and I am not talking about coorporations, I am talking about "activists". The same crowd is now taking up global warming, and doing the same thing. There isn't nothing new under the sun folks!:jointsmile: I gotta go now, need to suffocate my wife before she destroys the planet with all her hot co2!:D
Scientest that claim man made global warming is real. Of course, they recieve government funding, their jobs depend on it.
Politicians that claim man made globla warming is real. Of course, their jobs depend on people to "need" them, create a climate of fear then make yourself the crusader of justice to find the solution.(Al Gore as well as many others) Increase taxes to subsidize scientest to solve a problems that humans have no effect on!:wtf:
The liberal news media, obviously contradicting what the "truth" is would make their political favorites look very, very bad.
Peoples that live in 3rd world countries that may be forced to continue their lives without the advent of modern technology for the sake of "saving the earth". Most 3rd world people are not going to be buying solar panels for their grass and manure huts. I forsee a time coming soon when they will not be allowed to use certian things that many of us take for granted because they "hurt the environment". Remember when they stopped spraying DDT because it was so horrible? Yeah, is it worse than malaria, or west nile?
Just ranting though, you never know you may be right dragon.:)
Maybe I am just a cooky right wing nut job.:jointsmile:
Anyone got a 55 gallon drum I can borrow, one with a lid!:D
Like I said, more power to them. There will be a lot of money made by innovative people working to solve this problem, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm just not sure market forces will be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
There are a lot of scientists involved in studying climate change who have no stake whatsoever in a particular conclusion. My father is not a climate scientist and was not involved in the global warming debate, but he was involved in one of the longest running ocean surveys in the world. The survey began 50 or 60 years ago or more when the California anchovy fishery collapsed and has gatherd temperature data and ocean chemistry data for that entire time in a consisitent area off the CA coast. The research had nothing to do with global climate change but the data do support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Politicians often do exploit fear to get what they want. For example, some politicians exploit the fear of terrorism to curtail our constitutional rights. Other examples of fear mongering include political claims that environmental protections will hurt our economy. Environmentalists want us all to live in the cold and in the dark!Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
The liberal news media is a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Actually many of the "green" technologies are some of the best solutions for poor people around the world. For example, many people too poor to have access to lighting after dark are begining to user solar powered LED lanterns. Many of the power technologies are much more protable than fuel-powered generators, and after they are purchased they have almost no ongoing cost for maintenance, and none for fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Uh, mmmmmmmaybe....Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Ha ha!
The biggest stakeholders in terms of money are the industries who have a vested interest in the status quo. Oil and coal companies. Car companies. Transportation companies. Much of the sceptical blather comes from these sources. It's very short sighted. In the early 70's "energy crisis" American auto makers refused to offer more fuel efficient cars, and the Japanese came in and ate their lunch. They never recovered the market share. Same thing is happening again today with the hybrids. It's happening with the energy efficient appliances. I don't see why these lazy-ass industries don't do a better job of seeing these kinds of changes as an opportuntity to get out in front of the curve. The fact is that even if you ignore global warming, our fuel costs are just getting higher and higher, so switching to greater efficiency is going to be the more affordable choice over time. Maybe market forces will save the world.
I believe that our climate is on the verge of going through a period of instability. I think the north pole is going to completely melt at least once within my lifetime.
i beleive global warming is taking place. and we do have somethig to do with it. i beleive it to be a natural event but has been sped up by us.
The instability is the greatest concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by McLeodGanja
Complex systems like climate are always variable within a certain range. They have a certain amount of chaos, but also a kind of order that brings them back to predictable "averages," or equilibrium. So, for example, you might know that a certain area is good for growing corn on average --- you might have good years and bad years, but on average it's pretty reliable. When a complex system gets an outside input, like extra CO2, it can often maintain it's stability up to a point. But if the input grows too big, it reaches a tipping point where the feedbacks do not pull it into equilibrium any longer and there is a period of extreme chaos. Generally the system will eventually settle into a new equilibrium, but not the same one as before. Our challenge will be to survive the chaotic period until the new equilibrium is reached. There is likely to be unsettled weather for years which will result in crop failures, flooding, drought, and wildfires. If it is bad enough, then part of the chaos will be be the social chaos as we deal with stravation and displaced refugees. This holds true even if the warming is not manmade.
And, yes, you will see the north pole melt within your lifetime. It is only a few years away.
Last I heard 40% of it had melted, by the estimations of submarine radar. Like all floating ice, it's melts faster from the underneath than it appears to from the surface.
The Guardian Weekly went all Independent on us this week and printed a front page climate change propaganda sheet. They said within ONE year the Indian monsoon will destabilise and within 10 years the arctic ice melts and the W African Monsoon collaspes. Not sure how a monsoon can collapse, or if what they mean by those time scales is how soon it will happen or how long the "tipping point" will take to tip.
Either way I skimmed over most of the article, as I usually do, because whilst I believe we are going through a major shift in pretty much everything to do with our existance, I don't think these scientist predictions are really worth reading too much into.
Often these kinds of predictions need to be take with a grain of salt. Especially when the prediction relates to long term phenomena, but the prediction is for changes in the short term. Too many factors can complicate something like that. The idea that in one year the monsoon will collapse seems a bit precipitous to me. Do they mean no more monsoons in 2009? Or maybe they mean that once the tipping point is reached, the changes could occur in time frames as short as one year or a decade, because that I do believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by McLeodGanja
This is one of the things that most people do not intuitively understand about complex chaotic systems. They see something like a prediction that the sea level could change by 1 meter in 100years, so they think that means it will change a centimeter per year. It doesn't work that way. Chaotic systems change suddenly and dramaticaly when tipping points occur. There might be nothing for decades and then the entire 1 meter rise could happen in a few short years. The great thing about his is that Florida will be submerged and no longer able to screw with our politics.
They can't predict the weather for next month...But they know for damn sure what will happen in the next 50 years?
This was a great thread, I am really happy that the discussion stayed level headed, no name calling or anything! Awesome!! :hippy:
I'm sure that man has some effect but not as much as what the Al Gores want us to believe. When I watch the nightly weather report and see that the high temps were from the 1930's and the lows from the 50's it's pretty clear. There are cycles.......just to bad that some fat cats use this to line their pockets.
Have a good one!:s4:
dont cows create just as much co2 farting as cars do?
true?
i voted bullshit btw as global warming has happend before, way before humans
and global cooling
i do think we are adding to the problem thus speeding the process up
Intresting,Quote:
Originally Posted by jchap
My real problem with the issue is that if you really really believe that we are destroying the world and humanity could come to an end as we know it, then you should probably not ever use anything made of plastic, use electricity, and last time I checked, using a 350 hp gas engine to move a 180 lbs, is not very fucking efficent!:wtf::D Sorry just being a smart ass.
Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 385 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass. The mass of the Earth atmosphere is 5.14Ã?1018 kg [14], so the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0Ã?1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; see greenhouse effect for more.
Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[15] In 1999, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were produced in the U.S. as a result of electric energy generation. This is an output rate of 0.6083 kg (1.341 pounds) per kWh.[16]
Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution.[17]
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide.[18] According to the best estimates, volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but warm rapidly when sunlit and disperse by convection during the day[19] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986[20]. However, emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons).[21]
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mother nature creates...and mother nature will take her own bath eventually. We can assist the clean-up process but saying that man is the cause is ridiculous.
Have a good one!:s4:
It does not matter [B]exactly how much man is contributing to the problem. [/B]
The point is, our mother earth is dying and heating up quickly. We have the moral responsibility to ourselves, our home, and our children and grandchildren to at least attempt to slow down the process so perhaps the human race can survive a little while longer?
:hippy:
Ha ha! Funny, but not true. Cow farts do not produce as much CO2 as cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by jchap
Also, cow farts and other natural sources of CO2 are part of the carbon cycle. The carbon in cow farts comes from the grass that the cows eat. The CO2 that the cow farts out will be reabsorbed by the grass that grows to replace the grass eaten by the cow. The CO2 levels stay relatively constant because the natural carbon cycle is in balance, exchanging carbon into the air and reabsorbing it back into living things. The difference with cars is that the fossil fuels that are burned by cars are not part of the carbon cycle. That carbon was taken out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago and stored under ground in the form of oil and coal. When we mine the fossil fuels from underground and burn them, the carbon released into the atmosphere overwhelms the carbon cycle. There is no natural mechanism to get that carbon out of the atmosphere at the same rate that we put it in, so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases.
There are actually a lot of people who believe what you are saying here, and they live their lives as much as possible like you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
It is worthwhile to try as much as possible not to buy unnecessary plastic, reuse the plastic containers that you do buy, and recycle them when done with them.
There are sources of electricity that do not come from fossil fuels. Where possible, it is best to use those sources rather than the fossil fuel sources.
And, yes, using a 350 hp gas engine to move a 180 lbs, is not very fucking efficent! We all love our cars, but it might be better not to get the 350 hp motor unless you NEED that kind of power. There are much more efficient cars coming out all the time. And there are automotive fuels that are not fossil fuels --- fuels that ARE part of the natural carbon cycle. Bio-fuels that are made from plant and animal products do not pull carbon from underground and put it up in the air. They use carbon that is already in the cycle.
I'm not sure how you make that conclusion based on the article you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
The article said:
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas."
And it said:
"Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization."
How is that natural? Man is the cause.
The most important thing in the article is the background info about how five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was more prevalent than today and continuously decreased over time until the industrial revolution. That was the period in which the coal and oil we burn today was formed. We are reversing five hundred million years of natural processes in about 100 years. That's going to shock the shit out of the system.
Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapor is.
Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.
Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).
Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.
Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).
Source.
I disagree, there are ALOT of people that believe we are destroying the world and causing global warming, there are not ALOT of people that live their lives in a way that is consistant with their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Anything that is made of plastic, is made from oil, a fossil fuel. From what I can tell, every alternative energy "alternative" is not possible without first using fossil fuels somehow directly or indirectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Even a 110hp gasoline engine is inefficient as hell to move a 180 of skin. And oh yeah, the plastic that the car is made of to make it light so that it is fuel efficient.:jointsmile:
There aren't any easy answers for sure, and I believe that we should be looking for the next best thing, and that we should always strive to be better. I loath the fact that people would try to tell me the world is going to end due to mankinds use of fossil fuels, I just personally believe it is rubbish. Again, it makes me suspicious when people or groups rely on this kind o a tactic to prop up their argument instead of facts. I am not directing that at you Dragon at all, I am referring to the news media and politicians. I know you believe what you are saying, and respect you for standing by your beliefs, I just happen to believe that you are wrong. I would still burn one with you, in an environmentally friendly way of course!:D