Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[Sir_Thomas]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

logical conservatives

Two words that should never be allowed to use in the same sentence.

[ledwix]

because all conservatives are the same and back up religious values blindly and ridiculously, right? and there's NEVER any gray area between, guaranteed. very nice conclusion.

[BroadWayBabe]

I think that global warming is happening, but i don't believe it is the effect of us. the sun has been heating all the planets up, and in history this has happened before too, in the medieval warming period. They did nothing to cause global warming besides breathing, and that produces a very small amount of carbon dioxide. It got so warm that they could grow grapes in england, whereas now you cannot. Mars and Neptune have been getting warmer too. And you cant say that mars is getting warmer because of the rovers we placed on its surface because they are solar powered and excerpt nothing. also the amount of gases that we release into the air that are green house gases is about 0.08% which if you look at the big picture is almost nothing. I do think we should use electric and water powered vehicles to reduce pollution in the world so rain where i live stops pouring acid on everything.

[GuidoHunter]

There is an unbelievable amount of bad science talk in that paragraph.

The sun is not solely responsible for Global Warming. You cannot compare a climate shift of one thousand years to what we've done in the past fifty.

And give us sources on those ludicrous numbers.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Global warming is a naturally occuring thing. It has happened in the past and it will continue to happen, and there is nothing we can do about it. The issue itself though is overplayed by the media and the left-wing, it's not a big deal! Just ignore it and it will be over within a decade.

End of discussion.

Just remembered, one more point before I go. If global warming is such a big issue, then how come that UN/liberal gas point thing they were trying to do failed (I forget the name of it)? I'll tell you why, because they were trying to take money from the wealthy coutries and give them to the poor countries, and global warming is not an issue. Bush did the right thing by going against it.

Originally Posted by Sir_Thomas

Two words that should never be allowed to use in the same sentence.

True conservatives are the only logic that's left out there. You've got to be kidding me if you think liberals have logic! That's one big joke if you ask me.

[Kilroy_x]

I assume you have the necessary scientific background to make that statement, or otherwise have a source to back it up?

[devonin]

Of course he doesn't, all of his posts so far have been typical "OMG teh liberal bias in everything!" based, and tend to contain not much beyond a fairly rigid party line.

[Kilroy_x]

Even that wouldn't be so bad if he could show one of those nifty line graphs, even if it was hosted on the Fox News server, or if he didn't end every post by blindly discarding the possibility he isn't right and saying he's not actually interested in discussion.

[darkdragoness]

So are we the cause of Neptune going through global warming as well?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in.../neptune-news/

[das1ngerplayer]

Originally Posted by darkdragoness

So are we the cause of Neptune going through global warming as well?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in.../neptune-news/

Are you kidding? That's not even funny, there is no possible way we can be the cause of neptune's warming. We're not even the cause of our own warming so how can we be causing neptune's warming! It's 97% natural causes on our planet, and there are no humans on neptune so the warming has to be 100% natural.

Amazing how far people will go to brainwash others into thinking non-sense like that.

[Kit-]

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

Are you kidding? That's not even funny, there is no possible way we can be the cause of neptune's warming. We're not even the cause of our own warming so how can we be causing neptune's warming! It's 97% natural causes on our planet, and there are no humans on neptune so the warming has to be 100% natural.

Amazing how far people will go to brainwash others into thinking non-sense like that.

Amazing how people can be so oblivious to sarcasm.

[Reach]

Not the mars/neptune argument again. =/

Misinterpretation of the data, as usual. These planets both have very unstable temperatures. Mars is extremely sensitive to dust storm activity, and we have very detailed measurements of these large changes dependant on dust storm activity.

Global warming being the suns fault has already been debunked and I talked about this awhile ago. It's an old argument, and the data has shown the sun is not responsible at all for the recent warming (key word being recent! noone is denying the suns influence over large periods of time so it doesn't need to be brought up). And i'll say it again, the data used on the great swindle for the sun warming was faked.

[FuzenAkuma]

Real, not caused by humans.

^ I did not post that. It was my sister. I have no idea about any of this and I don't care.

[chunky_cheese]

Say we believe the biblical version of Earth's time line, which states that Earth has been around for a rough 6,000 years. (Scientists age measuring techniques in rock samples are not accurate past roughly 5,000 years).

What if we had all of our "Ice Ages" in this time? What if it was just simply a large warming period followed by a cold climate change? So to speak, it didn't really get all that cold in the first place, and the Mammoth skeletons found were pushed south by glaciers when the Ice Age ended?

My point is that we may have these phases of climate change roughly even 1,250 years that are similar to what we are experiencing with global warming. Though the increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere may be speeding up this process, we must understand that we are pouring 30 Gt (GigaTonnes) of Carbon Dioxide gas into earth's atmosphere every year.

Think about it... we are just shifting climates to something a little... warmer, then colder. Such as in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"

[Kit-]

Originally Posted by chunky_cheese

Say we believe the biblical version of Earth's time line, which states that Earth has been around for a rough 6,000 years. (Scientists age measuring techniques in rock samples are not accurate past roughly 5,000 years).

"Uranium-lead is one of the oldest and most refined radiometric dating schemes, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1- 1 percent range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution – Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (ID-TIMS). In Zircon (eds. J. Hanchar and P. Hoskin). Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America. 183-213.

Last I checked, 99% of 1 million was far over 6,000 years.

[BroadWayBabe]

Originally Posted by Kit-

"Uranium-lead is one of the oldest and most refined radiometric dating schemes, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1- 1 percent range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution – Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (ID-TIMS). In Zircon (eds. J. Hanchar and P. Hoskin). Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, Mineralogical Society of America. 183-213.

Last I checked, 99% of 1 million was far over 6,000 years.

im sorry but wikipedia isnt a reliable source. people can edit it to say whatever they like. im not taking sides but im pointing out that wikipedia cant be used as a site to use for facts.

[smartdude1212]

You think someone is going to go and screw up information about Uranium-lead dating when a large majority of people haven't even heard of it?

Besides, they keep track of changes in articles.

[Kit-]

Hence me referring you to a primary source.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by BroadWayBabe

im sorry but wikipedia isnt a reliable source. people can edit it to say whatever they like. im not taking sides but im pointing out that wikipedia cant be used as a site to use for facts.

The Scientists John Gribbin. A man called Lord Kelvin inferred the age of the earth from principles of thermodynamics by measuring the rate at which a hot cannonball cooled and extrapolating from it. Geologists later found that the presence of radioactive materials would provide a source of heat great enough to make the rate of the earth's cooling much, much slower.

[Reach]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Good age of the earth article.

Actually, this site is more or less a creationists nightmare but anyway..