Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 23

 

Poll

is global warming a real threat

yes71%71% - 337
no28%28% - 135
Total: 472
2006-07-10 12:59:42
PekkaA
Member
+36|6866|Finland

Scafetta & West wrote:

In conclusion, we believe our estimates Z7 and Z8 of the climate sensitivity to solar variations from 1980 to 2002 arerealistic.
Pay attention to words I highlighted. Shouldn't exist in a scientifical text, at least if it's meant to be fact.

Scafetta & West wrote:

Sun may have minimally contributed 10-30% of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.
You should also highlight word MAY.

I'll get my hands on rest of articles you pasted when i have more time.

But could you please admit that those first articles about Mars and Jupiter had nothing to do with this "is sun causing global warming?" thing... That was my original question, that you didn't answer, just buried it under those massive articles...
2006-07-11 00:21:36
Jainus
Member
+30|6778|Herts, UK

kr@cker wrote:

if it's all about humans then why is the antarctic shelf thickening?

and eraser that pic is a horrible over simplification of things, especially considering it's source as the EPA's funding relies on scaring people into thinking they are necessary, and the fact that Mt Pinatubo released more pollutants and gases than man in total since the beginning of the industrial revolution
Three things; firstly, where the fuck did you get the idea that the shelf is thickening? Everything that i've seen and read has pointed in the direction that its melting and getting thinner. If you know different, where did you get your info from?

Secondly, actually re-read some of the posts that have gone on this thread. The pic that Eraser put on wasn't meant to be more scientific shite, it was meant to give the people who don't know the science something to start from in understanding whats being said. Regardless of which side your on, more informed people (who can draw their own conclusions from whats presented to them) can only be a good thing.

And thirdly, BOTH sides on this thread have rubbished the others sources claiming bias as the whatever instiutution gets their funding from whoever... mmmm this might be a stupid idea but the last time i checked, everybody was funded from somewhere so surely you can claim bias whatever evidence anyone presents. Instead of just saying "thats crap, their funded by environment nazis" how about you produce something that discredits it? I thought this was meant to be a serious debate and not a playground of school kids!!
2006-07-11 01:38:05
[FB]Eraser
Back in battle after 3-year break
+39|6923|Switzerland

kr@cker wrote:

and eraser that pic is a horrible over simplification of things, especially considering it's source as the EPA's funding relies on scaring people into thinking they are necessary, and the fact that Mt Pinatubo released more pollutants and gases than man in total since the beginning of the industrial revolution
Totally agree with you. I prefer the sientific way also, but a few replys in here shows me, that a few people need some simplification. Not all have the skills and knowledge to understand all the writing and charts posted in here.

Jainus wrote:

Secondly, actually re-read some of the posts that have gone on this thread. The pic that Eraser put on wasn't meant to be more scientific shite, it was meant to give the people who don't know the science something to start from in understanding whats being said.
Exactly my point!!!!!

Last edited by [FB]Eraser (2006-07-11 01:42:02)

2006-07-11 05:39:45
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6968|UK
Darth that link was because you claimed the original page had nothing about ozone depletion, thus i posted the link that was on the original page which you quite clearly didnt read.

and mate i know about fucking physics k. i know how UVA works. it works in the exact way i specified plz stop denying that increase UVA on the poles doesnt heat them up IT DOES! the energy is absorbed by ice, ice heats up, ice reaches melting point, ice melts, i dont need a link for that it is a simple FACT!

Last edited by Vilham (2006-07-11 05:43:30)

2006-07-11 05:44:04
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6729|Portland, OR USA
I'm not re-reading 9 pages of this, so let me ask this at the risk of repeating:

What of Nature's contribution to this which has always far exceeded anything man has wrought?  Does global warming exist?  Sure, temps seem to be on the rise.  But what that question doesn't address is causation.
2006-07-11 07:11:05
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7008|Orlando, FL - Age 43

Vilham wrote:

Darth that link was because you claimed the original page had nothing about ozone depletion, thus i posted the link that was on the original page which you quite clearly didnt read.

and mate i know about fucking physics k. i know how UVA works. it works in the exact way i specified plz stop denying that increase UVA on the poles doesnt heat them up IT DOES! the energy is absorbed by ice, ice heats up, ice reaches melting point, ice melts, i dont need a link for that it is a simple FACT!
According to your own article, you don't know what you are talking about.

Wikipedia wrote:

This is partly due to the fact that UVA, which has also been implicated in some forms of skin cancer, is not absorbed by ozone.
Since UVA is not absorbed by ozone, any lack of it will have no effect on the amount passing through the atmosphere. It is UVB that is affected by ozone as I am sure you will now claim that you meant though you wrote UVA twice. Please provide some evidence to back up your claim that increased levels of UVB radiation are causing any thermal effects.

Jainus wrote:

Three things; firstly, where the fuck did you get the idea that the shelf is thickening? Everything that i've seen and read has pointed in the direction that its melting and getting thinner. If you know different, where did you get your info from?
You need to do some more reading then.

newscientist.com wrote:

West Antarctic ice sheet is thickening
The giant West Antarctic ice sheet, long the subject of warnings about its continuous melting and collapse, is actually getting thicker in parts. However no-one is sure how long the change will last.

A new radar study shows that the ice sheet feeding the Ross Ice Streams is growing. That is a dramatic change in an ice sheet covering about a third of West Antarctica and that has retreated nearly 1300 kilometres since the end of the last ice age. The big question is if the change marks the end of the retreat, or just a short-lived reversal.

The discovery comes a few days after another team claimed that most of Antarctica is cooling down, not warming up, a conclusion that conflicts with "greenhouse" climate models. Both studies show that despite decades of research, Antarctic climate patterns remain poorly understood.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806

Science Daily wrote:

Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
The stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet has long been a concern because of the potentially catastrophic rise in sea level that would result from its collapse. Researchers at UCSC and NASA now report that, contrary to previous studies, at least one part of the ice sheet is actually growing rather than shrinking.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 074839.htm

Physorg.com wrote:

East Antarctic Ice Sheet Gains Mass and Slows Sea Level Rise, Study Finds
Results Reported in Online Edition of Science Suggest Increasing Snowfall is Likely Cause

Current estimates indicate that the global sea level is rising due to global warming and the shrinkage of terrestrial, or land-based, ice. Recent scientific studies have shown that a variety of terrestrial ice sources, such as the Greenland ice sheet, the West Antarctic ice sheet and Alaskan mountain glaciers, are contributing significant amounts to the global sea-level rise. However, in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass.   
http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html
Do you need more?

As for that poster picture for dummies, it's propaganda. As for the scientific 'shite', it is from that that all your watered down versions for those who slept or screwed around in the back of class during science class are translating from. The only problem is that since you don't have a clue as to how interpret the data, they can tell you anything and you'll believe it.

PekkaA, are you asking me to say that the Sun is NOT responsible for any climate changes going on in the solar system? Not going to happen. While there is not a plethora of evidence in that direction, those articles were meant to introduce the fact that there are climatological shifts going on elsewhere in the solar system. They were not introduced as concrete proof one way or the other, only as points to consider.
2006-07-12 05:28:53
Jainus
Member
+30|6778|Herts, UK

Darth_Fleder wrote:

You need to do some more reading then.

Do you need more?
Do I need more… mmmm yes actually. If you’d done some of the reading that you say the rest of us need, you’ll have found out some interesting things. For starters, whilst I freely accept that the ice in some areas is getting thicker (which I didn’t realise quite how much thicker it was getting, thanks for that +1K), the fact remains that the ice is still receding and breaking up. You may be gaining mass in the central regions, but its not enough to offset what your losing. Seen as how you like to read, can I suggest you start here?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01712.html

Also, you’ve mainly concerned yourself with the polar regions, but the ice melting is by no means just happening there; for a overview you can start here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm

And for the people who don't know the background and want a simpler version (no, this isn't aimed at you Darth) try this one http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm

The picture... ah yes the picture. As I’ve said before, this is meant to be a proper discussion; don't just say "its crap" and write it off, tell us why you think its crap and give us the backup to go with it. This is a 'debate' and not a school yard. The picture is what it claims to be, a simplistic version. You seem to be trying to discredit it by saying its simplistic and biased... we know its simplistic, thats why Eraser chose it!! As for the bias, I'll say it again; show us your evidence that discredits it. Why do you believe its propaganda? Show us your view point! We can't debate until you put forward your position!

And also, we’re not just writing for the people who understand the science but for anyone who is reading the thread. I’ve got an A-level in Physics, so I’m happy enough with it, but other people don’t have that

What I can’t understand is why your trying to contest the ice melting. Its happening whether you want it to be true or not. If I can make a suggestion, why don’t you ask if the warming and melting is due to humans factors?

Last edited by Jainus (2006-07-12 05:31:05)

2006-07-12 05:41:03
PekkaA
Member
+36|6866|Finland

Darth_Fleder wrote:

PekkaA, are you asking me to say that the Sun is NOT responsible for any climate changes going on in the solar system? Not going to happen. While there is not a plethora of evidence in that direction, those articles were meant to introduce the fact that there are climatological shifts going on elsewhere in the solar system. They were not introduced as concrete proof one way or the other, only as points to consider.
No. When did I claim such things about sun? Once again, nothing on those first articles related to sun. That's my point. When I asked about them, you posted a pile of other articles, which had nothing to do with originals I was talking about. How hard can this be?
2006-07-12 06:28:26
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7031
Here's a slightly different but simple perspective on the debate.

We only get one chance at not screwing up the earth.
If we assume global warming is occuring and is our fault and try to stop it we loose nothing.
If we assume it's got nothing to do with us, just carry on and it turns out we were wrong, the results could be catastrophic.

Oh, and to Darth

East Antarctic Ice Sheet Gains Mass and Slows Sea Level Rise, Study Finds
The sea level rise has slowed. The sea level is rising still just not as fast, hence there is still more ice melting than forming, which indicates a global increase in temperature. How's that for interpreting data?
2006-07-12 08:11:46
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6968|UK
Darth way to go on being pedantic! Sorry for mentioning the wrong type of UV that must have realy anoyed you. The simple fact is the only flaw you found in my argument was a simple mistake of the type of UV. just for your pleasure i can go change all them to UVB, which will still make you wrong.

Infact i was right. Certain wavelengths of UVA are absorbed.

"Ozone absorbs so strongly in the UV-C (λ < 280nm) that solar radiation in these wavelengths does not reach the earth's surface. As the wavelength is increased through the UV-B range (280nm < λ < 315nm) and into the UV-A (315nm < λ < 400nm) ozone absorption becomes weaker, until it is undetectable at about 340nm. Figure below shows several spectra including the spectrum of solar radiation measured above the atmosphere. The fractions of solar energy above the atmosphere in the UV-B and UV-A ranges are approximately 1.5% and 7% respectively. The figure also shows spectra measured at the ground near mid-day on two very clear days in mid-June. (These two spectra are almost indistinguishable). The fine curve (D) is computed from the extraterrestrial spectrum (A) and the absorption by the average measured ozone amount for the two days. It is above the measured ground-level spectra, but otherwise almost identical to them. One may conclude that for these two clear days, the ground level spectra are mostly the result of ozone absorption with a relatively constant extra attenuation of about 40% presumably due to air molecules and background aerosols. Figure thus represent the simplest case of ozone determining the ground level solar UV radiation. In general there is a great deal of variability in the UV due to clouds, ground albedo, aerosols and other atmospheric constituents."

Note the UVA range of 315nm < λ < 340nm is absorbed by ozone.

Last edited by Vilham (2006-07-12 08:16:06)

2006-07-12 08:18:08
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6752|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
The way I look at it, the only people who deny global warming are the ones with something to lose from it.  I.e the Big companies that burn crap loads of carbon......
2006-07-13 00:26:19
Jainus
Member
+30|6778|Herts, UK

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

The way I look at it, the only people who deny global warming are the ones with something to lose from it.  I.e the Big companies that burn crap loads of carbon......
Now that would be cynical, so of course thats not whats happening. The people who object are all of sound mind and informed opinions that simply disagree with how the data is presented. It just so happens that they are also the people who stand to lose the most if they have to tidy up their own mess.

But its ok; after extense talks with their mothers, we're going to start them off small with tidying their room and go from there...
2006-07-13 07:50:37
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7008|Orlando, FL - Age 43

PekkaA wrote:

No. When did I claim such things about sun? Once again, nothing on those first articles related to sun. That's my point. When I asked about them, you posted a pile of other articles, which had nothing to do with originals I was talking about. How hard can this be?
Those two articles were initially presented to point out that there are possible climate changes going on elsewhere in the solar system and suggest there might be a possibility that there may be more going on than what people currently believe. I then posted your 'pile' of further articles that lend credence to the point I was trying to make. I am rather surprised and disappointed that you choose to belabor the issue.

Vilham wrote:

Darth way to go on being pedantic! Sorry for mentioning the wrong type of UV that must have realy anoyed you. The simple fact is the only flaw you found in my argument was a simple mistake of the type of UV. just for your pleasure i can go change all them to UVB, which will still make you wrong.
<truncated>
Vilham, it is not so much as me being pedantic as it is you not appearing not to have a clue what you are talking about. Without going back to pull quotes, you have definitely given me that impression, although by the looks of your last post you may be starting to do a little basic research. I am still waiting for you to give me some type of evidence that UVB is significantly contributing to global warming or even melting glacial ice. Good luck with that. I suggest you look at how the different wavelengths of radiation interact with matter. Also, you have yet to 'realy anoy' (<--heh, use the spell check) me, amuse is closer to the mark and I have found more than one flaw in your arguments.

Jainus, I have read your articles and remain unconvinced. I have only concerned myself with the polar regions in a long a drawn out exposure of a misconception by Vilham that the hole in the ozone layer is letting UVB melt the ice. UVB poses health risks to living organisms, not to ice shelves. Jainus, please read that every prediction is prefaced with ambiguous words such as may, might, possibly, potentially....etc. Another good reason for the polar debate is that it highlights just how inaccurately computer models have predicted the behavior of the ice, which is pointed out in the articles you presented. 

To all, we are getting a little sidetracked here. Let me sum my positions up a little bit.
1. From the evidence that I have presented I do not deny global warming, in fact I expect it and am beginning to form a solid opinion that it should be embraced. I do not however think that we are contributing to it nearly as much as is being made out and that we can do even less to prevent it from happening, nor should we want to. All the dire predictions out there are built upon pure speculation and fear of the unknown while all the while there is plenty of evidence that in the past the Earth and it's inhabitants were not only just fine, but flourishing in warmer temperatures with much higher levels of CO2 than we have today. Once again I reiterate that if you consider yourself to be an environmentalist...acquaint yourself with the history of the climate and note the warmest periods in Earth history (with the exception of the molten stage to the beginning of life) are the most diverse in flora and fauna.
2. Let me point out a common misconception, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is just as essential for life on this planet as oxygen. Just as we do better in an oxygen rich environment, so it is with plants and CO2. Let me point out that plants are at the beginning of the food chain. Carbon monoxide and chlorofluorocarbons are pollutants and I have NO objection to their regulation.
3. Meteorology is a science in its infancy. We all are well aware of how often that the weatherman has been wrong in making predictions and to base our behavior based upon pure speculation of absolute worst case scenarios seems a little herd like. Please recall Y2K. We do have much better evidence that the planet has experienced both higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels in the past without dire consequences for life. The only dire prediction that I place any faith in is that oceanic formed storms will probably grow in frequency and severity simply based upon the physics involved.
2006-07-13 10:34:33
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
fact? what is this...fact?


fleder you're ruining all my fun on this

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-13 10:35:07)

2006-07-13 11:23:31
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6968|UK
"Vilham, it is not so much as me being pedantic as it is you not appearing not to have a clue what you are talking about. Without going back to pull quotes, you have definitely given me that impression, although by the looks of your last post you may be starting to do a little basic research. I am still waiting for you to give me some type of evidence that UVB is significantly contributing to global warming or even melting glacial ice. Good luck with that. I suggest you look at how the different wavelengths of radiation interact with matter. Also, you have yet to 'realy anoy' (<--heh, use the spell check) me, amuse is closer to the mark and I have found more than one flaw in your arguments. big_smile"

I note on the quote of mine you fail to show the part where i PROVE you wrong about UVA, and the fact remains that when the UV of any type reachs the ice it will have some of its energy absorbed by the water molecules, i have no need to provide links to this IT IS FACT, if you dont think its fact you know little about what you "claim" to know so much about.

And as to the side track, the point that people have been making throughout is that we have 1 chance to do something, we either do something and suffer some economical damage or we risk the chance of huge natural damage. I know what i would rather have.
2006-07-13 11:45:55
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA
Mother Earth is my personal bitch and I will not stop raping her until I get bored
2006-07-13 12:49:30
PekkaA
Member
+36|6866|Finland

kr@cker wrote:

Mother Earth is my personal bitch and I will not stop raping her until I get bored
Now I understand why there were holes drilled to trees in Montana.
2006-07-13 12:56:01
Jester.retseJ
Member
+4|6933|Toronto, On
I'm all for global warming. It's cold in Canada 8 months of the year and i'm damn well ready for it to be turned into a tropical paradise. Bring it on!
2006-07-13 13:02:23
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA

PekkaA wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Mother Earth is my personal bitch and I will not stop raping her until I get bored
Now I understand why there were holes drilled to trees in Montana.
it was itchy
2006-07-13 13:03:15
Darth_Fleder
Mod from the Church of the Painful Truth
+533|7008|Orlando, FL - Age 43

Vilham wrote:

I note on the quote of mine you fail to show the part where i PROVE you wrong about UVA, and the fact remains that when the UV of any type reachs the ice it will have some of its energy absorbed by the water molecules, i have no need to provide links to this IT IS FACT, if you dont think its fact you know little about what you "claim" to know so much about.
Vilham, I am not sure what you are trying to prove via your UVA argument. It was stated earlier that most of the UVA is NOT absorbed by ozone, therefore a hole in the ozone layer is going to have very little effect on how much reaches the surface. I also note that

Vilham's article wrote:

and into the UV-A (315nm < λ < 400nm) ozone absorption becomes weaker
Weaker does not mean complete absorption, thus mitigating the effects of a lessened ozone layer. I also note that you do not provide a link to the article or its accomanying graph.

I have literally spent days searching for the proof of your claim, to very little avail, so I am not surprised that you do not feel the need to present proof. I did however find this.

The Alfred Wegener Institute wrote:

3. Does a growing ozone hole result in faster ice melting in the polar regions?
No, there is no direct link between melting ice in polar regions and the hole in the ozone layer.
Sunlight is made up of different classes of electro-magnetic radiation. There is heat energy (infra-red or IR radiation), which, for example, results in a feeling of warmth when the sun shines on our skin. There is also the visible radiation (VIS), which allows our eyes to see and to distinguish colours. Another important portion of sunlight is not visible to human eyes: the ultraviolet, or UV radiation. This is the fraction responsible for sunburn if we sunbathe for too long. The ozone layer absorbs a large proportion of the UV radiation in sunlight, whereas infra-red and visible radiation passes through it more or less unhindered. This means that, in areas beneath an ozone 'hole', higher UV radiation is found, while the intensity of IR and VIS radiation is hardly different. That is, it does not become warmer or brighter. Accordingly, no more ice melts beneath an ozone hole than beneath an intact ozone layer.
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/ClickLear … ma3-e.html
and this...

NOAA wrote:

New dry snow can reflect over 94 percent of the erythemal UV. New wet snow reflects over 79 percent. The amounts reflected by old dry snow and old wet snow, respectively, are 82 percent and 74 percent. Organisms above the snow cover are therefore at serious risk for UV exposure.
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/UV/newsletter/jan_text.html
Again, I stress that the dangers from UV of all types is primarily biological in nature, NOT thermal. So, barring you presenting any proof to back your claim, I have no wish to keep on about UV radiation.
2006-07-14 00:58:07
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6968|UK
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=UV+ … 0&sa=N

This is what i searched for, i cant find the link now though. Heres another link that also says ozone is important in the absorption of UV-A and UV-B. Without the ozone increased levels of UV get into our atmosphere and you know the rest because i have said it over and over. The UV rays will contact with the ice in the artic thus causing a heat transfer to the ice thus heating it up, thus slowly melting the ice.

http://resources.yesican-science.ca/tre … zone1.html

K anyway, thats it i cant be arsed to argue with you. Believe what you want. You can even claim to have won this argument if you want, but i dont think you have changed anyones belief that we are effecting global warming, from what i see you just use this argument to comfort your own conscience.
2006-07-14 16:24:03
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7039
I will get back to you when they Start talking about Global cooling..again,
2006-07-20 05:35:17
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6934|Cambridge, England
I'm kinda in shock here. firstly vilhelm. how can you be so quick to moan about everybody just saying things without backing them up? when all you have done with your UV issue is to say that it does melt ice fact. i have no sources but i don't need any because it is a fact........erm if you can find some sources to backup this fact then you will add more credibility to your argument.

secondly your arguing that UV from the SUN IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS, yet it is our fault that the temperature is rising. if it is so then why this emphasis on the sun?

and just to reiterate. we cannot stop global warming. we do not have the technology. Whether we agree that we caused global warming or not. the evidence agrees that if we stop polluting the temperature will not stay the same. as before we were here the temp changed. so if we pretend not to be here it will still change. so how does anybody propose to stop the temperature changing?

and i understood the link to the planets. he wasn't saying it as a proof merely showing that the sun is likely to be effecting other planet's climates. so it will be effecting ours as well.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-07-20 05:51:56)

2006-07-20 07:23:19
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6751|Southeastern USA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

Here's a slightly different but simple perspective on the debate.

We only get one chance at not screwing up the earth.
If we assume global warming is occuring and is our fault and try to stop it we loose nothing.
If we assume it's got nothing to do with us, just carry on and it turns out we were wrong, the results could be catastrophic.

Oh, and to Darth

East Antarctic Ice Sheet Gains Mass and Slows Sea Level Rise, Study Finds
The sea level rise has slowed. The sea level is rising still just not as fast, hence there is still more ice melting than forming, which indicates a global increase in temperature. How's that for interpreting data?
do whatever the hell you want, just keep you fingers out of my paycheck, and don't start telling me crap like where i can and can't live, or what i can build there

I would be interested in two things:

A) the sun burning brighter than it has for any point over the last 1000 years, what the hell are you going to do about it?

B) 95% of greenhouse gases coming from plants, animals, and plankton free oceans, what the hell are you going to do about it?
2006-07-20 07:49:35
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6968|UK

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

secondly your arguing that UV from the SUN IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS, yet it is our fault that the temperature is rising. if it is so then why this emphasis on the sun?

and just to reiterate. we cannot stop global warming. we do not have the technology. Whether we agree that we caused global warming or not. the evidence agrees that if we stop polluting the temperature will not stay the same. as before we were here the temp changed. so if we pretend not to be here it will still change. so how does anybody propose to stop the temperature changing?

and i understood the link to the planets. he wasn't saying it as a proof merely showing that the sun is likely to be effecting other planet's climates. so it will be effecting ours as well.
It is our fault that more UV is entering our atmosphere because we are the ones causing Ozone to be removed, as shown in my links above. It has nothing to do with the sun, its to do with the fact that we are letting increasing amounts of UV onto the poles.

No one here at any point has even said that we can stop Global warming. Everyone has repeatedly said that we are causing it to happen faster. Therefore if we stop doing this atleast global warming will happen at a slower rate. Also if we do put money into developing more enviromentally friendly technology we are only helping ourselfs so i dont see why people are trying to stop this development, as it stands now we will never leave the milky way, we CAN NOT rely on fossil fuels for energy, they quite simply are one of the least worthwhile ways of making energy with lots of energy being wasted. If you ever want to see a way forward in science you should stop trying to defend the lack of research that governments across the world are putting into other energy providing methods.

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 23

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard