This Country, This World

---

Well...I do so need an opiate right now.

Don't we all!

Quote:Because there is no scientific evidence to show it is.Is it possible that you just don't know of scientific evidence that supports the global warming theory?Through the study of ice core samples from Antartica, it is possible to compare the history of Earth's co2 content and temperature changes. According to many of those samples, history has shown that both temperature and co2 rise and fall together. This balance has been happening, according to ice core research, for the past 390 thousand years or so. Somewhere in the 1800s, this balance is interrupted. co2 content in the air has skyrocketed away from the normal temperature fluctuation.Through my own evaluation of the numbers, co2 and temperature rise and fall in wavelike fashion. So it has its peaks and troughs. Around the 1800s, we were at a natural temperature and co2 peak. This is the reason why it's a big deal that the temperature has not started dropping yet.If we ignore the co2 content in the air and only look at the natural trend of temperature itself, then according to history the temperature should start noticably dropping in the near future. Some scientists think that it should have started dropping already. Some scientists are tapping their fingers waiting for the temperature to drop as it has naturally over thousands of years.If we consider both the co2 content in the air and temperature change, then according to history the temperature should start climbing because co2 is climbing.Again, let me mention that we are at a peak of natural temperature change. So, for the temperature to continue rising would go against the natural wavelike structure that the Earth has experienced in the past. We already know that the natural wavelike structure of co2 content in the air has been interrupted.So, what's going to happen now that the co2 content has skyrocketed? We can all speculate, but it won't be fact until it actually happens. I break down three groups of scientists concerning temperature change.1. The 'tapping finger scientists' are basically waiting for the temperature to drop.2. The scientists that think there is a problem are trying to do something to correct it.3. The scientists that think there will be a problem in the future are trying to take preventative action.The irony of the situation is if the scientists who are doing something succeed in their endeavor, then the 'tapping finger' type people can shrug and say that the Earth was going to cool off anyway.Quote:And why would you want to educate grade school kids on pseudo-science. Of course that's the problem with education these days.Most teachers I know, and I know a lot of teachers, (especially elementary school teachers) think there is a problem. Many of their teachings to the grade school students reflect their opinion on the matter.Quote:Of course, if a kid gets the degree, studies more, gets a PhD in climatology, studies the issue objectively, does good objective research, and comes to real scientific conclusions absent from any agenda, he'll be ostracized, threatened, and called a denier.You say that as if it were fact. The future cannot be fact. But the future can be speculation.I accept global warming as being a possible theory. I personally find it to be more true than not true. If it is a problem, then that's just another thing to add to the list of problems that may be anthropogenic. If there is no problem with global temperature change, then that's great.I'm still going to stress to people that we (we being humans) are polluting too much, we are not using our energies and resources wisely, and we need to change.

Originally Posted By: websexinfo

Is it possible that you just don't know of scientific evidence that supports the global warming theory?

Hmmm...is it possible that you don't believe the earth is flat because you just don't know of any scientific evidence that it is?

Let's make sure we aren't confusing issues. I'm not talking about 'global warming'. The fact is that there is a warming trend. What I'm talking about is the fact that there is no proof of any correlation between human activity and that warming trend, much less any causality. If you have any real proof of a correlation, put it up there. I'm waiting...

Quote:

Through the study of ice core samples from Antartica, it is possible to compare the history of Earth's co2 content and temperature changes. According to many of those samples, history has shown that both temperature and co2 rise and fall together. This balance has been happening, according to ice core research, for the past 390 thousand years or so. Somewhere in the 1800s, this balance is interrupted. co2 content in the air has skyrocketed away from the normal temperature fluctuation.

I don't know where to start with this. There is so much speculation and assuming causality where it doesn't exist that it's confusing. There may very well be a correlation between CO2 content and temperature fluctuation, but the human contribution to any supposed increase in CO2 levels has been hugely exaggerated.

You've spent a lot of time saying "this should happen because that has happened". Problem is, you have to have some real scientific evidence for a correlation between "this" and "that" to be able to draw the conclusions you (or the article you are quoting) are making. In fact, you would really need to establish causality for your argument to have any validity.

Quote:

Most teachers I know, and I know a lot of teachers, (especially elementary school teachers) think there is a problem. Many of their teachings to the grade school students reflect their opinion on the matter.

Thank you. Your'e right. Their teaching reflects their OPINION on the matter. Most of these teachers aren't anything close to scientists or meteorologists or researchers or anything other than teachers. And most public school teachers are pawns of the NEA which is one of the most politically driven groups in the nation. Heads up - just cause a grade school teacher passionately believes something to be so, doesn't make it so. Pick a better argument.

Quote:

You say that as if it were fact. The future cannot be fact. But the future can be speculation.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you making my point for me?

Quote:

I accept global warming as being a possible theory. I personally find it to be more true than not true.

Yes, like a few other pet pseudo-sciences, global warming is indeed a theory. And I respect the fact that you *personally* find it to be true. But that's irrelevant isn't it?

Quote:

I'm still going to stress to people that we (we being humans) are polluting too much, we are not using our energies and resources wisely, and we need to change.

Amen! This is where we agree. And these are places where we can have in impact. All this attention over humans trying to change the weather - something we can't do - only diverts needed attention from the things we can do.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that completely proves or disproves that human activity is causing global warming. Hence, either side is a speculation. When you asked, "Are you being sarcastic, or are you making my point for me?" I was trying to make a point that neither of us should say "global warming is caused by human activity" or "global warming is not caused by global warming" because that's presenting it as if it were fact when it's not.

Quote:

You've spent a lot of time saying "this should happen because that has happened". Problem is, you have to have some real scientific evidence for a correlation between "this" and "that" to be able to draw the conclusions you (or the article you are quoting) are making. In fact, you would really need to establish causality for your argument to have any validity.

I didn't point out a cause and I didn't point out a conclusion. After explaining what scientific research I read about, I wrote my observations about it.

Quote:

Thank you. Your'e right. Their teaching reflects their OPINION on the matter. Most of these teachers aren't anything close to scientists or meteorologists or researchers or anything other than teachers. And most public school teachers are pawns of the NEA which is one of the most politically driven groups in the nation. Heads up - just cause a grade school teacher passionately believes something to be so, doesn't make it so. Pick a better argument.

I made an observational statement that wasn't meant to be argumentative.

Quote:

Yes, like a few other pet pseudo-sciences, global warming is indeed a theory. And I respect the fact that you *personally* find it to be true. But that's irrelevant isn't it?

Haha. I don't find it to be irrelevant because I want to know what other people think, even if it's an opinion. If they want to share their opinion with me, then we can talk about why I feel this way or why they feel that way. Then we can try to come to understand each other better.

Quote:

Amen! This is where we agree. And these are places where we can have in impact. All this attention over humans trying to change the weather - something we can't do - only diverts needed attention from the things we can do.

Before I ask, I want to be clear that I'm not arguing with you. What do you think are "the things we can do"?

Quote:Before I ask, I want to be clear that I'm not arguing with you. What do you think are "the things we can do"?Probably the same kinds of things you're already thinking of.I would say that anything that uses up less energy and causes less pollution is a good thing. I think hybrid cars are a great idea, and when they make one that I can afford, I'll buy one. I have a habit of turning off lights at work in rooms that aren't being used. It's a foregone conclusion that we're gonna keep building buildings, so planting more trees is a good thing.You know, that kind of thing.That was a good question by the way.

Prevention ideas are good too. Like making more use of the internet in order to reduce the amount of paper that is used. I know some people at my work that print every little thing they find interesting so they can show it to someone they know. Why not just e-mail it to them? I am happy to see that most of the places that require you to pay a bill is making it an option to stop paper mail and go all digital.

Yeah. It's amazing how few checks, envelopes, and stamps I use in a month, compared to what people used twenty years ago.

You know what bothers me in general? All those credit card offers you get in the mail. I found out about that opt out option and I'm going to see if that will stop it.

A few years ago I heard Dave Ramsey say that you should take them all and put "return to sender" on them and send them back. If enough people did that, the frikkin credit card companies would be the ones having their boxes glutted with useless crap.You failed to point out the connection between your post and the rest of this thread. All those stupid offers in the mail mean tons of wasted paper which means a lot of trees killed for no reason.

Someone suggested the return to sender idea to me. I figured it would be better to try to opt out and see what happens first.Quote:You failed to point out the connection between your post and the rest of this thread. All those stupid offers in the mail mean tons of wasted paper which means a lot of trees killed for no reason.Thanks for pointing out the connection. Seriously, it seems like I get at least one offer a day througout the year. I know plenty of people that are in the same boat. So, how much paper do you think these companies waste every year on junk mail?

What they spend on junk mail is a drop in the bucket compared to what they make off their accelerated interest rates. They are evil people. No Chocolate Jesus for them!