Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Do you mean humorous post because it's so ridiculous that I started laughing?c'mon.You are a math teacher... shouldn't you at least trust the numbers?• Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million—and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s.Interesting, after reading my little bit there, I am not laughing.
Temperature change on Earth is cyclical. I'm not yet convinced that man is the cause. There are plenty of other explanations besides the anti-capitalist one.
My daughter's physic's prof presented some evidence that the poles change position cyclically creating atmospheric chaos. It would explain how grapes were grown in Great Britian during one millenia and a small ice age occurred during another. I wish I knew more about his research. It would also help account for things going on now. I wonder what the total output of Krakatoa would have done in terms of increasing greenhouse gases. I also am curious why there is so much support for corn fed fuels when the efficency of the fuel decreases by 10-20% and the same food could have been used as food crops. There's a whole political can of worms in those decisions, I think.
I've even read that the polar ice caps on Mars are decreasing at the same rate that Earth's are. So do the Martians need to cut down on so-called greenhouse gas emissions, or might something like sunspots be a cause here? I understand we're in an era of increased sunspot activity.Wait a minute! Maybe our greenhouse gases are *causing* the sunspot activity, which is causing the changes in the Martian polar ice caps! Yeah, that must be it! It's all man's fault. We're not just affecting good ole Terra Firma, we're affecting the whold darned solar system!
It's those damned volcanoes. I think we should petition Al Gore to offer a human sacrifice to make them stop. Sorry, just kidding, sort of.....
I think it's odd that we are adding ethanol which actually LOWERS the efficiency of gas and at the same time uses crops that could be given to people that are otherwise starving. How does the left reconcile this strange situation? Personally, I am thinking of getting a Jetta Diesel and using bio-diesel, which is available here. It is made from used cooking oil, which restaurants have to PAY for disposal and it contaminates landfills. This is as close to a win-win as I have seen in a long time. I don't know why more states haven't jumped on this. Denton Texas is running its fleet and the school buses off of it. And, it smells like french fries. I think I could learn to like smog that smelled like french fries. Just a thought.
Okay, please stop using that ridiculous "it's cyclical" argument. Yes, the earth's climate is cyclical - but not to the degree seen currently. This is the graph that should hopefully shut you up:http://tinyurl.com/red3xThat shows several hundred thousand years of carbon dioxide levels, as measured from ice core samples in Antarctica. As you can see, yes, climate is cyclical. Notice that huge upward motion near the end, however???Also, it's not just our weather and geography that's being affected. A rise in carbon dioxide means that the ocean will absorb a greater amount of carbon dioxide (since the ocean absorbs about half of the world's carbon dioxide). This means that the pH levels of the ocean will lower, making the oceans more acidic. This kills plankton and weakens any organism with an exoskeleton or shell. Plankton are the lowest rung of the food chain, and if they're knocked out, everything is knocked out.You can throw all the "evidence" you want back at me, but the truth is that carbon dioxide levels are rising, at a greater rate than ever seen before in history. I don't care if some volcano spewed out a lot of greenhouse gas. We need to learn to curb our emissions. Ignoring the problem is by far the worst thing we can do. There is no point to it. Even if global warming "doesn't exist", there has never, ever been one positive side effect from spewing out an enourmous amount of carbon dioxide into the air.
Calm yourself, oh leftie one. It's hard to take you seriously when you let your emotions get the better of your logic. When you say I can throw evidence at you but that you know the "truth", you've got to admit that sounds pretty bad. Do you accept that argument from the Creationists with respect to evolution?You're right that there's no positive side effects to pollution. Cutting down would be good; I'm on record as supporting a number of non-fossil-burning fuels, such as solar and nuclear. But taking the leap that "global warming" is occurring solely because of man's actions, I'm not ready to go there.
Why are you not ready to go there? Because corporations are not willing to curb their emissions due to it costing money? That seems to be the reason why many right wingers are dismissing global warming. And creatonists do not rely on research and facts for their "evidence". The truth is that carbon dioxide levels have never, ever been higher, in the past 650,000 years.Let's assume that man's actions are not why that is. Even so, there are ways to reduce the current amount of carbon dioxide. That should be done, to make the world a better place.
Post a Comment