Believing in Global Warming or UFO's

[funkedup]

All this hubbub about little green men.  Millions wasted on SETI research.  Movies, books, a whole cottage industry devoted to the study of being which have never shown themselves or given us any proof of their existence.

And the people who want our nation to commit economic suicide to adhere to some socialist treaty which science can't even be sure will make one bit of difference to the climate of the earth.  Not that most of them have the education or intellect to actually analyze the scientific issues.

But they won't believe in God.  "Not enough proof."

Innit Ironic?

[Thrawn]

Oh, there is a fantastic amount of scientific proof that global warming is happening.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by funkedup
But they won't believe in God.  "Not enough proof."

By God do you mean an invisible supernatural omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnificent being that at one point in time readily and continually actively communicated/interacted with far simpler people but this day in age, aside from the crazies, will be hard pressed to find anyone actively communicating with it... that created all of life, the earth and every being in 8 days.... despite the fact that prior to these 8 days when "God" created man, there is evidence that an entirely different form of life existed in many varying forms... (pre-dinosaurs, dinosaurs, and many variations of ape/man) with no explanation of it in any of the writings...

Spare me the "interpretation" bit, I know when I'm being BSed.
-SW

[Reschke]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Oh, there is a fantastic amount of scientific proof that global warming is happening.

Isn't it also true that the "global warming" is part of a long cycle in how the earth changes? And how these changes have been recorded in the geological record of the earth. Just curious because I had read about that back in a couple of geology elective classes in college. Doesn't it also go along with the movement of the tectonic plates.

Don't go and get all pissed I am just asking a question.

[whgates3]

Originally posted by funkedup
All this hubbub about little green men.  Millions wasted on SETI research.  Movies, books, a whole cottage industry devoted to the study of being which have never shown themselves or given us any proof of their existence.

And the people who want our nation to commit economic suicide to adhere to some socialist treaty which science can't even be sure will make one bit of difference to the climate of the earth.  Not that most of them have the education or intellect to actually analyze the scientific issues.

But they won't believe in God.  "Not enough proof."

Innit Ironic?

the fact that there is somewhat intelligent (other than you) life on this planet suggests that there may be somewhat intelligent elsewhere.  

in the past developing new fuel sources has only been an economic benefit.  the idea of conservation of natural resources started - in america - with TR, the most conservative person ever to hold significant power since George Washington

starting a paragraph with a conjunction, you dont sound like much of an intellect either nor have you ever demonstrated any scientific education

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Reschke
Isn't it also true that the "global warming" is part of a long cycle in how the earth changes?

'faid not, Reschke.

Here is what your goverment has to say about it.

"What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html


Global warming is accepted by the VAST majority of scientists, scientific organisations, governments and educational institutions.

Here's what your govenment thinks is going to happen to your state, Alabama.  Please not that EPA numbers are very conservative compared to the UN numbers.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpactsAL.html

[GWH]

On a "scale of reasonability" it's certainly more reasonable to ascribe to the idea that there may be extraterrestrial life, possibly intelligent, in the universe than to believe that there is an immaterial, eternal, infinite, ineffable, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. supernatural being who created life, the universe and everything and who is extremely interested in your sex life.  

I agree that the little green (gray?) men/close encounters pop culture phenomenon is similar to the god situation in two ways - 1) both have entertaining stories, and 2) not just 'not enough proof', but no proof at all, to substantiate those stories.  You're right, it is ironic (and entertaining) how some people will diss one silly idea while buying into another.

As for global warming, right now it's <20 degrees Farenheit here in PA - let it come, I say.  

[Thrawn]

GWH, here's a conservative look on what your government thinks is going to happen to PA.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpactsPA.html

[Reschke]

Thanks for the links there Thrawn. I did not know that the EPA has done such a huge study on the ecological changes they think might happen here. Things have certainly changed since I took those classes.

Although I think the changes as indicated in the forests here will be brought on by the land owners (my own view after having worked in forest management for a long time). A little history for Alabama now. In eastern and central Alabama there is a large number of farms that have gone bankrupt in trying to grow crops (soy beans and cotton). These farmers (the ones who did not loose the land about 15-20 years ago) decided to plant longleaf pine trees in many of these former 500 acre+ fields. Now they are beginning to get to maturity for thinning and soon (within another 10 years) they will be clear cut. It is not very likely they will be replanted in the same way they were last time this happened either. Since most pine plantations were planted in the previous time frame I mentioned. Changes in the forest management practices have happened. Now most land managers want land owners to plant more of a hardwood mix. Especially in wetland areas of which Alabama has a very large amount. In the central and eastern sections of Alabama there are many small rivers and creeks that feed these wetlands.

This year we had a fairly mild summer and we are having a very cold fall and looks like it will be a cold winter for us. This is just part of what is about a 6-7 year cycle here in Alabama. It has been like this for as long as I can remember. In other words we are due for a really wet and cold winter and should be seeing some snow in February/March. The last time this happened was in Febraury 1996 (I think. My wife was pregnant and I was cooking steaks on the grill in sub zero wind chill. She was craving red meat. ). Anyway we are holding the same trends that we have held for a while. I really have not noticed the summers being any different either.

Anyway thats just a view of the current situation here in the deep south. Thanks again for pointing me to those links.
!

[Thrawn]

NP Reschke.

[mrfish]

Originally posted by funkedup
Innit Ironic?

d'jever notice.....?

[funkedup]

Originally posted by mrfish


d'jever notice.....?

BWAHAHAHA

[funkedup]

Mr. Gates no need to get personal.
I'm not a great scientist but I've got a couple of degrees with an S in them.
As for starting with a conjuction, I had a composition prof. who told me it was allowable.  Go complain to her.
People who haven't discovered the shift key or the mysteries of punctuation shouldn't exactly be dishing out writing tips.

[funkedup]

Thrawn, I won't deny that there is a recent pattern of increasing temperatures and CO2 concentration.  That's been well established.
The link between the two has been less well-established.
And the notion that Kyoto will make any significant environmental impact has been pretty well debunked.
The only sure thing is that it will cripple the global economy.

If the lefties took half the healthy skepticism they apply to religious topics, and applied it to environmental topics, we wouldn't have too many Kyoto supporters left.  

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by funkedup
Thrawn, I won't deny that there is a recent pattern of increasing temperatures and CO2 concentration.  That's been well established.
The link between the two has been less well-established.

Really?

"What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential.

For more on greenhouse gases and global warming potential, see:
Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values, Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 (82k pdf) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, April 2002.
This excerpt describes the characteristics of each of the various greenhouse gases and discusses the concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP) values. Both direct and indirect greenhouse gases are addressed. A detailed comparison of GWP values from the IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Third Assessment Report (TAR) is also made, including the effect of a change in GWP values on U.S. greenhouse gas emission trends. Overall, revisions to GWP values do not have a significant effect on U.S. emission trends."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissions.html

And the notion that Kyoto will make any significant environmental impact has been pretty well debunked.
The only sure thing is that it will cripple the global economy.

With global warming, anything is better than nothing.