Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Joe Bonham]

Have to disagree there. 600 million cars over many years sounds like a lot, but it really isn't if you compare it to the sheer size and power of a volcanoe.

[Karst]

Yet volcanoes still don't produce a really significant amount of greenhouse gas.
Let's say 10.2 % of those 10.3 % "other sources" are volcanoes - which is already unlikely i might add - transportation fuel still makes up a greater percentage at 14 %. And then there's power stations, industry, agriculture etc. All in all even the most awesome eruptions don't make that much of a difference.

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

But our pollution is steadily decreasing, while Europe's is going up - even though we didn't sign the Kyoto treaty but the EU members did. Ironic, isn't it?

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/ar...ill_rising.htm

Would you mind providing a more recent source, that one is more than two years old? (I am not denying that your statement might be true, but the university database for electronic material does currently not function properly.)

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

We put our whole military at risk trying to solve a trivial problem. Why should we risk the whole economy trying to solve another trivial problem?

This time you could actually do something about the trivial problem without risking your safety or killing someone. Besides global warming is also your problem, so nobody should have a reason to despise you for fighting it.

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

Rome wasn't squashed. China wasn't squashed. Medieval Europe wasn't squashed. The British Empire wasn't squashed. Why will we be squashed?

I agree, it is quite possible that we will not be crushed or crush ourselves, actually the climate up here is likely to become more enjoyable, possibly Mediterranean, so I should not have anything to worry about, except for people trying to invade us when they realize their neighbourhoods have turned into a desert, and the unfortunate fact that I like snow and reasonably cold temperatures.

[Chemix2]

Nature- 2 Gigatons of CO2, per year
Humans- 14 Gigatons of CO2, per year

Nature may be powerful, but it's not nearly as reliable to pollute as we are. And towards your America vs the World statements, I never claimed that America was the real problem, but it wouldn't hurt to try what we can here, and if we need to, then we'd damn well better send in the marines to Brazil and central America, hell, the time off would be great, going down to the beach, catching some rays, albeit, Jungle Patrol.... well, lets just give them all pin ups like the ole days to keep their minds off the bugs, deadly animals, nigh constant rain.

Better than eventualy depleting our oxygen faster than we can produce it, or coming close to that, as it would trigger mass panic.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Huffardo

Would you mind providing a more recent source, that one is more than two years old? (I am not denying that your statement might be true, but the university database for electronic material does currently not function properly.)

I would if I understood the question. A recent source... more than two years old... these two requests seem to contradict. Once I know what you want exactly, I'll be happy to oblige.

This time you could actually do something about the trivial problem without risking your safety or killing someone. Besides global warming is also your problem, so nobody should have a reason to despise you for fighting it.

Yes. But when there's a snow drift blocking the road you don't call in air support. When there's a nutshell, you don't use a tank to crack it. The Kyoto treaty is a huge overreaction.

You can see this from the pollution trends. European governments went into hysteria and made huge promises... but kept none of them. The USA was a bit more cool headed and didn't commit themselves to any rash promises. Our pollution steadily declines every year.

I agree, it is quite possible that we will not be crushed or crush ourselves, actually the climate up here is likely to become more enjoyable, possibly Mediterranean, so I should not have anything to worry about, except for people trying to invade us when they realize their neighbourhoods have turned into a desert, and the unfortunate fact that I like snow and reasonably cold temperatures.

If the third world doesn't like the desert, it would be wise for them to stop deforesting their countries and exhausting the farmland.

Originally Posted by Chemix

Nature- 2 Gigatons of CO2, per year
Humans- 14 Gigatons of CO2, per year

Again, as Warhawk pointed out, this is based on the belief that CO2 is a serious problem. Temperatures have skyrocketed in the past without correlation to rises in co2. So obviously there are many other explanations for this.

Nature may be powerful, but it's not nearly as reliable to pollute as we are.

And towards your America vs the World statements, I never claimed that America was the real problem, but it wouldn't hurt to try what we can here, and if we need to, then we'd damn well better send in the marines to Brazil and central America, hell, the time off would be great, going down to the beach, catching some rays, albeit, Jungle Patrol.... well, lets just give them all pin ups like the ole days to keep their minds off the bugs, deadly animals, nigh constant rain.

Great idea. Let's shoot up people and burn down cities because some guy in Chile failed his smog check.

Better than eventualy depleting our oxygen faster than we can produce it, or coming close to that, as it would trigger mass panic.

Right. And telling school children they're all going to die in five years doesn't cause mass panic.

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

I would if I understood the question. A recent source... more than two years old... these two requests seem to contradict. Once I know what you want exactly, I'll be happy to oblige.

Never mind, I already found a more recent source myself, it wasn't that hard once I got tired enough.

http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpe...5/view_content
It's published in 2007 by the EEA and shows that some member states have made significant progress, whilst others, including Finland, have not.
All that energy intensive forest industry isn't very beneficial in this area...

EDIT: I knew I was bound to do something wrong this tired, that source is only about greenhouse gas emissions, I'll try again tomorrow...

[Chemix2]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice

I would if I understood the question. A recent source... more than two years old... these two requests seem to contradict. Once I know what you want exactly, I'll be happy to oblige.



Yes. But when there's a snow drift blocking the road you don't call in air support. When there's a nutshell, you don't use a tank to crack it. The Kyoto treaty is a huge overreaction.

You can see this from the pollution trends. European governments went into hysteria and made huge promises... but kept none of them. The USA was a bit more cool headed and didn't commit themselves to any rash promises. Our pollution steadily declines every year.



If the third world doesn't like the desert, it would be wise for them to stop deforesting their countries and exhausting the farmland.



Again, as Warhawk pointed out, this is based on the belief that CO2 is a serious problem. Temperatures have skyrocketed in the past without correlation to rises in co2. So obviously there are many other explanations for this.



Great idea. Let's shoot up people and burn down cities because some guy in Chile failed his smog check.



Right. And telling school children they're all going to die in five years doesn't cause mass panic.

Temperatures are increased by the density of conductive molecules in an area because while it takes long for more particles to absorb heat energy than less, it also holds better, hense why Venus, second nearest planet to the sun is hotter than Mercury. CO2 is obviously more dense than O2, it has carbon added on, which makes it useless to us because our bodies can't seperate the carbon from the O2, so that's problem one, so if the CO2 isn't getting hotter, then it'll sit there at the bottom, as in, where we are, and it'll take more and more space up rather than O2 which being lighter, will autmomaticly rise. So even if you're right, and CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with heat, which it absolutely does, we're still screwed, because our 14 gigatons that we release every year are going to slowly take up more and more of the room that oxygen occupies.

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting sending the marines in to shoot up factories, I meant to guard the jungles, which I said, in my post. To prevent illegal logging, the marines would be introduced to defend the trees and wildlife. They would use as little force as possible, while attempting to hold their ground, most likely armed with a lethal secondary weapon, and a series of non lethal primaries, such as rubber pellet guns, stun guns, pepper spray, and as a secondary, a standard handgun, and if the situation gets bad, reequip the marines with M16s just like in a war, but again as a secondary weapon that they should attempt to avoid using at all times, so unless the loggers start coming at them with chainsaws and they know that nothing will be effective except lethal force, they are not to kill those attacking them. If these rainforests die off we won't just slow the cleaning of the air and production of oxygen, but make a serious slash to the medical companies. New roots and plants with potential pharmasutical effects are found almost every day, and who knows how many plants we've destroyed that could have cured a horrific disease or something.

School children don't give a damn about the enviornment or what will happen 10 seconds from now, I'm hardly concerned about them rioting in the streets, versus adults rioting in the streets when they find out the air supply is going down. I can see it now, people beating each other bloody over air, people buying air, people selling air, Pari-air (Space Balls), oh what a wonderful world that will be, when we know that we only have a few thousand years of air left. Hell, tell people the Sun is going to explode in 5 billion years and they freak out, imagine knowing that the human race won't be able to live on Earth in a few thousand.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Chemix2

Temperatures are increased by the density of conductive molecules in an area because while it takes long for more particles to absorb heat energy than less, it also holds, hense why Venus, second nearest planet to the sun is hotter than Mars. CO2 is obviously more dense than O2, it has carbon added on, which makes it useless to us because our bodies can't seperate the carbon from the O2, so that's problem one, so if the CO2 isn't getting hotter, then it'll sit there at the bottom, as in, where we are, and it'll take more and more space up rather than O2 which being lighter, will autmomaticly rise. So even if you're right, and CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with heat, which it absolutely does, we're still screwed, because our 14 gigatons that we release every year are going to slowly take up more and more of the room that oxygen occupies.

The atmosphere is a huge place, and the co2 emissions spread out across entire continents. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it would take a long period of time for this to have any effect - assuming it happens at all.

I'll repeat what I already said - this is no reason for hysteria. Just keep on what we're already doing - carefully thought out and steady progress.

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting sending the marines in to shoot up factories, I meant to guard the jungles, which I said, in my post. To prevent illegal logging, the marines would be introduced to defend the trees and wildlife. They would use as little force as possible, while attempting to hold their ground, most likely armed with a lethal secondary weapon, and a series of non lethal primaries, such as rubber pellet guns, stun guns, pepper spray, and as a secondary, a standard handgun, and if the situation gets bad, reequip the marines with M16s just like in a war, but again as a secondary weapon that they should attempt to avoid using at all times, so unless the loggers start coming at them with chainsaws and they know that nothing will be effective except lethal force, they are not to kill those attacking them. If these rainforests die off we won't just slow the cleaning of the air and production of oxygen, but make a serious slash to the medical companies. New roots and plants with potential pharmasutical effects are found almost every day, and who knows how many plants we've destroyed that could have cured a horrific disease or something.

That'd make an interesting grave marker inscription - I was killed defending a damn tree.

Yes! Let's invade every country at the planet and forbid them from using their own natural resources! While we're at it, can we steal all their oil too?

Funny, I thought you opposed imperialism.

Now from a practical standpoint - its completely absurd. We have about 250 thousand marines total. The number of combat marines is much lower. We could guard, at best, a tiny fraction of the world's rain forests.

The cost would be huge - hundreds of billions of dollars.

The casaulties would be devastating as well. The natives would be far from pleased, and would take every opportunity to force the marines out.

This is NOT a theoretical scenario. We tried your plan in 1982-83 in Lebanon. The result? Hundreds of dead marines.

School children don't give a damn about the enviornment or what will happen 10 seconds from now,

Not true. Kids are very impressionable. I've talked to quite a few parents who can confirm this - their children coming home from school crying because "we're all going to die from [insert environmental holocaust story of the month here]"

I doubt brainwashing children from an early age about every doom scenario the media latches onto would be a particularly wise idea.

I'm hardly concerned about them rioting in the streets, versus adults rioting in the streets when they find out the air supply is going down. I can see it now, people beating each other bloody over air, people buying air, people selling air, Pari-air (Space Balls), oh what a wonderful world that will be, when we know that we only have a few thousand years of air left. Hell, tell people the Sun is going to explode in 5 billion years and they freak out, imagine knowing that the human race won't be able to live on Earth in a few years.

Is it just me, or is the gw debate getting more and more absurd every time we talk about it?

[AlDaja]

Incorrect. The amount of pollution mankind spills into the world every day from it’s various machines, and factories are equivalent to a severe volcanic eruption every day.

The total estimated global releases of volcanic activity amounts too 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr, and this is a conservative estimate that includes average sized eruptions. Even though volcanos emit a substantial amount of CO2, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm the volcanic average median estimate by at least 150 times. Think about that once.

Cool!…where did you read this so I may do the same, cause it sounds like an opinion; save for the second paragraph which I'm guessing you pulled from somewhere (no offense) is strays from your writing style, and I really would like to read the complete text, not just what you selected from it.

Volcanic eruption are a naturally occurring process and cannot be technically regarded as a polluting agent.

Dude, pollutants are pollutants – you lost your credibility attempting to persuade with this statement.

I admit Mt St. Helens did a lot, but we do more. For example, the forests felled during the eruption, we have done that, and more, probably hundreds of years in the years since then.

Might want to scale back the “hundreds of years” most nations have only been industrialized for a couple of hundred years – some only in the past 50 or 70 years. Can't speak for other nations, but America used to clearcut - we don't do that anymore and haven't for decades...BLM and the US Forest Service makes sure of that as do the companies (loggers) that service our forests. New trees are planted where others have been felled; thining is necessary to ensure the health of our forests. To assist with this task, members of the California Conservation Corps, America-Corp, Job Corp, Sierra Club and a few others constantly plant new trees.

...Back to Volcanoes...

Actually aside from bombardment from outer space (asteroids/comments) Volcanoes wreak havoc and have been known to wipe out entire areas, populations and many scientists theorize the Toba catastrophe (approximately 70,000 years ago) may have caused the genetic “bottleneck” of our human ancestors and why we all share specific genetic markers. This theory may account for the Adam and Eve story denoted in the Bible and similar stories shared by non-Christians.

Anywho – many don’t know that we have a ticking time bomb right here in the US (Yellowstone Caldera) that became volcanically active (again) in the 1960’s if it goes (highly unlikely – but possible) it will do far more damage than man can ever dream of (short of nuclear war). It is suggested by computer models that most of the continental US would be a wasteland – soon followed by ash deposits up to 3 feet in some areas (Colorado, Mid-West and further out toward the Appalachians) those not killed by the initial blast would mostly like die a few weeks later from pneumonia or other lung infections caused by the ash. As the ash and gaseous bi-products (mentioned above by Sedistix) travel around the world from this one explosion and from the continuous eruptions that would follow in the area, a nuclear-like winter would encircle the planet drastically effecting climate conditions encouraging famine and other diseases.

The point, putting Volcanoes aside, is that yes, manmade byproducts are in question here. Unlike volcanoes no viable good comes from it – short of our livelihood(s) and material possessions (i.e like the manufacturing of this computer and all the gizmos that went into it – that we are all guilty of supporting by just having one). Industrialization makes wastes – countries need to work together to continue to reduce or if possible eliminate the amount of pollutants we introduce to our environment. NO ONE COUNTRY is absolved from this sin, because even if you don’t manufacture it, you are still buying it; and it is difficult to rally people, a country or the world to endeavor when the very people who are supposed to be coming up with solutions to this global problem, provide false testament and chastise anyone who opposes them including their own.

[Sedistix]

Originally Posted by AlDaja

Dude, pollutants are pollutants – you lost your credibility attempting to persuade with this statement.

Incorrect.

Pollution is a undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activates. Look it up yourself.

Volcanoes are naturally occurring, and thus can not be classified as pollution.

You, not I, lost credibility attempting to persuade with your poorly thought out statement.