Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:43 pm

Personally I don't know. The evidence is too mixed and the proponents too conveniently one party (or internationally one ideology). Left. And their solution too self serving. Socialism. I used to think it was more likely true, but now I'm on the fence. So I went with I can't pick. And for the record, I keep reading different views of which is more eco-friendly, paper or plastic, so it's not the no brainer choice it seems.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:24 pm

I'm not going to get into the political side of this, as I don't believe scientific issues should be politicized. But I'll just say this... my father is a PhD physicist and has spent his entire career working for the government. He eventually became the director of the National Institute Of Science and Technology, the governments in-house laboratory for all scientific related fields, and the director of The National Technology and Information Society, the governments national archive on all scientific studies, findings, etc.

The vast majority of scientists from around the world don't politicize their work, studies or findings. If politics were included in the equation, then the results are skewed and fail to meet any scientific standards. That said, there are certainly plenty of politicians that can find and pay select scientists to say anything. I specifically remember when Phillip Morris sat a panel of scientists and doctors before congress and emphatically denied that cigarettes were addictive or were bad for your health.

Giving any credence to a politician on scientific issues is extremely foolish and dangerous. I remember some Republican on Fox News admit that the polar icecaps are disappearing. He went on to say that the polar icecaps are disappearing on Mars as well, but there aren't any SUV's on Mars, so the emissions from our cars has no effect on global warming and that fact alone should end the debate. Whatever, the guy is a fool. But the bigger problem is that there are people in this country that would listen to that and believe it.

If anyone thinks the emissions given off by the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on the environment and the ozone is fooling themselves. Everyone is so quick to point to the rise in sea water temperature and then speculate the subsequent effects. My father was involved in a lengthy study clearly showing that the magnetic pull of the planets poles and the gravity caused by the axis of rotation causes these gases to collect at the poles, where they are burning a hole in the ozone. If that happens, forget about destructive hurricanes and rising sea levels, we will fry from the solar radiation that will eventually leak through those holes and enter our atmosphere. Scientists are far more concerned about the potentail of that then rising temperatures.

I am not educated in any scientific related field, but I have spent 38 years listening to my father and his scientist buddies discuss these and numerous other scientific related issues.

Global warming is a fact. It's the effects, timing and end results that are debatable.

andyjens89 · Post by **andyjens89** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:24 pm

I'm going to go with "Global Warming doesn't matter to me because I'll be dead anyways"

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:06 am

SkinsFreak wrote:If anyone thinks the emissions given off by the burning of fossil fuels has no effect on the environment and the ozone is fooling themselves

...

where they are burning a hole in the ozone. If that happens, forget about destructive hurricanes and rising sea levels, we will fry from the solar radiation that will eventually leak through those holes and enter our atmosphere

If you search this site on ozone you'll find a bunch of links I posted showing that the ozone layer is shrinking and is estimated to be gone by 2050. I've read more recently that it's shrinking even faster. Sources for that include by the way NASA, hardly a "right wing" conspiracy group.

Is it possible that if you're wrong on the Ozone you're wrong on global warming too? Or maybe at least you understand that some of us want more credible non-political evidence for it since so far the whole argument has been used in the US to defeat Republicans and tighten the grip of socialism while the Democrats have done nothing to rethink their positions on things like gas prices or nuclear power that would in fact reduce fossil fuel consumption?

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:58 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Is it possible that if you're wrong on the Ozone you're wrong on global warming too? Or maybe at least you understand that some of us want more credible non-political evidence for it since so far the whole argument has been used in the US to defeat Republicans and tighten the grip of socialism while the Democrats have done nothing to rethink their positions on things like gas prices or nuclear power that would in fact reduce fossil fuel consumption?

Again, I'm not getting into the politics on the issue. To me, it's ridiculous to politicize scientific issues. I can understand why Republicans want to disregard the science and I can understand why Democrats emphasize the issues for political gain. I'm not concerned with that. My fathers studies and findings were not conducted with a predetermined political agenda. Additionally, scientist from around the world don't much care about our politics, any suggestion otherwise is unfounded. Scientist don't use religion or politics as parameters, guidelines or blinders. Politicians may try to find rouge scientists to support their political agendas, but they don't stand up to the international standards of peer review. Are there other forces on the shrinkage of the ozone and global warming? Sure. But to suggest carbon monoxide and other pollutants have no effect is ludicrous.

Personally, I have not conducted any experiments or studies. Nothing from myself has been published in any scientific journal or has met the standards of international peer review in the industry. My fathers work has and he was employed by our government. So it's not my word that could be viewed as wrong. The overwhelming majority of scientists from around the entire planet have submitted a plethora of peer reviewed studies and evidence indicating the burning of fossil fuels damages the environment and the ozone. If someones political views suggest otherwise, then they can believe that. I don't care. I tend to believe scientists such as my father, not the politicians. Injecting politics or religion of any kind into a scientific study is absurd. That's all I can and will say on the subject. Believe whatever you want.

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:37 am

The atmospheric lifetime of tropospheric ozone is about 22 days. It occurs to me that the ozone depletes rapidly enough without any claims that we are adding to the problem.

Is the ozone depleting? Probably. Is global warming a reality? Not today. It's 15 degrees here and the temperature is dropping.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:44 am

SkinsFreak wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Is it possible that if you're wrong on the Ozone you're wrong on global warming too? Or maybe at least you understand that some of us want more credible non-political evidence for it since so far the whole argument has been used in the US to defeat Republicans and tighten the grip of socialism while the Democrats have done nothing to rethink their positions on things like gas prices or nuclear power that would in fact reduce fossil fuel consumption?

Again, I'm not getting into the politics on the issue. To me, it's ridiculous to politicize scientific issues. I can understand why Republicans want to disregard the science and I can understand why Democrats emphasize the issues for political gain. I'm not concerned with that. My fathers studies and findings were not conducted with a predetermined political agenda. Additionally, scientist from around the world don't much care about our politics, any suggestion otherwise is unfounded. Scientist don't use religion or politics as parameters, guidelines or blinders. Politicians may try to find rouge scientists to support their political agendas, but they don't stand up to the international standards of peer review. Are there other forces on the shrinkage of the ozone and global warming? Sure. But to suggest carbon monoxide and other pollutants have no effect is ludicrous.

Personally, I have not conducted any experiments or studies. Nothing from myself has been published in any scientific journal or has met the standards of international peer review in the industry. My fathers work has and he was employed by our government. So it's not my word that could be viewed as wrong. The overwhelming majority of scientists from around the entire planet have submitted a plethora of peer reviewed studies and evidence indicating the burning of fossil fuels damages the environment and the ozone. If someones political views suggest otherwise, then they can believe that. I don't care. I tend to believe scientists such as my father, not the politicians. Injecting politics or religion of any kind into a scientific study is absurd. That's all I can and will say on the subject. Believe whatever you want.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough SkinsFreak, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you on global warming, just commenting. I'm sure you realize I have an opinion on EVERYTHING. I am saying:

- You don't want the issue politicized, and I am not saying in any way YOU are politicizing it. What I am saying is the issue IS being DRIVEN politically by Democrats who have so far used it only in self serving ways. More socialism, elect them, destroy Republicans. They have done NOTHING to re-question their own positions (e.g., nuclear, gas prices) and nothing to reach out to anyone for something they claim is a catastrophic impending event. I am saying that I do not trust them. But I'm also saying I am in the middle. Democrats politicizing the issue does not make it wrong either. I see the Republicans denials more as a reflection of their seeing the Democrats using it for political hay rather then their being able to prove it's a hoax either.

- On your father, that is a point, but there is a lot of contradictory information coming from the scientific community and the fact is accurately modeling the earth is well beyond our current level of technology and that is to be expected. To say the ice caps on Mars are melting is to your point no proof there is no global warming on earth. It is not irrelevant either, it does support that the sun is getting hotter. One of the studies pointed to by the left "disproving" the sun theory had more holes in it then Dillenger in Kansas City. Like they took sun temps on the surface of the earth instead of in space to eliminate a myriad of variables.

- Also, on the ozone, I am just saying the liberal media won't report that the ozone hole is shrinking because of the political expediency of their supporting their beloved Democratic party. I am constantly addressing that point with people because few know for that reason. Obviously people would LOVE to know that. Yet, the press won't report it. I'm just saying doesn't that give you more sway to QUESTION whether global warming exists and if so is it man made. I'm not arguing nor asking you to believe it's a hoax. Nor to I BELIEVE it's a hoax. I'm just arguing to recognize that whether you want it to be a political issue or not, it is and the press's handling of it is and to keep an open mind.

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:44 am

The recent human-caused thinning of the ozone layer, creating "holes" over the polar regions, have only been depletions of about 3 to 4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080310/ ... trikeearth

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:04 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm just arguing to recognize that whether you want it to be a political issue or not, it is and the press's handling of it is and to keep an open mind.

Oh, without question, I completely agree it's become a political issue... unfortunately. That's just disgusting in my opinion. And I completely understand that the press, either by accident or on purpose, only reports what they want and misrepresents 'selected' facts for their own agenda. That's why I don't listen to the "press" on the issue, I prefer scientific journals and documentaries that actually offer credibility.

The problem in this country is that there a increasingly fewer numbers of students wanting to become educated in the field of science, including myself, even having an internationally recognized scientist as a father with 68 papers published. And the scientists themselves, have admittedly done a poor job educating the public. As my father has said, he hates having to explain stuff all the time just because some fail to understand it, as these are extremely complex subjects. That's unfortunate, but nevertheless, the politicians and the press are the last folks I want to hear from on the issue, even though they make their voices the loudest.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:42 pm

Climate change is a reality. Man's contribution to it is vastly overhyped and overestimated. They play the "worst case" scenarios because, if true, it would be horrific.

But I agree that it's unfortunately a political issue at its core. Not that this should be surprising, considering whose payroll 99% of scientists are on. . .

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:23 pm

GSPODS wrote:The recent human-caused thinning of the ozone layer, creating "holes" over the polar regions, have only been depletions of about 3 to 4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080310/ ... trikeearth

OK, it does say that. And I agree, it would suck if gamma rays from a death star struck the earth and depleted 25% of our ozone. The article did also as you say point out that by comparison the "ozone hole" was created by only a 3-4% depletion of the ozone layer. So a 25% depletion would be bad, really really bad.

I know since you're a stickler for staying on topic and a constant content contributer there's a point in there. But what I'm not clear on exactly is what that point would be since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with global warming at all. Please, enlighten me.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:58 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Personally I don't know. The evidence is too mixed and the proponents too conveniently one party (or internationally one ideology). Left. And their solution too self serving. Socialism. I used to think it was more likely true, but now I'm on the fence. So I went with I can't pick. And for the record, I keep reading different views of which is more eco-friendly, paper or plastic, so it's not the no brainer choice it seems.

The evidence is not mixed, but overwhelming to the point of certainty. The proponents are not of a particular party, but are scientists and those who read. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or any other ideology, nor does the solution-- you don't have to be a socialist to support a ban on a practice that can destroy all life on earth.

The people who don't believe global warming is a fact and that it is at least caused in part by man are idiots, not on the right per se. It' s just a coincidence that most idiots are on the right. The same crowd that think a scientific "law" is more certain than a scientic "theory" and therefore go around saying evolution is "just" a theory.

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:07 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
GSPODS wrote:The recent human-caused thinning of the ozone layer, creating "holes" over the polar regions, have only been depletions of about 3 to 4 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080310/ ... trikeearth

OK, it does say that. And I agree, it would suck if gamma rays from a death star struck the earth and depleted 25% of our ozone. The article did also as you say point out that by comparison the "ozone hole" was created by only a 3-4% depletion of the ozone layer. So a 25% depletion would be bad, really really bad.

I know since you're a stickler for staying on topic and a constant content contributer there's a point in there. But what I'm not clear on exactly is what that point would be since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with global warming at all. Please, enlighten me.

I was merely pointing out that a scientist, not a politician, stated that the so-called damage we are supposedly causing to the Ozone layer is not nearly to the extent some would have us believe. The ozone layer, as previously posted, depletes itself every 22 days, regardless of our actions. The three to four percent depletion attributed to humans is miniscule by comparison. Most Gallup Polls have that margin of error.

Therefore, global warming may not be nearly the issue environmental groups and certain politicians would lead us to believe.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:02 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:The evidence is not mixed, but overwhelming to the point of certainty. The proponents are not of a particular party, but are scientists and those who read.

crazyhorse's logic: If they don't believe in global warming and that man is the source they are not credible and can be ignored. Therefore the evidence is not mixed, credible scientists who by definition are those who believe in global warming caused by man unanimously believe in global warming and it is caused by man.

On the "point of certainty," as I keep pointing out the Earth is far more complex then even the most arrogant liberal scientist can accurately model. They can't accurately model next week's weather yet they can accurately model the Earth's ability to process green house gases over decades? They can't determine where or when exactly a storm brewing in the West now will strike the East or how much rain it will drop, but they can not only accurately model the Earth's ability to process greenhouse gases, but they can model the atmosphere in 50 years to balance the reflective cooling and heat trapping warming effects? Any scientist who tells you they can do that accurately is either self deluded or a liar. Or both.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or any other ideology, nor does the solution-- you don't have to be a socialist to support a ban on a practice that can destroy all life on earth.

I've already addressed this. If the Democrats, who are driving this, were really convinced that as you say this could "destroy all life on earth" then they are scoundrels indeed. They are using this as fodder to win elections and crush Republicans. They are only proposing more socialism (government control over energy, another huge segment of our economy). They refuse to re-question their own positions on THE most effective way to reduce fossil fuels (higher prices) or the only major zero emission alternative (nuclear power). Tell me one single thing the Democrats have done on this issue they "believe" could lead to the end of life on earth as you say that hasn't been totally 100% self serving? Seriously, name one thing.

The people who don't believe global warming is a fact and that it is at least caused in part by man are idiots, not on the right per se. It' s just a coincidence that most idiots are on the right.

Yes there are a lot of idiots on the Right. But here's a pretty good definition of an idiot. Idiot, someone who can stare at the reality of government and think it's a solution for anything. There are a whole lot of idiots on the Left. I personally think anyone who votes for either Republicans or Democrats today is an idiot for that reason, both parties think government can solve our problems for us. They are idiots.

The same crowd that think a scientific "law" is more certain than a scientic "theory" and therefore go around saying evolution is "just" a theory.

Those are so different. No matter how convinced you are of global warming it's a theory. And a causality by man even moreso. With evolution there is overwhelming evidence we did evolve. How is still hugely theory. And since they are not in fact the "same crowd" this point is irrelevant anyway.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:15 am

GSPODS wrote:I was merely pointing out that a scientist, not a politician, stated that the so-called damage we are supposedly causing to the Ozone layer is not nearly to the extent some would have us believe. The ozone layer, as previously posted, depletes itself every 22 days, regardless of our actions. The three to four percent depletion attributed to humans is miniscule by comparison. Most Gallup Polls have that margin of error.

Therefore, global warming may not be nearly the issue environmental groups and certain politicians would lead us to believe.

OK, but I don't think that point was remotely clear until you said it now.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:27 am

Unfortunately, too many people in our society don't understand the difference between scientific laws, hypotheses and a theories.

From several sources:

A hypothesis is the first step in order to arrive at a theory. A hypothesis would be an individual's "best guess" as to how a particular process worked while a theory goes to the point of having enough positive results from tests to lead an individual to think that their original "guess" or hypothesis seams to have true substance and actually can be considered to be a theory just waiting for a bit more conclusive evidence to make it a fact. This is how science works, first there is a hypothesis, then there is theory, then finally it is proven to be fact and at that point becomes historical knowledge and no longer science.

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

Global warming and cooling from natural climate cycles are well known. But the aspects of global warming caused by man are well documented and is not a hypothesis. Certainly some organizations exaggerate the facts and some downplay them. But there is undeniable proof and evidence nonetheless.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:52 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
crazyhorse1 wrote:The evidence is not mixed, but overwhelming to the point of certainty. The proponents are not of a particular party, but are scientists and those who read.

crazyhorse's logic: If they don't believe in global warming and that man is the source they are not credible and can be ignored. Therefore the evidence is not mixed, credible scientists who by definition are those who believe in global warming caused by man unanimously believe in global warming and it is caused by man.

On the "point of certainty," as I keep pointing out the Earth is far more complex then even the most arrogant liberal scientist can accurately model. They can't accurately model next week's weather yet they can accurately model the Earth's ability to process green house gases over decades? They can't determine where or when exactly a storm brewing in the West now will strike the East or how much rain it will drop, but they can not only accurately model the Earth's ability to process greenhouse gases, but they can model the atmosphere in 50 years to balance the reflective cooling and heat trapping warming effects? Any scientist who tells you they can do that accurately is either self deluded or a liar. Or both.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or any other ideology, nor does the solution-- you don't have to be a socialist to support a ban on a practice that can destroy all life on earth.

I've already addressed this. If the Democrats, who are driving this, were really convinced that as you say this could "destroy all life on earth" then they are scoundrels indeed. They are using this as fodder to win elections and crush Republicans. They are only proposing more socialism (government control over energy, another huge segment of our economy). They refuse to re-question their own positions on THE most effective way to reduce fossil fuels (higher prices) or the only major zero emission alternative (nuclear power). Tell me one single thing the Democrats have done on this issue they "believe" could lead to the end of life on earth as you say that hasn't been totally 100% self serving? Seriously, name one thing.

The people who don't believe global warming is a fact and that it is at least caused in part by man are idiots, not on the right per se. It' s just a coincidence that most idiots are on the right.

Yes there are a lot of idiots on the Right. But here's a pretty good definition of an idiot. Idiot, someone who can stare at the reality of government and think it's a solution for anything. There are a whole lot of idiots on the Left. I personally think anyone who votes for either Republicans or Democrats today is an idiot for that reason, both parties think government can solve our problems for us. They are idiots.

The same crowd that think a scientific "law" is more certain than a scientic "theory" and therefore go around saying evolution is "just" a theory.

Those are so different. No matter how convinced you are of global warming it's a theory. And a causality by man even moreso. With evolution there is overwhelming evidence we did evolve. How is still hugely theory. And since they are not in fact the "same crowd" this point is irrelevant anyway.

Your comment shows that you don't know that "laws" and "theories" in science satisfy exactly the same standard of proof. A "law" states "what" happens; a "theory" states " how" something happens.

A theory always and only states 'how." When a scientist explains the process involved in global warming is a "theory" he is saying that it meets and satisfies all standards of proof, just as does a "law," which states what happens and meets all standards of proof.

Saying something is a theory, in science, is tantamount to saying something is true (in the everyday world). In science, the notion that a woman becomes pregnant because her egg is fertilized by a male's sperm is a "theory," and no more or less true than the "theory" that man is helping cause the depletion of the ozone layer.

In short, in everyday parlance, it's as close to a "certainty" as anything can be in our universe and is not to be doubted by any creature informed by a consciousness of only three dimensions unless that creature is a right wing idiot.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:03 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:Your comment shows that you don't know that "laws" and "theories" in science satisfy exactly the same standard of proof

What's particularly funny about this is that when you changed the definition of fascism from government control of industry to industry control of government for the gamesmanship of tying Republicans to Nazis and I pointed it out, you didn't want to argue "definitions." I let it go because the argument and reason you were doing it (the Nazi thing) were too shallow.

As I said, I'm not saying there is no global warming and if there is I'm not saying that man is not one cause for it. But to argue that man even has the capability to prove it at this point is just arrogant and naive. We should totally continue to study it and I advocate taking prudent measures to counter it even though it's not proven. Those prudent measures do not include more government control over energy but less (allowing higher prices which saves us military costs as well, more nuclear power...). And they certainly don't include the left agenda laden plan of solving global warming by sending billions of dollars to third world dictators.

Here's one interesting link.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Bas ... e10973.htm

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:15 pm

My opinion is that they really don't have a freaking clue as to what is "normal" for this planet. They still have trouble forecasting tomorrows weather.... So no thanks to the experts who talk like they know what the weather was like 2 gazillion years ago...

Is the earth warming? I believe it is, evident by the polar caps melting...
Is it normal? Might be, might not.
Is it caused by us? Most likely not but I'm sure we contribute.

It's just something else that'll be rewritten in about 10 years in the science books.

The earth is flat...believe....

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:53 pm

i decided not to vote. i study biology and i didnt see an option for the earth warms and cools in cycles. when we add a ton of CO2 into the air it affects the equilibrium. so it will swing more wildly to either extream. some realllly hot summers, some really snowy winters. the end game is the caps will melt and it will raise sea levels, then over the next bazillion years it will freeze up again and glaciars will reform. there is evidence of this over and over agin.

the real issue is we are due for a polar switch. once every bazillion years or so (thats a scientific number) the poles switch on the earth and cataclysm ensues. and we are overdue. so! if anyone is following the myan calander, it seems it may end when the poles switch!! im planning an end of the world party.

in conclusion, we shouldnt pollute if we can help it. but its not gonna kill us all in one big event like a polar magnetic switch will in about 10 15 years

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:25 am

TincoSkin wrote:the real issue is we are due for a polar switch. once every bazillion years or so (thats a scientific number) the poles switch on the earth and cataclysm ensues. and we are overdue.

Oh God, giving the Left another topic to go nuts and demand more government. Socialism will of course cure that and the liberal media will pound the message home. More welfare checks cure polar switches! Thanks.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:28 am

TincoSkin wrote:i decided not to vote. i study biology and i didnt see an option for the earth warms and cools in cycles. when we add a ton of CO2 into the air it affects the equilibrium. so it will swing more wildly to either extream. some realllly hot summers, some really snowy winters. the end game is the caps will melt and it will raise sea levels, then over the next bazillion years it will freeze up again and glaciars will reform. there is evidence of this over and over agin.

the real issue is we are due for a polar switch. once every bazillion years or so (thats a scientific number) the poles switch on the earth and cataclysm ensues. and we are overdue. so! if anyone is following the myan calander, it seems it may end when the poles switch!! im planning an end of the world party.

in conclusion, we shouldnt pollute if we can help it. but its not gonna kill us all in one big event like a polar magnetic switch will in about 10 15 years

COOL!!!

I'm gong to put all my investments in companys that make the N and S letters for compasses of all types! I'll be rich! MUWAHAHAHAHA! :wink:

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:33 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:The people who don't believe global warming is a fact and that it is at least caused in part by man are idiots.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Is Global Warming True?

Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?

Re: Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?