
as it's a perfectly normal process. The fact that man produces only 1% of carbon emissions on the planet and in no way affects warming is not bunk. It is scientific fact that throughout all recorded core samples the proof is that the rise in greenhouse gases FOLLOWS a rise in earth temperature and is therefore a symptom of warming and not the cause.
It's a natural phenomenon. The world is getting warmer and we can't do a thing about it in the same way we could not 70K years ago when it killed all but 50k human ancestors on the planet.
Get over it Al Gore.
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:24,
archived)
It's a natural phenomenon. The world is getting warmer and we can't do a thing about it in the same way we could not 70K years ago when it killed all but 50k human ancestors on the planet.
Get over it Al Gore.

Did you see that programme on the telebox about it too?
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:27,
archived)

CO2 with CO2 is the right person to review all the literature.
I'm not being an ass, it just shows that the author is not fully acquainted with the issue he's dealing with.
See:
What do the global warming crowd believe?
They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow warmer due to a so called "green-house" effect. (The glass in a green-house prevents convection -- obviously CO2 does not limit convection and its slight effect on global temperature is a quite different phenomena.)
You have to admit he's totally off. Greenhouse gases (esp CO2 and CH4)are believed to be responsible because they have a high IR absoption, not because of preventing convection.
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:51,
archived)
I'm not being an ass, it just shows that the author is not fully acquainted with the issue he's dealing with.
See:
What do the global warming crowd believe?
They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow warmer due to a so called "green-house" effect. (The glass in a green-house prevents convection -- obviously CO2 does not limit convection and its slight effect on global temperature is a quite different phenomena.)
You have to admit he's totally off. Greenhouse gases (esp CO2 and CH4)are believed to be responsible because they have a high IR absoption, not because of preventing convection.

What he is saying, and what the data shows is that our ACTIVITY is speeding up the processes.
Whereas before in the geological record it took eons, it is now taking decades. Slow it down, is all he is saying.
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:39,
archived)
Whereas before in the geological record it took eons, it is now taking decades. Slow it down, is all he is saying.

We are simply living in a time when it is happening again. We are on the cusp, we could not change it if we stopped burning carbon tomorrow.
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:42,
archived)

I'm all for taking a boat to work. Out here though, where there's a million plus cars and it hasn't really RAINED in years because of all the particulate matter in the air, every car OFF the road helps.
I'm totally cereal.. our sky is BROWN.
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:44,
archived)
I'm totally cereal.. our sky is BROWN.

I lived in Athens, it was worse than LA in the 80's. I just don't like the fact that its the political trend to spout "carbon footprint" at every opportunity in a vain attempt to imply that it has absolutely anything to do with anything.
Can I mention that the current vehicles in my household have a cubic capacity total of nearly 14 litres? Fuck carbon footprints ;)
( ,
Mon 23 Jul 2007, 20:52,
archived)
Can I mention that the current vehicles in my household have a cubic capacity total of nearly 14 litres? Fuck carbon footprints ;)