quote:

I should have know, freedom, that I would offer you guys a chance to prove something that I thought might actually be true, that you would provide me with an uncredible link. Since no one is willing to help research this issue more than i have allready done, I will assume it is a hoax until I am proven otherwise.

You sound a little rushed there, like you might not have been paying attention to what you wrote. I'll ask the question again:

quote:

Why is everything that you disagree with either liberal, a lie, or both?

And not only did you NOT research the issue, Hydrok was nice enough to do some researching for you.

Oh and reactionary, look at that time period. There was a political revolution around that time. When Democrats were following modern Republicans' party lines and vice versa? Look into that.

Ironically, global warming will cause global cooling. It's the nature of the world to correct itself.

When the average temperature of the Earth rises to a certain level, the polar ice caps begin to melt at an increased rate. The added cold water throws off the Gulf Stream current, which keeps the Northern Hemisphere nice and warm. When it gets disrupted, the entire top half of the Earth is thrown into an ice age in order to restore the Gulf Stream. Ever watch Day After Tomorrow? They had their facts straight.

Thus, global warming leads to global cooling. The two are not mutually exclusive.

More doomsayers. In 1975 you people were talking about the global cooling (proof: Newsweek: The Cooling World), now you're going on about global warming...

Please, for the sake of the rest of us, make up your minds!

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/supervol.htm

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/

And if the US Geological Survey isn't credible enough let me know...

I should have know, freedom, that I would offer you guys a chance to prove something that I thought might actually be true, that you would provide me with an uncredible link. Since no one is willing to help research this issue more than i have allready done, I will assume it is a hoax until I am proven otherwise.

quote:

I have to say, when I first heard of this supervolcano I was skeptical. I thought it wzs just another one of your liberal lies, but after looking into it I see it might be true.

However, the only things I can find about it are uncredible sources. Please provide me with creidble sources so I can look into this further.

You're such an idiot. Why is everything that you disagree with either liberal, a lie, or both? By the way, look up the definition of skeptical, because you still are.

Here's one site that I thought of as compelling:

http://www.rense.com/general31/overdue.htm

I have to say, when I first heard of this supervolcano I was skeptical. I thought it wzs just another one of your liberal lies, but after looking into it I see it might be true.

However, the only things I can find about it are uncredible sources. Please provide me with creidble sources so I can look into this further.

Neither am I really. Out of 70,000 years, there is a very low probability it would be in this century.

I have heard of that. I'm not very worried about it.

This isn't a chatroom zoon. I found out that Yellowstone is actually a giant volcano that is 70,000 years overdue. The actual name for the type of volcano is called a ""supervolcano" and this one in particular is expected to drop world temperatures by 20 degress Celsius. This is because of the ashes, which could ranges from 2500 and 3500 miles out in every direction. I don't know, but I thought it might interest someone else.

can someone please speak to me

shouldnt we try to do something?

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
However, at the rate the rest of the world is increasing it's carbon output, particularly China, US attempt to curb C02 emissions will barely put a dent in the whole problem.

...since you brought up China particularly.

quote:

Dunn defuses several common myths in the climate policy debate, such as the claim that Brazil, India, and China are “rogue emitters.” “We found these nations taking numerous steps to slow emissions growth, primarily for economic reasons,” says Dunn. “For example, the U.S. government projects that China will surpass the United States as the world’s biggest carbon emitter by 2020. But recent trends suggest that the gap between the two countries’ emissions may instead widen, as Chinese emissions rise less rapidly than projected, due to significant reductions in coal use and widespread energy efficiency improvements.”

(Johannesburg 2002)

According to a report by Natural Resources Defense Council of the US in June 2001,China had reduced 17% of released CO2 by 1997 with new technology and the use of clean energy.The ministry of environment of the German governments added in 2001 that with an economic growth of 35%,the releasing of exhaust gases only increased by 17% over the years,and that the US had something to learn from China on this issue,not the other way round.At least we try.
Carbon dioxide released by the US?36% of the whole world.


Question being,does the US has the attempt like the rest of the world?
The US is the world's largest Greenhouse Gases releaser,as well as the very country which didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol (8 years after the protocol was made,it got over 120 countries,including China,but the US is still not in.)
The biggest polluter not signing the protocol actually delayed the enforcement of the protocol,because the supporting countries,only release 43.9% of the world's Greenhouse Gases in total.

I'm not here to bash the US or other opponents of the only global protocol on this issue,I just hope all nations,not just 120 countries,will come to realize that we are all involved in global warming,trying to shrug off your responsility onto others will only make it worse.

Some interesting facts from the Feb. issue of Scientific American.

A new glacial period was supposed to have started a few thousand years ago. However, global warming had already been initiated by early humans and the trend was reversed. Canada should be under ice right now.

Yes, we didn't have fossil fuels back then. But we did have slash and burn farming. So many trees were destroyed that CO2 started building up, and the creation of rice paddies also did something that I've conveinently forgotten.

During times like the Black Death and North American smallpox outbreaks, the level of CO2, and the temperature, went down because there were less humans to cut down trees.

The temperature raise caused by early farmers is greater than the raise caused by the industrial revolution.


If you can get your hands on the 02/05 issue, read the whole article.

At school we watched the movie for a project and I can't believe so many people were so skeptical about it and just laughed at the mere notion of the consequences of global warming. Global warming isn' t just a lie spread by enviromentalists like us, it is a real thing and how can do many people deny the facts that are just before them? What was that thing about the heat pump? The densyle saty water would drop and the melting ice caps would create a crash between temperatures causin g storms and floods. Already an ice piece approximately the size of new orleands broke off/? opinions I need them for the project

Heh.

In an ironic sort of way. Not a "ha-ha" sort of way.

Yes. I believe its sad that people refuse to believe it when there is scientific proof. I can see them now:

"Well the scientists are being paid by bill gates to lie and they're out to get us!"

Kind of funny how global warming can cause an ice age, isn't it? And so many people ridiculed "Day After Tomorrow"...

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
I say bring it on. A global temperature increase would promote the formation of coal forming swamps, providing fossil fuels for generations into the future.

No it would not. The continual erosion of Ice Caps would drop the salinity of the water in the north pole, which sinks to the bottom and migrates to the Indian Ocean. This creeping current of water keeps the North Atlantic warm water currents heating the North, Baltic, and Irish Seas. If it were to collapse, the winters of Northern Europe would become frigidly cold, laying down Ice for seven months of the year. In one hundred years after the collapse of the currents, the Black Sea would be the end of the glacier. Once this sets in, the amount of light reflected into space would disallow for the melting of the ice, which would continue to creep south, until the North and South polar Ice caps touch.

It would take ten thousand years for the caps to melt, for during this period, the Carbon cycle would be destroyed, due to the total lack of precipitation. In ten thousand years, Carbon levels would allow the planet to attain the temperature of 33 degrees F again.

That is of course a worst case senario. But the mantinence of undersea currents is nessissary to keep us out of an ice age.

What about our political leaders' views. Does anyone have a clue of what they think?

Ugh, stupid Bush.

My comment about the swamps was mostly facitious. However, at the rate the rest of the world is increasing it's carbon output, particularly China, US attempt to curb C02 emissions will barely put a dent in the whole problem. The Earth will survive, humans will survive, and there's not much we can do at the moment to stop the warming.