Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.

The stuff you breathe out isn't actually poisonous. At least, not in the sense that it's actually going to kill you (although the human body does react adversely to the presence of high levels of CO2, but that's because we associate it with suffocation). The problem with breathing into a plastic bag is not the build-up of CO2, the problem (from a health standpoint) is the depletion of oxygen. If you run out of oxygen you die.

Interestingly, oxygen is actually pretty poisonous for us. Take a wild guess why nutritionists put so much emphasis on antioxidants.

Pacific wrote:Sebster, I admire your tenacity in repeatedly acting as the shining force of reason in these topics whenever they crop up. But, to be honest, no matter what mountain of evidence that is presented regarding climate change, it is always going to be some left-wing hippy scam to neuter the Great American people, politically motivated to scupper the efforts of Hard Working Americans.

To be honest I think you are beating your head against a wall.

It seems the liars and opinions for hire have done just enough to convince just enough people that there is an honest debate on climate change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I don't deny climate change. The climate has been changing constantly since, well the universe decided to create itself. Can we do anything about it?

Yes, we can cut reduce emissions.

1. Why?

Because our economy is built around certain weather patterns, and having to adapt to rapid changes in weather patterns will cost an immense amount of money.

2. Which way is it going? When I was younger we were worried about global cooling.

There was a handful of popular science scares about global cooling, released without peer review and when climate science was still a very new field. Your inability as a youngster to critically review the science is entirely understandable, but not very relevant to present policy concerns.

3. How much will it cost?

The Stern Review found that the cost of stabilising greenhouse gases to be about 2% of worldwide GDP. In comparison, the cost of adapting could be up to 20% of worldwide GDP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Climate change is very different. Nobody argues that climate can't change: we have records that show that it does. At this point, few people argue that the climate is changing (although some still do). That's all pretty established.

What's far less established are the details: do Greenhouse gases even increase global temperatures? To what extent does human action affect climate change? How fast is the climate changing anyway?

The problem with your argument is that these things are not as unknown as you think they are.

Yes, greenhouse gases trap heat. That's a piece of chemistry that's more than 100 years old.

97% of climate scientists active in the field believe the climate change we are seeing right now is impacted by man.

The rate of change in the climate, and more specifically the ups and downs of it, and the localised effects, are the present focus of study, and an area in which we still know very little. But all that does is add to the level of risk, and hinder our ability to predict how we might adapt.

Now, a nuanced observer would note that unlike in biology, there is money to be made picking a side in the Climate Change debate for scientists. The energy industry funds many studies. OTOH, there is a lot of government money, as well as publicity, for finding better or more alarming data to suggest that the world is ending.

If anyone was motivated by money, they'd just take the industry money. They pay more, and demand far less.

Which leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the people researching this aren't money hungry mercenaries, but people with a genuine scientific concern about how the planet works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well on the one end you get "recycle your plastic grocery bags because its green!" to "there's too many people!!!"
To wing buts who want to eliminate all current power generation and use magical fairy dust er green energy.

I agree that the wingnuts who dream of massive depopulation or the replacement of all present energy plants with solar panels or whatever are nuts.

At which point it becomes important for the sensible middle ground to embrace the plain reality of the situation and accept that climate change is happening, but that we still need energy general from fossil fuels. Doing this will marginalise the crazies on both ends, and allow us to develop sensible policy to address this issue. It means moving to natural gas over coal wherever possible. It means looking at more nuclear plants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.

A solution that lasts 100 years is enough of a solution. By then who knows what tech we'll have available?

Nuclear is certainly limited, mind you, because it requires huge amounts of fresh water and that's not exactly an abundant resource in many places. For instance, here in Australia we have immense amounts of uranium, but little fresh water. So exporting uranium becomes a good option, but actually using it here isn't viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:You have 0 facts for your statement above, just noting that.

Let's do ourselves a favor and not make sweeping statements about groups shall we? MT11

EDIT It would be a sweeping statement if I claimed all US christians disliked science. I didn't state that because that would have been wrong, and silly. Instead I stated there is a tendency, because it is more common among US christians than among the general population. It might be possible to claim that one is offended by such a statement, but they cannot argue it is wrong.

I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.

Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something. My experience working in clinical research did nothing to support that point of view.

Speaking as a right-leaning but scientificly taught person, I think the reason why "global warming" and "evolution" draws out the hostility of so many Republicans and Christians is that these are buzz-words used in politics to support initiatives or attack beliefs that the right and many religious people do not support.

"scientists" are usually "research scientists" who get paid when they do research that is backed by buzz-words. A genius of a scientist I treated about a year ago was a Venus (the planet) researcher who grumbled about how hard it was for him to get funding for his projects when the Mars guys "had it easy". Because "life on Mars" is a sellable buzz-word.

Me personally, I'm all for developing better energy technology but I'm against "greenhouse gas" fear-mongering. Levels of these gases have not really been studied very long on a geological time frame and it feels like we are over-reacting as a species to something we don't really understand or have appropriate perspective on.

Seriously, how many people even know what epoch we are in? And yet they talk about "living ecologically" to me. Weird.

But I hope the debate on Dakka continues, fun reading from well informed people on both sides of the issue. Cheers!

It's the OT section as long as someone throws up one of the buzz words, there will be an argument.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.

Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something. My experience working in clinical research did nothing to support that point of view. Cheers!

This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I love these OT debates and this one started off really strong.

Just curious if anyone else gets a laugh out of people throwing the word "scientists" around to make their point? As though "scientists" are all infallible, honorable men of great wisdom or something.

The assumption would be that they're specialists in the field of study in question, producing work which is peer reviewed. Which doesn't make any individual, or even the community at large infallible, but it ought to make their opinions matter more than some random internet dweller

Speaking as a right-leaning but scientificly taught person, I think the reason why "global warming" and "evolution" draws out the hostility of so many Republicans and Christians is that these are buzz-words used in politics to support initiatives or attack beliefs that the right and many religious people do not support.

So it's because you've confused your disdane for easy targets on the left with scientific consensus. That sounds about typical for how most political opinions are formed, unfortunately.

Me personally, I'm all for developing better energy technology but I'm against "greenhouse gas" fear-mongering. Levels of these gases have not really been studied very long on a geological time frame and it feels like we are over-reacting as a species to something we don't really understand or have appropriate perspective on.

Yes, they have. Keep up with the research.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.

What? Government, nor technology, are not uniform things, so that one must agree with all it's applications, or none.

You make no sense.

Living in Australia, everything is fine... worst climate issue is the whole carbon tax debate

Ah crap


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murray wrote:Living in Australia, everything is fine... worst climate issue is the whole carbon tax debate

Yeah, never seem to hear the end of it

So we're
1) Suffocating on CO2
2) swimming with sharks
3) Ice Age...in case they got it backwards
4) Less fresh water = desalination = more jobs
5) War over resource = eco terrorist become unlawful combatants
6) Famine = Anything with hot sauce is good...so who drew the shortest straw?
7) Disease outbreaks = possible zombie apocalypse

but we might
1) Sea colonies to exploit resource in the ocean depth
2) Orbital colonies/shipyards to expand our presence into the solar system
3) massive multi layer hydroponic farms going up and down of the planet surface
4) Possible 3rd world nations become the labor force
5) Possible 3rd world countries tries to take out the top tier countries = Good money says France be first to go
6) Nuke each other from orbit
7) Shrink ourselves

Jihadin wrote:So we're
1) Suffocating on CO2
2) swimming with sharks
3) Ice Age...in case they got it backwards
4) Less fresh water = desalination = more jobs
5) War over resource = eco terrorist become unlawful combatants
6) Famine = Anything with hot sauce is good...so who drew the shortest straw?
7) Disease outbreaks = possible zombie apocalypse

but we might
1) Sea colonies to exploit resource in the ocean depth
2) Orbital colonies/shipyards to expand our presence into the solar system
3) massive multi layer hydroponic farms going up and down of the planet surface
4) Possible 3rd world nations become the labor force
5) Possible 3rd world countries tries to take out the top tier countries = Good money says France be first to go
6) Nuke each other from orbit
7) Shrink ourselves

Sounds like a plan.
Team Wienie officially approves #7.

Relapse wrote:This is the thing I find funny, also. It seems as though a lot of people here believe Christians are the source of all head in the sand type evil, and anyone that has any faith in God is a fool believing in a myth, and because of that, we are going to die in greenhouse gases. The same people say science and government are going to save us, yet, here we are, worried about global warming from items created by the application of science, and allowed by government. These same people have blind faith in scientists and government to wave a wand and make everything green.
Funny.

I don't think anybody here is painting christians with nearly as broad a brush as you claim, although I know that feeling like a persecuted and oppressed minority is everybody's right.

So, you find it funny that when a group of people that created something realize that it's actually bad, they then want to undo the damage? I mean, set aside the fact that the burning of fossil fuels was developed and condoned by very differet groups of scientists and lawmakers than currently exist, and you're still basially finding humor in the fact that a group of people could decide that they made a mistake.

I don't know if this is because faith based view points can't allow for mistakes, or because you are more interested in assigning blame than finding solutions, but it's wierd to me.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Are you aware that the stuff you breathe out is actually poisonous? No? Well then put a plastic bag over your head. You'll be fine. Go ahead and try it at home.

The stuff you breathe out isn't actually poisonous. At least, not in the sense that it's actually going to kill you (although the human body does react adversely to the presence of high levels of CO2, but that's because we associate it with suffocation). The problem with breathing into a plastic bag is not the build-up of CO2, the problem (from a health standpoint) is the depletion of oxygen. If you run out of oxygen you die.

Interestingly, oxygen is actually pretty poisonous for us. Take a wild guess why nutritionists put so much emphasis on antioxidants.

The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.

The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.

If I ever have to give CPR and this pops in my head...

Jihadin wrote:

The body doesn't take pure C02 well, whether you need to immediately take a breath or not. It's not a dire poison, there's a lot of it in the air at any given time, but it's not harmless when pure. I'll cede this point anyway though, suffice it to say that the stuff you breathe out is bad to breathe in again because there is less oxygen instead of more C02.

If I ever have to give CPR and this pops in my head...

What we exhale still has a lot of oxygen in it, our lungs aren't particularly efficient. That's why the bag thing was important, otherwise fraz would just be breathin' heavy. No one wants to see that.

Actually for Fraz I dangle a dog treat above his chest and let the weiner dogs bounce of his chest

Sorry for not quoting the entire comment but . . .

@Sebster: I am confusing my disdain for what? I could not quite understand your critique of me.

I think that "scientific concensus" does not always mean "the truth". I will not insult your intelligence to make a list of such situations in history. Usually the great scientific minds go against the concensus anyway.

Also we have studied atmospheric levels of various "greenhouse gases" for a long time? Really? I would be surprised if we had any data from even a hundred years ago and a 100 years is the equiv. of a millisecond in geological time. Extrapolating data from ice coring requires a good deal of theory work. It is not data and is easily biased.

I have no beef with anyone on Dakka, but there is questionable science on both sides of the issue. To claim otherwise is not being open-minded.

That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.

Have a a great weekend everyone

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:
That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.

Have a a great weekend everyone

Too bad the Ontario government missed their own memo and have thus far spent over a billion dollars of tax payers money keeping an old coal-fired plant on stand-by... (all while preaching about their 'clean energy initiatives' )

My tax dollars hard at work!

Removed text.

I lost the thread.

Frankenberry wrote:So...wait.

Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.

You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.

Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.

And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.

This man is a superhero.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frankenberry wrote:So...wait.

Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.

You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.

Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.

And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.

This man is a superhero.

Thank Cthulhu you admit defeat so we can move on.

Jihadin wrote:Well....another justification to stock up on more ammo and food.

I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life

"Another justification why Americans are completely nuts"

sebster wrote:

Pacific wrote:Sebster, I admire your tenacity in repeatedly acting as the shining force of reason in these topics whenever they crop up. But, to be honest, no matter what mountain of evidence that is presented regarding climate change, it is always going to be some left-wing hippy scam to neuter the Great American people, politically motivated to scupper the efforts of Hard Working Americans.

To be honest I think you are beating your head against a wall.

It seems the liars and opinions for hire have done just enough to convince just enough people that there is an honest debate on climate change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I don't deny climate change. The climate has been changing constantly since, well the universe decided to create itself. Can we do anything about it?

Yes, we can cut reduce emissions.

1. Why?

Because our economy is built around certain weather patterns, and having to adapt to rapid changes in weather patterns will cost an immense amount of money.

2. Which way is it going? When I was younger we were worried about global cooling.

There was a handful of popular science scares about global cooling, released without peer review and when climate science was still a very new field. Your inability as a youngster to critically review the science is entirely understandable, but not very relevant to present policy concerns.

3. How much will it cost?

The Stern Review found that the cost of stabilising greenhouse gases to be about 2% of worldwide GDP. In comparison, the cost of adapting could be up to 20% of worldwide GDP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Climate change is very different. Nobody argues that climate can't change: we have records that show that it does. At this point, few people argue that the climate is changing (although some still do). That's all pretty established.

What's far less established are the details: do Greenhouse gases even increase global temperatures? To what extent does human action affect climate change? How fast is the climate changing anyway?

The problem with your argument is that these things are not as unknown as you think they are.

Yes, greenhouse gases trap heat. That's a piece of chemistry that's more than 100 years old.

97% of climate scientists active in the field believe the climate change we are seeing right now is impacted by man.

The rate of change in the climate, and more specifically the ups and downs of it, and the localised effects, are the present focus of study, and an area in which we still know very little. But all that does is add to the level of risk, and hinder our ability to predict how we might adapt.

Now, a nuanced observer would note that unlike in biology, there is money to be made picking a side in the Climate Change debate for scientists. The energy industry funds many studies. OTOH, there is a lot of government money, as well as publicity, for finding better or more alarming data to suggest that the world is ending.

If anyone was motivated by money, they'd just take the industry money. They pay more, and demand far less.

Which leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the people researching this aren't money hungry mercenaries, but people with a genuine scientific concern about how the planet works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Well on the one end you get "recycle your plastic grocery bags because its green!" to "there's too many people!!!"
To wing buts who want to eliminate all current power generation and use magical fairy dust er green energy.

I agree that the wingnuts who dream of massive depopulation or the replacement of all present energy plants with solar panels or whatever are nuts.

At which point it becomes important for the sensible middle ground to embrace the plain reality of the situation and accept that climate change is happening, but that we still need energy general from fossil fuels. Doing this will marginalise the crazies on both ends, and allow us to develop sensible policy to address this issue. It means moving to natural gas over coal wherever possible. It means looking at more nuclear plants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:Nuclear isn't the final answer either however, Uranium is a finite resource.

A solution that lasts 100 years is enough of a solution. By then who knows what tech we'll have available?

Nuclear is certainly limited, mind you, because it requires huge amounts of fresh water and that's not exactly an abundant resource in many places. For instance, here in Australia we have immense amounts of uranium, but little fresh water. So exporting uranium becomes a good option, but actually using it here isn't viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:You have 0 facts for your statement above, just noting that.

Let's do ourselves a favor and not make sweeping statements about groups shall we? MT11

EDIT It would be a sweeping statement if I claimed all US christians disliked science. I didn't state that because that would have been wrong, and silly. Instead I stated there is a tendency, because it is more common among US christians than among the general population. It might be possible to claim that one is offended by such a statement, but they cannot argue it is wrong.

A great post. I think it's the first one I've read where I agree with everything written. Add a few more aggressive sweeping stereotypes and some foul language and it could have been written by me!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frankenberry wrote:So...wait.

Humans, who've been aware of the greenhouse gasses since only 1859...are attributing to the inevitable destruction of the planet through these same gasses.

You mean to tell me, that a planet that has been around for over four and half BILLION years, been struck by meteors the size of Texas, had 90% of it's surface covered by ice...is in danger from humans and our 'industry'.

Y'know, I had more of an argument but I think this is all I can say without rofling till I puke.

And lo, ladies and gentlemen. I present to you: The Ultimate Post. No other will top the quality of this one. It is the best. Numerous logical fallacies in 3 lines? Check. Multiple sizes of text? Check. Absolute and total misrepresentation of everything in the topic to date? Check. Clearly written without actually reading the first or any post? Check. Direct claim of superior and yet unstated knowledge? Check.

This man is a superhero.

Well, I suppose that's it for me. Guess I'm too stupid to read and comprehend the thread. Thanks for helping me understand.

You win. Forever.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@Sebster: I am confusing my disdain for what? I could not quite understand your critique of me.

I felt your disdain for certain policies and the people who support them is getting in the way of an actual review of the science.

I think that "scientific concensus" does not always mean "the truth". I will not insult your intelligence to make a list of such situations in history. Usually the great scientific minds go against the concensus anyway.

Sure, but as you'd know science isn't looking for 'the truth', but for the model that best explains the observations. As we make new observations we refine our models, and just sometimes overturn them entirely.

Meanwhile, you don't have to list all those instances of models being overturned, but for your own purposes it'd be good to go and review them, and note how many were done with little serious work having been performed in the field beforehand, and whether or not an actual profession of scientists had really developed in that field. Even if you can instances where that's the case, I just don't know about the wisdom of basng policy around 'all the people who've studied this might be wrong, because other people were wrong about something before'.

Also we have studied atmospheric levels of various "greenhouse gases" for a long time? Really? I would be surprised if we had any data from even a hundred years ago and a 100 years is the equiv. of a millisecond in geological time. Extrapolating data from ice coring requires a good deal of theory work. It is not data and is easily biased.

Ice cores are not the only source of historic temperatures, and your claim of 'bias' has no substance. I'm getting really, really bored of people calling out 'bias' everytime they're presented with informationthey don't like.

I have no beef with anyone on Dakka, but there is questionable science on both sides of the issue. To claim otherwise is not being open-minded.

I think you're being unfair to climate science to dismiss it like that. Sure, not everything published is rock solid, but that's why we have peer review.

That said, I think the cessation of fossil burning fuels and the close to 5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions would be great!!!!! Alternative energy sounds great, as long as the tax payers (around the world) are not always being stuck with the bill.

Definitely. I mean, for a whole host of reasons we need to move away from fossil fuels, climate change is simply making that more urgent. That said, there will be a cost, and much of that cost will be born by people as a whole (either through taxes leading to subsidies, or through higher energy prices). The plain reality is that now we've recognised that there are considerations to energy production other than cost, to make the shift we have to be willing to pay more for power.

Now we just need one side of politics to learn that we are not so timid and gentle that we can't possibly cope with somewhat higher energy prices, while the other side of the political divide has to learn that the cost of energy can't simply scale up to 'whatever it takes to get everything produced by wind and solar power'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frankenberry wrote:Well, I suppose that's it for me. Guess I'm too stupid to read and comprehend the thread. Thanks for helping me understand.

You win. Forever.

Are you genuinely interested in debate over this issue? Because it'd suck for me to explain the mistake you've made, only for you to simply refuse to listen. But basically, you've completely invented this idea where climate change is going to totally kill the planet more than any asteroid ever managed. That's not the issue.

The issue is that we live on this planet, and are dependant on certain weather patterns for much of our economic activity. If emissions are unchecked, the subsequent climate change is predicted to cost us up to 20% of worldwide GDP in lost activity and adaptions we'd have to make, which is much, much bigger than the 2% of worldwide GDP it'd cost to cap emissions.

So there you have it. This isn't about totally killing the whole of the planet, this is about the fact that 2% is a much smaller number than 20%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: A great post. I think it's the first one I've read where I agree with everything written. Add a few more aggressive sweeping stereotypes and some foul language and it could have been written by me!

It might have lacked sweeping stereotypes and swearing, but I did get a mod edit and something of a warning, so that's gotta count for something

Jihadin wrote:Actually for Fraz I dangle a dog treat above his chest and let the weiner dogs bounce of his chest

Queso baby, and Tbone doing his "if you don't let me out in 3.887878 seconds I am going to turn this place into a sea of old dog pea" bark. Can wake me from the dead.

Chirp chirp...... Chirp chirp......nope nothing.

It seems fine here to me

removed

The EPA has some great Info about Greenhouse gasses.

The website is an interesting read.

They even confirm that "Since 1750, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N20 have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Scientists have concluded that this is due primarily to human activity."

Found Here.

@ Deathreaper, thanks for posting the link, I particularly enjoyed the sections about past warming periods and "proxy" measurements. Got some great information there without it reading like some sort of "2012" gloom and doom scenario. Thanks

Yea, The EPA is usually a great source of Information.

and it is usually without bias.