[DevilsWin]

Breaking News! Lakes are drying up and glaciers are disappearing.
Click Here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19586686/

[Beef]

Watch out. Mars is also having the same problem. I hope the people there realize that they are the cause like we are and it has nothing to do with the sun being hotter. I guess we are ruining that planet too. Get the picture, humans really don't have control over this. Sorry.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html

[Old School]

LATE BREAKING QUESTION !!! How can a lake just fade away when the Ice dam broke and the water flowed into the sea?

[DevilsWin]

More on the impact of "Global Warming"!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19680311/

[DevilsWin]

Watch out. Mars is also having the same problem. I hope the people there realize that they are the cause like we are and it has nothing to do with the sun being hotter. I guess we are ruining that planet too. Get the picture, humans really don't have control over this. Sorry.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html

Humans may not have control over this but shouldn't we try to do what we can?
And No, I don't get the picture.

[Coach_Owens87]

I don't see why people from the Oil loving "Right" side are saying humans have nothing to do with this. Our Idiot of a president and his staff even acknowledge that humans are to blame for Global warming.

From what I read and understood in the article, the glacier was acting as a dam, when the water level rose it caused the dam to break and the water flowed into the sea. All the water is not gone, some water melted off from the ice is still in the bottom of the lake. These things do happen naturally, but not at this rate.

[Old School]

Here's a interseting test that everyone needs to take it's only 10 questions and has some interesting information.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWa...start.html

[More Cowbell]

Here's a interseting test that everyone needs to take it's only 10 questions and has some interesting information.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWa...start.html

That was an interesting test. I got 9 out of 10 right! That's an A-, woo hoo!

[PoolePalace]

Funny shirt

[DevilsWin]

Funny shirt

That would be funny if it weren't for the fact that Polar Bears are dying because of the "lack of Ice" in the Arctic.

[Old Timer]

I see Greepeace, climate.org , Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" have arrived.

Some scientists call it "junk science".

[DevilsWin]

I see Greepeace, climate.org , Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" have arrived.

Some scientists call it "junk science".

^^^Those scientists are bought and paid for by the polluters to support their agenda.

In fact I would like to see, in a condensed statement; the source of this "science" that "your side" presents, and follow that up with who funded the research.

IMO the burden of proof is on "your side" since 98% of all science has reached a consensus about these matters. Your side is the fringe on this subject.

[FOX SPORTS]

^^^Those scientists are bought and paid for by the polluters to support their agenda.

In fact I would like to see, in a condensed statement; the source of this "science" that "your side" presents, and follow that up with who funded the research.

IMO the burden of proof is on "your side" since 98% of all science has reached a consensus about these matters. Your side is the fringe on this subject.

This forum does not have enough space for even a "condensed" fair argument for both "sides".

IMO, there is no burden of proof due any "side"...no one is going to change anyone elses mind on a high school sports site...true scientists, academians, and researchers have been debating this for a decade.


ALSO, I'd love to see where you got the "98% of all science has reached a concensus" statement...please, quote a source.

[DevilsWin]

ALSO, I'd love to see where you got the "98% of all science has reached a concensus" statement...please, quote a source.

When 30 academies of science and scientific societies were polled, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries . Only one , the American Association of Petroleum Geologists rejected the predominant opinion that global warming not only exists but that it is also due in part to human activity.

[FOX SPORTS]

When 30 academies of science and scientific societies were polled, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries . Only one , the American Association of Petroleum Geologists rejected the predominant opinion that global warming not only exists but that it is also due in part to human activity.

30,hand selected, Academies does not represent 98% of ALL science as you suggested in your previous post.

BTW...got a link to credit your source where you got that study???

[DevilsWin]

30,hand selected, Academies does not represent 98% of ALL science as you suggested in your previous post.

BTW...got a link to credit your source where you got that study???

It's all in Wikipedia.

[thecavemaster]

See Jack drive. See Jack drive his car. See Jack
hate anyone who makes him think his car might contribute
to an effect that threatens the planet. See Jack think
a group of people are trying to take his freedom. See
Jack define freedom as being able to do whatever he wants
and screw everybody else. See Jack think he is strong.
See Jack think he needs only himself. jackass...

[FOX SPORTS]

It's all in Wikipedia.

lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???

[DevilsWin]

lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???

Wikipedia isn't where I get my information. I have over years developed an opinion on these matters, I read the newspaper. I studied hard and learned things in college. Environmental publications such as National Geographic, Nature etc. I just did a google on the science for and against and Wikipedia was the first offering and it had the information I already knew to be true. I don't have the time nor care to convice you because it's pointless to argue with someone who confuses Science with Opinion.

[DevilsWin]

lol
So.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by any means as you or I can submit information to an Wikipedia article.
Try using Wikipedia as a reliable source anywhere and see how hard folks laugh.

Like I said, got a link backing up your statement that 98% of ALL science study from your previous post or would you like to credit a reliable accepted source.???

I'll admit I came up with the 98% just the same was Rush comes up with his statistics. LOL If it supports my arguement, it must be true. I appologize for misrepresenting the facts.

[Coach_Owens87]

Don't worry devils win, most people on here wouldn't understand the science to prove our point anyways.

I too googled the topic and wikipedia was the first link, but for people who discredit wikipedia because it is an open source page, you just simply have to check the bottom of the page, all info that is used has a link provided.

I could type for hours and prove my point just from info obtained in college, but thats not good enough for people, so I have a link for all those who doubt that statistics that almost all sceintist are in agreement on global warming.

Here is a small sampling from that page.

"Using their strongest language to date, the world's leading climate scientists are reporting today that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries.

Their conclusions: Evidence of climate warming is unequivocal.

As report co-author Philip Mote, the Washington state climatologist, said in translating his fellow scientists' language about responsibility: "We did it."

"Scientists are pretty well done arguing about whether the warming in the last 50 years is related to burning fossil fuels," Mote said.

Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3022...ing02.html

[FOX SPORTS]

I'll admit I came up with the 98% just the same was Rush comes up with his statistics. LOL If it supports my arguement, it must be true. I appologize for misrepresenting the facts.

lol
I don't listen to Rush.
No problem, you stated Wikipedia...I was just stating that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source.

I think folks on both sides will fight this one until the next Ice Age or until the Sun burns us all into oblivian...most all of us have long formed opinions coming from teachings and research from various sources...and I agree with Coach Owens also,Many people with very strong feelings one way or the other do not understand the science either way.

[thecavemaster]

Isn't it a rather self-glorifying assumption that
most people wouldn't understand the science? On
a day like today, heat index 100+, leave car in sun
with windows up...heat gets "in" but cannot get "out."
Temperature in car exceeds temperature outside by 15 to
20 degrees (at least). Windshield and windows "trap"
the heat, much as greenhouse gases buffer the earth's
atmosphere, trapping the "heat," warming the planet.
Only flaw in analogy: windshield and windows also serve
as "atmosphere" allowing sunlight (heat) to come "in."

[FOX SPORTS]

Isn't it a rather self-glorifying assumption that
most people wouldn't understand the science? On
a day like today, heat index 100+, leave car in sun
with windows up...heat gets "in" but cannot get "out."
Temperature in car exceeds temperature outside by 15 to
20 degrees (at least). Windshield and windows "trap"
the heat, much as greenhouse gases buffer the earth's
atmosphere, trapping the "heat," warming the planet.
Only flaw in analogy: windshield and windows also serve
as "atmosphere" allowing sunlight (heat) to come "in."

Cave master,
You seem to have a great knowledge of the "global warming" theory.
What percentage of the earth's buffering atmosphere are greenhouse gases, etc???
I guess my question is what does the atmosphere consist of and what percentage of each?

[thecavemaster]

I do not know the percentages, have not researched in depth the
exact causal connections; however, I have no outside agenda
and can read the science in Scientific American. What benefit
do researchers gain by finding that tar build up in the lungs
causes cancer? Similarly, what benefit accrues to researchers
who find disturbing trends in climate change?

[More Cowbell]

I think what FoxSports was trying to say is that people on both sides of this argument, as with many other hot-button topics, can find statistics to support their cause. I just wish people on both sides would quit acting like those on the other side are stupid because they don't agree with their point of view.

[thecavemaster]

I think what FoxSports was trying to say is that people on both sides of this argument, as with many other hot-button topics, can find statistics to support their cause. I just wish people on both sides would quit acting like those on the other side are stupid because they don't agree with their point of view.

I agree...I do think that when CNN and Fox news do the
"X" is for but "Y" is against kind of "debates" that
it misrepresents the level and degree of agreement
among leading researchers of climate change, making
it appear that the issue if "up for grabs" and full
of a multitude of disparate views as to the subject.

[More Cowbell]

I agree...I do think that when CNN and Fox news do the
"X" is for but "Y" is against kind of "debates" that
it misrepresents the level and degree of agreement
among leading researchers of climate change, making
it appear that the issue if "up for grabs" and full
of a multitude of disparate views as to the subject.

Huh? What does X and Y mean? I don't really watch either of these channels for my news.

[thecavemaster]

The "X' and "Y" are two researchers on the subject: one
believes one thing; one believes another: what comes
across is that the issue has an equal amount of
supporters and detracters in the scientific community,
which is not the case.

[More Cowbell]

OK, I see what you were saying in the other post now. I had thought you were using them to represent political analysts on some show, who were always arguing.