01 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter"The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, 'scientists
All scientists are not in agreement on this matter:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061230/OPINION04/61229035/1035/OPINION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis' '. The petition
uses only the terms catastrophic heating and disruption"
From your second link. So, like I said, the greenhouse effect per se is
not being questioned. It's whether or not it will have catastrophic effects
on the global climate if we keep releasing greenhouse gases produced
by us into the atmosphere, that's being questioned. The argument from
those scientists you link to is that the radiation from the sun (?) has
more to do with global warming than the mixture of greenhouse gases in
our atmosphere. I wouldn't know about that, but also from the wikipedia
link:
"The senior author of the article was Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, a biochemist
(not a climate scientist) and a Christian fundamentalist. The second and
third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Both Baliunas and Soon
have ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which has taken a skeptical
position on global warming since the 1980s and has also received
financial support from the oil industry. The fourth and final author was
Zachary W. Robinson, Arthur Robinson's 22-year-old son."
Hm, I think I'm gonna go with real climate scientists on this one.
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by Acemasterwhat about the ecological systems ???
1. No.
2. It has been caculated that if we continue on the same level of pollution that we are on now, the icecaps will melt in about 200 years. Even though that sounds bad for everyone 200 years in the future, the icecaps melting will only raise the level of water by 36 feet.
3. I never said that the fumes aren't toxic. I said that they won't cause global warming. Refer to answer #2.
and the impact in human beings ? it wouldnt take 200 years to see the effects !!!
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterRadiometric dating shows the earth to be at least 4.53billion years old. Since you are obviously ignorant of even this basic fact, I doubt we'll convince you on any other aspect of science.
Because the earth isn't that old. Now we are entering into the theory of evolution which is another topic that I don't mind debating.
01 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AcemasterAs I've pointed out, plants are not really CO2 limited. The process of photorespiration accounts for about 30% of intercepted energy (Woodrow & Berry, 1988), but there are plenty of studies that show that except under very high levels of fertilisation that high CO2 plants are N limited. Carboxylation capacities tend to decrease in N limited plants grown under elevated CO2 (Wong 1979, Oberbauer et al. 1986, Arp 1991, Radoglou, Alpho & Jarvis 1992, Tissue et al. 1993, Sage 1994, amongst others)
Crop yields do not depend on tempature alone. More Co2 would help plants cope with the toxins in the air. Co2 will not raise the temperature much, if at all, and will not hurt.
As for methane, since gases rise it will take Co2 out of the air. Of course, if there aren't enough cow farts to for you to smell it when you pass by, then there isn't enough to hurt the enviroment.
There is a linear relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 data. The vostoc and EPICA ice cores are excellent evidence of this.
Your treatment of methane is exceptionally simplistic. Air is a mixture of gasses. You seem to lack even this simple detail.
02 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AcemasterHahahaaha, no wonder you're so dumb! Hovind is a hack. As far as we can tell Dr "getting arrested by the IRS for tax fraud" Dino basically self-awarded his PhD. His manuscript is laughable - certainly not to PhD standard, and I should know, having done mine.
Kent Hovind. Knows a lot about a lot of things.
Here's some info about your boy;
"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent "Young Earth" creationist. The self-styled "Dr. Dino" (whose Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, is in Christian education) established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989.[1] Hovind previously spoke frequently in schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts arguing for young earth creationism. He is a subject of controversy and public scrutiny.
On November 2, 2006, Hovind was found guilty by a jury in a Pensacola, Florida federal court of fifty-eight federal tax and tax-related offenses; his wife, Jo, was also convicted on 44 counts. Hovind is currently being held by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office awaiting sentencing on January 9, 2007. He has been ordered to forfeit $430,400 and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison."
And
"In 2002, he was charged with one count of felony assault, one count of misdemeanor battery, and one count of burglary with assault/battery.[23] In December 2002, the charges were dropped by the alleged victim, Hovind's secretary."
"Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations with respect to Dinosaur Adventure Land.[19] Despite arguments that the owners did not need a permit due to the nature of the building,[24] the park has been found in violation of local regulations. On June 5, 2006, Hovind pled nolo contendere as charged to three counts: constructing a building without a permit, refusing to sign a citation (Case # 2001 MM 023489 A)[25] and violating the county building code (Case # 2002 MM 026670 A)[26]. Hovind was ordered to pay $225.00 per count. The plea brought to an end the 5-year criminal (misdemeanor) court battle over a $50.00 building permit. The 4-year civil court battle with the county remains open (Case # 2002 CA 000149)[27]. Hovind estimates he spent $40,000 in legal expenses on this case. On June 19, 2006, the delinquent 2003-2005 property taxes/penalties for Dinosaur Adventure Land were paid in an amount of $10,402.64"
Want more?
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by stockenTempature does have a bit to do with the weather. (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, etc.) But the moon controls the tides and a lot of the weather patterns as well.
Ok, I've read a little about it now. Let's see if I got this right. The global
warming, greenhouse effect, is not really in question. All scientists are in
agreement that this is happening. The question seems to be weather
(pun intended) or not we humans are affecting the natural balance,
temperatures rising and falling, by releasing too much ...[text shortened]...
branch wouldn't eventually break by natural causes, so we might as well
keep going".
I don't know where you went, but not all scientists are in agreement. There is still a big debate about it.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterBut the moon controls the tides and a lot of the weather patterns as well.
But the moon controls the tides and a lot of the weather patterns as well.
I don't know where you went, but not all scientists are in agreement. There is still a big debate about it.
Prove it.
I don't know where you went, but not all scientists are in agreement. There is still a big debate about it.
Not really. Not within scientific circles. The oil companies haven't really got their hooks in there.
02 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzSee: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec
Radiometric dating shows the earth to be at least 4.53billion years old.
Since you are obviously ignorant of even this basic fact, I doubt we'll convince you on any other aspect of science.
If this doesn't work tell me.
And there is no reason to get rude. I haven't critizied anyone except Al Gore.
02 Jan 07
Here is an easy project: Fill a bowl with ice and pour water into the bowl, all the way to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt. It won't flood.
Oh! I'm sorry. I had a fact wrong. If the icecaps started to melt today, in 200 years it would raise the water by 1 1/2 inch. I like that stat even better, don't you?