Cause of global warming.

[running]

Global warming or climate change condition is a big problem in our world today. We notice from the world higher temperatures. In my view, behaviors of human cause global warming.
The first reason is emissions from industrial plants to atmosphere. If humans use energy superfluously, emissions from industrial plants are increased. For example, burning coal to produce electricity. The second reason is emissions from deforestation. Most people usually used to burn forest for farming because it is fast and easy. Finally, emissions are immense. Every year, people will be using the car increasingly, which causes carbon dioxide to atmosphere.
In conclusion, I think that people should reduce using energy to reduce global warming. What do you think about the way to reduce global warming?

[yee-haw]

What do you think about the way to reduce global warming?


Send al gore to planet aboola-boo!

[LedZap]

In the past 9 years we've had overall global cooling not warming.

[Montanarchist]

I think that people should reduce using energy to reduce global warming.

To what extent and in which ways more precisely?

[Carrot]

In the past 9 years we've had overall global cooling not warming.

Hasn't a massive ice shelf just collapsed in antarctica?
What about all the glaciers that can be seen to visibly shrink?

The debate about global warming is how much we actually contribute, and what the actual rate of it is. I have yet to see a source that actually states cooling trend over 5, let alone 9 years. Source?

[LedZap]

Hasn't a massive ice shelf just collapsed in antarctica?
What about all the glaciers that can be seen to visibly shrink?

The debate about global warming is how much we actually contribute, and what the actual rate of it is. I have yet to see a source that actually states cooling trend over 5, let alone 9 years. Source?

I'll see if I can find it again....but there is this.....http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/04/why-third-year-arctic-ice-will-increase-next-year.html#more

[LedZap]

And these..........http://www.prisonplanet.com/nas-reports-50-million-year-cooling-trend.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658580/posts

As you can see from the article........."current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2".......all this ENDED in 1997.Global warming (especially man made) is BS.

[yee-haw]

I've read a couple books by dennis kent, He does extreme researching also.

And by the things in the article, It actually supports a cooling trend not a warm up.

[freakazoid]

Global warming or climate change condition is a big problem in our world today. We notice from the world higher temperatures. In my view, behaviors of human cause global warming.
The first reason is emissions from industrial plants to atmosphere. If humans use energy superfluously, emissions from industrial plants are increased. For example, burning coal to produce electricity. The second reason is emissions from deforestation. Most people usually used to burn forest for farming because it is fast and easy. Finally, emissions are immense. Every year, people will be using the car increasingly, which causes carbon dioxide to atmosphere.
In conclusion, I think that people should reduce using energy to reduce global warming. What do you think about the way to reduce global warming?

Dude, you have posted what has to be just about the most relevant comment on this forum. We call it...

BULLSHIT!

[Carrot]

And these..........http://www.prisonplanet.com/nas-reports-50-million-year-cooling-trend.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658580/posts

As you can see from the article........."current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2".......all this ENDED in 1997.Global warming (especially man made) is BS.

A 50 million year cooling trend isn't very relevant.

The second article claims it's been cooling for 9 years, in the united states.
I went to the site stated, but couldn't find it (or any past 200 fr some reason), but they do have interesting stuff on there, even reasons why there would be patterns overlapping a possible trend.

Point is even then one area getting cooler doesn't do anything if the trend is still warming, a massive area of ice did collapse in antarctica afterall, which is physical and tangible (evidence?) if nothing else.

I would have thought the point would be that we can't make that much of an impact, which is open for debate, not that it's not happening at all.

[freakazoid]

A 50 million year cooling trend isn't very relevant.

The second article claims it's been cooling for 9 years, in the united states.
I went to the site stated, but couldn't find it (or any past 200 fr some reason), but they do have interesting stuff on there, even reasons why there would be patterns overlapping a possible trend.

Point is even then one area getting cooler doesn't do anything if the trend is still warming, a massive area of ice did collapse in antarctica afterall, which is physical and tangible (evidence?) if nothing else.

I would have thought the point would be that we can't make that much of an impact, which is open for debate, not that it's not happening at all.

RE: "A 50 million year cooling trend isn't very relevant."

I was referring to the bullshit part of it being relevant to bullshit.com.

[yee-haw]

Carrot is british, Pay him no mind freak.:p

[Carrot]

RE: "A 50 million year cooling trend isn't very relevant."

I was referring to the bullshit part of it being relevant to bullshit.com.

I wasn't replying to you, which is why I quoted ledzap.

[yee-haw]

See... ^


Told ya'!:rolleyes:

[aslan]

Its like most everything. There are 2 visible truths and its whoever has the upper hand in media or just alot of determination can make their opinion the most widley accepted. In this case, its the liberal media trying to scare us just like nuclear war in the mid century.

[Rise Up]

The true cause of Global Warming is.......



.......





.......




Liberals. They have so much hot air in their head it leaks out every now and then.

[ballzack]

Freak posted this months and months ago...

GORE-BALL Warming!

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/al_gore_on_fire.jpg

[Limbo]

Have a look at the anomaly line in this graph of global sea ice. I see no trend since 1979. During years when the arctic had less ice than normal, the antarctic had more than normal. Energy travels around the globe in the oceans and atmosphere, so looking at one isolated area tells you little or nothing. You have to look at the big picture.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[ballzack]

Yep, I've seen that chart, Limbo.

But you see, the bottom line is Cap and Trade.

The bulk of whom Dear Leader Comrade Chairman MaoBama appeals to watch CNN and "Dancing with the Stars" and have stars in their eyes for Dear Leader. All they know is he "CUT" their taxes by $13 a week. THEY DON'T KNOW THAT WITH CAP AND TRADE, pushed through by Gore-Ball Warming false hysteria, THAT THEY'LL PAY BACK THAT $13 a week TEN FOLD! You will IN FACT pay upwards of $130 a week as a family of four paying for Cap and Trade. That's what the Libs want.
It's a GREAT vehicle for increasing taxes without calling it "TAXES".

"Never let a good crisis go without taking advantage of the General Public."
-James Carville to Barack Obama, January 2009

He got that message loud and clear. How many times did he use the word "Crisis" in his inauguration speech? ;)

It's a three ring circus here in D.C. with these Jokers. Pathetic.

[Carrot]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Well that chart definately shows that any trend isn't as great as the media screams at us. (that much is obvious)

However (and you'll say I'm seeing what I want to see) but.

1. The first peak to drop below 22 occurs in 95-96
2. This then happens 5 times from 2001 onwards
3. The blue is then near constantly below the mean from 2001 onwards.
4. Also, if you look at the red I would argue that there is a minor trend in the decrease in area. If you were to chang te scale on the left axis this would be more apparent. (where does the lowest trough occur, where do the six lowest troughs occur).

That chart indicates that there is a trend, though much less of one that which the media craze is insiuating, which has been my position all along.

[Montanarchist]

The bulk of whom Dear Leader Comrade Chairman MaoBama appeals to watch CNN and "Dancing with the Stars" and have stars in their eyes for Dear Leader. All they know is he "CUT" their taxes by $13 a week. THEY DON'T KNOW THAT WITH CAP AND TRADE, pushed through by Gore-Ball Warming false hysteria, THAT THEY'LL PAY BACK THAT $13 a week TEN FOLD! You will IN FACT pay upwards of $130 a week as a family of four paying for Cap and Trade. That's what the Libs want.
It's a GREAT vehicle for increasing taxes without calling it "TAXES".

It's the only things he can do if he wants to keep America alive. Bank bailouts by lending monstrous amounts will cost billions upon trillions, and taxpayers are going to to have to foot the bill.
The only alternative is to let it crash and burn right now and that's not particularly productive, problem is that you can't raise taxes during a recession/depression. It's just not reasonable, so they're forced to, as you say, try to gather up money without calling "taxes", and it's still not going to work for more than five years, tops.

[ballzack]

It's the only things he can do if he wants to keep America alive. Bank bailouts by lending monstrous amounts will cost billions upon trillions, and taxpayers are going to to have to foot the bill.
The only alternative is to let it crash and burn right now and that's not particularly productive, problem is that you can't raise taxes during a recession/depression. It's just not reasonable, so they're forced to, as you say, try to gather up money without calling "taxes", and it's still not going to work for more than five years, tops.

Agreed
Also remember, Monty, there is HUGE money waiting out there by wealthy individuals that are simply not spending it. I'm not spending mine. Sooner or later, that money will start to be spent and as Tony Montana said...

"Say Hello to my leetle Friend. INFLATION!!!!!!!!!!"

[Limbo]

Well that chart definately shows that any trend isn't as great as the media screams at us. (that much is obvious)

However (and you'll say I'm seeing what I want to see) but.

1. The first peak to drop below 22 occurs in 95-96
2. This then happens 5 times from 2001 onwards
3. The blue is then near constantly below the mean from 2001 onwards.
4. Also, if you look at the red I would argue that there is a minor trend in the decrease in area. If you were to chang te scale on the left axis this would be more apparent. (where does the lowest trough occur, where do the six lowest troughs occur).

That chart indicates that there is a trend, though much less of one that which the media craze is insiuating, which has been my position all along.

There is no statistically significant trend in the data. As I write this, the earth has 1 million square kilometers more ice on it than average (from 1979 to 2000). And besides, even if there were a statistically significant trend, how does this prove that it is caused by man made CO2 emissions?

When you look at the hard science, a doubling of CO2 could lead to about a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. That is the maximum theoretical warming that could occur all things being equal. The only way that you can get these run away predictions like the U.N. produces is by concocting a convoluted, hypothetical series of positive feedbacks in the atmosphere that greatly amplify the known theoretical warming (that everyone pretty well agrees on).

To put it in layman's terms, it's a load of horse shit. Actually I just read that Al Gore has positioned himself (with his law firm and other related business interests) to make over a billion dollars if cap and trade is instituted in the U.S., now that wouldn't make him want to stretch the truth a bit, would it?

[ballzack]

There is no statistically significant trend in the data.

To put it in layman's terms, it's a load of horse shit. Actually I just read that Al Gore has positioned himself (with his law firm and other related business interests) to make over a billion dollars if cap and trade is instituted in the U.S., now that wouldn't make him want to stretch the truth a bit, would it?

Indeed.

And I have driven past his home in Nashville. Holeee Shit. And whom said there is NO MONEY IN POLITICS????
:D

All you have to do is legislate to YOUR advantage, eh Al?

PATHETIC!!!! Thank you, Libs. Destroy our civil liberties and help make a few EXTREMELY wealthy. As long as the REST of us don't have that luxury, eh?

[Limbo]

All you have to do is legislate to YOUR advantage, eh Al?

PATHETIC!!!! Thank you, Libs. Destroy our civil liberties and help make a few EXTREMELY wealthy. As long as the REST of us don't have that luxury, eh?

Al Gore is a modern day snake oil salesman... and sadly there are a lot of suckers buying it.

[Carrot]

There is no statistically significant trend in the data.

I think my points kind of point towards that there is in fact a trend.


And besides, even if there were a statistically significant trend, how does this prove that it is caused by man made CO2 emissions?

That chart definately doesn't.

All it shows is a slight trend over a reatively short period. But what it does not do is rule out global warming. There are lots of different variables/patterns/systems going on simultaneously over longer perods of time which need to be taken into account.

"who cares about he numbers if the message itself is true" ballzack said something along those lines recently and is the route people on this site (and by a far larger amount, Gore and pals) seem to take.


When you look at the hard science, a doubling of CO2 could lead to about a 1degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature.

There isn't much hard science to be honest. The media has prematurly ejaculated a very sticky mess with this, and the original scientists wish everyone would take it as a theory.


To put it in layman's terms, it's a load of horse shit. Actually I just read that Al Gore has positioned himself (with his law firm and other related business interests) to make over a billion dollars if cap and trade is instituted in the U.S., now that wouldn't make him want to stretch the truth a bit, would it?

It would, which is why I'm not screaming about the end of the world and fluffy polar bears.

Just because one jackass exaggerrated, and a media cult followed doesn't mean there's some truth behing the original theory.

[Limbo]

There isn't much hard science to be honest. The media has prematurly ejaculated a very sticky mess with this, and the original scientists wish everyone would take it as a theory.

OK, here is global warming 101.

What I mean is that it is well understood how much energy CO2 can absorb (and stop from escaping the atmosphere, trapping it if you will). This can be calculated quite accurately, and this is where the 1 degree Fahrenheit number comes from. At some point, the part of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs will become saturated and no extra energy can be trapped by it (this will happen at roughly double the current level of CO2). Now, what the models do, at least the ones generated by the U.N, through the I.P.C.C., is they attempt to model the atmosphere by taking into account feedback mechanisms. They say that this 1 degree rise will lead to an increase in water vapor, which, unlike CO2, is a very powerful greenhouse gas. This extra water vapor is predicted by these (crappy and unscientific) models to lead to an uncontrolled rise in the earths temperature. Problem with that theory is that increased water vapor also leads to increased cloud cover and increased storms through convection, both of which lead to COOLING, not warming.

Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.

[Carrot]

OK, here is global warming 101.

What I mean is that it is well understood how much energy CO2 can absorb (and stop from escaping the atmosphere, trapping it if you will). This can be calculated quite accurately, and this is where the 1 degree Fahrenheit number comes from. At some point, the part of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs will become saturated and no extra energy can be trapped by it (this will happen at roughly double the current level of CO2). Now, what the models do, at least the ones generated by the U.N, through the I.P.C.C., is they attempt to model the atmosphere by taking into account feedback mechanisms. They say that this 1 degree rise will lead to an increase in water vapor, which, unlike CO2, is a very powerful greenhouse gas. This extra water vapor is predicted by these (crappy and unscientific) models to lead to an uncontrolled rise in the earths temperature. Problem with that theory is that increased water vapor also leads to increased cloud cover and increased storms through convection, both of which lead to COOLING, not warming.

Look into it yourself if you don't believe me.


That bit about convection is complete and utter bullshit, and I can tell you that without looking into anything. Convection is the TRANSFER of heat from a solid to a gas(or within fluids), the heat isn't going back into space (via radiation). Sounds like something who just took primary level science would come up with.

You are in a room with paddling pool. Let it settle to a stable temperature (ie everythings the same temperature), if you then stir up the water so there's a mist the temperature will NOT change, definately won't cool.

If you heat the room to get water vapour then the water vapour won't cool it back down. That only works if you lose heat to a sink. ie to the external environment, so by spraying water on the outside of the room. but the earth can only lose heat via radiation.

However, I do agree that any positive feedback mechanism is far from being proven.

Also, you completely miss the effect of methane, which contributes more so than CO2.

[Limbo]

That bit about convection is complete and utter bullshit, and I can tell you that without looking into anything. Convection is the TRANSFER of heat from a solid to a gas(or within fluids), the heat isn't going back into space (via radiation). Sounds like something who just took primary level science would come up with.


No, I'm not talking about that kind of convection, but rather this kind:

The up and down motions associated with convection help fuel monstrous thunderstorms. (http://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/eo/science/convection/Thunder.html)

Cloud cover reflects energy back into space (high albedo).




Also, you completely miss the effect of methane, which contributes more so than CO2.

Methane is bad, but it doesn't come out of the tailpipe of my car however. Cap and trade deals almost exclusively with CO2.

[Carrot]

No, I'm not talking about that kind of convection, but rather this kind:

The up and down motions associated with convection help fuel monstrous thunderstorms. (http://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/eo/science/convection/Thunder.html)

Cloud cover reflects energy back into space (high albedo).

Geography also 101, why do deserts get so cold at night, all the heat is lost. Due to lack of cloud cover. All heat gained is lost.

Greenhouses. Glass does reflect some light away, but because large amounts is absorbed by the solids, then heating te air via convection within the greenhouse leads to increase in temperature.

Plus my point still stands, any convection does not cool the temperature of the overall temperature of the earth, beacuase it's part of the system.

Heat entering earth via radiation> heat being lost by earth. What happens within the earth with convection desn't change that.



Methane is bad, but it doesn't come out of the tailpipe of my car however. Cap and trade deals almost exclusively with CO2.

I'm not Gore, I'm talking about the extent validity of the theory, not how people exploit it.

You yourself have admitted Co2 does contribute, methane is a larger player, and water vapour needs to be taken into account. Therefore the gradual warming initially proposed before the media upheaval is far from being disproven, or bullshit fr that matter.

What is bullshit is that you swept aside methane because it does not factor in to your view that it's all just for tax purposes. I'm not defending any of the methods put in place here, first you ned to establish the extent/validity of the problem.

[Limbo]

Geography also 101, why do deserts get so cold at night, all the heat is lost. Due to lack of cloud cover. All heat gained is lost.


Lack of cloud cover is part of it, low humidity is another factor. Dry air heats and cools faster.



Greenhouses. Glass does reflect some light away, but because large amounts is absorbed by the solids, then heating te air via convection within the greenhouse leads to increase in temperature.

Plus my point still stands, any convection does not cool the temperature of the overall temperature of the earth, beacuase it's part of the system.

Heat entering earth via radiation> heat being lost by earth. What happens within the earth with convection desn't change that.




I'm not Gore, I'm talking about the extent validity of the theory, not how people exploit it.

You yourself have admitted Co2 does contribute, methane is a larger player, and water vapour needs to be taken into account. Therefore the gradual warming initially proposed before the media upheaval is far from being disproven, or bullshit fr that matter.

What is bullshit is that you swept aside methane because it does not factor in to your view that it's all just for tax purposes. I'm not defending any of the methods put in place here, first you ned to establish the extent/validity of the problem.

I don't bother speculating about the earth's climate system based on what I know about it because I am not an expert in the field. I definitely don't base my opinion on what I read or hear in the media. Instead, I look at the published literature to see what the experts say, and then I make my conclusions based on that.

The only "proof" that proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming have at this point is output from speculative computer climate models. This whole area of science has been corrupted by politics and money, that much is clear.

Now as for methane, it has been recognized as a potentially dangerous heat trapping greenhouse gas (30 times more potent than CO2 I might add), and steps have been taken to stop releasing it in the atmosphere. IT IS A NON ISSUE AT THIS POINT as this graph from NOAA shows.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Methane-global-average-2006.jpg/491px-Methane-global-average-2006.jpg

[Carrot]

I don't see how it's a non issue.

That graph shows that the release of methane is not a positive feedback mechanism. And that the amount of methane seems to be levelling off. But that doesn't make it a non issue.

Look where the red line starts, look where it ends. That is the amount of methane in the atmosphere. It has increased by 6.5% over a period of twenty years. There is now more methane than there was back then. However, I don't know what the methane trends before 84 were or after 2005, they would have to be looked at.

It's directly relevant to the debate.

[Hammerhead]

I got a question

Haven't volcano's put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
then mankind has since the industrial reveloution and if this is true
isn't this just another scare tactic of the powers of the world
to curb and keep down the people of the world

[Carrot]

I got a question

Haven't volcano's put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
then mankind has since the industrial reveloution and if this is true
isn't this just another scare tactic of the powers of the world
to curb and keep down the people of the world

Well of course the earth produces greenhouse gases, otherwise life wouldn't have started in the first place.

No ones denying the fact that there are already large amounts of greenhouse gases present, they're neccesarry for life. But when you add another source ontop of that it could result in more heat being trapped, and less being lost. You might be at just the right temperature wearing a sweater, wear a tshirt over it and you are going to get hotter.

In nature there is a carbon cycle. Quite alot is given off during respiration, forest fires natural proccesses etc. At the same time alot is locked up in living organisms, and fossil fuels. There's a balance between the amount being given off, the amount being absorbed, and vast amounts is locked up in organisms. If you release carbon from fossil fuels/burning forests then you increase the amount of carbon release while simultaneously decreasing the rate at which it is removed.

Methane (or it's components) are also involved in a cycle. the earth has been dealing with it for years, and increases can be expected due to volcanic release. However, livestock levels have been increased to artificially huge numbers which give off vast amounts of methane.

The earth has been dealing with vast releases of greenhouse gases for years, but you can't brush aside the possibility of relatively small changes tipping the balance slightly.

Point is: sweater analogy again. You can't just write it off.

I myself am not entirely sure the extent of our impact, but I'm more than sure it's nowhere near being clearcut either way.

[ShadoWolf]

In conclusion, I think that people should reduce using energy to reduce global warming. What do you think about the way to reduce global warming?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reducing energy use is gay. We need to use other shit sources. Yeah, shit. Maybe. The only shit reasons are that the corporate fags don't wanna. Whatever happened to the electric car that was on the 90s? Corporate fags didn't like it.

Things we should do:
Kick the shit out of corporate fags
Use other energy sources, the sun is damn enough.
Get the fuck out of earth, not completely, there's just too much people in here.

[Limbo]

Here is a damning revelation from a study of heat radiation into space. Satellites can measure the amount of heat radiation returning from the surface of the earth into space since they are outside the earths atmosphere. CO2 is supposed to limit this by absorbing the heat radiation before it escapes the atmosphere. Check this out:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lindzen4.png?w=510&h=270

The black dashed line is what the computer models used by the U.N. (I.P.C.C.) predict. The red line shows the actual amount of radiation escaping the earths atmosphere. The models grossly overestimate the amount of heat energy absorbed by the atmosphere. This pretty much proves that the models are JUNK. Will that stop the loons? Not bloody likely, they will just ignore this as usual. It's bad for business, so to speak.

[Carrot]

Here is a damning revelation from a study of heat radiation into space. Satellites can measure the amount of heat radiation returning from the surface of the earth into space since they are outside the earths atmosphere. CO2 is supposed to limit this by absorbing the heat radiation before it escapes the atmosphere. Check this out:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lindzen4.png?w=510&h=270

The black dashed line is what the computer models used by the U.N. (I.P.C.C.) predict. The red line shows the actual amount of radiation escaping the earths atmosphere. The models grossly overestimate the amount of heat energy absorbed by the atmosphere. This pretty much proves that the models are JUNK. Will that stop the loons? Not bloody likely, they will just ignore this as usual. It's bad for business, so to speak.

See, now that's the first bit of substantial evidence I've seen anyone put up on here.

That is definately a point mostly against man made global warming. There are other variables to consider aswell. What are the readings from either side of the graph, selective periods works on both sides, I don't know but it would be good to have the full picture.

Also, what are the units on the scale, as we all know from gore, scales can be misleading. Another thing would be to consider whether have sensors detecting the actual amount being sent by the sun in the first place?

Another point is that as anything does get hotter, it will invariably give off more heat, a somewhat weak point. However, the earth is somehow giving off/reflecting more heat, how can it be that glaciers are melting, that would go against the counter argument that it's the changes in the suns activity.

Interesting. Like I said, many variables, not sure either way. I suppose that's why most people look to politics to make up their mind in the absolutes.

[Rise Up]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reducing energy use is gay. We need to use other shit sources. Yeah, shit. Maybe. The only shit reasons are that the corporate fags don't wanna. Whatever happened to the electric car that was on the 90s? Corporate fags didn't like it.

Things we should do:
Kick the shit out of corporate fags
Use other energy sources, the sun is damn enough.
Get the fuck out of earth, not completely, there's just too much people in here.

Get a razor blade and slit your throat. Do it.
http://www.do-it.org.uk/images/do-it.gif

[Hammerhead]

I watched a show on history channel last night
called how the earth was made
it was about the Hawian islands
that volcano over there has been erupting since i believe
they said around 1986
it has been putting out tons of sulpher dioxide
I found it facinating
I truely believe that the earth is going to do what it is going to do
and man is just along for the ride
we are not effecting anything
the cycles of the earth are what they are
if it gets colder throw on another sweat shirt
if it gets hotter buy a air conditoner

[yee-haw]

I watched a show on history channel last night
called how the earth was made
it was about the Hawian islands
that volcano over there has been erupting since i believe
they said around 1986
it has been putting out tons of sulpher dioxide
I found it facinating
I truely believe that the earth is going to do what it is going to do
and man is just along for the ride
we are not effecting anything
the cycles of the earth are what they are
if it gets colder throw on another sweat shirt
if it gets hotter buy a air conditoner


I agree, Mother earth is a big dog
and when she's been itched and irritated enough
she'll shake us off, We're nothing but fleas to her.

[freakazoid]

This causes my globe to warm every time! :D ...

http://www.collegelaughs.ca/college-girls/big_boob_bikini.jpg

[yee-haw]

This causes my globe to warm every time! :D ...

http://www.collegelaughs.ca/college-girls/big_boob_bikini.jpg

Those puppies are real, Oh Yee Haw!!:eek:

[Rise Up]

Guys, let's just end the debate on global warming here and now. It was just a ploy to make Al Gore look really smart when in fact, he tawllllllllkkkkksssssss.........jjjjuuuuuuuuusssss sttttt........lllllllllaaaaaaiiiiiiiikkkkkk....... diiiiisssssss

It's proven. I proved it. Now, to prove that Obama is in bed with the Chinese trying to merge the United States and China together to make a giant, overpopulated Super Commie country.