NationStates Jolt Archive

That's just one of the surprising discoveries that have resulted from the extended life of NASA's Mars Global Surveyor, which this month began its ninth year in orbit around Mars. Boulders tumbling down a Martian slope left tracks that weren't there two years ago. New impact craters formed since the 1970s suggest changes to age-estimating models. And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.


As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.

Link (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html)

No

What? So?

And? Two completely different cases. Obfuscation by far right corporate interests seeking to continue the war against science.

What? So?

So the subject is open for discussion, as opposed to this kind of silly dismissal:

And? Two completely different cases. Obfuscation by far right corporate interests seeking to continue the war against science.

So the subject is open for discussion, as opposed to this kind of silly dismissal:

So accurate=silly. Ok.


Look at it this way, we know Earth is getting warmer. We know CO2, methane and their ilk exacerbate the effect. So, why exactly wouldn't we play it safe and reduce emissions?

So the subject is open for discussion, as opposed to this kind of silly dismissal:

I'm sorry. Should I waste time prooving what has already been proven? Should I waste time arguing with those who will never listen? This is part of a broader attempt by the GOP to ignore science and reality. This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1457/thisshitagainhr5.jpg

I'm sorry. Should I waste time prooving what has already been proven? Should I waste time arguing with those who will never listen? This is part of a broader attempt by the GOP to ignore science and reality. This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though.qft

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.


:rolleyes:

Listen very carefully this time:

No one is claiming that there isn't a natural element to climate change. Hell, just a cursory study of tree rings and ice core samples shows that. What science is saying is that there is also a man-made component; that we are, in effect, making it worse -- and faster than it would otherwise be.

If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

Well, in the scientific community, the debate most certainly is over. I'm pretty certain that the people 'shouting down' those who don't believe in global warming don't cite Al Gore as their reasonings. I believe they cite the works of the entirety of the scientific community (a respectable community, certainly). One that has worked on global warming for decades and published thousands of peer-reviewed, statistical journals on it. So, perhaps the reason they are shouted down is because some people won't tolerate unreasonable and self-enforced ignorance.

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.

Link (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html)

Let's pretend there is any merit whatsoever to your argument: I - err - sorry, there isn't any.

Noone ever said that global climate change was purely a process caused by humans. If they did, please point it out somewhere so we may all ridicule them.

I suppose they will be finding water on mars soon as well...

http://news.leoprieto.com/2005/04/water-on-mars.jpg

Noone ever said that global climate change was purely a process caused by humans.

Au contraire!

Global climate change is a process caused by humans

Au contraire!


*ridicules*


:p

*snipity-snip*

Anyone else feeling the heat?

what heat?

I'm sorry.

Hot damn, I wouldn't be. Not in the least.

Should I waste time prooving what has already been proven?

Yeah, really. Of course, you should expect the OP or some attack-puppet to lay claim to innately superior knowledge or somesuch. Of course, they'd have to back it up - so maybe not so much.

*shrugs*

Should I waste time arguing with those who will never listen?

I wouldn't. Why bother?

This is part of a broader attempt by the GOP to ignore science and reality.

That's the part that's the most frightening by far.

This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened.

Yep.

I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though.

And whack! there's the punchline, and an insightful one at that. Kudos, KSP.

Anyone else feeling the heat?

Speaking of mars why the heck haven't we sent things there to start the global warming. Because ironicly the plan to make mars liviable required causing the greenhouse effect.

*ridicules*


:p

I h8s joo :gundge:

I suppose they will be finding water on mars soon as well...

http://news.leoprieto.com/2005/04/water-on-mars.jpg

damn! you beat me to it!

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.

Link (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html)

And as you can see our liberal friends chose to try to dismiss your data with handwaving and ad hominem attacks instead. Now you see what their "science" is worth. :rolleyes:

But the reason they have to be dismissive is that it isn't only on Mars that "global" warming is happening. ^^

http://theironscroll.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-universal-global-warming.html#links

They have to shout loudly to drown you out because the facts they find inconvenient are coming in from all over the Solar System! :D

And as you can see our liberal friends chose to try to dismiss your data with handwaving and ad hominem attacks instead. Now you see what their "science" is worth.

But the reason they have to be dismissive is that it isn't only on Mars that "global" warming is happening. ^^

http://theironscroll.blogspot.com/20...ing.html#links

They have to shout loudly to drown you out because the facts they find inconvenient are coming in from all over the Solar System!


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html

Just a few sources here, and unlike your link, none of these are blogs.

All that warming action started on Mars when the Martians came to earth and began abducting all our women-folk in the 50's. Things got kinda steamy after that.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1594/marsbq4.png (http://imageshack.us)

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

Don't knock Gore too much... he's just a figurehead, after all (and, to be frank, I'd have much preferred having someone a little more... charismatic to (re)deliver the message, but beggars can't be choosers, I guess). For all intents and purposes - as was mentioned earlier in the thread with references to the thousands of studies that have borne it out- the debate is over.

I don't think I've ever read a creditable source even attempt to claim that our current global warming is entirely man-made. The evidence for periodic, almost cyclic trends in temperature change - linked to changes in atmospheric composition - is pretty overwhelming. This evidence is also used as supporting evidence for the impact that mankind is having.

It hardly seems to be a cause for celebration on the part of the sceptics to discover that other atmospheres experience the same effects. If anything, it looks to me to further confirm that the theories on how changes in atmospheres have direct impact on planetary temperatures are accurate.

Next we will find out that Jupiter has some really bad storms, kind of like Hurricane Katrina.
It isn't the fault of the government or the people, these things happen on other planets too.

Look at my handy breakdown:

If event happens on earth - Question its cause
Then
Find out if this happens on another planet
If Yes
The event is not caused or contributed to by people
If No
Blame it on G.W.B

Next we will find out that Jupiter has some really bad storms, kind of like Hurricane Katrina.
It isn't the fault of the government or the people, these things happen on other planets too.

Look at my handy breakdown:

If event happens on earth - Question its cause
Then
Find out if this happens on another planet
If Yes
The event is not caused or contributed to by people
If No
Blame it on G.W.B
It'd work if the other planets had a set up close to Earth's, buuuuuuut since we seem to be unique in the solar system...

The fact that there may be natural global warming on Mars does not mean that it is natural here on Earth, there is a tremendous number of different factors in the Martian environment.

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.

Link (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html)

DING DING DING!

And the prize for a complete lack of understanding goes straight to Neo Bretonnia!

Okay, look. The arguments about climate change have nothing to do with whether it can be naturally occurring or not, because of course it can be. It, in fact, is. What scientists are saying is not that climate change is CAUSED by human industrialization, but that we are ACCELERATING it extremely so.

Hilarious.

Is it only yanks who still think that global warming is a hoax?

What the hell do they put in your water?

Hilarious.

Is it only yanks who still think that global warming is a hoax?

What the hell do they put in your water?
Flourine...and occasionally chlorine, depending on location.

If there is global warming on Mars thats a good, the water will melt and the harshly cold climate will change in a way that it's always in the hospitable zone making life easier to form or any life that coexists there that we haven't found yet to expand it's habitat and probably evolve into more complex life.

Edit: And if it's climate rises the right amount humans, if we acquire the right technology, can live there comfortably.

If there is global warming on Mars thats a good, the water will melt and the harshly cold climate will change in a way that it's always in the hospitable zone making life easier to form or any life that coexists there that we haven't found yet to expand it's habitat and probably evolve into more complex life.

Edit: And if it's climate rises the right amount humans, if we acquire the right technology, can live there comfortably.

Just as a side note... that wouldn't be enough, unfortunately. Planetary mass is still too low to sustain an atmosphere with pressure high enough to sustain human life. Temperature isn't the only issue.

I'm sorry. Should I waste time prooving what has already been proven? Should I waste time arguing with those who will never listen? This is part of a broader attempt by the GOP to ignore science and reality. This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though.

See, right there you're doing an excellent job of proving my point for me.

Thank you for that.

All I'm saying is that the subject is still up for debate. You've already gone and made a set of assumptions that aren't even remotely indicated and yet you accuse ME of irrationality. GOP? I'm not even a Republican.

Or are you suggesting that Mars is now part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy?"

Just as a side note... that wouldn't be enough, unfortunately. Planetary mass is still too low to sustain an atmosphere with pressure high enough to sustain human life. Temperature isn't the only issue.

The only thing keeping humans from building pressurized buildings that sustain human life on the surface are sandstorms that knock out electricity, if we can get passed that we can colonies the surface, only we'll need space suits whenever we leave the buildings.

Well, in the scientific community, the debate most certainly is over. I'm pretty certain that the people 'shouting down' those who don't believe in global warming don't cite Al Gore as their reasonings. I believe they cite the works of the entirety of the scientific community (a respectable community, certainly). One that has worked on global warming for decades and published thousands of peer-reviewed, statistical journals on it. So, perhaps the reason they are shouted down is because some people won't tolerate unreasonable and self-enforced ignorance.

Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe the debate is over in scientific communities? Is your head truly so far buried in the sand?

Worked on Global Warming for decades... heh. more like "reworked" it. These same people were clamoring about a coming ice age 30 years ago.

And then you advocate shouting down. Nice. This, to you, is reasonable discourse?

The only thing keeping humans from building pressurized buildings that sustain human life on the surface are sandstorms that knock out electricity, if we can get passed that we can colonies the surface, only we'll need space suits whenever we leave the buildings.

That's true, but it also makes the planetary surface temperature less relevant if one needs a space suit anyway.

Hilarious.

Is it only yanks who still think that global warming is a hoax?

What the hell do they put in your water?

I think the Russians have expressed doubts in the past (or rather, Putin has). Figures, really.

See, right there you're doing an excellent job of proving my point for me.

Thank you for that.

All I'm saying is that the subject is still up for debate. You've already gone and made a set of assumptions that aren't even remotely indicated and yet you accuse ME of irrationality. GOP? I'm not even a Republican.

Or are you suggesting that Mars is now part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy?"

Way to completely ignore the entire body of evidence against you.

That's true, but it also makes the planetary surface temperature less relevant if one needs a space suit anyway.

well how will the construction team survive with limited resources and power? It'll cost too much to leave every sunset because the surface freezes to inhospitalbe levels and then return in the morning, if the climate was right then building the facilities would be easy. If it's too expensive no one will want to do it.

If it's too expensive no one will want to do it.

That's what your economic system will do for us: curtail ambition. Phooey.

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

Don't forget the consensus of the world's scientists. And Al Gore too of course. But you did leave out all those scientists... I wonder why?

Hilarious.

Is it only yanks who still think that global warming is a hoax?

What the hell do they put in your water?

Tons of corporate waste.

aha! This proves martians do exist

Freedumb: Yeah, well if climate change exists, why are climate change conventions being canceled due to bad weather!

I'm sorry. Should I waste time prooving what has already been proven? Should I waste time arguing with those who will never listen? This is part of a broader attempt by the GOP to ignore science and reality. This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though.

Funny... and here I thought people on NSG placed a High Value on Education.

Yet when, on a high traffic site like this... a forum where the first three/four pages could all have the latest post date of "today", where new people come in monthy, if not daily. there are people here who are expecting others to read each and every thread and each and every post and link within those threads...

How many Republicans/Democrat threads have there been, and will be? How many Creation vs. Evolution threads? How many "We hate GWBush" threads? How many Pros and Cons on Downloading music/books/movies for free? How many Global Climate threads here actually touched upon the example of Mars?

For each of those threads, the same thing is hashed over and over... yet for this particular thread you put up a "This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though."

and it's QTF!

by people who lauded the IMPORTANCE of education, the spreading of knowledge.

So for you KSP and all those who choose to ridicule the poster and not provide your evidence/argument that prove otherwise. I say this. such attitude towards people seeking knowledge won't further education, but hold it back. Present your evidence and argument, argue against those who you feel are honest and earnest in their thoughts, but don't automatically blame the GOP/Government.

at least Link to those Proofs and be done with it.



To Neo Bretonnia. There are differences between Mars and Earth. one is the fact that Earth has, in place, a natural cooling system of plants and animals that help regulate the tempurature. Mars does not. one scientist postulates that winds can cause heat trapping dust storms of emense porportions, add to that the thinner atmosphere filled with heat trapping gasses and you have conditions that raises the planet's climate. What should be alarming is that this is in the same ratio and time as Earth. (as reported in this article by the TimesOnLine (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)) a theory, but a plausible one.

Another point is this. Mars and Earth won't care how 'hot' it gets. but the life on Earth does. How much change could we endure before the number of deaths turn 'catastrophic'?

Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe the debate is over in scientific communities? Is your head truly so far buried in the sand?

Worked on Global Warming for decades... heh. more like "reworked" it. These same people were clamoring about a coming ice age 30 years ago.

And then you advocate shouting down. Nice. This, to you, is reasonable discourse?

Global Warming would actually cause an ice age in the Atlantics, mate. As well, it's moreso Global Climate Change, than Global Warming(Although it is true the Earth is getting warmer, it leaves people with the impression that every where is getting warmer-not necessarily true).

*snip awesome Hawaiin goodness*
Aha! JuNii rules the day! Thank you for setting both sides straight.

...

Don't look at me like that. Yes, I mocked him somewhat but I also pointed out his error.

Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe the debate is over in scientific communities? Is your head truly so far buried in the sand?

Worked on Global Warming for decades... heh. more like "reworked" it. These same people were clamoring about a coming ice age 30 years ago.

And then you advocate shouting down. Nice. This, to you, is reasonable discourse?

Fine... here we go, I'll start listing. First I'll list scientific organizations and bodies that "believe" that global warming exists:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
National Science Academies of the G8
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
American Chemical Society
American Quarternary Association

The only dissenting organization? The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And even they have said: "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."

We have the organizations, but what about the peer-reviewed journals? Geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes studied 928 abstracts from refereed scientific journals from 1993-2003 with the keywords 'global climate change'. None of the abstracts disagreed. None. Any scientific opinion outside a peer-reviewed scientific journal is almost completely worthless when compared to one in a scientific journal - and the consensus in the scientific journals is total and complete.

And the whole "global cooling" thing? Leaving aside that much less was known about the world's climate and history (they did not recognize the importance of greenhouse gases) - scientists never said that global cooling was imminent or that it was a danger. In the press though, the possibility of global cooling was presented without the evidence in the scientific journals that it was unlikely. It was poorly understood, not many studies were done on it, and even then, in 1974 during the supposed peak of global cooling interest, the National Science Board stated: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . . Consensus didn't exist in the scientific community - work was still going on, debates were still going on. It is part of the scientific process, debating the merits of an idea - but the press doesn't do that. The press does not peer-review or analyze its statements - basically, making them moot in a scientific setting.

And then you advocate shouting down. Nice. This, to you, is reasonable discourse?
Please, read what I wrote. I never advocated shouting down. I only explained why those who were 'shouting down' were actually, as you call it, 'shouting down.' I never said I agree or disagree with it. Frankly, I disagree with it - stifling debate is one of the most terrible things to do - reason must always prevail over stubbornness and unwillingness to cooperate.

I would guess Mars would be more susceptible to climate phenomena. They have a much thinner atmosphere than Earth's, and it's shrinking by the day.
Of course, there isn't the same kind of global warming on Mars. Ours, according to our best guess, is from CO2. Their atmosphere is CO2.

So for you KSP and all those who choose to ridicule the poster and not provide your evidence/argument that prove otherwise. I say this. such attitude towards people seeking knowledge won't further education, but hold it back. Present your evidence and argument, argue against those who you feel are honest and earnest in their thoughts, but don't automatically blame the GOP/Government.
Neo Bretonnia isn't interesting in learning. He's here to post his article and then scream about being oppressed and demonized if anyone disagrees with him. Check his posts in this thread, any time someone approaches him reasonably he ignores them and goes after a straw man.

Neo Bretonnia isn't interesting in learning. He's here to post his article and then scream about being oppressed and demonized if anyone disagrees with him. Check his posts in this thread, any time someone approaches him reasonably he ignores them and goes after a straw man.

That would be very convenient for you if it were true, wouldn't it? But no, you've been challenged to discuss the topic and present your evidence, etc and have dodged it, and then attempted to make an excuse by villifying me.

...which is exactly what I expected to happen.

The fact is, despite some of the allegations on this thread I haven't suggested that there was -no- Global Warming. That issue is not in dispute. (Although some pretend it is in order to try and damage the credibility of their opponents. That, my friend, is a strawman.)

I'm also not a Republican and I subscribe to no political party's agenda.

All my point has been in this thread, and this has remained consistent, was that the discussion on Global Warming ought to be open and civil, and it is not. My use of Mars was a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out an item that should contribute positively to such a debate. See what really happened?

To Neo Bretonnia. There are differences between Mars and Earth. one is the fact that Earth has, in place, a natural cooling system of plants and animals that help regulate the tempurature. Mars does not. one scientist postulates that winds can cause heat trapping dust storms of emense porportions, add to that the thinner atmosphere filled with heat trapping gasses and you have conditions that raises the planet's climate. What should be alarming is that this is in the same ratio and time as Earth. (as reported in this article by the TimesOnLine (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)) a theory, but a plausible one.

Another point is this. Mars and Earth won't care how 'hot' it gets. but the life on Earth does. How much change could we endure before the number of deaths turn 'catastrophic'?

I appreciate it.

Actually my use of Mars as an example was a bit tongue-in-cheeck as it appliest to a comparison between the two planets.

Incidentally, there's another factor to be considered if we ARE going to compare the two planets: Solar energy. Solar flares and temperature variations have been shown to have a significant impact on Earth's mean temperature (moreso than human activity, mind.) and it's reasonable to expect an effect on Martian climate at about the same time. What would be interesting is to compare the data and see how it differs over the same span of time and study those differences.

Fine... here we go, I'll start listing. First I'll list scientific organizations and bodies that "believe" that global warming exists: *snip*


I respect the fact that unlike most people, you actually introduced some facts. Thanks. On the other hand, it's not directly applicable because nobody's saying that there's -no- Global Warming. On that, we agree. What's up for discussion is the cause.



And the whole "global cooling" thing? Leaving aside that much less was known about the world's climate and history (they did not recognize the importance of greenhouse gases) - scientists never said that global cooling was imminent or that it was a danger. In the press though, the possibility of global cooling was presented without the evidence in the scientific journals that it was unlikely. It was poorly understood, not many studies were done on it, and even then, in 1974 during the supposed peak of global cooling interest, the National Science Board stated: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . . Consensus didn't exist in the scientific community - work was still going on, debates were still going on. It is part of the scientific process, debating the merits of an idea - but the press doesn't do that. The press does not peer-review or analyze its statements - basically, making them moot in a scientific setting.


True. And while we've learend a lot more about climate and meteorology in the meantime, there's still a LOT we don't know and are learning. That's a good thing.

The problem is that climate issues have become MUCH more politicized since then. Instead of acknowledging that there's still a lot to be learned, people who shout down thsoe who dispute the sources of global warming have to sort of create a paradigm where their facts are inviolable and 100% reliable, which isn't reasonable given the level of uncertainty in our understanding.


Please, read what I wrote. I never advocated shouting down. I only explained why those who were 'shouting down' were actually, as you call it, 'shouting down.' I never said I agree or disagree with it. Frankly, I disagree with it - stifling debate is one of the most terrible things to do - reason must always prevail over stubbornness and unwillingness to cooperate.

Alright fair enough. The way it was phrased came across to me as an implicit endorsement.

That would be very convenient for you if it were true, wouldn't it? But no, you've been challenged to discuss the topic and present your evidence, etc and have dodged it, and then attempted to make an excuse by villifying me.

...which is exactly what I expected to happen.

The fact is, despite some of the allegations on this thread I haven't suggested that there was -no- Global Warming. That issue is not in dispute. (Although some pretend it is in order to try and damage the credibility of their opponents. That, my friend, is a strawman.)

I'm also not a Republican and I subscribe to no political party's agenda.

All my point has been in this thread, and this has remained consistent, was that the discussion on Global Warming ought to be open and civil, and it is not. My use of Mars was a tongue-in-cheek way of pointing out an item that should contribute positively to such a debate. See what really happened?
Here's, in consecutive order all the posts you've dodged the point on or refused to address completely:

So accurate=silly. Ok.


Look at it this way, we know Earth is getting warmer. We know CO2, methane and their ilk exacerbate the effect. So, why exactly wouldn't we play it safe and reduce emissions?

:rolleyes:

Listen very carefully this time:

No one is claiming that there isn't a natural element to climate change. Hell, just a cursory study of tree rings and ice core samples shows that. What science is saying is that there is also a man-made component; that we are, in effect, making it worse -- and faster than it would otherwise be.

Well, in the scientific community, the debate most certainly is over. I'm pretty certain that the people 'shouting down' those who don't believe in global warming don't cite Al Gore as their reasonings. I believe they cite the works of the entirety of the scientific community (a respectable community, certainly). One that has worked on global warming for decades and published thousands of peer-reviewed, statistical journals on it. So, perhaps the reason they are shouted down is because some people won't tolerate unreasonable and self-enforced ignorance.

Let's pretend there is any merit whatsoever to your argument: I - err - sorry, there isn't any.

Noone ever said that global climate change was purely a process caused by humans. If they did, please point it out somewhere so we may all ridicule them.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html

Just a few sources here, and unlike your link, none of these are blogs.

Don't knock Gore too much... he's just a figurehead, after all (and, to be frank, I'd have much preferred having someone a little more... charismatic to (re)deliver the message, but beggars can't be choosers, I guess). For all intents and purposes - as was mentioned earlier in the thread with references to the thousands of studies that have borne it out- the debate is over.

I don't think I've ever read a creditable source even attempt to claim that our current global warming is entirely man-made. The evidence for periodic, almost cyclic trends in temperature change - linked to changes in atmospheric composition - is pretty overwhelming. This evidence is also used as supporting evidence for the impact that mankind is having.

It hardly seems to be a cause for celebration on the part of the sceptics to discover that other atmospheres experience the same effects. If anything, it looks to me to further confirm that the theories on how changes in atmospheres have direct impact on planetary temperatures are accurate.

DING DING DING!

And the prize for a complete lack of understanding goes straight to Neo Bretonnia!

Okay, look. The arguments about climate change have nothing to do with whether it can be naturally occurring or not, because of course it can be. It, in fact, is. What scientists are saying is not that climate change is CAUSED by human industrialization, but that we are ACCELERATING it extremely so.

Don't forget the consensus of the world's scientists. And Al Gore too of course. But you did leave out all those scientists... I wonder why?

Funny... and here I thought people on NSG placed a High Value on Education.

Yet when, on a high traffic site like this... a forum where the first three/four pages could all have the latest post date of "today", where new people come in monthy, if not daily. there are people here who are expecting others to read each and every thread and each and every post and link within those threads...

How many Republicans/Democrat threads have there been, and will be? How many Creation vs. Evolution threads? How many "We hate GWBush" threads? How many Pros and Cons on Downloading music/books/movies for free? How many Global Climate threads here actually touched upon the example of Mars?

For each of those threads, the same thing is hashed over and over... yet for this particular thread you put up a "This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though."

and it's QTF!

by people who lauded the IMPORTANCE of education, the spreading of knowledge.

So for you KSP and all those who choose to ridicule the poster and not provide your evidence/argument that prove otherwise. I say this. such attitude towards people seeking knowledge won't further education, but hold it back. Present your evidence and argument, argue against those who you feel are honest and earnest in their thoughts, but don't automatically blame the GOP/Government.

at least Link to those Proofs and be done with it.



To Neo Bretonnia. There are differences between Mars and Earth. one is the fact that Earth has, in place, a natural cooling system of plants and animals that help regulate the tempurature. Mars does not. one scientist postulates that winds can cause heat trapping dust storms of emense porportions, add to that the thinner atmosphere filled with heat trapping gasses and you have conditions that raises the planet's climate. What should be alarming is that this is in the same ratio and time as Earth. (as reported in this article by the TimesOnLine (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)) a theory, but a plausible one.

Another point is this. Mars and Earth won't care how 'hot' it gets. but the life on Earth does. How much change could we endure before the number of deaths turn 'catastrophic'?

Fine... here we go, I'll start listing. First I'll list scientific organizations and bodies that "believe" that global warming exists:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
National Science Academies of the G8
U.S. National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
Federal Climate Change Science Program
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
American Chemical Society
American Quarternary Association

The only dissenting organization? The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And even they have said: "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."

We have the organizations, but what about the peer-reviewed journals? Geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes studied 928 abstracts from refereed scientific journals from 1993-2003 with the keywords 'global climate change'. None of the abstracts disagreed. None. Any scientific opinion outside a peer-reviewed scientific journal is almost completely worthless when compared to one in a scientific journal - and the consensus in the scientific journals is total and complete.

And the whole "global cooling" thing? Leaving aside that much less was known about the world's climate and history (they did not recognize the importance of greenhouse gases) - scientists never said that global cooling was imminent or that it was a danger. In the press though, the possibility of global cooling was presented without the evidence in the scientific journals that it was unlikely. It was poorly understood, not many studies were done on it, and even then, in 1974 during the supposed peak of global cooling interest, the National Science Board stated: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . . Consensus didn't exist in the scientific community - work was still going on, debates were still going on. It is part of the scientific process, debating the merits of an idea - but the press doesn't do that. The press does not peer-review or analyze its statements - basically, making them moot in a scientific setting.


Please, read what I wrote. I never advocated shouting down. I only explained why those who were 'shouting down' were actually, as you call it, 'shouting down.' I never said I agree or disagree with it. Frankly, I disagree with it - stifling debate is one of the most terrible things to do - reason must always prevail over stubbornness and unwillingness to cooperate.

Here's, in consecutive order all the posts you've dodged the point on or refused to address completely:

Are you out of your mind?

I mean seriously... have you not yet had your morning coffee?

1)I DID respond to a couple of those, and before your post. What's your excuse for not noticing that?

2)Some of them I addressed in a blanket response this morning.

3)Many of those were posted late yesterday or way early this morning.

What's your problem? You have some kind of personal issue with me?

Now you want to villanize me for not responding to every single post even when many of them are homogenous and can be summed up in a blanket statement? I don't know about you but I don't spend my every waking moment posing on NSG.

Why can't you just address the issue directly? Do you agree or disagree that global warming has become politicized and alarmist? Quit tossing out fallacious strawman crap and address the issue.

(Tip: if you're quick, maybe you can edit your post to leave out the ones that I replied DIRECTLY to so that you don't look like such a zealot.)

As I observe the various arguments on Global Warming on Earth, I often wonder why people take such a dogmatic approach. If people suggest that Earth's climate change could be the result of anything but natural phenomena, they get shouted down for daring to dispute the awesome wisdom of such proponents as Al Gore. What ever happened to open dialogue? Oh, wait... I've asked that question before and have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the debate is OVER.

And yet we can observe climate changes on a planet where there is no human industry.

...or maybe they'll just blame it on the rovers.

Link (http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html)

Here's your original post, you're blithely ignoring the fact that no one believes global climate change is an entirely man made issue and attacking a position no one actually takes. Bravo. Straw men abound in your posts in this thread.


So the subject is open for discussion, as opposed to this kind of silly dismissal:
Dodged the point completely.
See, right there you're doing an excellent job of proving my point for me.

Thank you for that.

All I'm saying is that the subject is still up for debate. You've already gone and made a set of assumptions that aren't even remotely indicated and yet you accuse ME of irrationality. GOP? I'm not even a Republican.

Or are you suggesting that Mars is now part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy?"
Dodged the point completely.


Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe the debate is over in scientific communities? Is your head truly so far buried in the sand?

Worked on Global Warming for decades... heh. more like "reworked" it. These same people were clamoring about a coming ice age 30 years ago.

And then you advocate shouting down. Nice. This, to you, is reasonable discourse? Playing the victim, ignoring the point.

I appreciate it.

Actually my use of Mars as an example was a bit tongue-in-cheeck as it appliest to a comparison between the two planets.

Incidentally, there's another factor to be considered if we ARE going to compare the two planets: Solar energy. Solar flares and temperature variations have been shown to have a significant impact on Earth's mean temperature (moreso than human activity, mind.) and it's reasonable to expect an effect on Martian climate at about the same time. What would be interesting is to compare the data and see how it differs over the same span of time and study those differences. Let me see, no sources, again ignoring human activity.

I respect the fact that unlike most people, you actually introduced some facts. Thanks. On the other hand, it's not directly applicable because nobody's saying that there's -no- Global Warming. On that, we agree. What's up for discussion is the cause.




True. And while we've learend a lot more about climate and meteorology in the meantime, there's still a LOT we don't know and are learning. That's a good thing.

The problem is that climate issues have become MUCH more politicized since then. Instead of acknowledging that there's still a lot to be learned, people who shout down thsoe who dispute the sources of global warming have to sort of create a paradigm where their facts are inviolable and 100% reliable, which isn't reasonable given the level of uncertainty in our understanding.



Alright fair enough. The way it was phrased came across to me as an implicit endorsement. A lot of people have introduced facts, that you ignore them doesn't mean they were not offered up. You're conveniently ignoring them and claiming no one has proven a cause. That's slippery of you, it's difficult or impossible to "Prove" anything on that scale and complexity. Instead scientists check the data against theories and find the most plausible. Know what, they've been consistently wrong. The planet is getting hotter faster than they predict every time.


Feel free to continue playing the victim because myself and others are calling you on your bullshit. You're not arguing the point, you're just worming your way around it and hoping no one will notice. Go ahead and cry foul and maybe no one will notice the weakness of your argument.

I bet that man contributes to global warming. Honestly, all I care about is making sure that we can correct global warming or global cooling trends for the best interest of life on Earth. We cannot allow nature to give us global warming if this would have a bad impact on nature. We cannot allow nature to give us global cooling if this would have a bad impact on nature. We as a planet need to take steps to regulate climate in our best interest and in the best interest of current species of wildlife.

I bet that man contributes to global warming. Honestly, all I care about is making sure that we can correct global warming or global cooling trends for the best interest of life on Earth. We cannot allow nature to give us global warming if this would have a bad impact on nature. We cannot allow nature to give us global cooling if this would have a bad impact on nature. We as a planet need to take steps to regulate climate in our best interest and in the best interest of current species of wildlife.

You make my brain tingle. :)

Here's your original post, you're blithely ignoring the fact that no one believes global climate change is an entirely man made issue and attacking a position no one actually takes. Bravo. Straw men abound in your posts in this thread.



Dodged the point completely.

Dodged the point completely.


Playing the victim, ignoring the point.

Let me see, no sources, again ignoring human activity.

A lot of people have introduced facts, that you ignore them doesn't mean they were not offered up. You're conveniently ignoring them and claiming no one has proven a cause. That's slippery of you, it's difficult or impossible to "Prove" anything on that scale and complexity. Instead scientists check the data against theories and find the most plausible. Know what, they've been consistently wrong. The planet is getting hotter faster than they predict every time.


Feel free to continue playing the victim because myself and others are calling you on your bullshit. You're not arguing the point, you're just worming your way around it and hoping no one will notice. Go ahead and cry foul and maybe no one will notice the weakness of your argument.

Just.. wow.

Do you even know what my argument IS?

(I suspect not.)

Edit: I also noticed you haven't directly responded to my challenges to you *cough* HYPOCRITE *cough*

Your problem is that you expect me to argue what YOU want me to argue, which isn't the point of the thread. If I start a thread arguing that satin sheets are more comfy than flannel ones, I'm not going to go into a sidetrack about how expensive satin is. You're just mad because I won't do that here.

You piss and moan that I'm not reacting to arguments about the veracity of man-made global warming. So what? If I want to argue global warming directly I can go find any of a half dozen threads on NSG at any given moment. My point here was (restating it again for you) that people are trying to stamp out the discussion rather than hold open discourse, and you're doing exactly that right now by trying to take me to task for not defending a point that I HAVE NOT MADE IN THIS THREAD.

I mean, for god's sake you even took my comments about how interesting it would be to compare the effects of solar activity on Mars vs. Earth which wan't an argument for or against Global Warming in ANY WAY, and tried to somehow use them as an example of me arguing against human effects of global warming???

Are you so obtuse that you can't follow a conversation for its substance?

And then you have the temerity to accuse ME of ignoring people's meanings?

Seriously... I'm not going to respond to your baiting and trolling any further. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to the thread then I welcome it, but this sort of misdirecting crap isn't amusing.

I bet that man contributes to global warming. Honestly, all I care about is making sure that we can correct global warming or global cooling trends for the best interest of life on Earth. We cannot allow nature to give us global warming if this would have a bad impact on nature. We cannot allow nature to give us global cooling if this would have a bad impact on nature. We as a planet need to take steps to regulate climate in our best interest and in the best interest of current species of wildlife.

The thing is, I'm not sure we're in a position to allow or disallow anything when it comes to nature on that scale. All of the carbon emissions from all of human activity over the last 200 years is still only a fraction of what gets spit out of one good volcanic eruption.

If the planet as a whole is getting warm or cool, all we can do is adapt to it as best we can.

The thing is, I'm not sure we're in a position to allow or disallow anything when it comes to nature on that scale. All of the carbon emissions from all of human activity over the last 200 years is still only a fraction of what gets spit out of one good volcanic eruption.

If the planet as a whole is getting warm or cool, all we can do is adapt to it as best we can.


The two things that I have great faith in are capitalism and human innovation. I think that if the UN enacted a cost plus policy to encourage coming up with some sort of a sollution to this problem, that we could do it within a lifetime.
I think that we can come up with a way to increase or decrease ozone levels somehow. We just do not have the technology yet. If somebody can make a buck by doing it (which is where UN funding comes in) I think that we can come up with the technology to do this. By the way I am not a scientist so I am only guessing that ozone level manipulation is the chemical way to solve this problem.

The thing is, I'm not sure we're in a position to allow or disallow anything when it comes to nature on that scale. All of the carbon emissions from all of human activity over the last 200 years is still only a fraction of what gets spit out of one good volcanic eruption.


Wrong. In a single year, volcanoes emit 10 billion tons of CO2. In a single year, man-made processes emit 110 billion tons of CO2. That's 11 times the amount of all volcanic eruptions, across the earth, in a single year. Even a large scale eruption would have difficulty reaching the 100 billion tons needed to overtake man-made emission levels.

The two things that I have great faith in are capitalism and human innovation. I think that if the UN enacted a cost plus policy to encourage coming up with some sort of a sollution to this problem, that we could do it within a lifetime.
I think that we can come up with a way to increase or decrease ozone levels somehow. We just do not have the technology yet. If somebody can make a buck by doing it (which is where UN funding comes in) I think that we can come up with the technology to do this. By the way I am not a scientist so I am only guessing that ozone level manipulation is the chemical way to solve this problem.

I guess my thinking is, if somehow, we found a way either through technology or though sheer brute force, to actually change planetary climate withing a lifetime, I'd be afraid they wouldn't get the proportions right and kick it over too far... like if somehow they found a way to reduce planetary mean surface temperature, they'd go too far by mistake and send us into an ice age.

It's what we don't know that'll get us, and when it comes to climate and the factors that govern it, that's a LOT.

The thing is, I'm not sure we're in a position to allow or disallow anything when it comes to nature on that scale. All of the carbon emissions from all of human activity over the last 200 years is still only a fraction of what gets spit out of one good volcanic eruption.

Where did you get that idea from?

http://www.planktos.com/educational/images/CO2.gif

If that was true, we should expect CO2 levels to go up in jerks, rather than the relatively steady pace you see here. Notice where it does start to go up in suddenly?

Wrong. In a single year, volcanoes emit 10 billion tons of CO2. In a single year, man-made processes emit 110 billion tons of CO2. That's 11 times the amount of all volcanic eruptions, across the earth, in a single year. Even a large scale eruption would have difficulty reaching the 100 billion tons needed to overtake man-made emission levels.

I'm afraid I must differ. The 10 billion figure for volcanic emmissions is low.

Larger eruptions, like Pinatubo alone emitted 14-26 billion tons.

Article on volcanic effects on planetary temperatures (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_2000e.htm)

That's volcanoes. Now for human emmissions:

This is from the Earth Policy Institute (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator5.htm) indicating only about 6.5 billion tons yearly.

Now, since the two figures come from very different sources it may not be very useful to compare them, but the point is that this is yet another reason why the debate must be allowed to continue. Different conclusions reached by different methods means that clearly there is much work to be done and discussion to be had.

Where did you get that idea from?

http://www.planktos.com/educational/images/CO2.gif

If that was true, we should expect CO2 levels to go up in jerks, rather than the relatively steady pace you see here. Notice where it does start to go up in suddenly?

What's the source?

What's the source?

Here (http://www.planktos.com/educational/carbon.htm)

I'm afraid I must differ. The 10 billion figure for volcanic emmissions is low.

Larger eruptions, like Pinatubo alone emitted 14-26 billion tons.

Article on volcanic effects on planetary temperatures (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_2000e.htm)

That's volcanoes. Now for human emmissions:

This is from the Earth Policy Institute (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator5.htm) indicating only about 6.5 billion tons yearly.

Now, since the two figures come from very different sources it may not be very useful to compare them, but the point is that this is yet another reason why the debate must be allowed to continue. Different conclusions reached by different methods means that clearly there is much work to be done and discussion to be had.

It appears I made a flub up in my information... a serious flub up. God damn, now I need to figure out where I got those numbers from. Because I know they are wrong.

I'm afraid I must differ. The 10 billion figure for volcanic emmissions is low.

Larger eruptions, like Pinatubo alone emitted 14-26 billion tons.

Article on volcanic effects on planetary temperatures (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_2000e.htm)

That's volcanoes. Now for human emmissions:

This is from the Earth Policy Institute (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator5.htm) indicating only about 6.5 billion tons yearly.

Now, since the two figures come from very different sources it may not be very useful to compare them, but the point is that this is yet another reason why the debate must be allowed to continue. Different conclusions reached by different methods means that clearly there is much work to be done and discussion to be had.

Pinatubo was a once in a century occurrence.

Besides, what you need to remember is that the Earth can remove a certain amount of CO2 from the atmosphere each year through plant respiration, dissolving it, etc. What really matters is how much CO2 is left over which the Earth can't absorb and which stays in the atmosphere. Even if human emissions were insignificant compared to volcanic emissions, they would still be dangerous because they'd through off the natural balance.

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html)

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times. (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html)

I saw that one too, but see what I mean? All these values disagree with each other and thus, the subject is far from settled.

That's all I'm sayin'

I think the Russians have expressed doubts in the past (or rather, Putin has). Figures, really.

Get outside the western world (US, Canada, Ozz and some parts of Europe) and ask the average person on the street if global warming is happening. I think some here would die from shock.

I guess my thinking is, if somehow, we found a way either through technology or though sheer brute force, to actually change planetary climate withing a lifetime, I'd be afraid they wouldn't get the proportions right and kick it over too far... like if somehow they found a way to reduce planetary mean surface temperature, they'd go too far by mistake and send us into an ice age.

It's what we don't know that'll get us, and when it comes to climate and the factors that govern it, that's a LOT.

This is a very good point. There are risks and there is a lot at stake. However, I do not think that this is an excuse not to try something and see if we can come up with a backup plan in case things go wrong. The reason that I like my idea of adding ozone or subtracting ozone as needed is that if you add too much ozone you can remove some. Again I am no scientist.

My house is burning down. Ostensibly because I poured some gasoline in the living room and lit a match.

But, a house in India is also burning down, obviously for different reasons since I wasn't there.

Therefore, I did not burn my house down.

Therefore, you've missed the point :)

My house is burning down. Ostensibly because I poured some gasoline in the living room and lit a match.

But, a house in India is also burning down, obviously for different reasons since I wasn't there.

Therefore, I did not burn my house down.

I saw that one too, but see what I mean? All these values disagree with each other and thus, the subject is far from settled.

That's all I'm sayin'

The experts (who presumably have access to far more data than you or I) consider it to be settled.

I just finished reading your sources and not only do they fail to back up what you're saying, they actually contradict it. The volcano released 14-26 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide, not carbon dioxide. Sulphur dioxide isn't good for the enviroment (it causes acid rain), but in terms of global temperature it actually counter-acts global warming, to quote your source:

A massive volcanic eruption can blast huge clouds of ash and gases into the atmosphere. Millions of tonnes of sulfur dioxide gas may reach the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere). There, the sulfur dioxide transforms into tiny particles of sulfuric acid, known as aerosol. The particles reflect energy from the sun back into space, preventing some of the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

It later concludes that:

Volcanoes are also sources of water vapour and carbon dioxide, but their contribution to the global budgets of greenhouse gases is very small. On the time-scale of decades to centuries, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanic sources cause negligible climate change.

However, volcanic emissions of gases such as sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen fluoride are important compared to human-induced sources. These gases have effects on climate (cooling), on stratospheric ozone and possibly on global cloudiness.

So yeah, the subject is more than settled. It's time to stop talking about climate change and start acting to stop it.

My house is burning down. Ostensibly because I poured some gasoline in the living room and lit a match.

But, a house in India is also burning down, obviously for different reasons since I wasn't there.

Therefore, I did not burn my house down.

The point is that sometimes houses get hot and burn. It wasn't your fault.

Funny... and here I thought people on NSG placed a High Value on Education.

Yet when, on a high traffic site like this... a forum where the first three/four pages could all have the latest post date of "today", where new people come in monthy, if not daily. there are people here who are expecting others to read each and every thread and each and every post and link within those threads...

How many Republicans/Democrat threads have there been, and will be? How many Creation vs. Evolution threads? How many "We hate GWBush" threads? How many Pros and Cons on Downloading music/books/movies for free? How many Global Climate threads here actually touched upon the example of Mars?

For each of those threads, the same thing is hashed over and over... yet for this particular thread you put up a "This "Global Warming on Mars" thing has been around for forever, and it was discounted when it happened. I'm not gonna dig up links you aren't gonna read, though."

and it's QTF!

by people who lauded the IMPORTANCE of education, the spreading of knowledge.

So for you KSP and all those who choose to ridicule the poster and not provide your evidence/argument that prove otherwise. I say this. such attitude towards people seeking knowledge won't further education, but hold it back. Present your evidence and argument, argue against those who you feel are honest and earnest in their thoughts, but don't automatically blame the GOP/Government.

at least Link to those Proofs and be done with it.


You're a better and more patient man than I. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes it simply isn't worth the effort to run your head into a wall. It seems that for every hypothetical lurker I might be convincing, ten more head-in-the-sanders will appear. I dunno about you, but I'm working on pushing the overton window, rather than working on the individual facts. Both have their place in debate.

The point is that sometimes houses get hot and burn. It wasn't your fault.

The baby has a 104 degree fever. My next-door neighbor's dog also had a 104 degree fever. Therefore, the medicine the doctor prescribed to my baby is unnecessary.

Sure, sometimes things get hot and burn, but are you gonna kill you kid because it just happens sometimes?

You're a better and more patient man than I. I've come to the conclusion that sometimes it simply isn't worth the effort to run your head into a wall. It seems that for every hypothetical lurker I might be convincing, ten more head-in-the-sanders will appear. I dunno about you, but I'm working on pushing the overton window, rather than working on the individual facts. Both have their place in debate.

I pretty much gave up seriously arguing about Climate Change once I sensed that America, at least in it's rhetoric, is finally on board with most of the rest of the world. Do I think the American Gov't is doing anything it could be doing or has actually committed to anything? No. But at least Bush has finally admitted that there is a climate and that scientists have made some statements about that and that something, somewhere at some time should probably be done with "technologies". Which is pretty much all I got from Bush in recent months. But hopefully, like when he gently implied that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, this kind of gentle rhetoric will slowly seep into thick minded individuals over whether Climate Change is happening or not and that man has a large role in that change.

The baby has a 104 degree fever. My next-door neighbor's dog also had a 104 degree fever. Therefore, the medicine the doctor prescribed to my baby is unnecessary.

Sure, sometimes things get hot and burn, but are you gonna kill you kid because it just happens sometimes?

Um... we're talking about PLANETS. I mean, my house.



Just give me the insurance money...

My house is burning down. Ostensibly because I poured some gasoline in the living room and lit a match.

But, a house in India is also burning down, obviously for different reasons since I wasn't there.

Therefore, I did not burn my house down.wow. :)