PDA

View Full Version : How does global warming cause all this cold weather?



s.fox
February 17th, 2009, 07:02 PM
Hi,

This came up the other day in a discussion with a friend. How does global warming cause snow (as is spouted out on news channels) ? I thought it meant things get hotter, not colder. Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) has been totally useless in answering this question. Its just too complicated to follow.

Can anybody either :-

1) explain simply how this works

or

2) take a look at this (http://jeffmcintirestrasburg.greenoptions.com/2007/04/12/green-myth-busting-global-warming-and-cold-weather/). It seems to suggest that its probably climate change and not global warming after all.

Many thanks.

-Ash R

issih
February 17th, 2009, 07:35 PM
Couple of things are relevant here. Firstly global warming means what it says, the global average temperature is increasing, this doesn't necessarily mean that the temperatures at all places around the globe increase at all times, merely that the average does.

The expected outcome of global warming is an increase in "extreme" weather events, flooding, heatwaves, hurricanes, snow, you name it we can expect more of it. A simple explanation is that the increase in temperature means that there is more energy in the atmosphere (not to mention more water vapour) and consequently more weather fronts, moving more rapidly and erratically, causing more chaotic weather events.

That is a basic reasoning why things will get more unpredictable. There are also areas of the globe where things are potentially going to get a lot colder. For example, if the gulf stream (basically a jet of warm water that consistently flows from warm equatorial areas of the Atlantic roughly towards Great Britain) is disrupted, which could happen if prevailing weather patterns are disrupted, then Britain can expect to get a lot more cold weather, as without the warming effects of the gulf stream we can expect weather more akin to the Scandinavian countries at a similar latitude on the earth's surface.

Just because its called global warming, you can't assume its that simple, the honest truth is nobody really knows exactly what will happen.

Hope that helps

s.fox
February 17th, 2009, 07:39 PM
Thanks. That makes a lot more sense than the stuff I have been reading online. Thanks for that, really helps understanding.

Please consider this thread "SOLVED"

cmat
February 17th, 2009, 07:45 PM
Climate Change is a better name for it.

SunnyRabbiera
February 17th, 2009, 07:46 PM
I personally refer to it as "global climate change" to avoid the confusion.
Global warming doesnt mean everything willv just get hotter, heck there might be snowstorms in the sahara soon if our climate keeps changing.

Npl
February 17th, 2009, 08:22 PM
the global climate is changing... the climate was stable for a long time, with the poles - and in some regions glaciers - packing alot of ice.

The climate change is melting those 1000`s of years old reserves, which should be noticable by anyone with common sense. Once they are gone, we might see a new stable climate and I dont think it could be anything else but a warmer one.

Our global climate is a big system and you cant change it easily, if its changing however it wont be abrupt but a long process until its a stable one again. Ice/Vegetation is a natural buffer against a warmer/desertlike climate, the first buffer is melting and we are working hard to deforest the later.

BGFG
February 17th, 2009, 09:35 PM
A big part of global warming is the polar ice caps and ocean currents. the worlds climate depends to a large extent on warm ocean currents distributing heat around the planet. with the ice caps melting there is a lot more cold fresh water in the oceans affecting the planets heat distribution and in turn the water cycle.

I'm in the caribbean and late december to early may is usually the 'dry season' no rain for weeks at a time. So far for this year there has not been one dry day.

jespdj
February 17th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Note also that climate is not the same as weather.

Cope57
February 17th, 2009, 10:15 PM
Assertion that solar irradiance is causing global warming on Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Assertion_that_solar_irradiance_is _causing_global_warming_on_Mars)

Solar variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)

The sun is getting warmer, we may eventually burn up in five hundred, to two hundred thousand years, who knows?

Paqman
February 17th, 2009, 11:21 PM
Short version: the atmosphere is a machine powered by heat. More heat = more weather.

Philitas
February 17th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Assertion that solar irradiance is causing global warming on Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Assertion_that_solar_irradiance_is _causing_global_warming_on_Mars)

Solar variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)

The sun is getting warmer, we may eventually burn up in five hundred, to two hundred thousand years, who knows?

I was on the impression we had on the order of 5 billion years to go with our sun before we have to worry too much.

HermanAB
February 17th, 2009, 11:54 PM
In reality, people will spout off about anything that someone is willing to pay them a research grant for and 'global warming' was a neat change after the 'global cooling' of the 1970s.

Paqman
February 18th, 2009, 01:47 AM
In reality, people will spout off about anything that someone is willing to pay them a research grant for and 'global warming' was a neat change after the 'global cooling' of the 1970s.

Right, so you think researchers can just produce any kind of worthless output, and someone will just keep throwing money at them? Sounds like the easiest job in the world! I wonder why they bother with all those years of training?

DrHackenbush
February 18th, 2009, 03:48 AM
Lol - man-made global warming. May as well ask how Santa Claus and/or the tooth fairy cause it. Does anyone seriously still believe in this?

handy
February 18th, 2009, 04:16 AM
I call it global warming induced climate change.

& like everyone else I hope it is a fabrication, a high level conspiracy, because if it is not, boy are we in trouble, to the possible point of near extinction.

Due to that possibility, I think the smartest move is for humanity to at least pretend that such a miserable future is likely & act accordingly now.

What do we have to loose?

We get a cleaner more energy efficient industrial base, with all of the environmental benefits that go with it.

For anyone truly interested in the subject, there is a month of reading matter available on the internet.

click4851
February 18th, 2009, 05:24 AM
that sounds like Pascal's Wager....does that mean I we will see I whole lotta religious converts? Besides as to global climate change, or as I call it global highway robbery, just remember....change over time. Recorded history only goes back so far, our measuring covers a tiny portion of time so far....very tiny.

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 05:36 AM
It's interesting to me that "Global Warming" didn't exist until a bunch of money was pumped into its research (like a previous poster said), and I also think it's interesting that the world's foremost proponent and advocate of Global Warming, Al Gore, has a home with an absurd amount of consumption of all the necessary resources he basically defines as a "carbon footprint".

The whole thing is a politically-inspired fiction and is hypocritical. It's also disheartening because it's literally destroying the credibility that much of the scientific community has, and so as they present things which actually are legitimate, fewer people will listen to them, having been stung once already.

Can anyone answer the question "What is Earth's ideal temperature?" Because, if you can't answer that, you really can't answer if it's getting too hot or too cold.

Besides, there are tons and tons of natural records from long before mankind knew how to make fire -- let alone went through the industrial revolution -- which show warming and cooling to be cyclical in nature. We know through direct observation and scientific/mathematical calculations that Earth's orbit is oblate in nature, and we have perigees and apogees as part of each orbit as well as in terms of orbital averages.

I'm not really sure why people are so upset over this. People want to say "Well, the polar ice caps are melting and so the sea level is rising." Big whoop. There's more of us alive at a time on this planet. Don't'cha think we could use the extra water? How about putting it to use and bringing water to the desert and other places which can use it? Anyone remember this past year's drought in many mid-western states, such as Georgia? Wouldn't having extra water reserves have been useful?

I say, if we need water and we have the water, then let's be actively engaged in solving the problem, not actively engaged in bemoaning it.

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 06:41 AM
It's interesting to me that "Global Warming" didn't exist until a bunch of money was pumped into its research (like a previous poster said), and I also think it's interesting that the world's foremost proponent and advocate of Global Warming, Al Gore, has a home with an absurd amount of consumption of all the necessary resources he basically defines as a "carbon footprint".Its also interesting that global warming is very much accepted by science, while the biggest doubters are industrial lobbyist which just care for their immediate returns.


The whole thing is a politically-inspired fiction and is hypocritical. It's also disheartening because it's literally destroying the credibility that much of the scientific community has, and so as they present things which actually are legitimate, fewer people will listen to them, having been stung once already.And you base this on what? Personal beliefs?

Can anyone answer the question "What is Earth's ideal temperature?" Because, if you can't answer that, you really can't answer if it's getting too hot or too cold.Its getting hotter, and while its discussable whats "ideal" (for whom anyway? Companies producing Air Conditioners?) some effects will be an even increased rise in temperature, cities at sealevel (Venezia, some cities in holland) will get flooded, temperature rise will acclerate as ice reflects a good part of the energy.


Besides, there are tons and tons of natural records from long before mankind knew how to make fire -- let alone went through the industrial revolution -- which show warming and cooling to be cyclical in nature. We know through direct observation and scientific/mathematical calculations that Earth's orbit is oblate in nature, and we have perigees and apogees as part of each orbit as well as in terms of orbital averages.While there are lotsa records of the earths temperature, theres little record of global events which couldve caused or atleast influenced them. The parts which show the drastic changes we expierence now far preceed the "industrial revolution" or our species for that matter.
Sure it cant be proven either way that we can influence the global climate, science is observation and models which try to reflect nature. And its assumed as "very likely" that global warming is real and humans atleast are a significant catalyst.

I'm not really sure why people are so upset over this. People want to say "Well, the polar ice caps are melting and so the sea level is rising." Big whoop. There's more of us alive at a time on this planet. Don't'cha think we could use the extra water? How about putting it to use and bringing water to the desert and other places which can use it? Anyone remember this past year's drought in many mid-western states, such as Georgia? Wouldn't having extra water reserves have been useful?you know the icecaps melt into the ocean? Ever taken a sip from it? :shock:
We got enough water to dump earths population into it, the problem is that only a small fraction is drinkable. Higher temperatures aid the spread of algaes and other stuff that pollutes drinkable water.
Its no coincidence that the hot climate zones are the ones where drinkable water is rare, and those are expanding when the global temperature rises.

swoll1980
February 18th, 2009, 06:55 AM
global warming is a global rise in average oceanic temps as a whole on a global scale. It has nothing to do with local weather paterns(although it could?) alot of local weather has to do with apmosheric presure, and the position of the jet stream.

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 07:07 AM
Its also interesting...
I'm not going to try to respond in detail to each point you made in your post. I'm not looking to turn this into a political discussion or a heated argument, either of which would be sufficient cause to lock this thread. Just suffice it to say I don't generally agree with your assertions and leave it at that.

What I will respond to specifically, though, are three things.

1. If it's known that our weather and temperatures fluctuate on regular cycles, then why the hue and cry over man's presence?

2. "Global Warming" is a proper name given to a politically-motivated activist agenda. The fact that Earth's mean temperatures are not a constant and that they rise and fall on a cyclical basis (or at least a regular one) is not in dispute, and never has been.

3. I'm in no way "attacking" you on the following point, specifically, but why does it seem we're so afraid of going the desalinization route for water acquisition? It would solve so many problems it isn't even funny. In fact, any number of communities use this type of system (Pine Island, Florida, comes most immediately to mind).

niko7865
February 18th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Bleh, it's all very complicated. The only thing we can say for certain is that the climate is changing, and that some things will not react well to that. We can't exactly say why it's changing, although we have a good idea that we are responsible after graphing ice-core trends for the past million years or so. Again, it's extremely complicated and we won't be able to have a detailed prediction of what will happen for quite awhile (several years).

Here's a good graph from the University of Hawai'i that shows the abnormal current trends, the extremely sharp jump on the left hand side (the most current data) does not match any of the previous fluctuation trends.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/mggd/images/1_Ice-Core-Trends_1000px.jpg

swoll1980
February 18th, 2009, 07:18 AM
Global warming exist w/o a doubt, and has reacked havac on the earth long before men were even thought of. I think the only ligitament argument would be whether, or not man could speed up the process.

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 07:25 AM
1. If it's known that our weather and temperatures fluctuate on regular cycles, then why the hue and cry over man's presence?Well no problem, the earth can deal with it. We might suffer alot, we werent around the last time of a "high" either.

2. "Global Warming" is a proper name given to a politically-motivated activist agenda. The fact that Earth's mean temperatures are not a constant and that they rise and fall on a cyclical basis (or at least a regular one) is not in dispute, and never has been.The reasons why the big climate changes appeared is disputed and external influences like meteorites or catastrophes like huge vulcanic eruptions cant be excluded. The variation of earths orbit is measured in 100.000s of years. And again, theres science on one side making a stance for "global warming" and the industrial-thus-political side of calling it FUD.
3. I'm in no way "attacking" you on the following point, specifically, but why does it seem we're so afraid of going the desalinization route for water acquisition? It would solve so many problems it isn't even funny. In fact, any number of communities use this type of system (Pine Island, Florida, comes most immediately to mind).noone is afraid to use it, but its infeasible to do on a large scale. Aslong you still flush the toilet with drinkable water you dont have problems.
Either way your argument is bunk as we already have way more (ocean or polluted) water than we could ever use.

Generally I think you`re making it yourself far to easy to say "Globa Warming" cant be proved so the opposite must be true and is proven

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 07:34 AM
Either way your argument is bunk as we already have way more (ocean or polluted) water than we could ever use.
No, actually, it's not. Most cities don't use desalinization, and even of those who could make practical use (say, all the coastal areas) do not do so. We're all dependent on aquifers, many of which cannot sustain the population growth they're seeing. It's a stupid and retarded strategy. It's something which has been known from time to time to cause sinkholes, and even if no sinkhole ever happened (thus the threat to life and property was mitigated) the aquifers are not being replenished fast enough, so we'll simply run out of water at some point.

All aquifers are, fundamentally, supplied by the oceans, whether as a result of direct waterflows into other bodies which then filter through the soils, or through waterfall from rain, which also gets absorbed, or through some other means. It's obvious we're in no real danger of exhausting our oceans, so my point is that we should be directly tapping them. Why wait?

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 07:40 AM
No, actually, it's not. Most cities don't use desalinization, and even of those who could make practical use (say, all the coastal areas) do not do so. We're all dependent on aquifers, many of which cannot sustain the population growth they're seeing. It's a stupid and retarded strategy. It's something which has been known from time to time to cause sinkholes, and even if no sinkhole ever happened (thus the threat to life and property was mitigated) the aquifers are not being replenished fast enough, so we'll simply run out of water at some point.

All aquifers are, fundamentally, supplied by the oceans, whether as a result of direct waterflows into other bodies which then filter through the soils, or through waterfall from rain, which also gets absorbed, or through some other means. It's obvious we're in no real danger of exhausting our oceans, so my point is that we should be directly tapping them. Why wait?Err I meant we have already enough water for desalination, wether the icecaps melt or not, so the amount of water is not the problem.

Which was your point before:
I'm not really sure why people are so upset over this. People want to say "Well, the polar ice caps are melting and so the sea level is rising." Big whoop. There's more of us alive at a time on this planet. Don't'cha think we could use the extra water?

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 07:46 AM
Generally I think you`re making it yourself far to easy to say "Globa Warming" cant be proved so the opposite must be true and is proven
Sorry, didn't see this initially.

Well, since you insist on using that term, then I'm going to continue to basically say the same thing: it's political chicanery at its finest. It's nothing more than that, and it's not ever going to be any more than that, and scientists who hang their hats on it do so to their own detriment.

On the one hand, you seem to agree with me (as more or less does everyone else) that the exact causes of "Global Warming" can't really be proven. But then, you folks all say, in effect, "But let's go ahead and blame mankind anyhow." I really don't understand how you don't see the obvious fallacy of such a viewpoint.

It's like, when you're kids, and you're in school and one of you does something with the teacher's back turned, and so then the teacher, not knowing who actually "did it", engages in group punishment instead. You're all going to be punished because you're all considered guilty, even though only one of you is and the rest are innocent. Now, there's a difference between teaching discipline in a classroom (which generally is what this sort of example is a representation of) and engaging in punitive behaviors against an undeserving humanity. The scales do not balance, they do not equal.

The climate is changing. We all know it. But change is a constant. We all also know that based on many different learning experiences we have as individuals over the course of our lives. So why is this treated as some kind of exception?

Again, I could go further with this, but I'm not going to simply because it turns into a purely political discussion from this point on, and (we're all supposed to be grown boys and girls here, folks) that's not allowed on UF, for reasons which are obvious enough not to require repeating here.

HermanAB
February 18th, 2009, 07:48 AM
Here, fresh from 1977, Scheider's book on Global Cooling: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Strategy-Stephen-Schneider/dp/0306309041

He is now a Global Warming activist. At least he is in good company, with another well known flip-flop, David Suzuki.

Here is a real scientists on this problem:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Oh, well, I guess I'm giving my age away, being able to remember the Global Cooling craze. The present hullabaloo is just a sign change from minus to plus.

Cheers,

Herman

sofasurfer
February 18th, 2009, 07:58 AM
They say that there are thousands of scientist around the world who say that global climate change is natural and not man made. Many say that governments are cutting of funds to scientists who reject the man-made global warming theory. The second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009 is a site to watch...
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html. They say that this year, for the first time, there will be many scientists gathered together join the cause, who disagree with man-made warming. It will be interesting.

Another informative site...
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

My opinion is that the whole man-made warming theory is a tool to justify creation of global laws to control all aspects of activity that occur within our atmosphere. And this in turn will contribute to the process of catologing and tracking every item that exists on the surface of the planet.

Notice that every company is now registered with the ISO (International Standards Organization) or similar organizations. This is to standardize to processes that occur in every place of employment, world-wide, for starters.

Combine this with the ultimate goals for RFID chips...
http://www.spychips.com/
They are already inserting these chips into I.D. bracelets in select pediatric hostitals as a testing program which will soon lead to them being INJECTED into babies. They are also in the process of being incorporated into EVERY manufactured item.

And the conspiracy continues against mankind. Or should I say citizenkind?

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 08:02 AM
Sorry, didn't see this initially.

Well, since you insist on using that term, then I'm going to continue to basically say the same thing: it's political chicanery at its finest. It's nothing more than that, and it's not ever going to be any more than that, and scientists who hang their hats on it do so to their own detriment.

On the one hand, you seem to agree with me (as more or less does everyone else) that the exact causes of "Global Warming" can't really be proven. But then, you folks all say, in effect, "But let's go ahead and blame mankind anyhow." I really don't understand how you don't see the obvious fallacy of such a viewpoint.

It's like, when you're kids, and you're in school and one of you does something with the teacher's back turned, and so then the teacher, not knowing who actually "did it", engages in group punishment instead. You're all going to be punished because you're all considered guilty, even though only one of you is and the rest are innocent. Now, there's a difference between teaching discipline in a classroom (which generally is what this sort of example is a representation of) and engaging in punitive behaviors against an undeserving humanity. The scales do not balance, they do not equal.

The climate is changing. We all know it. But change is a constant. We all also know that based on many different learning experiences we have as individuals over the course of our lives. So why is this treated as some kind of exception?

Again, I could go further with this, but I'm not going to simply because it turns into a purely political discussion from this point on, and (we're all supposed to be grown boys and girls here, folks) that's not allowed on UF, for reasons which are obvious enough not to require repeating here.I dont expect anything to be proveable, I cant prove I`m not hit by the next car if I step outside... yet I still do it.
I just consider it unlikely and I take the risk, even if I could be wrong.
If you boil things down to whats strictly proveable, then theres no science at all (not even maths), its about theories and models.

Looking at the observations regarding "Global Warming", its more likely to be true than its not, even if you cant prove it either way.
Looking at the effects its better to try to fight it, even if it might be in vain... money`s not worth a damn if your place gets unhabitable.
So what if you spend money on new technologies for more efficient and cleaner production, making better use of the resources we have, and granting new opportunities for jobs and research ?

swoll1980
February 18th, 2009, 08:03 AM
They are already inserting these chips into I.D. bracelets in select pediatric hostitals as a testing program which will soon lead to them being INJECTED into babies. They are also in the process of being incorporated into EVERY manufactured item.

And the conspiracy continues against mankind. Or should I say citizenkind?

In the US they can't put anything in your body with out your consent, or if your a babie your parents consent, unless your involved in a legal issue, and there's a court order.

swoll1980
February 18th, 2009, 08:14 AM
I dont expect anything to be proveable, I cant prove I`m not hit by the next car if I step outside... yet I still do it.
I just consider it unlikely and I take the risk, even if I could be wrong.
If you boil things down to whats strictly proveable, then theres no science at all (not even maths), its about theories and models.

Looking at the observations regarding "Global Warming", its more likely to be true than its not, even if you cant prove it either way.
Looking at the effects its better to try to fight it, even if it might be in vain... money`s not worth a damn if your place gets unhabitable.
So what if you spend money on new technologies for more efficient and cleaner production, making better use of the resources we have, and granting new opportunities for jobs and research ?

Science is based on things that are testable and proven to be acurate. Most forms of mathmatics fall into this catagory(1+1=2 every time I try it it's the same). Imagine if we used the "unless you can disprove it method" I can't prove that my toaster doesn't hit on my microwave when it knows there's no one watching, so I would have to keep an open mind, and call it plausable.

sofasurfer
February 18th, 2009, 08:16 AM
In the US they can't put anything in your body with out your consent, or if your a babie your parents consent, unless your involved in a legal issue, and there's a court order.


Your right. And luckily there is nobody in our government who would ever think of passing a law to violate our civil rights.

When diseases run rampant they are not allowed to force your children to get vacines.
A judge could never force a person to get chemically castrated.
The state could never come into your home and take your children.
A person could never be jailed without trail.
Drug companies could never sell a deadly drug as a life saving miracle.
Government could never perform secret experiments on your body without your consent or knowledge.
Doctors could never remove body parts from a healthy person and get away with saying "Woops! It was a mistake"

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 08:21 AM
Science is based on things that are testable and proven to be acurate. Most forms of mathmatics fall into this catagory(1+1=2 every time I try it it's the same). Imagine if we used the "unless you can disprove it method" I can't prove that my toaster doesn't hit on my microwave when it knows there's no one watching, so I would have to keep an open mind, and call it plausable.For example you cant prove that there aint a positive number n so that n+1 = 0. Its merely an assumption ;)

Anyway, dont think I get your point exactly... you are saying basically the same as I did.

swoll1980
February 18th, 2009, 08:25 AM
For example you cant prove that there aint a positive number n so that n+1 = 0. Its merely an assumption ;)

Anyway, dont think I get your point exactly... you are saying basically the same as I did.

So maybe, just maybe, I was agreeing with you. ;)

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 08:31 AM
I dont expect anything to be proveable, I cant prove I`m not hit by the next car if I step outside... yet I still do it.
I just consider it unlikely and I take the risk, even if I could be wrong.
If you boil things down to whats strictly proveable, then theres no science at all (not even maths), its about theories and models.

Looking at the observations regarding "Global Warming", its more likely to be true than its not, even if you cant prove it either way.
Looking at the effects its better to try to fight it, even if it might be in vain... money`s not worth a damn if your place gets unhabitable.
So what if you spend money on new technologies for more efficient and cleaner production, making better use of the resources we have, and granting new opportunities for jobs and research ?

Right, then. So let me see if I've got this right. Nothing's facts, it's all just theories, right? And you just have to accept it kind of on faith, right?

HermanAB
February 18th, 2009, 08:45 AM
Here is a classic. The CO2 vision test:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/

Cheers,

Herman

Npl
February 18th, 2009, 08:46 AM
Right, then. So let me see if I've got this right. Nothing's facts, it's all just theories, right? And you just have to accept it kind of on faith, right?You can argue with reason (which I wouldnt exactly call faith), some theories make more sense than others and/or are backed up with more aggreeing observations. Neither makes it an proveable fact tough.

Assuming the humans cant affect the climate at all requires way more faith than believing the opposite.

Its like Im not gonna bet all my money on "17" on a game of roulette, just because I cant prove I`m not gonna win this and therefore assume the opposite.

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 08:51 AM
You can argue with reason (which I wouldnt exactly call faith), some theories make more sense than others and/or are backed up with more aggreeing observations. Neither makes it an proveable fact tough.

Assuming the humans cant affect the climate at all requires way more faith than believing the opposite.

Right, but some things, by your terms, still have to just be accepted. I mean, unless you're agreeing that there are provable facts.

sofasurfer
February 18th, 2009, 08:54 AM
How true. A lot of what scientists say is not provable. If it was they would lose their funding.

Do you think that given a chioce of telling the truth (or of not having a problem to study) and losing your lively-hood, or making up bizarre problems that require huge sums of money that you would get to keep a large part of, a person or organization would not choose to tell the lie? This is the actual job description of most politicians and CEOs.

PS...
EDIT to earlier post:


VERICHIP INJECTS ITSELF INTO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Company Pushes RFID Implants for Immigrants, Guest Workers
Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has alarmed civil libertarians by promoting the company's subcutaneous human tracking device as a way to identify immigrants and guest workers...

>> read the press release... http://www.spychips.com/press-releases/verichip-immigration.html

MikeTheC
February 18th, 2009, 09:03 AM
VERICHIP INJECTS ITSELF INTO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Company Pushes RFID Implants for Immigrants, Guest Workers
Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has alarmed civil libertarians by promoting the company's subcutaneous human tracking device as a way to identify immigrants and guest workers...

>> read the press release... http://www.spychips.com/press-releases/verichip-immigration.html

Nice...

Civil liberties? Check 'em at the door.

etnlIcarus
February 18th, 2009, 01:31 PM
I love how this thread turned into a platform for other conspiracy theories. Grab your tin-foil hats and jump in your gas guzzlers.

Right, then. So let me see if I've got this right. Nothing's facts, it's all just theories, right? And you just have to accept it kind of on faith, right?Might want to read up on your philosophy of science. All human knowledge is approxamated and the scientific method acknowledges this.

Anyway, I'm going to avoid this debate for the time being. I'll just take solace in the fact that there's really no controvesy outside the US and see where this circus goes.

Paqman
February 18th, 2009, 02:21 PM
just remember....change over time. Recorded history only goes back so far, our measuring covers a tiny portion of time so far....very tiny.

Ice cores from places like Antarctica allow us to directly sample the atmosphere from millions of years ago. Air that was trapped in bubbles in the ice has been locked up down there the whole time.

TravisNewman
February 18th, 2009, 03:33 PM
At the beginning this thread was all about the science but it has become very political in the last half of the thread and therefore goes beyond the scope of the forum.




Religion/Politics threads:
Conversations about religion are disallowed at all times, as are all political discussions that are not directly related to free and open source software concerns.