RE: Are people really that uneducated? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Slavetrainer2007 -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 8:22:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007




What i did was take simple 8th grade science and  linked that knowledge all togather into one grouping. I learned the eco system in 8th grade science. and  how weather is produced later in the same  class.  I learned chemistry in high school. I learned   what produces carbon monoxide from various sources. I learned about space with my own interest in astrology.

I took this knowledge combined it all togather and came up with, on my own  what i stated above. This has nothing to do with the scienctist of the world  or the political agendas. And i hate it when people are so narrow minded to act as sheep or to say your not pulling the wool over my eyes.

My conclusion, just happens to support scientist. Its really not that complicated. Burning fossil fuels releases CO that rises and combines with O3  which  depletes the O3 available.  4 million years ago their werent cars and cave man bob wasnt dumping large amount of CO into the atmosphere. So all that is irrelevant.

The reason i care? I have a 4 month old daughter and i dont want her generation fixing ( or trying to) the ignorance and stubborness of my generation. Like any problem the longer you let it go, the harder it is to fix.

Editted for minor but critical spelling errors


So this is your conclusion...and you think this happens to also support what the scientist think.  Well, either way, is just means that your "theory" fits their "theory".  It is still a theory.  How can you can say this is your conclusion and even state how you arrived at your belief, and then entitle the thread "Are people really that uneducated?"  Do you have some sort of a lock on research?
Well, here's a little more education for you.  I am sure you have an open mind and want to learn everything you can regarding this topic.  Please read:
 
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html 



Nice taken out of context.  Actually  if you look at the OP i made some statements i read as comments  on this issue.  I found alot of comments like that . This is what the title of the thread was referring too.  What i stated in my original post is basic  education you learn in school. Hence why i stated  how i arrived on my own that this theory is indeed  is very probable. I only stated how i came to agree with the scientist given my own knowledge.

The part that bothers me is not whether people think the theory is right or wrong, but what little  and often inaccurate information  they base their opinions on.

In this case for example, someone stated so what if the icecaps melt , we can just populate the poles then and tap resources. I wonder if they are educated enough to realize that  IF all the ice melts the  sea level will go up  which change the coastline  and destroy some ver large cities. OR if they just dont give a fly **** cause it dont concern them in their petty meaningless lives?




Sinergy -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 8:25:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I believe its a fact that scientists dont know whether
Increases in CO2 raises temperature
or
Increases in temperature cause more CO2.

Thats what I heard on the grapevine.

Current phase of global warming started 10 000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age. Heard that on the grapevine too.


Try googling "Carbon Feedback Loop."

You are correct on both accounts.

Sinergy




Slavetrainer2007 -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 8:44:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am far from learned on these matters, but was curious as to what we should do about the carbon monoxide and methane that are naturally spewed into the atmosphere by such things as volcanos and cows?  These sources account for much more of those compounds being produced and put into the "ozone" layer than human sources.


How often does a volcano erupt? Not often. How often do the factories in a major city run how often do cars drive down the road... all the time.

Volcanos  have been erupting  for billions of years since the earth formed. And waste from animals for millions. The ecosytem replaces ozone to counter such depletions, as is the way of mother nature. However if you combine this with the added gases we put in the air  being "civilized" humans the ecosystem cannot  recoup the ozone as fast as its being depleted . Thats why its rather thin in some places.

I believe in global warming, for two reasons:
1)IT can and has been proved time and time again. This is like darwins theory on evolution compared to the bible thumpers belief that "adam and eve" was  made by  god. I have yet for a bible thumper to explain to me where the cave man came from  and his ancestors. Yet darwins theory  seems to prove we evolved over many thousands of years from a primative ape like( or in darwins case apes themselves)  existance to the one now. Furthermore, biblethumpers failed to explain to me  how did those big things we call dinosaurs end up buried in our dirt? I can look at global warming theory  versus no global warming  and i can prove  the climate is changing and the ozone is being depleted at a faster rate than it can be regenerated. I can prove when you put CO  in the same space as O3 they combine and thus you no longer have O2.  I cant prove other theories.
2)I see the climate change happening with my own eyes. I noticed it before i  really took notice to global warming at all. I notice because i work outside in it every single day. snow in april, 60 degrees on christmas, one day im wearing a t shirt the next  coveralls. Tornados all over the place. Not a few here and their like when i was a kid. Lots of tornados.  Storms coming out of nowhere( unstable atmosphere) , etc.  I notice the change because i have to work it in 8-10-12 hours a day.  summers are hotter winters are milder. wildfires and droughts like crazy.  tsumamis, hurricanes, flooding on the east coast drought on the west. ...Im very weather observant. I see the changes. I know from history climate changes like we have experienced even int he last 30 years dont happen in 30 years... not even 100. it takes several hundred years for the climate to change as much as it has in the last 30. Otherwise  nature couldnt adapt and everything would die.


This is more than likely going to be one of those issues where in 100 years global warming activist say i told you so. and  their will  still be those that say , no thats impossible cause  when water evoparates  it goes into space[:D]




TheHeretic -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 9:01:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am far from learned on these matters, but was curious as to what we should do about the carbon monoxide and methane that are naturally spewed into the atmosphere by such things as volcanos and cows?  These sources account for much more of those compounds being produced and put into the "ozone" layer than human sources.


How often does a volcano erupt? Not often. How often do the factories in a major city run how often do cars drive down the road... all the time.

Volcanos  have been erupting  for billions of years since the earth formed. And waste from animals for millions. The ecosytem replaces ozone to counter such depletions, as is the way of mother nature. However if you combine this with the added gases we put in the air  being "civilized" humans the ecosystem cannot  recoup the ozone as fast as its being depleted . Thats why its rather thin in some places.

I believe in global warming, for two reasons:
1)IT can and has been proved time and time again. This is like darwins theory on evolution compared to the bible thumpers belief that "adam and eve" was  made by  god. I have yet for a bible thumper to explain to me where the cave man came from  and his ancestors. Yet darwins theory  seems to prove we evolved over many thousands of years from a primative ape like( or in darwins case apes themselves)  existance to the one now. Furthermore, biblethumpers failed to explain to me  how did those big things we call dinosaurs end up buried in our dirt? I can look at global warming theory  versus no global warming  and i can prove  the climate is changing and the ozone is being depleted at a faster rate than it can be regenerated. I can prove when you put CO  in the same space as O3 they combine and thus you no longer have O2.  I cant prove other theories.
2)I see the climate change happening with my own eyes. I noticed it before i  really took notice to global warming at all. I notice because i work outside in it every single day. snow in april, 60 degrees on christmas, one day im wearing a t shirt the next  coveralls. Tornados all over the place. Not a few here and their like when i was a kid. Lots of tornados.  Storms coming out of nowhere( unstable atmosphere) , etc.  I notice the change because i have to work it in 8-10-12 hours a day.  summers are hotter winters are milder. wildfires and droughts like crazy.  tsumamis, hurricanes, flooding on the east coast drought on the west. ...Im very weather observant. I see the changes. I know from history climate changes like we have experienced even int he last 30 years dont happen in 30 years... not even 100. it takes several hundred years for the climate to change as much as it has in the last 30. Otherwise  nature couldnt adapt and everything would die.


This is more than likely going to be one of those issues where in 100 years global warming activist say i told you so. and  their will  still be those that say , no thats impossible cause  when water evoparates  it goes into space[:D]



       Okaly-dokaly then.  You have fun with all that.  This set of analogies is right up there with the B-25 comparison (on another thread), and with the same sort of predictable results.

     Not as bad as the guy who told me that the warming on Mars was right in line with the models of solar activity, while the Earth was warming faster, when we don't have one fucking clue what is going on, much less the masses of data required to build an accurate model.

    Never mind geology, take a statistics class and tell me what a data set of 'one' is worth.




Thadius -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 9:07:53 PM)

Evening,

There is most definitely a warming ocurring.  I suppose the arguement as to how drastic the warming is and what is the cause are still in play.  I have read elsewhere about the possibility of the solar activity that has increased along with our slow movement toward the sun as possible contributors.  I do not rule out that we are having some effect, but I will not concede that we are the main cause.  Just seems egotistical to me.

As to the frequency of volcanic eruptions... here is what the geology department of  San Diego State has to say in regards to how many are erupting at any given time.
quote:

  
There are about 550 volanoes on earth that have erupted in historic times. Such volcanoes are considered to be geologically active. In addition, there are an equivalent number of dormant volcanoes that have not erupted in historic time, but have erupted in the past 10,000 years. Both dormat and "active" volcanoes have the potential to erupt again. On any given day, there are about ten volcanoes that are actively erupting.



Just my thoughts on the matter, I do appreciate the different look though.
Thadius

Edited to add:  Many of the folks that are now claiming the end of the world via warming, were also claiming the coming of a catastrophic ice age a couple of decades ago.  Ebbs and flows.  Nature will do with us as she sees fit.




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 9:10:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007


Nice taken out of context.  Actually  if you look at the OP i made some statements i read as comments  on this issue.  I found alot of comments like that . This is what the title of the thread was referring too.  What i stated in my original post is basic  education you learn in school. Hence why i stated  how i arrived on my own that this theory is indeed  is very probable. I only stated how i came to agree with the scientist given my own knowledge.

The part that bothers me is not whether people think the theory is right or wrong, but what little  and often inaccurate information  they base their opinions on.

In this case for example, someone stated so what if the icecaps melt , we can just populate the poles then and tap resources. I wonder if they are educated enough to realize that  IF all the ice melts the  sea level will go up  which change the coastline  and destroy some ver large cities. OR if they just dont give a fly **** cause it dont concern them in their petty meaningless lives?


Actually, I don't feel I did take it out of context since , although you did begin with a few of those "silly" comments by adults on that other "reputable" website. (By the way, on whose authority is the unamed website "reputable"?)  But then you moved away from the three "silly" things you chose to list that people wrote and listed your own facts of "what you know" and the reason you conclude your theory must be correct,  and then asked the question about a lack of education again. 

quote:

This is all pretty common sense. I learned all this in school 10 years ago.

So my questions is are people that uneducated they have no understanding of this?
OR do they just not give a shit cause they will be dead in 40-50-70 years? 


As long as you are aware and will own the fact that this is your "theory" and you are comfortable with your conclusions, your have a right to your "opinion".  A theory remains a theory.  If you choose to move in that direction, do so, by all means.  But don't cast aspersions on other people's education because they do not come to the same conclusion as you do, and they do not support the same "theory" you prefer.  It is one thing to laugh at those who know less and make obvious errors in what they think they know.  If that is entertaining to you and makes you feel better about yourself and your own intelligence, go for it.  I don't think it is the best way to win friends and influence people, but hey...to each his own.   It is quite another to insist that you know what is going to happen, and if people do not agree with you and do something about it, then they are uneducated. 
Did you read the information on the link I provided?  I am giving you some more food for thought, and I don't see you taking another point of view into consideration. 
I agree that it seems people have little upon which they base their "opinions".  What is worse for Me is that they do not even realize it is an "opinion".  I could say that I continue to be amazed at how many people think that this "belief", or "opinion", or "theory" can be offered up as hard and factual science.  It is not hard and factual science. 
Nuf said...




Thadius -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 9:16:09 PM)

Evening Heretic,

It is actually funny that you bring up statistical models.  A friend recently reminded me that even with the best computer aided models, they cannot plot the weather accurately for more than 3-7 days out.  How can they plot a trend such as global warming and not take into account variable daily, weekly, monthly, and annual fluctuations in the future?  It is like having a phone psychic predict the outcome of the Super Bowl 5 years down the road (and that is the easy part, try 100 years out).

I wish you well,
Thadius




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 9:17:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Evening Heretic,

It is actually funny that you bring up statistical models.  A friend recently reminded me that even with the best computer aided models, they cannot plot the weather accurately for more than 3-7 days out.  How can they plot a trend such as global warming and not take into account variable daily, weekly, monthly, and annual fluctuations in the future?  It is like having a phone psychic predict the outcome of the Super Bowl 5 years down the road (and that is the easy part, try 100 years out).

I wish you well,
Thadius


*Smile*  Simple answer:  They can't!




juliaoceania -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 10:29:46 PM)

quote:

But i was surfing and came across a reputable website  that discussed global warming( oh no another global warming thread!) I was reading a list of comments left by  readers and i was surpised at the lack of knowledge people have.


This reminds me of a quote
quote:

 

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln


I have failed to heed that wisdom a time or two. It is not the ignorance about topics of this nature that is the most distressing for me, most people can learn new facts, it is the unwillingness of those who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground to realize this and expound on subjects they know nothing about.

I find myself thinking about that Abraham Lincoln quote often when I see people lecturing authoritatively on topics they are clueless about.




Termyn8or -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 10:32:11 PM)

Folks, take your kids out of the schools. Here is the deal.

Ground based byproducts of combustion are a problem, but not to the ozone because they do not get there. The ozone got attention because CFCs can get there, because they are so much lighter than air in some forms. It is the flourine that is the catalyst for the recombining of O3 into O2. The big problem is that the flourine is a catalyst, and emerges from the reaction unchanged, ready for another reaction.

The CFCs apparently stay in their form long enough to ascend in the atmospher and then get up high enough to get bombarded by UV, which is what the ozone filters out. Since the flourine remains unchanged, unless a way is founsd to get the flourine out of the ozone, it is a done deal.

There is no doubt that huige natural disasters cause a depletion of the ozone, even if only by dilution. But our burning fossil fuel has almost nothing to do with it. Our CO and CO2 simply does not get up there. Not that it never will.

And FYI, there never really was an ozone LAYER. By virtue of it's atomic weight it was always more like a band, because it does circle the Earth. Centripital force made it into a band, and that was pretty much nature's way of putting it where it is needed. There is no need for it over the north and south poles, an fact even the north and south poles actually need the band to be where it is, that is the direction from which the sunlight comes.

The main concern for us humans is that the band, or layer, or whatever of ozone is shrinking.

Now for perspective. Remember the old western movies ? Get down to Mexico they are wearing sombreros ? "He went thataway". Why do you think those people wore hats when it was 100 degrees out ? Protection from the sun. It was more brutal than the heat.

So I am not saying that people are being chicken little, crying wolf, and I am not saying that we should just dismiss the whole thing. We live here. The environment is important, but these things should be handled by people who know what they're doing.

Basically, ground based combustion does not seriously affect the ozone. But if the top theories are to be believed, we have given the ozone layer a terminal disease and we can't take it back.

What happens happens.

T




MsParados -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 10:35:27 PM)

quote:

 

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln


Sorry but didn't Mark Twain say that? Lincoln never would have said anything that good.

Of course my favorite one is ... "it is better to be silent and thought a wise man, than to speak and be confirmed a fool."




juliaoceania -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 10:43:07 PM)

quote:

)  this has been going on since the industrial age began. We are losing ozone faster than it can repair itself.
10) less ozone means you go from spf 150 to spf 50 spf 30 spf 2  etc. More harmful sun  rays enter the atmosphere warming it up faster and hotter.
11) this is called global warming.


Actually this is not the cause of global warming, although I do understand the confusion.

Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth's atmosphere. They allow insolation in (kind of like the windows on your car allow the suns rays through), but they do not allow them out. It is due to the wavelengths of  of sunlight that are able to travel through our atmosphere, but they change in length and become trapped (like my car with the closed window example).

There is a tenuous relationship between O3 and global warming, but it is not the cause. In fact, the science seems to point to global warming being the cause of a weaker ozone layer, not the other way around

http://www.ess-home.com/news/global-warming/ozone-depletion.asp





Sinergy -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 10:52:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Folks, take your kids out of the schools. Here is the deal.

Ground based byproducts of combustion are a problem, but not to the ozone because they do not get there. The ozone got attention because CFCs can get there, because they are so much lighter than air in some forms. It is the flourine that is the catalyst for the recombining of O3 into O2. The big problem is that the flourine is a catalyst, and emerges from the reaction unchanged, ready for another reaction.

The CFCs apparently stay in their form long enough to ascend in the atmospher and then get up high enough to get bombarded by UV, which is what the ozone filters out. Since the flourine remains unchanged, unless a way is founsd to get the flourine out of the ozone, it is a done deal.

There is no doubt that huige natural disasters cause a depletion of the ozone, even if only by dilution. But our burning fossil fuel has almost nothing to do with it. Our CO and CO2 simply does not get up there. Not that it never will.

And FYI, there never really was an ozone LAYER. By virtue of it's atomic weight it was always more like a band, because it does circle the Earth. Centripital force made it into a band, and that was pretty much nature's way of putting it where it is needed. There is no need for it over the north and south poles, an fact even the north and south poles actually need the band to be where it is, that is the direction from which the sunlight comes.

The main concern for us humans is that the band, or layer, or whatever of ozone is shrinking.

Now for perspective. Remember the old western movies ? Get down to Mexico they are wearing sombreros ? "He went thataway". Why do you think those people wore hats when it was 100 degrees out ? Protection from the sun. It was more brutal than the heat.

So I am not saying that people are being chicken little, crying wolf, and I am not saying that we should just dismiss the whole thing. We live here. The environment is important, but these things should be handled by people who know what they're doing.

Basically, ground based combustion does not seriously affect the ozone. But if the top theories are to be believed, we have given the ozone layer a terminal disease and we can't take it back.

What happens happens.

T


I never made a comment that CO2 affects the ozone layer.

Loss of the Ozone layer means UV rays fry us to death.

I have made the comment and provided links that CO2 prevents heat from reflecting from the earth's surface back into outer space.  Heat does not get reflected, it gets absorbed.  The earth heats up.  Eventually, the earth gets too hot for people to survive on it.  We die.

Sinergy




Termyn8or -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:19:16 PM)

Heat is both absorbed and reflected. Just like an image you would see in a telescope, what is reflected versus absorbed is what shows the image to your eye.

The actual heat energy the Earth gets from the sun is not affected in any great way by the ozone. Without the flourine, UV is probably mostly converted to heat, something that doesn't really reach us, but it is heat energy in our biosphere.

Actually most CO2 and all that doesn't even get close to the ozone, unless taken there, for example by the space shuttle. I heard that each launch of a space shuttle does more damage to the ozone than if we released all the freon 12 (CFCs) on the planet at one time. This from a guy who turns down $100,000 a year jobs. That in itself does not mean he's smart, but he ain't dumb, and I kinda believe it.

All the ground based emissions don't get that far, but when you fire a rocket up there, then it does.

But then even with 300,000,000 in the US, and a pretty good world population, evertything we do only has a minimal impact on global warming. Yes, everything we do makes heat, even our cooling, but the impact is far from significant.

Need to put it in perspective.

T




FirmhandKY -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:36:39 PM)

Ah, Slavetrainer ....

I was withholding comment because while I suspected where you were going, I didn't want to assume to quickly, although its obvious that a few others saw it as well, and beat me to the "punch" so to speak.  [:D]

I've got a lot of comments I could make, but will only focus on a few points.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

I believe in global warming, for two reasons:


"Belief" is a very tricky thing. [:D]

Since you are educated in 8th grade science, would you mind explaining the scientific method to me, in short, easy to read sentences? 

My first concern is how you define "global warming".  What exactly is it that you "believe in"?  Without a good statement of a hypothesis, it is difficult to either support or question any facts related to your belief about "global warming".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

1) IT can and has been proved time and time again.


Since I've no idea what "IT" is, exactly, I can't support or deny your claim.

Null hypothesis so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

This is like darwins theory on evolution compared to the bible thumpers belief that "adam and eve" was  made by  god. I have yet for a bible thumper to explain to me where the cave man came from  and his ancestors. Yet darwins theory seems to prove we evolved over many thousands of years from a primative ape like( or in darwins case apes themselves)  existance to the one now. Furthermore, biblethumpers failed to explain to me  how did those big things we call dinosaurs end up buried in our dirt? I can look at global warming theory  versus no global warming  and i can prove  the climate is changing and the ozone is being depleted at a faster rate than it can be regenerated. I can prove when you put CO  in the same space as O3 they combine and thus you no longer have O2.  I cant prove other theories.


Very strong on the anti-Christian rhetoric.  Very weak on the full exposition of what your facts actually mean in context of to your assertions, however.

Two examples:

1. i can prove  ... the ozone is being depleted at a faster rate than it can be regenerated.

2. I can prove when you put CO in the same space as O3 they combine and thus you no longer have O2.

Some of the latest data on ozone is that it is recovering and will return to "normal" levels within the next century, based on current models, including ones that include "global warming".

However, even the relatively simply "facts" about the natural ozone depletion and regeneration isn't something that is totally understood.  There are still surprises.

Sun's Temper Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss
 01 March 2005

In a new study, scientists conclude that an intense round of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 was at the root of the problem. Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.

...

"This decline was completely unexpected," said Cora Randall, a physicist at the University of Colorado, Boulder who led the study. "The findings point out a critical need to better understand the processes occurring in the ozone layer."

And, since your are linking ozone depletion to "global warming":

Ozone depletion and global warming

Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong.

So, tell me ... will global warming increase or decrease as the ozone layer?  Or will a depleting ozone layer add to or subtract from "global warming"?  How much and what is the mechanism, and how can you "prove" it?   I'll accept a very simplified explanation.  [:D]

For your point #2, my main question would be ... so what?  How does this "prove" "global warming"?  I can make the observation that when you put anti-freeze in a cage with a cat, the cat will drink it and die. My conclusion is therefore that all cats will go extinct in any society that uses antifreeze.

Basic fact is correct (antifreeze is poisonous to cats).  Conclusion from said basic fact isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

2)I see the climate change happening with my own eyes. I noticed it before i  really took notice to global warming at all. I notice because i work outside in it every single day. snow in april, 60 degrees on christmas, one day im wearing a t shirt the next  coveralls. Tornados all over the place. Not a few here and their like when i was a kid. Lots of tornados.  Storms coming out of nowhere( unstable atmosphere) , etc.  I notice the change because i have to work it in 8-10-12 hours a day.  summers are hotter winters are milder. wildfires and droughts like crazy.  tsumamis, hurricanes, flooding on the east coast drought on the west. ...Im very weather observant. I see the changes.


I'm sorry but these assertions are the very hallmarks of a individual without a basis of understanding of what science is.

This is all called anecdotal evidence and is ... well ... basically useless in scientific inquiry and as a scientific proof of a hypothesis.  It opens up any conclusions you make from them to confirmation bias at the very least.  DO NOT USE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE A POINT in a scientific argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007

I know from history climate changes like we have experienced even int he last 30 years dont happen in 30 years... not even 100. it takes several hundred years for the climate to change as much as it has in the last 30. Otherwise  nature couldnt adapt and everything would die.

This is more than likely going to be one of those issues where in 100 years global warming activist say i told you so. and  their will  still be those that say , no thats impossible cause  when water evoparates  it goes into space[:D]


Ahh, what do you mean by "I know from history climate changes like we have experienced even int he last 30 years dont happen in 30 years... not even 100."?  What "climate changes are you talking about?  Your anecdotal observations of weather?  Are you aware of the difference between weather variablity and climate variability?

Hell, there's more, but that's all I have the patience for right now.  If you really get curious about how people can deceive themselves, there is a starting point: List of cognitive biases.

FirmKY




thompsonx -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:39:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am far from learned on these matters, but was curious as to what we should do about the carbon monoxide and methane that are naturally spewed into the atmosphere by such things as volcanos and cows?  These sources account for much more of those compounds being produced and put into the "ozone" layer than human sources.

Thadius:
Cows are a human source of methane...we raise them so we can drink their milk,eat their flesh and make floggers out of their skin.
thompson




Griswold -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:49:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slavetrainer2007
I believe in global warming, for two reasons:


I believe in it for one reason:  Because it's happening.




Thadius -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:58:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am far from learned on these matters, but was curious as to what we should do about the carbon monoxide and methane that are naturally spewed into the atmosphere by such things as volcanos and cows?  These sources account for much more of those compounds being produced and put into the "ozone" layer than human sources.

Thadius:
Cows are a human source of methane...we raise them so we can drink their milk,eat their flesh and make floggers out of their skin.
thompson


Evening,

Mmmm steaks.  Point well made.

Thadius




thompsonx -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/15/2007 11:58:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

ST i didnt even have to read the OP and i can answer a difinitive yes they truly are, welcome to the friuts of government funded schools.

Real0ne:
What did we have before we had public education?
thompson




Termyn8or -> RE: Are people really that uneducated? (4/16/2007 2:28:54 PM)

To the OP, just how do you know that if you mix CO and O3 it recombines.

Is it that the CO molecule want another single oxygen atom so bad ? If so it should be very useful in deoxidizing things.

Or is it that the O3 molecule is so unstable that a slight ioninc charge can rip it apart ? If that is the case how could it really be an effective UV shield ?

So what you're saying is you mix the CO and O3 together and it comes out O2 and CO2. Plausible, but I found no evidence in a quick search of the net. But let's assume it is true.

Once the process is complete, you got CO2 and O2. You run out of CO. Flourine on the other hand emerges unscathed by the reaction and is ready to do it again. At least that is the theory.

Do I buy the theory, I don't know. Do I buy your theory, I don't know.

I do know that everything we do makes heat. And with complete combustion there should be no CO. The hydrocarbon fuel recombines and makes CO2 and H2O. If the combustion is not complete, there is CO and some O2 in the smoke or exhaust along with a bunch of nasty hydrocarbons.

Without actually having to gather O3 and CO to put in a jar on the porch for a week, I would like to see some evidence that they actually do recombine into CO2 and O2. I have never read anything to that effect and I am now curious.

T




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875