| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | Considering the fact that Ice melting takes up less space. Meaning that if water levels are rising... it means that ice caps are actually getting larger rather then melting. |
Unless that ice is landlocked in areas like Greenland and Antarctica. I seem to remember around 70 percent of the world’s fresh water ice is Antarctic and most of that is landlocked. Any water permanently released from this type of ice will increase oceanic water levels.
I also remember that ice floating in water will have no affect on water levels melted or frozen, it's displacement is the same either way.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2725
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had this thought the other day, while reading Stephen Baxter's Evolution, and I'd like to get your thoughts on it:
First let me say that I believe the Earth's biosphere may be living organism in its own right. It has shown every subsystem of general living systems except the ability to reproduce, as all organisms are prone to do. That's where humanity comes in: we are the agents of planetary reproduction, at least potentially. By terraforming and colonizing extraterrestrial locals, we will be reproducing the Earth's biosphere.
The current ecological degradation, climate change and decrease of biodiversity, due, perhaps, to humanity's action-without-knowledge, is a function of the planetary need to reproduce. It's a natural part of the biospheric life cycle, which will eventully force humanity to terraform and colonize other habitats, either planetary or those we can build ourselves, thereby reproducing Earth's biosphere. Colonization is such an expensive undertaking that we're unlikely to do it unless we must. We aren't likely to colonize other planets just because we can, so the planet (through our own misguided actions) will force us to choose between extinction and extraterrestrial colonization.
Hopefully we will opt for appropriate action before we can no longer do so.
_________________
Only those with weak faith feel threatened by those with no faith.
2000 years of Christianity - haven't we wasted enough time!?
God Not Found
Last edited by Unbeliever on Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:40 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have no idea why (although lack of careful thinking probably had a bit to do with it) but the idea of a "Global Warming Foundation" did not occur to me. It's an interesting idea. I personally don't think it would do the job though. |
So you in your omniscience somehow didnt think of the option of a global warming foundation but somehow you think it wouldnt do the job... even though the heart and stroke foundation is highly successful?
| Quote: | | We have private anti-climate change crusaders now (like Al Gore), but most of them are kind of ridiculous. |
They are ridiculous because they make assertions based off of correlation and not causality. Then make statements that correlation is somehow good. They in essence have become a religion and Al Gore is their prophet.
| Quote: | | I still think a government, or some kind of authority that could coerce the worst offenders would be the best idea. |
Except a government wont force such offenders to do anything.
In North America there are these wacky pollution credits. Every company is given X amount of credits and depending on how much you pollute depends on how much credits you use. If you pollute more then you are allowed... you have to find some other company who didnt pollute much and buy their credits. This is the government's way of managing how much pollution overall is created per year. There are no restrictions. All that really happens is that real big polluters like a coal plant has to buy loads of these credits and suddenly the price of their energy goes up over this arbitrary credit system which is value created from nothing. Which is bullshit.
If you as the government were to do anything... you would instead keep these credits but bring value to them... in that the government doesnt just create these credits from thin air but rather the free market generates these credits from planting trees and stuff like that. Even then it doesnt curb how much anyone pollutes.
Believe me I'm in the Detroit area and my area is one of the biggest importer of these credits. Furthermore... the only reason Canada ratified Kyoto protocols is because we already fulfilled them. The USA on the otherhand didnt and would literally be forcing themselves to actually force companies to stop polluting... which would never happen. Canada never did anything. I can also bet you that every single on of the 150+ of other countries also did absolutely nothing by signing those protocols.
| Quote: | | If you look at a lot of "green" companies now, their alleged solutions are more PR than anything else. Take ethanol for example. It's kind of a bad idea, and the research showing negative benefits (rising food prices, production of even more greenhouse gases) have been around for a long time. A responsible person or company could see that it isn't helping the environment- but it makes money and gives the impression that it is helping the environment. |
100% of all these green ventures is full of shit. The only way these green ventures are going to do anything is if it competes with the status quo. For example Electric Cars. The only way they are going to replace gas cars is if they play the free market and create a BETTER PRODUCT then gas cars can provide. Right now you have the problem of long distance on electric cars. As recharging after say 250km will take a few hours vs 10 minutes at a pump. This fact in the free market is what is going to keep gas cars from being eliminated. You have to provide a better product. Which the battery tech which is on the verge of being released right now... is 1000x or better recharging and discharging speed. Meaning 15minutes at a recharging station. Meaning all that needs to be done is the infrastructure of gas pumps need to be switched over to offer electricity also.
The free market and capitalism thusly saves the world. No other economy system could have the power to do this.
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock#Environmental_impact
Yeah, I know it's from wikipedia, but this section is lifted from an article somewhere else. If it isn't up to your standards, I could probably find the original somewhere.
According to the 390 page 2006 United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow", the livestock sector (primarily cattle, chickens, and pigs) emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to our most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. |
The problem here is that they actually only looked at cattle, chickens, and pigs. They also just pulled the numbers out of their asses. Some random numbers that they presumed are averages amongst those groups. Yet these numbers already are top 2 or 3? That's what is bullshit about this.
The given evidence and data is highly flawed and thusly if you were to even look at the numbers... the numbers can only go higher because they never even calculated loads of other animals and such. Meaning Livestock most likely are the #1 reason for CO2 and if CO2 is the culprit for global warming... fossil fuels means jackshit.
PS im a computer/internet expert... if the information is on the internet I can find it. I wanted you to source it so I could rip it apart 
| Quote: | | Tree farms are not exactly the same as a tropical rainforest in environmental value. |
Your right. Tree farms are better at trapping CO2 emissions as they are being constantly cut down and renewed. As just about anyglobal warming/cooling alarmist out there will tell you. Trees are just CO2 reserves. The CO2 gets stored in the wood obviously and if you burn or something the wood or just let it sit there... you arent that effective. However planting loads of new trees and then processing the old trees to be used in lumber where houses instead are created at carbon reserves. These are good things.
| Quote: | | It's absolutely necessary that everyone in the USA have a steady supply of unhealthy, environmentally damaging beef? I beg to differ. |
The day that livestock is made illegal is the day I get my rifle out and go kill the government officials until they make meat legal again. Governments should fear the people and this is the reason why.
| Quote: | The first part? Well, yeah. They may remove transfats and such. Still bad for you though. And honestly? I don't think McDonalds cares that much. Their salads are just as bad for you as a cheeseburger, but it gives the impression that they're doing something. That's what's important.
And the Heart and Stroke Foundation? Good for you. I'm serious. I hadn't heard of it before, and I looked it up, and, wow, that's a good organization. They have done an amazing amount for a completely volunteer-funded venture. And they have made a difference.
I'm still doubtful the same tactic could help reverse something like climate change. Bad diet is one aspect of society. Climate change is contributed to by almost everything- the causes of it are so deep in everything. Urbanization contributes. Manufacturing contributes. Livestock contribute. Private organizations will certainly help. But the main thing it will take will be something along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol, except with balls. |
I just picked some unhealthy fast food chain. As for kyoto protocol with balls... never ever happen. That's why the kyoto protocol was without balls. Nobody could ratify anything that limited how much people pollute.
| Quote: | | Sorry that they're kind of wordy. But they show my point- there is a scientific consensus that there is an increase in temperature, and that the primary cause is human activity. I'll trust the people who do the science. Maybe they're wrong. But chances are, they're not. |
Again you're being lazy and ignorant. You want to just say... "The scientists say so and that's good enough for me"
I want sheer evidence and all the evidence right now for CO2 vs global warming is just correlation. Infact it's WEAK correlation. IF you havent heard... scientists now are predicting an ice age because of solar activity decreasing hugely. etc etc. The temperature monitors... the big 4 groups. Nasa- GISS and UAH and RSS have all shown the largest drop in global temperature over a period of 1 year in all of recorded time.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.
We see factual evidence that the arctic ice has grown significantly. Shit since these articles have come out GISS and such have updated their graphs to show an even further drop in temp.
| Quote: | | You know? I had forgotten about this. It's a mistake, a symptom of hasty internet arguing. |
Oh right.... 3 independent groups of scientists who interpret their independent data they have collected... and somehow this is "hasty internet arguing?"
Sorry but that makes no sense at all.
| Quote: | | I would like to point out, though, that the data at this point is scarce. |
Actually not at all. The 4 major sources of information which proves that the globe warmed over the past century are now showing a global cooling trend. These 3 other scientists/groups are independently collecting their own data showing this. There is no scarcity of data when it's coming from 7 sources.
| Quote: | | Also, if they are right, the "ice age" is ironically likely caused by a global increase in temperature. |
Um no.. This only goes to show you never read my articles that I linked.
Lets look at the second link. As I fucked up and did http://http:// breaking the first link. Though if you go clean that up
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm
It works fine. Anyway I'm a fan of physorg so lets go with the second link.
A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.
Now you just said... ironically likely caused by a global increase in temperature. There's is somethign wrong here. Scientist says low solar activity... but you say something randomly wrong.
As if you watched one of those bullshit global warming causing a snowstorm over the course of 2 days movies like the day after tommorrow. Which is pure pseudoscience by the way.
| Quote: | If you look in a mirror and repeat that line, it will make more sense.
Seriously, though, look here. I didn't make that up. |
Lets look at the climate change tally up right now. I like to do this in these threads.
Early 1900s Global warming will destroy the world and make the surface of the planet uninhabitable by the 1940s.
WRONG
1974 We are fucked we are going to an ICE AGE!!! OMGZ TERRIBLE!!! @ time magazine. Fossil Fuels are causing global cooling
WRONG AGAIN
1990s WE ARE SOOOO FUCKED WE ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET. Praise be to the prophet al gore. Global warming is caused by fossil fuels.
YEP WRONG STILL
2008 MINI ICE AGE!!! OMGZ BURN THE FORESTS AND GET THE CO2 RUNNING OR WE ARE FUCKED.
We shall see if this is wrong or not.
| Quote: | | Blind faith is always misplaced. |
This is your sig and I find it funny because you basically have blind faith in the scientists. The first thing you learn about science is that you should question them. That's what science is all about. I question their science and as far as I can see... I was right to.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 6:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some of this munky-poo I'm not even going to answer - I refuse to make the same point ten times to someone not willing to address it directly.
As for the rest of it:
| munky99999 wrote: |
Wikipedia for earth's atmosphere.
78% nitrogen
20% oxygen
1% argon
0.0384% CO2
~1% Water vapour
0.002% other.
CO2 and other together and then rounded up is 0.04% as I said. Again please educate yourself before trying to argue something... you cant claim that im picking facts and taking them out of context.... hell you even say that it isnt correct and you THINK its 2% which is false. |
Munky, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well... that puts your wiki-percentage up to ~1.04% which IS, as I stated, closer to 2%.
| munky99999 wrote: | | However on earth where CO2 is so small... it certainly isnt a factor. |
From the page I posted again (you really need to read it, munky):
Major Greenhouse Gas % of Greenhouse Effect
Water vapor 36% to 66%
Water vapor & Cloud droplets 66% to 85%
Carbon dioxide 9% to 26%
Methane 4% to 9%
Ozone 3% to 7%
| munky99999 wrote: | Humans account for 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is to say 3% of the 0.04%
Now interestingly you give me a graph that shows what CO2 was in 1960... lets say 320 ppm
Lets say we start with 320 ppm of CO2. We then humans grow up and ADD that 3% we didnt even exist before 1960. You get 330 ppm.
---- me... so your own graph just proved that we humans cannot possibly be the cause of global warming. How ----ng awesome. |
We have added more than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know where you got that number from. State your source.
You don't think burning billions of tons of fossil fuels every year adds a significant amount of CO2 to the air?
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | | Sea ice displaces the same amount of water as after it melts. The ice above the surface makes up for the difference in volume between ice and water. |
Nope. You are wrong here. |
Sometimes Munky, I wonder if your write this stuff just to rile people, or if you really believe it.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Furthermore we have already had evidence in the thread pointing out how the ice infact is NOT melting and instead solidifying further. |
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls.
Last edited by Canid on Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Some of this munky-poo I'm not even going to answer - I refuse to make the same point ten times to someone not willing to address it directly. |
I've addressed virtually all points and even non-points in all posts. So I've addressed everything directly. You and co on the otherhand are the ones who I had to say that I'd already answered something or had to repeat myself.
So I'm not even going to bother responding to your post when you wont respond to mine.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
oh fuck your shit is just so stupid it needs to be addressed.
| Quote: | | Munky, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well... |
Yes indeed. Except it's a natural thing that humans have no effect on. Meaning it has no bearing on the topic at hand. As you are of the opinion that human activity causes global warming.
| Quote: | | that puts your wiki-percentage up to ~1.4% which IS, as I stated, closer to 2%. |
Um no.
1% + 0.04% equals 1.04% which is pretty far from 2%
Go back to grade 2 and learn how to add again thx.
| Quote: | From the page I posted again (you really need to read it, munky):
Major Greenhouse Gas % of Greenhouse Effect
Water vapor 36% to 66%
Water vapor & Cloud droplets 66% to 85%
Carbon dioxide 9% to 26%
Methane 4% to 9%
Ozone 3% to 7% |
Oh ok so lets calculate this.
3% as human activity only accounts to 3% of CO2. 3% of 26% is 0.78%
So according to you the best that we can have contributed is less than 1% of the increase.
The globe has warmed 0.6 degrees celsius. So human activity according to you only accounts for the increase of 0.06 degrees. The remaining increase is through logic not contributed to human activity at all. Thusly completely destroying the entire western world can only contribute to less than 1% of a decrease in the globe warming.
That isnt going to happen. Good to see you are just proving how pointless it is for us to change anything we do.
| Quote: | | We have added more than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. |
Here is another one of these comments you make with no basis in reality.
| Quote: | I don't know where you got that number from. State your source.
You don't think burning billions of tons of fossil fuels every year adds a significant amount of CO2 to the air? |
As I already vowed I shouldnt even be responding to your crap so I'm going to be lazy. Imma rip up and upload some more of bullshit to put up. I'll post it in a bit.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 6:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | that puts your wiki-percentage up to ~1.4% which IS, as I stated, closer to 2%. |
Corrected the typo in the post above. I missed a 0.. sue me.
1.04 is closer to 2 than 0.04.
| munky99999 wrote: | | Quote: | From the page I posted again (you really need to read it, munky):
Major Greenhouse Gas % of Greenhouse Effect
Water vapor 36% to 66%
Water vapor & Cloud droplets 66% to 85%
Carbon dioxide 9% to 26%
Methane 4% to 9%
Ozone 3% to 7% |
Oh ok so lets calculate this.
3% as human activity only accounts to 3% of CO2. 3% of 26% is 0.78%
So according to you the best that we can have contributed is less than 1% of the increase.
The globe has warmed 0.6 degrees celsius. So human activity according to you only accounts for the increase of 0.06 degrees. The remaining increase is through logic not contributed to human activity at all. Thusly completely destroying the entire western world can only contribute to less than 1% of a decrease in the globe warming. |
Carbon dioxide accounts for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect accounts for a surface temperature 30 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.
9% to 26% of 30 is 2.7 to 7.8.
Carbon dioxide thus accounts for between 2.7 and 7.8 degrees of the average surface temperature.
If we then add 3% (wrong though that number may be) to that 2.7 to 7.8 degrees, you'd be adding 0.081 to 0.234 degrees.
That would be 13.5% to 39% of your 0.6 degree increase. The rest might be accounted for by other GHGs such as methane, and by the self-feeding effect of global warming, adding water vapor to the air, melting ice and snow (decreasing reflective surfaces) etc.
Whatever amount of CO2 we add, the consequences will not be immediate; it takes time for the planet to heat up. 3% more CO2 added this year, might not be fully felt for another twenty.
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Canid
LVPVS IN SCRIPTORIO
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 106
Local time: 6:41 PM
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Three articles about a mini-ice age and a Penn & Teller show.
Boy, I'm convinced.
Still waiting for that scientifically credible source saying we've only contributed 3% of the atmosphere's CO2 in total.
_________________
I like arguing, just not with brick walls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't I recently hear Penn was reassessing his stance on global warming?
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Canid wrote: | Three articles about a mini-ice age and a Penn & Teller show.
Boy, I'm convinced.
Still waiting for that scientifically credible source saying we've only contributed 3% of the atmosphere's CO2 in total. |
fuck you... you provide wikipedia and fuck all else. you refuse to address my posts and then accuse me of not addressing you while I have addressed all points and im the one who has to work my ass off for you? How fucked up are you?
Plus I was going easy on you... it's 3% if you dont count water vapour as I have been. If you count water vapour as you want to... human caused greenhouse gases are like 0.25%-0.5% Instead of 3%.
So go fuck yourself ignorant fuck.
Oh and since you are so ignorant ill give you a tip. American department of energy is who provides those details.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the EPA
| The EPA wrote: | | Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. |
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
munky99999
Provisional moralist.
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 4671
Local time: 6:41 PM
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MockingGods wrote: | From the EPA
| The EPA wrote: | | Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. |
|
nobody is arguing that CO2 concentrations havent increased in that period of time. The source of that increase however isnt a given in that it is human made or not.
_________________
A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his fleshand drink his blood; while telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
You cant outsmart me; you can only outnumber me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | | MockingGods wrote: | From the EPA
| The EPA wrote: | | Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. |
|
nobody is arguing that CO2 concentrations havent increased in that period of time. The source of that increase however isnt a given in that it is human made or not. |
I think it's highly likely that most if not all of that increase is in fact due to human activity. Do you know of any other events during that time frame that could account for such a large increase over the base line? I don't know of any and given that humans are indeed pumping millions of tons of CO2 gas into the atmosphere yearly, it’s seems a reasonable inference.
Edit: It should also be mentioned that humans have decreased the natural sequestration cycle through large amounts of deforestation; an indirect, human caused activity that will increase atmospheric CO2 levels.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 4:41 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. |
Unless my reading comprehension is failing me, this does plainly say human activities have caused an increase.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
