What are 'greenhouse gasses'?

Maddogg6 · May 22, 2007, 07:37 AM

Ok - We hear soooooo much about CO2 being a green house gas. Ok - I won't directly argue this to be fact or not.

But.... Isnt CO the 'poison' released from fossil fuels?

Where people & animals all release CO2 - thus - we are ALL green house gas generators.

So - now I wonder - is there some HUGE mixup with the two gasses - (CO vs CO2)??

Is it the hint that the whole green house gas frenzy is a media induced 'emergency' ??

Or do we start killing people and animals off to stop green house gas emissions at some point in time?? ie..
'Those pesky (insert undeveloped country here) oxygen absorbing, 'green house gas' emitting worthless people are causing global warming - they must be eliminated'

Maybe global warming is caused also by over population?? and fossil fuels - actually reduces CO2 - by killing the 'true' cause with CO poison - people/animals.

While I have ZERO doubt that burning fossil fuels is hazardous to our health.... it seems the whole CO2 'threat' is some kind of scam or 'distraction' or some tactic for some other agenda?.

Something definitely doesn't sit right with me on this.... when we have the likes of Richard Branson offering rewards to 'reverse' ("...removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.") the effects that will more likely cause more problems than what they would reverse - I equate 'removing XXXX ammounts' to 'removal' - and 'stop adding so mother nature can do the removing' - would NOT be a $25M winning idea.

reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020900693.html

Or am I just nuckin futs with lysdexia??

ChaosMinionX · May 22, 2007, 08:10 AM

An explanation can be found here

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/off-topi...-i-farted.html

Serious Post to come!

**temeteus82** · May 22, 2007, 08:16 AM

Hey all vehicles that uses oil based fuel releases NO and CO2 more that any living animal does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the United States, more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels

Fossil Fuel - Wikipedia

Maddogg6 · May 22, 2007, 09:05 AM

Didnt they force us into using (expensive) Catalytic converters to convert the CO into CO2?
Recently, I watch an old movie (Soylent Green) - and I hear the term 'green house gas' and 'global warming' - and that was 1973?
So the notion of what would likely happen was not un-forseen by at least the writers of that movie even back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converters

Quote:

1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
2. Oxidation of (non greenhouse gas, but toxic) carbon monoxide to less harmful (greenhouse gas) carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
3. Oxidation of unburnt carcinogenic hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: 2CxHy + (2x+y/2)O2 → 2xCO2 + yH2O

Which was part of my point. Trading problems.

edit: I also notice H2O is on the list of 'green house gases' - so, here we are looking for Hydrogen powered cars that 'only emit H20' - yet another green house gas - that btw makes up for a large % of all our green house gases.

Quote:

Water Vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

GutterPunk · May 22, 2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temeteus82

Hey all vehicles that uses oil based fuel releases NO and CO2 more that any living animal does.

Fossil Fuel - Wikipedia

That is only one section... too bad CATTLE or Cows release more than all transport put together. Totalling at 20% of ALL greenhouse gasses from livestock.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/fa...reenhouse.html
http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=3148
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003959.html

Lets slap some emmissions on them.

JohnDoe47 · May 22, 2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

That is only one section... too bad CATTLE or Cows release more than all transport put together. Totalling at 20% of ALL greenhouse gasses from livestock.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/fa...reenhouse.html
http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=3148
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003959.html

Lets slap some emmissions on them.

LoL! I remember when Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear talked about that

**temeteus82** · May 22, 2007, 02:30 PM

Yeah more beef you want more greenhouse gas you will have

Vikingod · May 22, 2007, 02:54 PM

Wow, there are some pretty uninformed responses here.

Guys, the issue is not with 'poison'. The problem with CO2 is that it stores energy. With CO2 in the atmosphere, heat radiated by the planet reflected by the sun can not escape into space. Yes, the planet can naturally remove CO2 (plants, trees, and plankton are the main ways of transforming CO2 into O2). But not fast enough for our current emissions. The problem is the world power plants, which burn coal and gas and create unnatural levels of CO2. Yes, volcanoes create greenhouse gases, but we can't control them. While cars and cattle (though they certainly don't create 20% of the gases) are an issue, the main problem is power plants.

The scientific community has known of this problem since the 1960's. Problem is, political issues have always kept the public uninformed, especially in the US (the world biggest consumer of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases). The fear that being 'green' with somehow destroy the economy. The whole "scientific communitty is plotting against us" conspiracy actually started with an off hand comment by some senetor during election time in the 1980's. If anything, the conspiracy is that the government has been down playing the threat, continues to keep the public uninformed, and refuses to understand the problem. Its typical of human nature, wait until its nearly too late to act on it.

What makes me sick is that people (even in this thread) chose to side with the conspiracy theorists/politicians/talk show hosts on this issue and ignore what the scientific community has to say. You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced.

If something isn't done, the planet as we know it will die. We already see it with the extreme weather, the melting of the polar ice cap and the world glaciers, and rising temperatures of the oceans. Its not really an issue of if its happening, its an issue of "can we change it, or have we gone too far?"

Please, if you are someone that sides with the politicians, get a documentary on the subject (specifically PBS's Frontline series), read a website or magazine and get informed. It is scarey, and I guarantee we don't want to live on the planet we are creating.

Maddogg6 · May 22, 2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

The scientific community has known of this problem since the 1960's. Problem is, political issues have always kept the public uninformed, especially in the US (the world biggest consumer of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases). The fear that being 'green' with somehow destroy the economy. The whole "scientific communitty is plotting against us" conspiracy actually started with an off hand comment by some senetor during election time in the 1980's. If anything, the conspiracy is that the government has been down playing the threat, continues to keep the public uninformed, and refuses to understand the problem. Its typical of human nature, wait until its nearly too late to act on it.

Well, I don't think its quite so cut and dry...
And Im not proposing its ALL a conspiracy...
Like, if they knew CO2 was a green house gas back when CO was the big problem, is proof that we have a tendency to make decisions that only traded the problem and we paid good money for it (cat converters, add'l taxation etc..).

Now, I don't think the arguments against global warming are so much that we throwing CO2 into the air and can cause global temps to rise - what I HAVE to believe what IS debated amongst the scientists - is the accuracy of the historical data that was *not* measured directly.
This historical data is used as a base line to compare what would be 'normal'.
I mean how do they know 100% certain, what the air/water temps, or CO2 levels 1000 years ago - its not measured directly. Whats the margin of error in their *calculated* historical data? - and is it more so than the temp changes we see?

Now if *water vapor* is a green house gas too, and it varies from 36% to 90% - will removing the 20% of CO2 make ANY difference - seems to be something I question personally. Are we gonna spend billions to convert that CO2 to more water vapor and still have the green house warming?

Either way - I do hope we eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but I cant say Im looking forward to the drought thats likely to happen if/when we use/depend on anything from vegetation either. I guess when that happens in Brazil (maybe this year???) we'll learn

So... I propose we sell off our cars and buy up all those chineese rickshaws and bicycles - I bet the chineese would sell em cheap now that they have less use for them - while extensive, un-biased, testing proves the 'right' way to go from here.
Obese America needs the exercise, AFAIK 'sweat' isnt an environmental hazard.
maybe our dependency on OIL isnt the true problem, but dependency on transportation is?? To me, this seems more like 'root cause' at this point.
Too bad its not practical so that will never happen - I have to believe this is also why no actions have been taken in the past.

Thats it - WORK is the real culprit - just say no to work.

Seriously - I cant put my finger on it... but I have this ugly feeling we are heading toward a bigger problem from over reacting to this one. I mean - politicians are jumping on it now too. Thats rarely a good sign. What are they up to - certainly not our well being. They didnt care before - why now?
Somethings not right.

Oh also..

Quote:

We already see it with the extreme weather, the melting of the polar ice cap and the world glaciers, and rising temperatures of the oceans.

But, we also know these things happened naturally too.

GutterPunk · May 22, 2007, 09:28 PM

Looking back on data charts I saw awhile back presented by scientists, the rise in greenhouse gasses was equivelant to what was projected years ago. Also they are nearly the same incline (accelerated only a small % because of greenhouse gasses). I will take the side of the natural cycle of the earth. Especially if cows kick transportation's ass in the amount of greenhouse gasses produced.

OldBuzzard · May 23, 2007, 10:35 AM

@ Vikingod....Bovine Excrement!!!!

That SAME "scientific community" was telling us in the late 70's that we were all going to die from GLOBAL COOLING.

As for the CO2 levels, it is well documented that the rise in CO2 levels lags in relationship to global warming trends, it does not lead it.

Also, explain to me why MARS is experiencing the very same 'global warming' that we are here? Maybe AlGore has found a way to travel to Mars, and all his hot air about global warming is doing it. That's about as scientific as the 'consensus'.

'Scientific Consensus" is utter balderdash. There was a time when 'consensus' said that the world was flat. 'Consensus' said that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the Earth. I could go on and on, but you can see the trend.

I don't dispute that the Earth is warming, but it's nowhere near as warm as it was in the 800's, and nowhere near as warm as it has been MULTIPLE times in the past. In fact, by strict defination, we are still in an ICE AGE, albit at the end of said ice age.

You may believe all the 'Chicken Littles', but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what they are babbling about, nor am I going the feel guilty about NOT reducing my 'carbon footprint'.

EDIT:

Said Vikingod:

"You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced."

Says I:

How about a dozen or so here? http://infowars.com/articles/science...m_shifting.htm

And roughly 17,000 here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Hard pressed? Not really.

GutterPunk · May 23, 2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

@ Vikingod....Bovine Excrement!!!!

That SAME "scientific community" was telling us in the late 70's that we were all going to die from GLOBAL COOLING.

You beat me to it!
the 80s the concern wasn't just cooling but global freezing...

That throws me off to think global warming is the "biggest" threat.

I do my part... I walk to work, not to save the environment but to save my wallet.

Maddogg6 · May 23, 2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

Said Vikingod:

"You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced."

Says I:

How about a dozen or so here? http://infowars.com/articles/science...m_shifting.htm

And roughly 17,000 here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Hard pressed? Not really.

I knew I seen arguments against human caused GW - But - I have to say - I dunno - Im completely confused.

Frankly - part of me thinks issues like this - become the focus of politics to help divide the votes - for instance - you may be a republican at heart - but if you beleive the world is comming to an end from GW - then you *may* vote democrat... ???

I know we are lied to by SOME ONE - but who??? - I can think of motives on either side. - Maybe thats the point - confuse people into inaction again..??

I mean - do rich oil nations have the $$$ to afford 17,000+ credible scientists to report what they want - or silence them when their reports were edited by the 'employer'..??? Sure I suppose its possible.... I suppose it IS possible we are causing GW - too.

If there are masses of cunfusion - I can certainly see why.

In the 80's - consider this scenario.

A politician is campaigning for office - much of that time is asking for money.
So - here comes someone who has a patent for converting HCFC's & CO into CO2 & O2. aka a cat. converter. Something that a 'freezing world' would need.
But - previously there was scientific chatter about warming - hmmm - adding CO2 will cause more green house effect.
So - someone finds a way to present legit data in a way that shows a threat of 'global cooling' - so that ultimately - (after the politicians take office) cat converters become required by law. Soley for the $billions to be made from those converters.
I could see that happening as well too ... bottom line - I dunno what to believe - the 'evidence' is compelling on both sides of the issue. Which to me is a red flag for 'manipulation'. Someone with influence is lying, both sides can't be correct - can they?

I still want to stop using fossil fuels tho. Logic dictates that 'you dont get something for nothing' - and if nothing else - diesel trucks I can smell sitting in traffic - I KNOW is not good for me to breath - common sense.

Vikingod · May 23, 2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

I don't dispute that the Earth is warming, but it's nowhere near as warm as it was in the 800's, and nowhere near as warm as it has been MULTIPLE times in the past. In fact, by strict defination, we are still in an ICE AGE, albit at the end of said ice age.

Source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

You may believe all the 'Chicken Littles', but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what they are babbling about, nor am I going the feel guilty about NOT reducing my 'carbon footprint'.

This is one of the most disturbing, uninformed things I've ever heard anyone say. I hope you're right, because one thing is for sure, the planet can't afford for people with your line of thinking to be wrong. It's depressing that something as important as the health of the planet and all who inhabit it has been reduced to a political debat. I'm done with this thread, it's pointless.

Bottom line, there are heaps of information available for those who want to learn about the real issues. Those that don't care/don't want to understand, can continue to ignore the problem and hope someone else pulls their weight.

Maddogg6 · May 23, 2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Those that don't care/don't want to understand, can continue to ignore the problem and hope someone else pulls their weight.

1) thats not fair to say - there IS LOTS valid arguments on both sides.
Maybe its not 'unbelievers' who are un-informed'... ???
Again - there seem to be NO argument except about GW except to the degree of the 'emergency'.
And we all know what rash decisions can do - like in the 80's with global cooling - making cat converters be law, that is NOW part of the blame today.

2) Pull others weight? - if enough people agree - a law will be passed and force *everyone* into submission/change - has nothing to do with 'pulling' weight per se.

I mean - Say, I own a trucking company - and I DO care - really, what are my alternatives? Going out of business?

Or - I would take the buss - but they stop running at 9:00PM - and I need one later. What, do I call a cab? One that runs on LPG and also emits a green house gas (water vapor). Hitchhike and hope Im not killed/mugged?

Lets stay in reality here too.

We are all gonna die - and Im confident humans will be extinct one day - weather we cause it or not. One day our sun will go poof and this solar system will be decimated - this we do know and is never argued.

So the question becomes..
1) do we keep with our convenience and potentially bring our extinction sooner. or
2) break are asses, spend billions/trillions, for a few extra years of humans walking the earth - maybe (as it IS still argued how bad this 'problem' is, meteors can hit, sun goes super nova etc..)??

So logic would tell me - we need to meet some where half way between 'paranoid' and 'happy'.

Quote:

I'm done with this thread, it's pointless.

Debate is rarely pointless - is nothing else it can confirm your convictions and offer education to those who are not informed. And if you pose a good argument - you may not 'hear' the change of heart - but it can still happen if you do nothing but get the other side to reconsider their position.
Do I expect others to first argue against my position, then suddenly go ' OMG, you are so right - thank you for getting me to see the light' - hell no.
I expect nothing more than reading, comprehending my point of view. I hope you would not have any expectations greater than that as well.

OldBuzzard · May 23, 2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikingod

Source?

This is one of the most disturbing, uninformed things I've ever heard anyone say. I hope you're right, because one thing is for sure, the planet can't afford for people with your line of thinking to be wrong. It's depressing that something as important as the health of the planet and all who inhabit it has been reduced to a political debat. I'm done with this thread, it's pointless.

Bottom line, there are heaps of information available for those who want to learn about the real issues. Those that don't care/don't want to understand, can continue to ignore the problem and hope someone else pulls their weight.

I'm uninformed?!? At least I took the time to examine both side of the issue. I took time to 'follow the money', which is a very good indication at to who is lieing and who isn't. I took the time to take a look at the polotical agendas of each side. Interesting to note that the anti-AGW side is almost completely ignored by the Main Stream LIBERAL Press.

Not doing my part? How about the ultimate AGW guru Al Gore, whose house is using roughly 20 times more energy that the average person? Good old liberal "Da as I say, not as I do." action there.

Yes there is heaps of information on both sides....too bad that you chose to ignore/discount 1/2 of it.

Dowaco · May 24, 2007, 01:46 AM

There was a thread about this a while back
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/politica...fake-real.html
Lots of data was presented.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

Human generated CO2 is minor compared to all other sources.

CO2 does not cause warming anyway, It is a product of warming of the oceans. Water releases dissovled CO2 when heated.

Warming is due to a complex dynamic between the Sun (sunspots), cosmic rays and cloud cover.

The Earth is probably getting warmer although accurate readings from 10,000 years ago are suspect and there is really no such thing as an "average" global temperature. The problem I have with this is that we are spending far too much time and money chasing a bogus boogyman. The cause is attractive to left wing types because it is anti-capitalist and requires scientific explanations which are beyond 80% of the world's population to understand. So they dumb it down, twist the interpretation of the facts, give you a scary end game scenario and blame rich people.

If we really want to be able to control the Earth's climate, we will have to do it from space. Orbiting mirrors, cloud seeding and perhaps other yet to be discovered technology will be required. Reducing atmospheric CO2 from 5% to 4.999% will have absolutely zero effect on the problem.

GutterPunk · May 24, 2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowaco

There was a thread about this a while back
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/politica...fake-real.html
Lots of data was presented.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

Human generated CO2 is minor compared to all other sources.

CO2 does not cause warming anyway, It is a product of warming of the oceans. Water releases dissovled CO2 when heated.

Warming is due to a complex dynamic between the Sun (sunspots), cosmic rays and cloud cover.

The Earth is probably getting warmer although accurate readings from 10,000 years ago are suspect and there is really no such thing as an "average" global temperature. The problem I have with this is that we are spending far too much time and money chasing a bogus boogyman. The cause is attractive to left wing types because it is anti-capitalist and requires scientific explanations which are beyond 80% of the world's population to understand. So they dumb it down, twist the interpretation of the facts, give you a scary end game scenario and blame rich people.

If we really want to be able to control the Earth's climate, we will have to do it from space. Orbiting mirrors, cloud seeding and perhaps other yet to be discovered technology will be required. Reducing atmospheric CO2 from 5% to 4.999% will have absolutely zero effect on the problem.

Nicely said.

I agree above about mr Gore and what not... I am sick of tehse politicians who stand for one thing and then you find out... hey they do it just like everyone else. Using more energy than people, driving with cell phones, could go on forever.

GutterPunk · May 24, 2007, 01:14 PM

For people not believing in GW
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250059,00.html

Maddogg6 · May 24, 2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowaco

There was a thread about this a while back
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/politica...fake-real.html
Lots of data was presented.

I knew this before making this thread, but..
1) I tried to avoid flames from 'thread resurrecting'
2) I dont dispute the world is warming - so, it was meant to be a slightly different subject. (are we causing it - and what other 'gases' do we need to avoid emitting if we are?)
3) new developments have been made more widespread/public.
Like ..

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

For people not believing in GW
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250059,00.html

Which is kinda funny (in a sad way) - because the world warming doesn't seem to be the argument - is it only natural or is our emitting CO2 the culprit? - seems to be whats argued amongst the 'scientists'.

I now, completely forget/ignore any reports that dont name specific people and just say 'scientists' - I only consider info from those who can be held accountable for their statements. (as their reputations/carreers are at risk)- and even then - science has admittedly been wrong before.

I don't condone wreckless abandonment of caution - Ill say it again - we need to stop depending on a fuel thats gonna dry up (I can post a 100 reasons why we should still stop using fossil fuels) someday anyway - thats getting more and more expensive to use because of political climates.

But I STRONGLY CAUTION AGAINST things like what Branson is looking for - some invention to reverse / or lower the CO2 levels - when we know plants need that gas to survive. And *we* need plants to survive.

I have some respect for Virgins Branson - but his idea I see is VERY dangerous - and scares me a bit more than a 'projected' 2-5C increase in ocean temps over then next 100 years - when we know global temps will vary as much, if not more, naturally anyway.

GutterPunk · May 24, 2007, 03:52 PM

Well specific names are in there and they quit working on UN projects because they were off base.

I agree we definitely need to stop using fossil fuels though. Wind power ftw, etc i could go on forever.

Falstaff · May 24, 2007, 04:42 PM

fossil fuels
smossil fuels..

Maddogg6 · May 24, 2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GutterPunk

Well specific names are in there and they quit working on UN projects because they were off base.

Yes - sorry - I was just pointing out how accountability should be greatly considered when making a decision on such a huge subject. (world annihilation is no small threat, and should NOT be taken lightly by anyone)

The way we react should NOT be done blindly and in fear from 'spun' conclusions from potentially manipulated data.

This whole global warming issue *should* be what opens our eyes to the level of manipulation our politicians and media are willing to go to for the purpose of accomplishing their agendas that are not necessarily for the good of us all.

GutterPunk · Jun 1, 2007, 04:34 PM

http://www.livescience.com/environme..._rainfall.html

Falstaff · Jun 1, 2007, 11:25 PM

global warming and global cooling have been occurred on this planet for as long as there there has been this speck of dirt in the solar system. I hope to hell there will be a world that our children will be able to live on one day, and that we have mortgaged our future and the future of our children away. As long as there is a God and someone who believes that the world and nature is more robust than we believe....
How arrogant we are, thinking that the world will end when we destroy ourselves...
How arrogant we are thinking that the world cannot exist without our stewardship..
How foolish we are in trusting the word of either side of this issue...
Lets clean the air, the water and the soil and stop polluting for sure....
but can we all say we are worthy of inheriting the earth...
are we, the human race really worthy of the domain of the this world?

Sandok · Jun 2, 2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldBuzzard

Not doing my part? How about the ultimate AGW guru Al Gore, whose house is using roughly 20 times more energy that the average person? Good old liberal "Da as I say, not as I do." action there.

Whenever I hear some guy say that, it makes my blood boil... Who the f**k cares?!

Are you so insecure that you only do things others do, copying their methods of living and acting or do you listen to the MESSAGE and try to adopt it in your lifestyle? He's a bloody politician and a rich man, he'll of course, use more power.

The message is what counts for christ sake, not copying the lifestyle of some old man.

Dowaco · Jun 2, 2007, 03:41 PM

The best leaders lead by example. "Do as I say, not as I do" is fine for parents of small children, but one must have the strength of ones own convictions to lead others on a difficult path.

Who inspires you more:
Preists who preach God's word but are child molesters? or Mother Teresa.
Army Generals who give dangerous commands while sitting back at headquarters? or George Patton.
Politicians who order you to change your lifestyle from their private jets? or... or.... well, there are no inspiring politicians.

If the message is what counts, then everyone should be listening to the message. Especially the one delivering it.

Maddogg6 · Jun 2, 2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Whenever I hear some guy say that, it makes my blood boil... Who the f**k cares?!

Are you so insecure that you only do things others do, copying their methods of living and acting or do you listen to the MESSAGE and try to adopt it in your lifestyle? He's a bloody politician and a rich man, he'll of course, use more power.

The message is what counts for christ sake, not copying the lifestyle of some old man.

Let me know when I can have my 'horse' back....

Sandok · Jun 2, 2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddogg6

Let me know when I can have my 'horse' back....

I'm allowed to make a comment about a post...

You're still on your horse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowaco

The best leaders lead by example. "Do as I say, not as I do" is fine for parents of small children, but one must have the strength of ones own convictions to lead others on a difficult path.

I totally disagree, my parents taught me by example as a small child, because that's how you learn. You copy blindly your elders, learning off them. As an adult, you learn how to adapt and make the right choices corresponding to you, just by their words. It's "normal" in my humble opinion.

And if ever, Gore, compared to many other politicians, uses very little power proportionally. Don't compare him to poorer people than himself, compare him to others in his social level and you'll see, he isn't the anti-christ Fox News tries to make out of him.

Maddogg6 · Jun 2, 2007, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I'm allowed to make a comment about a post...

Never said you couldn't... putting words in my mouth now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

You're still on your horse.

Looks more like your in the saddle now par'ner...

May 22, 2007, 07:37 AM	#1
Maddogg6 Tail Razer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bernyurass, AZ - USA Posts: 4,027 Rep Power: 0	What are 'greenhouse gasses'? Ok - We hear soooooo much about CO2 being a green house gas. Ok - I won't directly argue this to be fact or not. But.... Isnt CO the 'poison' released from fossil fuels? Where people & animals all release CO2 - thus - we are ALL green house gas generators. So - now I wonder - is there some HUGE mixup with the two gasses - (CO vs CO2)?? Is it the hint that the whole green house gas frenzy is a media induced 'emergency' ?? Or do we start killing people and animals off to stop green house gas emissions at some point in time?? ie.. 'Those pesky (insert undeveloped country here) oxygen absorbing, 'green house gas' emitting worthless people are causing global warming - they must be eliminated' Maybe global warming is caused also by over population?? and fossil fuels - actually reduces CO2 - by killing the 'true' cause with CO poison - people/animals. While I have ZERO doubt that burning fossil fuels is hazardous to our health.... it seems the whole CO2 'threat' is some kind of scam or 'distraction' or some tactic for some other agenda?. Something definitely doesn't sit right with me on this.... when we have the likes of Richard Branson offering rewards to 'reverse' ("...removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.") the effects that will more likely cause more problems than what they would reverse - I equate 'removing XXXX ammounts' to 'removal' - and 'stop adding so mother nature can do the removing' - would NOT be a $25M winning idea. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020900693.html Or am I just nuckin futs with lysdexia??

May 22, 2007, 08:10 AM	#2
ChaosMinionX USB 3 dot oh Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,911 Rep Power: 47 System Specs	An explanation can be found here http://www.hardwareheaven.com/off-topi...-i-farted.html Serious Post to come! __________________ ::Heatware:: How you can help DriverHeaven by using Digg!

May 22, 2007, 09:28 PM	#10
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	Looking back on data charts I saw awhile back presented by scientists, the rise in greenhouse gasses was equivelant to what was projected years ago. Also they are nearly the same incline (accelerated only a small % because of greenhouse gasses). I will take the side of the natural cycle of the earth. Especially if cows kick transportation's ass in the amount of greenhouse gasses produced. __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

May 23, 2007, 10:35 AM	#11
OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,783 Rep Power: 145 System Specs	@ Vikingod....Bovine Excrement!!!! That SAME "scientific community" was telling us in the late 70's that we were all going to die from GLOBAL COOLING. As for the CO2 levels, it is well documented that the rise in CO2 levels lags in relationship to global warming trends, it does not lead it. Also, explain to me why MARS is experiencing the very same 'global warming' that we are here? Maybe AlGore has found a way to travel to Mars, and all his hot air about global warming is doing it. That's about as scientific as the 'consensus'. 'Scientific Consensus" is utter balderdash. There was a time when 'consensus' said that the world was flat. 'Consensus' said that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the Earth. I could go on and on, but you can see the trend. I don't dispute that the Earth is warming, but it's nowhere near as warm as it was in the 800's, and nowhere near as warm as it has been MULTIPLE times in the past. In fact, by strict defination, we are still in an ICE AGE, albit at the end of said ice age. You may believe all the 'Chicken Littles', but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what they are babbling about, nor am I going the feel guilty about NOT reducing my 'carbon footprint'. EDIT: Said Vikingod: "You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist* nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced."* Says I: How about a dozen or so here? http://infowars.com/articles/science...m_shifting.htm And roughly 17,000 here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ Hard pressed? Not really. __________________ When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY Last edited by OldBuzzard; May 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM.

May 24, 2007, 01:46 AM	#17
Dowaco DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 217 Rep Power: 0	There was a thread about this a while back http://www.hardwareheaven.com/politica...fake-real.html Lots of data was presented. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor Human generated CO2 is minor compared to all other sources. CO2 does not cause warming anyway, It is a product of warming of the oceans. Water releases dissovled CO2 when heated. Warming is due to a complex dynamic between the Sun (sunspots), cosmic rays and cloud cover. The Earth is probably getting warmer although accurate readings from 10,000 years ago are suspect and there is really no such thing as an "average" global temperature. The problem I have with this is that we are spending far too much time and money chasing a bogus boogyman. The cause is attractive to left wing types because it is anti-capitalist and requires scientific explanations which are beyond 80% of the world's population to understand. So they dumb it down, twist the interpretation of the facts, give you a scary end game scenario and blame rich people. If we really want to be able to control the Earth's climate, we will have to do it from space. Orbiting mirrors, cloud seeding and perhaps other yet to be discovered technology will be required. Reducing atmospheric CO2 from 5% to 4.999% will have absolutely zero effect on the problem. __________________ The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

May 22, 2007, 02:54 PM	#8
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Wow, there are some pretty uninformed responses here. Guys, the issue is not with 'poison'. The problem with CO2 is that it stores energy. With CO2 in the atmosphere, heat radiated by the planet reflected by the sun can not escape into space. Yes, the planet can naturally remove CO2 (plants, trees, and plankton are the main ways of transforming CO2 into O2). But not fast enough for our current emissions. The problem is the world power plants, which burn coal and gas and create unnatural levels of CO2. Yes, volcanoes create greenhouse gases, but we can't control them. While cars and cattle (though they certainly don't create 20% of the gases) are an issue, the main problem is power plants. The scientific community has known of this problem since the 1960's. Problem is, political issues have always kept the public uninformed, especially in the US (the world biggest consumer of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases). The fear that being 'green' with somehow destroy the economy. The whole "scientific communitty is plotting against us" conspiracy actually started with an off hand comment by some senetor during election time in the 1980's. If anything, the conspiracy is that the government has been down playing the threat, continues to keep the public uninformed, and refuses to understand the problem. Its typical of human nature, wait until its nearly too late to act on it. What makes me sick is that people (even in this thread) chose to side with the conspiracy theorists/politicians/talk show hosts on this issue and ignore what the scientific community has to say. You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced. If something isn't done, the planet as we know it will die. We already see it with the extreme weather, the melting of the polar ice cap and the world glaciers, and rising temperatures of the oceans. Its not really an issue of if its happening, its an issue of "can we change it, or have we gone too far?" Please, if you are someone that sides with the politicians, get a documentary on the subject (specifically PBS's Frontline series), read a website or magazine and get informed. It is scarey, and I guarantee we don't want to live on the planet we are creating.

May 24, 2007, 01:14 PM	#19
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	For people not believing in GW http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250059,00.html __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

May 24, 2007, 03:52 PM	#21
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	Well specific names are in there and they quit working on UN projects because they were off base. I agree we definitely need to stop using fossil fuels though. Wind power ftw, etc i could go on forever. __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

May 24, 2007, 04:42 PM	#22
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	fossil fuels smossil fuels.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 1, 2007, 04:34 PM	#24
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 71	http://www.livescience.com/environme..._rainfall.html __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Jun 1, 2007, 11:25 PM	#25
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	global warming and global cooling have been occurred on this planet for as long as there there has been this speck of dirt in the solar system. I hope to hell there will be a world that our children will be able to live on one day, and that we have mortgaged our future and the future of our children away. As long as there is a God and someone who believes that the world and nature is more robust than we believe.... How arrogant we are, thinking that the world will end when we destroy ourselves... How arrogant we are thinking that the world cannot exist without our stewardship.. How foolish we are in trusting the word of either side of this issue... Lets clean the air, the water and the soil and stop polluting for sure.... but can we all say we are worthy of inheriting the earth... are we, the human race really worthy of the domain of the this world? __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 2, 2007, 03:41 PM	#27
Dowaco DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 217 Rep Power: 0	The best leaders lead by example. "Do as I say, not as I do" is fine for parents of small children, but one must have the strength of ones own convictions to lead others on a difficult path. Who inspires you more: Preists who preach God's word but are child molesters? or Mother Teresa. Army Generals who give dangerous commands while sitting back at headquarters? or George Patton. Politicians who order you to change your lifestyle from their private jets? or... or.... well, there are no inspiring politicians. If the message is what counts, then everyone should be listening to the message. Especially the one delivering it. __________________ The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.