NBVegita

Humans' total ac!@#$%^&*ulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here). He is saying !@#$%^&*uming we believe the hype that we've cause it all. did you read my second source?

I wasn't arguing his theories behind greenhouse gases and their effects, I was using the statistics cited directly from the sources he lists, which if you read through the sources are credible. Never once have I tried to use any of the above mentioned in our debate.

Well I wouldn't say I'd vote for obama for pres, I just hope he's the democratic nominee.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ A very good source. He cites all of his sources, and if you research him is research is quite credible. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Also a very well cited source. You can trace all of his data by looking through his credible citations.

People today are such wusses. They deserve to get hit hard with real life. But even in real life we've become overly politically correct so not even that is a hard slap anymore.

but as I've shown because its compounded hourly you really get more than 24 in a two day period. Even without fees you make more in the free account.

lol no I throughly agree. I really hope Edwards doesn't make it. The only dem I like in the race is obama.

lol touche.

How ignorant. "I didn't know having a bot that repeatedly exploited a recreation bug, so I could get tons of items an hour, that I can use for money or just keep the items, was illegal." Yeah.

Sever that is what I've been trying to say. First off the industrial revolution did not start 300 years ago, well it was in infancy, but the production of CO2 didn't really go into effect until the early to mid 1800's. Second, is that of that 34% increase in CO2, even today, where emissions are very high we only contribute ~3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere. Now I will say that us doing our massive logging did have an effect of the natural CO2 not having as big of a source to absorb it, but the point is that our effect even today is minimal to global warming. Again I've stated that I want to preserve trees, and increase national parks, doing this would give a decrease in CO2. I mean just since 2000, the US has cut down 105 million trees, just for the magazine industry. Each tree on an average absorbs 3 kg of CO2 in a year. 105 X 3 = 315 million kgs of CO2 each year. Just from magazines! Imagine how many trillions of trees we have cut down over the past century? Say we've cut down even 10 trillion trees. That is 30 trillion tons of CO2 that can't be absorbed, or in reference to what we have been talking about, 30 Billion tons of CO2 that has not been able to be absorbed. That is a much dire issue than worrying about spending billions to lower our emissions from 6 billion tons a year to 5.9 billion tons a year. Spend those billions on making national parks that cannot be touched. Our logging has had a much more drastic effect on the greenhouse effect than our emissions ever will, but all the politicians keep pushing emissions so they can get their grant money. But with the values I showed how trivial the statement is.

lol he'd refuse, he's refused every head to head debate offered to him in the past year and a half on the subject.

As for the level of green house gases: since the 1700's, right as we started warming up, CO2 in the atmosphere has raised over 34%. Unless you're planning on blaming it on an influx of bean sales. And how do you come to the conlusion that because something warms the earth by 60C that adjusting it by .28% will have a fairly noticable effect? Following your theory, you raise the temperature by 3% you get 62C, so if you raised it by 50% the temperature would become 90C. so if you raise it by 00.28% it would mean as of today we have effected the global temperature by .168C or for the americans it adds .3024F. So instead of it being 80F out one day, because of us it is .3024F. !@#$%^&* us to !@#$%^&* we've ruined the planet.

I'm on lunch so I'll take only your first point until I get back to work, "Yes they are directly proportional, so if the natural greenhouse gas levels are not changing then neither should the temperature." The natural greenhouse gas levels are constantly changing. As I've stated in my last post, simply because we haven't seen such drastic changes in a few millennium does not mean that they are not natural. And even say 300 million years ago, the change were just as drastic, or even more severe, with no notable inducement to increase the natural green house gases. And nature is very good at balancing out that small amount that we induce. Notice with Mt. Krakatoa, just in sulfur dioxide, it released over 8 metric tons into the atmosphere, and after 5 years all was back to normal.

No if you check our natural greenhouse gases are directly proportional to the increase and decrease in temperature. Ice cores have proven that. The problem with your post is that you can have your ion drive maintain a constant speed. Climate is forever changing. The climate is constantly getting warmer and colder at varying rates of acceleration. My arguement is not that we have had no effect on the climate, it is that statistically, our climate temperature has been increasing at varying degrees since the 1600's, and that the .28% influence to the greenhouse effect by anthropogenic means is not enough to cause a major change in the climate. Also my statistics show that previously our climate has gone through similar, and even more severe climate temperature changes. What, just because we haven't had such a serious climate change for a few milleniums it must be that our .28% is causing all of it? Or most of it? How do you explain the extreme changes in temperature, the phasing in and out of ice ages, if the natural greenhouse contribution is effectively a constant?

Notice how they were all from MG...hmm interesting...

All you have to do is reset your race, and select "no race" and it will remove you from the game. Once I had given ail my stuff, as I was quitting, I had offered to do what you are doing to aid him, and he told me no, that he considered it cheating.

transferring all of your stuff if you quit is not illegal, keeping your account active to just feed another account is illegal. It is no different if you are playing solely to give him stuff as if he created a second account solely to give his account things.

If I'm not mistaken, that is also illegal.

I would really like to have read that topic.

You need to fix the bank accounts too.

People did question, but no one checked, and they were acting all mighty trying to pretend that no one would be able to figure them out.

I don't see your 3% effect. I'd like to see your resources that 5% of other gases makes up for 95% of water vapor, because I've read a lot of studies from both sides of the line and I'm yet to find one that shows that the ~3.6% of CO2 in global warming accounts for more than the 95% of water vapor, or anything of the sort. And whats even more is that I'd like to see how .28% turns into 3%. That would mean you would have to show that these other gases have 11 times the global warming factor over water vapor. As for the dinosaurs, there was incredible volcanic activity which released CO2, dust and ash in massive amounts into the atmosphere. The dinosaurs then promptly fell into an ice age. And it wasn't because it was just cloudy or a little dusty. And sever, as I've stated before it's not that I don't think anything should be done. I think we should preserve trees, and work to repair those areas we destroyed by even say creating national parks where in a century from now our grandchildren will reap the benefits of those trees. And expending SOME resourses to lower emissions, but as things like this always do, there are going to be a lot of scientists getting a lot of grant money, which is already happening, and there will be billions of dollars spent to fight a battle against our climate which is mostly natural. When there are a LOT more issue going on which that money would be able to help out that will see little to no aid because of incomplete data. There is a reason why Al Gore has refused every person who has challenged him, over the past year and a half, about global warming. We are moving towards an ice age, and there will be nothing we can do about it. Man often overestimates his control over mother nature.

I had an !@#$%^&*umption that this was the issue. Why do people cheat in a small forum rpg game? Does winning really mean that much that you have to do something like that? I mean its bad enough to cheat in a 2d space shooter game, let alone to cheat in an rpg on the forums for a 2d space shooter game.

We only account for in actuality .28% of greenhouse gases. 95% is water, which scientists agree that at most we have a .0001% influence over, most say we have no influence over. Of the remaining 5%, 72.369% is CO2 for which we account for .117% 7.199% is CH4 which we account for .066% 19.000% is N2O which we account for .047% 1.432% is other gases which we account for .047% These numbers are our total contribution to the greenhouse effect. now apply that .28% to your numbers and see how trivial the result is.

Read my second link in my last post. We only contribute .28% to the greenhouse effect. And I never said that vapor and clouds don't keep us alive, the natural planetary temperature would be -33C, some say only -16C without clouds and vapor. And remember your history about the dinosaurs? They did not become extinct over thousands or millions of years. There was an extreme warming to unheard of temperatures, and then the earth plunged into an ice age. If you investigate all of the ice ages, there is always a drastic increase in temperature, and then an even more drastic decrease. When mount Krakatoa erupted in 1883 the average global temperatures by 1C-5C. That year was termed the year without summer as it snowed in New England in July. This did not balance out until 1888. Our climate has often had dramatic changes, without any human influence. And the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the most credited sources in the world, states that between 1990 and 2100 the planet could increase its temperature by .6C-2.5C. This takes into effect the natural climate change coupled with the greenhouse effect. Now as I've shown that we only have a .28% influence on the greenhouse effect, that means we would be responsible for .00168C-.007C over the next century. Even on the extremist end where they claim we're responsible for 25% of the non-water greenhouse effect, which being proven that we only produce ~3% of the CO2 in these greenhouse gases, and CO2 cons!@#$%^&*utes ~73% of the remaining greenhouse effect, which proves that 25% wrong, we would still only be responsible for .015C-.0625C And mind you those number are !@#$%^&*uming that the .6C-2.5C is coming strictly from the greenhouse effect. So if you include ocean currents melting the ice caps, and the rotation of the planet, among a few things, it would be even lower. Yes I don't think Obama will have the experience problem. In fact I wouldn't mind having the man in office.