thirdworld19

>So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points? 200 years of data. >>>Which works out to 2 data points based on the data you supplied earlier. Not near enough to make a conclusion such as yours. >And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in) is questionable at best. CO2 is increasing - proven via experiment. We are causing the increase in CO2 - proven via simple mathematical analysis. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas - proven by experiment. CO2 causes warming of the planet - demonstrated by historical record. >>>Please explain this simple mathematical analysis that proves we are causing the increase in CO2. Are you aware that CO2 was rising before the industrial revolution - and has been for the past 8,000-10,000 years? What caused that? Please also explain how CO2 causes the warming of the planet more so than the sun (look up sun-spot data). And if there is such a strong correlation between CO2 and global warming, why has the temp decreased over the past 8 years? >Who would've caused the previous warming trends? Milankovitch cycles. Massive volcanic activity. More often, recovery from an ice age. >>>And the little ice age that occured from the 16th to the 19th century won't have anything to do with the current warming? >Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides. Right. You can't stop the tides, which rise a few feet at a time. But you can stop the dam from breaking, which gives you 30 feet of water in a few minutes. All we can do is not force the climate to change faster than it otherwise would. >>>And relating the warming to a dam breaking is exactly what those behind the scare want everyone to believe. You seem smarter than to play into the emotional and fear issues created by this (discussing the future of our children). As soon as you state this, the argument goes from rational to emotional. Look at the science. Try the following websites: Friendsofscience.org CO2Science.org JunkScience.com

What about Ron Popeil's GLH-9 for thinning hair? Ron Popeil is a genius for getting men to spray paint their heads, thinking it makes them look like they have more hair.

So, if it's just beginning, what makes you think that its happening in decades versus thousands of years - 2 data points? And to say that we've caused this warming trend (if that's what we're in) is questionable at best. It's politically driven. Look at historical data over the past 1/2 million years - it's been happening longer than we've been around. Who would've caused the previous warming trends? Perhaps they just happen as part of the Earth's cyclical nature. Trying to stop this is akin to stopping or slowing the tides.

When I was in high school, I worked at a Wendy's. One summer, I ate a hamburger, fries and a Pepsi for breakfast, lunch, and dinner - every day for 2 months. I still love Wendy's.

> How many "ice ages" have there been during the existence of the earth? Four major ones. >...each of which was followed by a warm period. "Ages" and "periods" are not measured in days, weeks, months or years. Rather, they are measured in thousands of years. Agreed. This one is happening in decades instead of thousands of years due to our increased CO2 emissions. It seems that you are trying to evaluate data that is incomplete because the period for which you need to observe has not elapsed. Looking at the data you presented, there are 100-200 centuries of data for each warming period from which to base a conclusion. It appears that you are using 2 centuries to come to a similar conclusion. Seems like quite a leap. If you were to have taken certain decade periods (not centuries) during any of the ice ages, some of those decades would have shown leaps in decline of temperature. Whereas, other decades may not have shown any, very little, or even increases.

This is assuming we know when the trend will stop and cooling will begin. Perhaps this is the beginning of a thousand year trend. Is there information available as to how quick the temps rose in the last global warming? Then we can compare what is happening now.

This is a great article about Terrestrial (Nuclear) Energy. http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=02

Dr. Smith and The Robinson family

Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. The status quo you speak of is being protected by our inept politicians on both sides of the aisle. Compare the total $$ supposedly made by Gore and others who are claimed to benefit from GW, with the total $$ known to be made by those who gain from preserving the status quo, and report back to us which is bigger. Let's see:

Does anyone remember the global cooling scares of the 70s? What about the global cooling scares of the 1950s? And before that there was another warming scare in the 1930s. And in the 20s there was a cooling scare. Before that, back in 1895, there was a cooling scare.

How dedicated are you? CO2 is manufactured during the fermentation of the sugars in the brewing of beer and other alcoholic beverages. Are you willing to give that up to help save the planet?

Heinlein should be required reading/study in school.

Would this include rebuilding houses in an area where the risk of natural disaster is higher - floods, hurricanes, wild fires? New Orleans - a city built in a hurricane prone area where 49% of the city is below sea level. Not saying it's not sad, but should I bail them out? People take risks in everything they do - should I be responsible when the choice they made doesn't work out as they wanted?

Is there any part of an animal that doesn't get eaten?

And did you like it? I am in Jordan and in many of the restaurants, lamb's brain is on the menu, so I thought I'd try it. It came either fried or sauteed with garlic and butter. Since everything tastes good with garlic and butter, that's what I had. The garlic was overpowering - hard to tell what it actually tasted like. It wasn't bad, but I need to try it fried now.

I thought that the government was more than happy to accept the food, money, goods - they just don't want the aid workers to come in. They want us to ship them the aid and leave it for the government to dole out.

Ok - so sex transforming into a drug is not the main point of the article, so why even include that statement? My question: Is human life really losing value through the use of artificial insemination or artificial birth control? VATICAN CITY, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged Saturday that the Vatican's teaching against birth control was difficult as he praised a 1968 Church document that condemned contraception. Pope Benedict expressed concern that human life risks losing its value in today's culture. In a speech marking the 40th anniversary of the document, Benedict reiterated the Church's ban against artificial birth control as well as more recent teaching against using artificial procreation methods. Pope Paul VI's 1968 "Humanae vitae" ("On Human Life") encyclical prohibits Catholics from using artificial birth control. "The teaching laid out in the 'Humanae vitae' encyclical isn't easy," Benedict said. "What was true yesterday remains true even today. The truth expressed in 'Humanae vitae' doesn't change; on the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries, it is ever more up to date," the pope added. Benedict appeared to be referring to artificial procreation methods, which in the Church's view offend the dignity of life and go against Vatican teaching that the only way to conceive a child is through intercourse between husband and wife. "No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery," Benedict said. Benedict expressed concern that human life risks losing its value in today's culture and worried that sex could "transform itself into a drug" that one partner had to have even against the will of the other. "What must be defended is not only the true concept of life but above all the dignity of the very person," the pope added. Paul VI was said to have agonized over whether to allow artificial conception in preparing the encyclical. Benedict described Paul's decision as the fruit of much suffering and the document as "a significant gesture of courage." "Forty years after its publication, that teaching not only shows itself to be unchanged in its truth, but it reveals the farsightedness with which the problem was tackled," the pope said.

I agree - the principal went too far. There are so many other ways to handle this. However, is it possible that the kid had other disciplinary problems and this was just the last straw?

Doh!

The world needs ditch diggers too. (Caddyshack for you youngins) I would imagine (no figures to back this up, just anecdotal evidence) that a large number of parents would still send their kids to school - not for the education, but for the free babysitting service they see it as. That, and many underprivileged children have their only meals at school. Why would a parent or parents give that up.

My sister got married at Mandalay Bay and it was beautiful.

Wasn't there a Twilight Zone episode where plants actually had feelings and only some people could hear them scream when they were plucked or cut down???

Why are you discounting the ones you've already mentioned? How about General Hayden - I would think he might know a thing or two about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques. I think many people believe that torture in the US (or at the behest of the US) is happening far more than it does. According to General Hayden, waterboarding was used on only 3 individuals and not after 2003. Two of those individuals, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zabayda, actually broke and produced great intel. Paul Gimigliano and A.B. Krongard also stated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked. How about "Torture: A Collection" - actually presents many sides to the discussion. "The considered opinions of Jean Bethke Elshtain, Oren Gross, Miriam Gur-Arye, Oona A. Hathaway, John H. Langbein, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Mark Osiel, John T. Parry, Henry Shue, and Jerome H. Skolnick, along with the other essayists, demonstrate that reasonable scholars committed to human rights can reach diverse conclusions." There are essays in this collection that point both to the effectiveness as well as the ineffectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques. So now what. And this is where we disagree. There are many people who believe it is ineffective (and I would bet that much of that rests on the distaste for the actual act). There are also many people who believe that it is effective. It's like bringing experts into court - you can find experts to support just about anything. My point was simply that the US has an official policy against using torture. It is possible (I would like to say even likely, but I won't) that government agencies that produce these reports/manuals may have an interest in what the reports say. It would be bad form to publicly support something that they are officially against (for example, saying that it is OK to use these techniques in a field manual - that would go against the official policy). It may even be a good thing to show the world that "Hey, we don't torture, it's not effective, so why would we." Are you saying that you don't like The A-Team. That's heresy!

Just Google the couple of names I gave you and you'll find the evidence. Real quick if you really want to know - or you can willingly turn a blind eye to it.

Why is it not reasonable? The government hasn't done anything like this in the past? I think we agreed in a previous post that this is definitely up the gov'ts alley. That's what they do. Just because some people don't like torture, does not make it ineffective. If you haven't seen evidence, it's because you haven't looked. I spent 10 minutes Googling and found several links. The US was very successful breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Enhanced interrogation techniques also worked with Abu Zubaydah. There are many within the CIA who state that ehanced interrogation methods are effective - these are the people actually using the techniques. Even Aristotle thought that torture could be effective in certain circumstances. So who's right? Or will you try to downplay these success stories? I have no doubt that torture doesn't work on everyone, but that doesn't make it ineffective. Now that is just ridiculous. But many experts also agree with me. I think I'll stick with them. Please point to the specific reference to the 90% effective rate. And that would be using which technique? I'm also not suggesting we abandon them - not sure where you got that from. I'm saying that just because a technique does not work 100% of the time does not mean we should throw it out - and it seems you agree with that. Do you know that it wouldn't? A couple of anecdotes/opinions does not make for statistical evidence (and 'most likely based on statistical evidence' doesn't rise to the level of statistical evidence either). As an aside (since you referenced it), do you really believe the whole Abu Graib thing was done to illicit information, or just for the entertainment of a few sick people? Informed opinion also points to the effectiveness of torture in certain cases as well. Again, to 'consistently favor humane treatment' does not render torture ineffective.