Thor, back in the 90's I worked in conservation with the corp. of engineer's. I think the forest service does a fine job in regulating the logging in our forest. Do you know what happen's when the enviromentalist get too radical about blocking logging? The forest service sell's the land to pay the bill's. Do you know who they sell it to? Land developer's. Just recently here in missouri, forest land was for sale to pay for school's in california. Imagine that? They just ended up selling some timber off of it, thank god. I do business with farmer's everyday. I've never met a farmer that like's an enviromentalist. Enviro-mental's don't like the idea of an airplane flying around spraying all kind's of chemical's all over the place. But the fact is that stand's of tree's next to crop's are healthier than the forest land.

It's your side that say's cow shit and belching cow's and pile's of crap in feed lot's contribute 5% to global warming. We could probably do away with that if we all quit eating hamburger's and started eating tofu turkey. Sound's to me like you don't understand basic biology about plant's and animal's if you disagree with what thousand has posted. Pick up a 5th science book and read a few chapter's.

I think you and Thor need to put down the reefer cigarette and turn off the " inconveinent truth " movie. So far Thousand has been the only one to post " the link " Where's your link Nick? What the hell does rush limbaugh have to do with the environment? Why are you and Thor so concerned with Rush Limbaugh? Rush hasnt passed 1 environmental law. He's a radio guy. Do you not like what he has to say? Why not? Isnt about 51 congressmen trying to pass some kind of law to shut rush up? Why? wait a minute, these 51 congressmen are the spokes person's for who? can you guess? You know what, you can't even prove Limbaugh wrong, let alone prove yourself right.

What a lame self serving load of bull 1K.

You talk about other people being childish and insulting then you weasel them into your post where you try to sound appologetic and reasonable.

Well it doesn't fly and I doubt everyone here is dumb enough to buy it either.

What makes that even funnier is the innate truth of it. A dead world is pretty much a problem free world, people and living things make problems. Change is an inevitable part of life, but keeping it in balance and keeping it going, there is the problem.

By the way, the drop of water paradigm is an even better application of the ripple effects that are part of chaos theory.

Thor The expression" blowing smoke up people's asses" is widely know(or at least I thought it was) and is in no way gay related.

Nick brought up the ass play. I think you two are on the same page.

well I'm sorry. I'll try to remember to grovel before your mighty grizzly balls next time I hope to get any kind of coherent answer out of you.

Grog, I'm glad you showed up in here. It's good to hear from an honest enviromentalist that isnt in a blind rage like a rabid animal. I apprecieate your research and your sensible messages.

>>Actually toxicity is the same in an open or closed system, so it really doesn't matter. <
>Huh? If its is diluted to minute levels it's effect is negated.

Yes, but that is not what we are talking about. If you say that a given chemical is at x% saturation it doesn't matter how large the system is, it is at that saturation level either way, give or take minor fluctuations due to distribution factors. One example is the laws of partial pressure of fluids which you can find in any chemistry book.

>I'm sorry but taking 90% of your data from non-random sources on only 29% of the surface area (terrestrial) of the earth and making a claim that something is global, bad science.

If that is what were being done, then I would agree with you, but that is simply not true.

>The level of confidence in accuracy plummets as one moves away from present time. This is due to the complex interactions that we still don't understand.

Absolutely. This is completely true with all forms of predictive science. It always gets more variable as you make longer term projections. It is also true that there are always new factors we don't understand and that old science is constantly being reviewed for accuracy of findings, this is a normal part of pursuing a doctoral degree in related fields, and many people still get grants to review and verify existing work as well.

>And? The published papers are wrong? Greenland didn't used to be 5 deg C warmer than today? The butterflies in the ice cores are planted?

Some published papers are wrong. That is fact. We both know this. The aberations you describe were not normal conditions, nor were they based on long term trends. Keep in mind that a dead butterfly can be carried clear around the world on wind currents. Study the related factors and overall shifts. Have you read the book The Little Ice Age? It deals with these considerations quite well and Brian Fagan does very solid work.

I will point out that the UCS only recently adopted the agenda to end fossil fuel use due to their analysis of the damage it does and the inevitable fact that it will run out in time, or at least be so scarce to be effectively useless in terms of keeping civilization going. They have been around a lot longer than the current public environmental issues have.

>See the problem....people (scientists even!) just knee jerk and say....ack global warming! It must be the CO2!!!! Why?

Actually, no they look for causes that explain observable phenomenon. Then they go find ways to check for validity and they float it around for other scientists to take shots at to see if it holds up. The fact that 99% of the worlds scientists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global greenhouse effects is about as solid as anyone is likely to ever get short of doing an after the fact examination several thousand years from now, that is if civilization survives.

Do you understand that it takes very small percentage changes in the makeup of a gaseous mixture to greatly change the transparency, refractivity and reflectivity indexes of that mixture in ways that can make it either pass, reflect, or absorb a vastly different amount of energy in certain wavelengths?

>Yes and over that time the trend has been......cooling. In fact if you go back 350 million yrs the linear progression has been a sharp downward cooling trend. I still don't understand how anyone can think 120yrs or even 500yrs is a climate trend. Lately it takes about 130,000yrs to run a cycle. Why it must run in perfect sync with the last 120yrs of data is scientifically silly.

Ah yes, and this we agree on, and it has been factored into all of the serious studies about global warming.

>Again, my concern is everyone is looking at CO2. OMG look at the levels!!!! What about the biggest greenhouse gas (by volume)? It only gets mentioned in passing....water vapor.

>try and get a grant to study the effects water vapor on global climate change vs. one on CO2 impacts.....hmmmm. Science goes where the money is....which is a shame.

Mentioned in passing by layman, but climate scientists have been considering and measure the effect it has on the greenhouse issue for several decades. There have been grants for studying the impact of the changes in cloud formation caused by warming and other atmospheric changes.

If you do a grant history search through national science foundation alone you will find quite a few studies of water vapor, clouds, and the effect of rainfall on the climate issues, including studies of rainfall washing out some CO2, producing acid rain, then carrying that acidity into the oceans and affecting the carbon and calcium chemistry involved in formation of fish bones, shells, and corral.

I've been watching this field for over thirty years and have seen and ready many of the studies that the nay sayers all say do not exist, which proves just how shaky their assertions are. At best they are sloppy about their research, otherwise they are just lying.

By the way, one of those feel good warm and fuzzy research grants that people bad mouth all the time is responsible for the growing industry of LED lights. It stems from research into the color changes that occur in the wings of butterflies.

Science doesn't always go where the money is, and some times the money comes from people doing pure science and it turning out useful later. The space program is a good example along those lines too. It has paid this country back many times over in jobs and technology.

Thor, I really admire how important of a person you are. It makes it even more impressive that every thread, every mention of yourself, has you wreslting grizzly bears, teaching calculus, and training snipers along with developing research into producing fuels that don't use up anything, and heading scientific research teams that make groundbreaking discoveries in world physics. Oh and you also aren't shy to boast that you make more money than anyone here...

I just find it all fascinating that the world's most accomplished human being, has to run all over the place, tooting their own horn whenever they can, and even when it's not necessarily relevant or appropriate.

I mean, if one didn't know any better, and if one weren't so amazed at your sheer Godliness, one *might* just call BullShit on 90% of the things coming out of your mouth... but as you know, everyone in here is too blown away by your intellect and powerfull manliness. Please, tell us more about how cool you are! we're just DYING to hear more! Tell us about the time when Jesus begged you for your autograph...

Thor, have you been drinking?

Eventually, this thread will have it's own dedicated server. That's the goal, at least.