Save the Planet ...

[GoldenArm9]

This is a great site ....help destroy the global warming myth

http://grassfire.org/

[jamiethelanky]

So, you've decided to ignore the rising ambient temperature, sea levels, acid rain.

That's your funeral (actually, no it isn't - it'll hit places like Holland and Bangladesh, first).

[Jumbro]

Didn't you get the memo, "global warming" is no longer a threat...Now it is "global climate change" that we need to worry about:rolleyes:

Seriously, when the world is in the middle of what is scientifically considered an Ice Age, you sure as heck have to expect that eventually things will warm up don't you? That's alright, Gore tricked those scientists into putting their names on the movie and he got what he wanted. A "green" frenzy you say? NO, he got money and that is what he was after all along.

[jamiethelanky]

Didn't you get the memo, "global warming" is no longer a threat...Now it is "global climate change" that we need to worry about:rolleyes:


They're the same thing.

[Jumbro]

They're the same thing.


In principal maybe, but the word "Warming" wasn't convincing people because, in areas like Cincinnati, it seems as if it is getting colder during the winters.

But you are right, they are the same thing and no matter how you word it we are just looking at the world going through its natural changes. Really, do we think what we have done over the last 200 years is having a greater impact on the world than what civilizations did for the thousands of years before? The world changes slowly, so if anything, we need to blame the major changes of the world today on the cavemen for what they burned at their nightly fires.

[jamiethelanky]

In principal maybe, but the word "Warming" wasn't convincing people because, in areas like Cincinnati, it seems as if it is getting colder during the winters.

But you are right, they are the same thing and no matter how you word it we are just looking at the world going through its natural changes. Really, do we think what we have done over the last 200 years is having a greater impact on the world than what civilizations did for the thousands of years before? The world changes slowly, so if anything, we need to blame the major changes of the world today on the cavemen for what they burned at their nightly fires.
Their nightly fires were not shoving tons of CO2 into the air. We are seeing combustion on a massive scale. Cars, trains, planes - all combusting. Factories - combusting. Power stations - combusting.

[Jumbro]

Their nightly fires were not shoving tons of CO2 into the air. We are seeing combustion on a massive scale. Cars, trains, planes - all combusting. Factories - combusting. Power stations - combusting.

My point is that I do not believe that we will truly know the effect of what WE are doing in the past 200 years until about 500 years down the road. We can speculate and use scientific procedures, but I personally can not believe that any "warming" or "climate change" we are experiencing today is an effect of anything humans have done in the past 200 years. I could be totally wrong, but I just can't see it. I started buying into the global warming idea until i read an article (Readers Digest maybe) a year or so ago that discussed how the scientists linked to Gore's film did not agree with what was said in the film but were tricked/paid to do it. I could be wrong, but I believe the group of scientists ended up filing suit and having their names removed. What I heard is that those who back the global warming idea are scientists, but not in the specific field of science that relates. It would be like a rap artist (in the music field) discussing the theory behind Beethoven's requiem. Sure, they may have the training to understand some of it, but I do not believe they are truly qualified to talk about music in that realm.

An even larger idea that bothers me about the global warming/change is that again, WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE. The earth is b ound to heat up to a point where we are no longer in Ice Age (as it has at other points in its history). Who is to blame for all the global climate change that caused the interesting creations we find across different parts of the world (again, I'm not scientist so i can't remember specifics, but I remember learning about different things in Geology that are the way they are here in Cincinnati due to glaciers).

At best, humans may be speeding up the cycle...at best in my opinion though.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

there is over 6 billion people on this planet, i think its pretty ignorant to believe we arn't having an adverse effect with the pollutants we produce.

[BFan71]

there is over 6 billion people on this planet, i think its pretty ignorant to believe we arn't having an adverse effect with the pollutants we produce.

I agree! I am a proud tree hugger - reduce, reuse, recycle!!!

[GoldenArm9]

I agree! I am a proud tree hugger - reduce, reuse, recycle!!!

At the expense of a 1.2 trillion dollar tax ....do you have money growing on the tree that your hugging?Most Americans don't ...

[BFan71]

At the expense of a 1.2 trillion dollar tax ....do you have money growing on the tree that your hugging?Most Americans don't ...

Cute...

There are many ways to recycle without it costing much...if everyone would buy into it, the world would be a much better place.

[thefo0]

At the expense of a 1.2 trillion dollar tax ....do you have money growing on the tree that your hugging?Most Americans don't ...

I have a great idea for how to get the money...the US government could quit entering into wars of choice (Iraq) and bring down our bloated defense budget.

Just a thought.

[Jumbro]

I agree! I am a proud tree hugger - reduce, reuse, recycle!!!

I'll recycle if there is a can for it, but I personally do not recycle at the house. We do burn anything that is burnable (paper/cardboard). In general though, I'll do anything "Green" that will save me money. I have replaced all our lightbulbs with the energy efficient ones and we have gotten all new windows and doors which are "energy star". That has all saved us money!! But at the same time, I will cut grass whenever I get the chance (NOT after six in MOST cases) as well as fill up my gas tank whenever I need to.

It isn't that we don't have an effect....I just don't believe we have THAT much of an effect. Why did temps. change so drastically any of the other times in the history of the earth when all that was here was dinosaurs? I believe the temps are bound to change, and as I said, we may be speeding it up A LITTLE BIT, but we as humans are not the reason it is happening!

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I have a great idea for how to get the money...the US government could quit entering into wars of choice (Iraq) and bring down our bloated defense budget.

Just a thought.

we need that bloated defense budget

america is a country of 300 million, we deal with potential enemies who can produce armies greater than our entire population.

we have to equal their numerical superiority with weapons technology

i will never mind paying taxes to us military.

[thefo0]

I'll recycle if there is a can for it, but I personally do not recycle at the house. We do burn anything that is burnable (paper/cardboard). In general though, I'll do anything "Green" that will save me money. I have replaced all our lightbulbs with the energy efficient ones and we have gotten all new windows and doors which are "energy star". That has all saved us money!! But at the same time, I will cut grass whenever I get the chance (NOT after six in MOST cases) as well as fill up my gas tank whenever I need to.

It isn't that we don't have an effect....I just don't believe we have THAT much of an effect. Why did temps. change so drastically any of the other times in the history of the earth when all that was here was dinosaurs? I believe the temps are bound to change, and as I said, we may be speeding it up A LITTLE BIT, but we as humans are not the reason it is happening!

I don't agree with you on the pace of our affect upon global warming, but I do think that you bring up a valid point in your third sentence.

There is a large segment of our population that is taking on "green measures" in order to save money. I think that is one of the reasons why there has been a greater effort, especially in our current economic situation, to show how helping to save the environment can be economically beneficial for the individual.

[thefo0]

we need that bloated defense budget

america is a country of 300 million, we deal with potential enemies who can produce armies greater than our entire population.

we have to equal their numerical superiority with weapons technology

i will never mind paying taxes to us military.

I agree that it is necessary to protect the country.

But, I do not think that we need to be spending $341.4 million per day (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home) for a war that the reasons for entering were dubious at best. I also think that we don't need a stockpile of weapons that is so great that we could destroy the world many times over.

P.S. Sorry for steering us off topic. I was just pointing out that the U.S. budget could be distributed in a more socially conscious manner.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

But, I do not think that we need to be spending $341.4 million per day (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home) for a war that the reasons for entering were dubious at best. Our also think that we don't need a stockpile of weapons that is so great that we could destroy the world many times over.


i agree the war is a mess at this point, but i love that stockpile.

when america gets back to talking softly and carrying a big stick, that stockpile is the stick.

[GoldenArm9]

I have a great idea for how to get the money...the US government could quit entering into wars of choice (Iraq) and bring down our bloated defense budget.

Just a thought.

I come from a military family ..my late father served in Korea(ARMY) ...my two brothers served during Vietnam (AIR FORCE)..i had two nephews who served in the Navy and one of those retired from the Navy ...it's peace through strength ...

[thefo0]

it's peace through strength ...

Would you mind expanding your point further?

[GoldenArm9]

Cute...

There are many ways to recycle without it costing much...if everyone would buy into it, the world would be a much better place.

I'm not trying to be mean spirited here but global warming is just another way of taxing us into submission ...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Would you mind expanding your point further?

if you want peace, prepare for war.

america would not last by appearing weak and unwilling to fight

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I'm not trying to be mean spirited here but global warming is just another way of taxing us into submission ...

into submission? i doubt that

[GoldenArm9]

Would you mind expanding your point further?

It is what it is ..we need the advanced technology to keep ahead of countries who want to see us gone ...those countries may not have the weapons we have but troop strength wise they out number us greatly ...

[barryllium]

At the expense of a 1.2 trillion dollar tax ....do you have money growing on the tree that your hugging?Most Americans don't ...

I think we can all afford a tax that comes down to about $3.98 per American. Heck, that's less than a gallon of gas right now in a grand portion of the country.

[GoldenArm9]

This answers it for me ....
Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Do you know the difference between God and Al Gore ? God doesn't think he's Al Gore .....:rotf:

[barryllium]

i agree the war is a mess at this point, but i love that stockpile.

when america gets back to talking softly and carrying a big stick, that stockpile is the stick.

Yeah, but to continue your analogy, that stick is too big to carry. What's the point of having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. Last I checked, saying "I will kill you 27 times" is no more scary than "I will kill you" - and they have the same result.

[barryllium]

if you want peace, prepare for war.

america would not last by appearing weak and unwilling to fight

Yeah, we've had a whole lot of trouble shedding that "unwilling to fight" label...

[thefo0]

It is what it is ..we need the advanced technology to keep ahead of countries who want to see us gone ...those countries may not have the weapons we have but troop strength wise they out number us greatly ...

But, how much of a percentage of our national expenditures must be devoted to trying to stay ahead of many countries that have less money than us and are behind us as it is in terms of military technology.

The United States won the Cold War by making the Soviets spend themselves to death in order to appear mighty in the international realm, despite already being one of the two superpowers. I fail to see why the United States should spend itself into an early grave for the same reason, as the sole superpower.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

This answers it for me ....
Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Do you know the difference between God and Al Gore ? God doesn't think he's Al Gore .....:rotf:

the earth is more fragile than you think

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yeah, we've had a whole lot of trouble shedding that "unwilling to fight" label...

heh we've never had that label thankfully, but i agree our aggression has been directed at the wrong place.

saudi arabia is our true enemy

[barryllium]

This answers it for me ....
Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”

Do you know the difference between God and Al Gore ? God doesn't think he's Al Gore .....:rotf:

Yeah, I totally remember that part where Al Gore said he is god..... :dunce:

How does that passage even relate? If global warming were to wipe mankind off the face of the earth somehow, it in no way means that seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will cease. Unless you want to claim that this planet has never been through an ice age before, then your passage has little to do with anything other than Genesis 8:21 and Genesis 8:23.

[barryllium]

heh we've never had that label thankfully, but i agree our aggression has been directed at the wrong place.

saudi arabia is our true enemy

I'll agree with that statement, that's where the research and signs seem to point.

In the end, though, there's a difference between having the strongest military and technology and unnecessary stockpiling.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yeah, but to continue your analogy, that stick is too big to carry. What's the point of having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. Last I checked, saying "I will kill you 27 times" is no more scary than "I will kill you" - and they have the same result.

well you have to the point of the nuclear triad, then you'll know why we have so many.

the triad stands for land, sea and air.

we have the stealth bombers, the nuclear subs, and the underground missile silos in the south west, each one has to have a full arsenal, in case of a nuclear war, any arm of the triad could proceed to destroy 100% of our targets.

thats why we have so many nukes

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

But, how much of a percentage of our national expenditures must be devoted to trying to stay ahead of many countries that have less money than us and are behind us as it is in terms of military technology.

The United States won the Cold War by making the Soviets spend themselves to death in order to appear mighty in the international realm, despite already being one of the two superpowers. I fail to see why the United States should spend itself into an early grave for the same reason, as the sole superpower.

we are the sole superpower but what would happen if russia and china became allies?

it's a game of numbers, they have more.

[barryllium]

well you have to the point of the nuclear triad, then you'll know why we have so many.

the triad stands for land, sea and air.

we have the stealth bombers, the nuclear subs, and the underground missile silos in the south west, each one has to have a full arsenal, in case of a nuclear war, any arm of the triad could proceed to destroy 100% of our targets.

thats why we have so many nukes

We have more than enough, though, for each to destroy the world many times over. I also realize that we are dismantling several "older models" - mainly due to the Moscow treaty (I think that's the right one). But the point is that we easily have twice as many as we need to destroy the entire world once - if not more.

we are the sole superpower but what would happen if russia and china became allies?

it's a game of numbers, they have more.

If they became allies, and started attacking us with nukes, it's not really going to matter how many nukes we have. We're gone, and they probably are too.

[thefo0]

we are the sole superpower but what would happen if russia and china became allies?

it's a game of numbers, they have more.

I just don't really see this happening. The world you are describing is more of a pre-WWII world of multiple alliances and factions. Now we seem to be moving toward a greater degree of interconnectedness between many countries with it being harder for a country to have an alliance with only a few select countries.

In terms of your example. Although I think that Putin is crazy (and looks like Dobby from the Harry Potter movies), I don't think that he would attempt to create a second, composite super power if that were to mean forgoing future relations with the U.S., EU, some of the "Asian Tigers," etc.

[barryllium]

I just don't really see this happening. The world you are describing is more of a pre-WWII world of multiple alliances and factions. Now we seem to be moving toward a greater degree of interconnectedness between many countries with it being harder for a country to have an alliance with only a few select countries.

In terms of your example. Although I think that Putin is crazy (and looks like Dobby from the Harry Potter movies), I don't think that he would attempt to create a second, composite super power if that were to mean forgoing future relations with the U.S., EU, some of the "Asian Tigers," etc.

Great - now every time I see Putin I'm just gonna hear him saying "George W. Bush must not go back to Hogwarts..."

[GoldenArm9]

But, how much of a percentage of our national expenditures must be devoted to trying to stay ahead of many countries that have less money than us and are behind us as it is in terms of military technology.

The United States won the Cold War by making the Soviets spend themselves to death in order to appear mighty in the international realm, despite already being one of the two superpowers. I fail to see why the United States should spend itself into an early grave for the same reason, as the sole superpower.

The Russians and the Chinese still have one weapon that makes them .Super Powers ..Nukes ...and the means to launch them obviously ....but this is the main reason we need a strong military budget ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjwcqWwsoSw

[kevin28_1962]

well you have to the point of the nuclear triad, then you'll know why we have so many.

the triad stands for land, sea and air.

we have the stealth bombers, the nuclear subs, and the underground missile silos in the south west, each one has to have a full arsenal, in case of a nuclear war, any arm of the triad could proceed to destroy 100% of our targets.

thats why we have so many nukes

I just want to correct the technicality of this. The missile silos are mainly in the northern plain/mountain states. North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming. The reasoning behind the placement being a couple factors. #1 remoteness of the missile sites and #2 when they were created the main enemy of the US was the USSR and the quickest most direct path to target was over the north pole, thus the farther north we have our silos the quicker they get to their targets.

carry on.....

[barryllium]

The Russians and the Chinese still have one weapon that makes them .Super Powers ..Nukes ...and the means to launch them obviously ....but this is the main reason we need a strong military budget ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjwcqWwsoSw

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need a strong military budget. We're saying that we spend much, much more than we need to in order to keep our military strong.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

We have more than enough, though, for each to destroy the world many times over. I also realize that we are dismantling several "older models" - mainly due to the Moscow treaty (I think that's the right one). But the point is that we easily have twice as many as we need to destroy the entire world once - if not more.

how many do we need?

when it comes down to having to use them, i would rather have too many than not enough. especially since a nuke isn't going to detonate 100% of the time.



If they became allies, and started attacking us with nukes, it's not really going to matter how many nukes we have. We're gone, and they probably are too.

which is why they wouldn't fight us with nukes.

[GoldenArm9]

Here's the deal ..I do my part to help the environment ..i have two appliances i use at home that not only saves me alot of MONEY(700.00 in the last yr )but the appliances also our environmentally friendly ..so essentially i have gone green....:thumbsup:

[Eleden]

At the expense of a 1.2 trillion dollar tax ....do you have money growing on the tree that your hugging?Most Americans don't ...

You seem to have no problem spending a trillion dollars in the Middle East... why should saving our planet be any different?

If the Antarctic ice continues to melt at the current rate... we're looking at massive flooding on a biblical scale. Millions of people will be displaced, imagine Katrina... times 500.

[barryllium]

how many do we need?

when it comes down to having to use them, i would rather have too many than not enough. especially since a nuke isn't going to detonate 100% of the time.

I get the idea of "needing a few extra sitting around", but I think we continue to be excessive. In the, at no point would we actually need enough nukes to destroy the entire world - after all, if it's everyone vs. us, we are royally screwed.

which is why they wouldn't fight us with nukes.

If they won't fight us with nukes, though, why do we need so many than? Shouldn't we just need enough to be a threat to them, not need to have 5 times what we need to destroy the earth?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I get the idea of "needing a few extra sitting around", but I think we continue to be excessive. In the, at no point would we actually need enough nukes to destroy the entire world - after all, if it's everyone vs. us, we are royally screwed.


not necessarily, we will likely never know just how capable we are of blowing icbm's out of the sky, but recently shooting down that spy satalite shows that even if the gloves came off today, we'd be able to pluck some birds out of the sky.


If they won't fight us with nukes, though, why do we need so many than? Shouldn't we just need enough to be a threat to them, not need to have 5 times what we need to destroy the earth?

for one thing the threat of an astroid or comet colliding with earth is a real enough threat to keep an arsenal of nukes ready, but besides that, nukes are needed for study purposes, as nuclear scientists need nuclear bombs to worth with. and the huge stock pile you're referring to was built up over the cold war and you really can't blame the government for that.

but i will conceed that we do have more nukes than we "need" but ours are the most safely guarded on earth and i don't see a point of dismantling them.

[GoldenArm9]

I get the idea of "needing a few extra sitting around", but I think we continue to be excessive. In the, at no point would we actually need enough nukes to destroy the entire world - after all, if it's everyone vs. us, we are royally screwed.



If they won't fight us with nukes, though, why do we need so many than? Shouldn't we just need enough to be a threat to them, not need to have 5 times what we need to destroy the earth?

The whole point is they won't have to fire a shot ..they will take us from within through politics ...and the best way to take a country is destroy the family ...ban religion ..tax the middle class to death so all you have left is the poor and the powerful ...

[kevin28_1962]

how many do we need?

when it comes down to having to use them, i would rather have too many than not enough. especially since a nuke isn't going to detonate 100% of the time.



Ummmm...it only needs to detonate once :rotf: j/k, I know what you meant.

There are differece of opinions on the reliability of our nuclear arsenal. Here's an older article regarding an MIT conclusion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/science/13nuke.html) that says at worst 70% would detonate as designed. The article stated it was concluded on the W76 warhead which is the older warheads in the submarine launched ballistic missiles. Mostly all the older warheads have gone though a Life Extension Program (LEP). The land based missiles carry a different warhead than the seabased and the bombers carry a different warhead than those in the ICBMs.

here's another interesting article: How Much Warhead Reliability Is Enough for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2007/april/articles.html)

[thefo0]

Ummmm...it only needs to detonate once :rotf: j/k, I know what you meant.

There are differece of opinions on the reliability of our nuclear arsenal. Here's an older article regarding an MIT conclusion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/science/13nuke.html) that says at worst 70% would detonate as designed. The article stated it was concluded on the W76 warhead which is the older warheads in the submarine launched ballistic missiles. Mostly all the older warheads have gone though a Life Extension Program (LEP). The land based missiles carry a different warhead than the seabased and the bombers carry a different warhead than those in the ICBMs.

here's another interesting article: How Much Warhead Reliability Is Enough for a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2007/april/articles.html)

We all need more posts like this...backed up with facts and studies.

[barryllium]

not necessarily, we will likely never know just how capable we are of blowing icbm's out of the sky, but recently shooting down that spy satalite shows that even if the gloves came off today, we'd be able to pluck some birds out of the sky.

Yeah, we'd be able to get some - but there's no way we can get them all.

for one thing the threat of an astroid or comet colliding with earth is a real enough threat to keep an arsenal of nukes ready, but besides that, nukes are needed for study purposes, as nuclear scientists need nuclear bombs to worth with. and the huge stock pile you're referring to was built up over the cold war and you really can't blame the government for that.

but i will conceed that we do have more nukes than we "need" but ours are the most safely guarded on earth and i don't see a point of dismantling them.

In the end, your last point is all I needed to hear. Like I've said, we have more than we need (and agree with having some). What that leads me to believe, though, is that we don't need to continue to make them at the rate we still do. Making half as many new ones would cut the budget by more than a small amount - and would be fine considering we keep doing research and creating newer models (resulting in the dismantling of older models). For instance: , at the bottom of this page (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html) is a chart listing our nuclear stockpile as of August 2007. Do we really need to create 330 new W87/Mk-21 Ballistic Missile Warheads between 2006 and 2009 to go with the 553 we already have? Sure, they are replacing the retired W62/Mk-12 Ballistic Missile, but we also have over 3000 W76/Mk-4 Ballistic Missiles and over 800 W78/Mk-12a Ballistic Missiles. My understanding is that they all serve similar purposes (beyond just blowing things up). And while I realize that many/all of the W76/Mk-4's and W78/Mk-12a's are being dismantled due to the Moscow treaty, those models were not originally slated for retirement, and we could keep some of them instead of creating such a high number of new ones. Food for thought, I guess.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yeah, we'd be able to get some - but there's no way we can get them all.



In the end, your last point is all I needed to hear. Like I've said, we have more than we need (and agree with having some). What that leads me to believe, though, is that we don't need to continue to make them at the rate we still do. Making half as many new ones would cut the budget by more than a small amount - and would be fine considering we keep doing research and creating newer models (resulting in the dismantling of older models). For instance: , at the bottom of this page (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html) is a chart listing our nuclear stockpile as of August 2007. Do we really need to create 330 new W87/Mk-21 Ballistic Missile Warheads between 2006 and 2009 to go with the 553 we already have? Sure, they are replacing the retired W62/Mk-12 Ballistic Missile, but we also have over 3000 W76/Mk-4 Ballistic Missiles and over 800 W78/Mk-12a Ballistic Missiles. My understanding is that they all serve similar purposes (beyond just blowing things up). And while I realize that many/all of the W76/Mk-4's and W78/Mk-12a's are being dismantled due to the Moscow treaty, those models were not originally slated for retirement, and we could keep some of them instead of creating such a high number of new ones. Food for thought, I guess.

as the missile technology becomes more advanced it's logical for us to build better icbm's.

just like every other arm of the military, advances in nuclear weapons are made and thus new nukes are built so as america can have the best on the planet.

don't think for a second the other members of the nuclear club arn't doing the same thing.

[kjb034]

and the best way to take a country is...[snippet removed for clarity]..tax the middle class to death so all you have left is the poor and the powerful ...
Oh, just like the republicans do! :smirk:

[barryllium]

as the missile technology becomes more advanced it's logical for us to build better icbm's.

just like every other arm of the military, advances in nuclear weapons are made and thus new nukes are built so as america can have the best on the planet.

don't think for a second the other members of the nuclear club arn't doing the same thing.

I agree, again, with new technologies. But I think we "recycle" our technology a little too quickly when it comes to nuclear weapons - we are choosing to dismantle technology that was not to be retired yet instead of making less newer missiles (that will also eventually be replaced). Also, when factor in that the newer technologies have 2x (or more) the Kiloton power, thus doubling the area (or is it diameter, I can't remember - but my point will be same regardless) of the blast range of them, we don't need as many for that reason, either. Now, I'm not saying we halve the production, but we could afford to make a few less, one would think.

I agree that other members of the nuclear club are doing the same thing - but does them wasting money justify us wasting it as well?

[jamiethelanky]

Oh, just like the republicans do! :smirk:
Very true. The rich paying fewer taxes as a % than the poor is absolutely indefensible and just leads to a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[thefo0]

The whole point is they won't have to fire a shot ..they will take us from within through politics ...and the best way to take a country is destroy the family ...ban religion ..tax the middle class to death so all you have left is the poor and the powerful ...

That philosophy worked wonders for Germany after WWI.

[barryllium]

The whole point is they won't have to fire a shot ..they will take us from within through politics ...and the best way to take a country is destroy the family ...ban religion ..tax the middle class to death so all you have left is the poor and the powerful ...

I disagree wholeheartedly. How is another country going to come in, destroy our families, ban religion, and tax our citizens? And, just to cut this off at it's ignorant head, the correct answer is not "Obama is a Muslim".

The only way another country is going to do the things you say is to take over our government by force - something that would indeed involve the firing of many, many shots.

After all, wouldn't the US have simply infiltrated the Iraqi government, destroyed their families, banned religion, and taxed their middle class to death if that was a better option than going to war? Hmmm... perhaps that's a bad example... we love war... ;)

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I agree, again, with new technologies. But I think we "recycle" our technology a little too quickly when it comes to nuclear weapons - we are choosing to dismantle technology that was not to be retired yet instead of making less newer missiles (that will also eventually be replaced). Also, when factor in that the newer technologies have 2x (or more) the Kiloton power, thus doubling the area (or is it diameter, I can't remember - but my point will be same regardless) of the blast range of them, we don't need as many for that reason, either. Now, I'm not saying we halve the production, but we could afford to make a few less, one would think.

I agree that other members of the nuclear club are doing the same thing - but does them wasting money justify us wasting it as well?

the kiloton amount isn't going to really change how many we make, we make enough to fit possible scenarios and target packages, but then we build even more than is required for that simply as insurance that we will always, always, always have the ability to annihilate our enemies.

you also have to take into account the spreading out of our stock pile, each location has to be well stocked, as it MAY be the only functioning location when the poop hits the fan.

[GoldenArm9]

I disagree wholeheartedly. How is another country going to come in, destroy our families, ban religion, and tax our citizens? And, just to cut this off at it's ignorant head, the correct answer is not "Obama is a Muslim".

The only way another country is going to do the things you say is to take over our government by force - something that would indeed involve the firing of many, many shots.

After all, wouldn't the US have simply infiltrated the Iraqi government, destroyed their families, banned religion, and taxed their middle class to death if that was a better option than going to war? Hmmm... perhaps that's a bad example... we love war... ;)

Well under Muslim rule the woman are second class citizens ..they ban religion other than Islam ....and there citizenry are poor ....:hmm:..and this all happened before we got there ....

[kevin28_1962]

Do we really need to create 330 new W87/Mk-21 Ballistic Missile Warheads between 2006 and 2009 to go with the 553 we already have? Sure, they are replacing the retired W62/Mk-12 Ballistic Missile, but we also have over 3000 W76/Mk-4 Ballistic Missiles and over 800 W78/Mk-12a Ballistic Missiles. My understanding is that they all serve similar purposes (beyond just blowing things up). And while I realize that many/all of the W76/Mk-4's and W78/Mk-12a's are being dismantled due to the Moscow treaty, those models were not originally slated for retirement, and we could keep some of them instead of creating such a high number of new ones. Food for thought, I guess.

I could be wrong but I seem to recall that when the aircraft I worked on went through Life Extension or any other upgrades the financial appropriation for those upgrades were approved years before we ever saw them come down the pike. I'm thinking that the appropriation of those upgrades have been approved already so the money will be spent regardless.

I know I saw stupid things happen with military finances. we'd be shutting down a base overseas but they were still building new facilities because the finances were already approved, contracts awarded and you cant stop the ball from rolling.

[jamiethelanky]

Well under Muslim rule the woman are second class citizens ..they ban religion other than Islam ....and there citizenry are poor ....:hmm:
Under extremist Muslim rule.

[barryllium]

the kiloton amount isn't going to really change how many we make, we make enough to fit possible scenarios and target packages, but then we build even more than is required for that simply as insurance that we will always, always, always have the ability to annihilate our enemies.

you also have to take into account the spreading out of our stock pile, each location has to be well stocked, as it MAY be the only functioning location when the poop hits the fan.

I'm sure the kiloton amount isn't going to change anything, I'm arguing that it should. And the US's idea of who are enemies are (or who we could make our enemies) is awfully high, because we make even more beyond what would give us insurance to always be able to annihilate our enemies. I guess that's what happens when a country takes the teenage idea of "us against the world" into account with everything they do.

While I understand the "spreading of our stockpile" idea, do you really think we won't know a nuke is coming the second it is launched? All of our stations would be active long enough to get a missile or two off.

In the end, we currently (or at least as of August 2007) have over 4200 inactive warheads - with inactive defined as:
Inactive Reserve: Weapons that are kept intact, but are not maintained in operational condition. This means that limited life components are removed from the weapons and may not be available to immediately return them to service. "Limited life components" principally mean tritium-containing components such as tritium reservoirs and neutron generator tubes. Some weapons currently in this category (e.g. the W84) will be dismantled.
In the end, if the fit really hit the shan, those weapons would not even have a chance to be used - and if things didn't get crazy, there would be no need for them. I know this number is being reduced (again, due to the Moscow treaty), but of the 553 W87/Mk-21 Ballistic Missiles created since 1986 (our second newest technology), 543 of them are currently inactive. That means we have 98.2% of them that are being made "just because".

[barryllium]

Well under Muslim rule the woman are second class citizens ..they ban religion other than Islam ....and there citizenry are poor ....:hmm:..and this all happened before we got there ....

Yes, by their government, not ours. Seeing as "freedom of religion" (and not Christianity, as many mistakenly believe) is one of the foundations of our country, we don't run nearly the risk of religion handicapping our country as you say it has in the middle east.

[barryllium]

I could be wrong but I seem to recall that when the aircraft I worked on went through Life Extension or any other upgrades the financial appropriation for those upgrades were approved years before we ever saw them come down the pike. I'm thinking that the appropriation of those upgrades have been approved already so the money will be spent regardless.

I know I saw stupid things happen with military finances. we'd be shutting down a base overseas but they were still building new facilities because the finances were already approved, contracts awarded and you cant stop the ball from rolling.

That's some interesting insight, and makes sense as to why things are happening the way they are. In the end, though, what you point out is the way it currently works, not necessarily what would be best for our country (as you touch on).

[barryllium]

Under extremist Muslim rule.

Great call - the key there is the word "extremist", not "Muslim".

[jamiethelanky]

This video says everything about my view on climate change...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

[GoldenArm9]

Yes, by their government, not ours. Seeing as "freedom of religion" (and not Christianity, as many mistakenly believe) is one of the foundations of our country, we don't run nearly the risk of religion handicapping our country as you say it has in the middle east.

Tell the original supreme court justices which 6 happened to be christian pastors as well as lawyers that our country wasn't founded on God ....:scared2:.....That's Christian Pastor's ...:Clap:...don't be a history revisionist it doesn't work ...

[thefo0]

Tell the original supreme court justices which 6 happened to be christian pastors as well as lawyers that our country wasn't founded on God ....:scared2:.....That's Christian Pastor's ...:Clap:...don't be a history revisionist it doesn't work ...

And please don't be a Constitutional Revisionist.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Under extremist Muslim rule.

fundamentalists yes, but not necessarily extremist.

fundamental muslim countries use sharia law, thats the system that says women have to remain covered at all times, without even a hair showing, and any woman seen outside without a man, or without her hijab (cover) is subject to be raped by any man who sees her.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yes, by their government, not ours. Seeing as "freedom of religion" (and not Christianity, as many mistakenly believe) is one of the foundations of our country, we don't run nearly the risk of religion handicapping our country as you say it has in the middle east.

not necessarily, remember this country was founded by puritans, they lived a very strict life style worse even than muslims in many many regards. the reverberations of those strict religious ideals are still seen all the time here.

[barryllium]

Tell the original supreme court justices which 6 happened to be christian pastors as well as lawyers that our country wasn't founded on God ....:scared2:.....That's Christian Pastor's ...:Clap:...don't be a history revisionist it doesn't work ...

That's why I'm not being a history revisionist. The fact that 6 of our original supreme court justices prove nothing except that there were a large number of learned christians in power/in the country at the time. Last I checked, the first amendment said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It, in fact, did not say:

Congress shall only make laws respecting Christianity, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You choose to use ambiguous stats to attempt to prove your opinion. I've now provided the written law of our land to prove that our country was based on freedom of religion, not one religion.

But, why take my word for it - let's use quotations from those founding fathers (http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/)...

[thefo0]

That's why I'm not being a history revisionist. The fact that 6 of our original supreme court justices prove nothing except that there were a large number of learned christians in power/in the country at the time. Last I checked, the first amendment said:



It, in fact, did not say:



You choose to use ambiguous stats to attempt to prove your opinion. I've now provided the written law of our land to prove that our country was based on freedom of religion, not one religion.

But, why take my word for it - let's use quotations from those founding fathers (http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/)...

hey, give credit where credit is due :sarcasm:

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I'm sure the kiloton amount isn't going to change anything, I'm arguing that it should. And the US's idea of who are enemies are (or who we could make our enemies) is awfully high, because we make even more beyond what would give us insurance to always be able to annihilate our enemies. I guess that's what happens when a country takes the teenage idea of "us against the world" into account with everything they do.

sorry but i really do feel it's us against the world, but more accurately, its the western world against the rest of the world.

every time people criticize american foreign policy, or our military spending, or how we are seemingly always prepared for world war 3, i say hey....

its tough at the top.


While I understand the "spreading of our stockpile" idea, do you really think we won't know a nuke is coming the second it is launched? All of our stations would be active long enough to get a missile or two off.



actually with nuclear subs, we could very well have little or no warning at all. a nuke sub parked in new york harbor could annihilate new england in very short order.

[barryllium]

hey, give credit where credit is due :sarcasm:

What can I say, without thefo0, that post wouldn't have had nearly the "badda-bing!" to it!

[thefo0]

What can I say, without thefo0, that post wouldn't have had nearly the "badda-bing!" to it!

haha. you're forgiven.

[barryllium]

sorry but i really do feel it's us against the world, but more accurately, its the western world against the rest of the world.

every time people criticize american foreign policy, or our military spending, or how we are seemingly always prepared for world war 3, i say hey....

its tough at the top.

It's only this way if we want to make it this way. Last I checked, I'm sure most of Europe would be with us (as long as we don't keep defying the UN). Again, due to the relative youth of this country, we have a terribly misguided "no one understands us" and "it's us against the world" teenage philosophy when it comes to the world. Hopefully we don't get ourselves blown up before we grow out of it. We could easily work with the majority of the world, and they'd be happy to work with us. Our arrogance as a country, coupled with our desire for control, leads us to believe it's us against the world, but it really isn't.

actually with nuclear subs, we could very well have little or no warning at all. a nuke sub parked in new york harbor could annihilate new england in very short order.

I think we'd know if a nuclear sub from another country made it all the way into new york harbor...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

It's only this way if we want to make it this way. Last I checked, I'm sure most of Europe would be with us (as long as we don't keep defying the UN). Again, due to the relative youth of this country, we have a terribly misguided "no one understands us" and "it's us against the world" teenage philosophy when it comes to the world. Hopefully we don't get ourselves blown up before we grow out of it. We could easily work with the majority of the world, and they'd be happy to work with us. Our arrogance as a country, coupled with our desire for control, leads us to believe it's us against the world, but it really isn't.

when i said western world, im talking about us and europe, the western democracies, but you're right that much of europe doesn't have a good opinion of us.

but with the proliferation of muslims in europe and all of the problems that has caused, we are looking like the lesser of two evils to them.

most of the rest of the world really doesn't understand us, they used to know that the american people and their leaders are very different, but lately, the public opinion around the world is all americans are imperialists. or at least all white people.



I think we'd know if a nuclear sub from another country made it all the way into new york harbor...

well we didn't during the cold war, hopefully that has changed

[barryllium]

when i said western world, im talking about us and europe, the western democracies, but you're right that much of europe doesn't have a good opinion of us.

but with the proliferation of muslims in europe and all of the problems that has caused, we are looking like the lesser of two evils to them.

most of the rest of the world really doesn't understand us, they used to know that the american people and their leaders are very different, but lately, the public opinion around the world is all americans are imperialists. or at least all white people.

Overall, the proliferation of muslims in europe isn't a huge deal - the majority that are heading there are ones that a) want to get away from the middle east and/or b) are not the fundamentalists/extremists that we are dealing with in Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/etc. Just because we hear of problems in europe caused by the fundamentalists/extremists that are heading there does not mean that they are the majority. And, they aren't taking over those governments, either - and in the end it is the governments of 1st world countries that we will be dealing with, not their inhabitants.

If the rest of the world doesn't really understand us (which I disagree with, but we'll leave that to a difference of opinion, I guess), it is our fault that this is the case. Our government doesn't exactly set our best foot forward (preemptive strikes, ignoring the UN, etc.) when presenting ourselves to them. Perhaps if we stop acting like Imperialists, countries will stop thinking we are Imperialists. And, as long as we keep doing this, one could argue that they are indeed understanding us, sadly.

well we didn't during the cold war, hopefully that has changed

I think, at the very least, satellite technology has improved. Not to mention the sonar sensors and whatever else we have draped around the Atlantic.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Overall, the proliferation of muslims in europe isn't a huge deal - the majority that are heading there are ones that a) want to get away from the middle east and/or b) are not the fundamentalists/extremists that we are dealing with in Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/etc. Just because we hear of problems in europe caused by the fundamentalists/extremists that are heading there does not mean that they are the majority. And, they aren't taking over those governments, either - and in the end it is the governments of 1st world countries that we will be dealing with, not their inhabitants.


watch a program called undercover mosque.

an arab reporter takes a concealed camara into the biggest mosque in britain and tapes several sermons.

it is very very eye-opening.

[jamiethelanky]

watch a program called undercover mosque.

an arab reporter takes a concealed camara into the biggest mosque in britain and tapes several sermons.

it is very very eye-opening.
That was the Finsbury Park mosque run by an extremist (Abu Hamza). He has been arrested and the new place is a more liberal community mosque.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

That was the Finsbury Park mosque run by an extremist (Abu Hamza). He has been arrested and the new place is a more liberal community mosque.

so one extremist gone and thats that?

there are 1.5 billion muslims

roughly 15-20% can be classified as "extremist"

thats about the population of the united states.

and what about all of the other extremists shown in that program?? were they all arrested??

[jamiethelanky]

so one extremist gone and thats that?

there are 1.5 billion muslims

roughly 15-20% can be classified as "extremist"

thats about the population of the united states.

and what about all of the other extremists shown in that program?? were they all arrested??
No, but I doubt they'll be too forthcoming with any further extremism.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No, but I doubt they'll be too forthcoming with any further extremism.

so you really think that arresting abu hamza put a stop to muslim extremism in the UK?

thats like saying arresting john gotti put a stop to organized crime in new york

[GoldenArm9]

I disagree wholeheartedly. How is another country going to come in, destroy our families, ban religion, and tax our citizens? And, just to cut this off at it's ignorant head, the correct answer is not "Obama is a Muslim".

The only way another country is going to do the things you say is to take over our government by force - something that would indeed involve the firing of many, many shots.

After all, wouldn't the US have simply infiltrated the Iraqi government, destroyed their families, banned religion, and taxed their middle class to death if that was a better option than going to war? Hmmm... perhaps that's a bad example... we love war... ;)

Take a look at what is happening in Britain ....
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2496
And in the U.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJznaWMzVmA

[Danno]

Take a look at what is happening in Britain ....
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2496


interesting.... unless those flyers were advocating violence or damnation (can be construed as harm), I don't see how that can be made out to be a hate crime. I would think its just regular free expression.

Moreover, those "defending" their turf shouldn't be making threats, that can be seen as assault if those receiving the threats view them as credible.

but I am not there, not enough details. Whats your take Jamie?

[HearUsRoar]

There most definitely is global warming...right after there is global cooling...which is right after global warming....which is, well you get the point.

There are parts of the world where the average temperature throughout the year is rising...and some places where it's falling.

This is cyclical, nothing more.

Some ice caps are melting...and some are actually growing.

There is no concrete evidence that this cycle of warming is any different than previous cycles of warming hundreds of years ago and thousands of years before that.

Al Gore needs to come with something better than what he has. Maybe invent a better model of the internet?

[jamiethelanky]

interesting.... unless those flyers were advocating violence or damnation (can be construed as harm), I don't see how that can be made out to be a hate crime. I would think its just regular free expression.

Moreover, those "defending" their turf shouldn't be making threats, that can be seen as assault if those receiving the threats view them as credible.

but I am not there, not enough details. Whats your take Jamie?
Hate crime is defined by what is in the material. If the material says something along the lines of 'give up Islam, it's evil' - that's a hate crime.

[jamiethelanky]

so you really think that arresting abu hamza put a stop to muslim extremism in the UK?

thats like saying arresting john gotti put a stop to organized crime in new york
No, I don't - but at least I'm sensible enough to know the vast majority of Muslim citizens are law-abiding and contributors to society.

[Jumbro]

There most definitely is global warming...right after there is global cooling...which is right after global warming....which is, well you get the point.

There are parts of the world where the average temperature throughout the year is rising...and some places where it's falling.

This is cyclical, nothing more.

Some ice caps are melting...and some are actually growing.

There is no concrete evidence that this cycle of warming is any different than previous cycles of warming hundreds of years ago and thousands of years before that.

Al Gore needs to come with something better than what he has. Maybe invent a better model of the internet?


:Clap::Clap::Clap::Clap:

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No, I don't - but at least I'm sensible enough to know the vast majority of Muslim citizens are law-abiding and contributors to society.

did i say they weren't?

its not the vast majority of muslim citizens im worried about, it's the self-serving religious leaders who have the influence to turn sympathizers into extremists in just a few weeks.

[jamiethelanky]

The problem of Muslim extremism is in existence but it is small. I trust MI6 in wiping it out over here.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

The problem of Muslim extremism is in existence but it is small. I trust MI6 in wiping it out over here.

it can't be wiped out, it's an idea.

a moderate muslim can become a sympathizer in a few weeks and a sympathizer can become an extremist in a few weeks after that.

[thefo0]

In my opinion, generalizing Muslims as being extremists because of the actions of a small percentage of those who believe in the faith would be like saying that all Christians are crazy racists because of the Ku Klux Klan or saying that all Christians believe that women are second class citizens because of the actions of the fundamentalist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I'm sure that many of the Christians on this board would be irate if such broad generalizations were made about their faith because of the actions of a small percentage of the Christian faith.

[jamiethelanky]

In my opinion, generalizing Muslims as being extremists because of the actions of a small percentage of those who believe in the faith would be like saying that all Christians are crazy racists because of the Ku Klux Klan or saying that all Christians believe that women are second class citizens because of the actions of the fundamentalist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I'm sure that many of the Christians on this board would be irate if such broad generalizations were made about their faith because of the actions of a small percentage of the Christian faith.
:Clap:

[tbone77]

Anthropogenic climate change? What anthropogenic climate change???

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/05-31/2_bury-head-in-sand-copyright2.gif

http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk/pictures/pictures2002/RichwithSand.jpg

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

In my opinion, generalizing Muslims as being extremists because of the actions of a small percentage of those who believe in the faith would be like saying that all Christians are crazy racists because of the Ku Klux Klan or saying that all Christians believe that women are second class citizens because of the actions of the fundamentalist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I'm sure that many of the Christians on this board would be irate if such broad generalizations were made about their faith because of the actions of a small percentage of the Christian faith.

when did i generalize muslims as extremists?

did i not say that there are 1.5 billion muslims, and about 15-20% can be categorized as extremists?

but it's not even the extremists we really have to worry about, we KNOW how they are, it's the fundamentalist muslims that are the scariest.

they are in great numbers, and where do you think the extremists come from????

[thefo0]

when did i generalize muslims as extremists?

did i not say that there are 1.5 billion muslims, and about 15-20% can be categorized as extremists?

but it's not even the extremists we really have to worry about, we KNOW how they are, it's the fundamentalist muslims that are the scariest.

they are in great numbers, and where do you think the extremists come from????

I apologize, I wasn't aware that my comment was directed toward you.

I was merely stating that broad generalizations are both insulting and dangerous.

[philhos]

Anthropogenic climate change? What anthropogenic climate change???

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/05-31/2_bury-head-in-sand-copyright2.gif

http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk/pictures/pictures2002/RichwithSand.jpg

I recall from science class that there was a little thing called Ice Age. Now, I could be wrong, but the Ice Age came and went before any humans walked this earth.

So, what caused the earth to cool to the point there was an Ice Age and what caused the earth to heat up to the point there was no more Ice Age?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I recall from science class that there was a little thing called Ice Age. Now, I could be wrong, but the Ice Age came and went before any humans walked this earth.

So, what caused the earth to cool to the point there was an Ice Age and what caused the earth to heat up to the point there was no more Ice Age?

not at all, humans lived through the ice age.

the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

it really really bothers me how little americans know.

we are so poorly educated that most americans will believe anything instead of thinking for themselves.

[philhos]

not at all, humans lived through the ice age.

the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago.

Are you sure you're not thinking of "glacials" (glacial advance with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales)? Not quite the same as Ice Ages, at least not the way I understood it.

In either event, history has shown, has it not, that there have been many times throughout, um, history that global tempartures have decreased to levels that we refer to those time periods as Ice Ages. And then, through no help whatsoever from the human race (which may or may not have existed during these Ice Ages), temperatures climbed back up to more moderate, livable temps.

If that's the case throughout history, what makes you think that all of a sudden global warming/cooling/climate change now has been heavily impacted by the human race?

[kevin28_1962]

not at all, humans lived through the ice age.

the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago.

Ice Age? Isn't that the CGI film with Ray Romano's voice in it :)

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Are you sure you're not thinking of "glacials" (glacial advance with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales)? Not quite the same as Ice Ages, at least not the way I understood it.

certainly there were glaciers during the ice age, how would you have glacial advancement without an ice age or an ice age without glacial advancement?

technically we're still in an ice age as greenland and the artic ice sheets still exist, but More colloquially, the last true "ice age" with extensive ice sheets over north america and europe ended 11,000 years ago.


In either event, history has shown, has it not, that there have been many times throughout, um, history that global tempartures have decreased to levels that we refer to those time periods as Ice Ages. And then, through no help whatsoever from the human race (which may or may not have existed during these Ice Ages), temperatures climbed back up to more moderate, livable temps.

"livable temps" is very relative. humans could very well have not been able to endure the temperatures during the mesozioc era, as earth was very hot compared to today. but yet the dinosaurs were thriving.

but to think that 6 billion humans producing trash and pollutants is not having a negative effect is very ignorant to me.


If that's the case throughout history, what makes you think that all of a sudden global warming/cooling/climate change now has been heavily impacted by the human race?

its not all of a sudden, we've been at this (industry) for over 100 years now. there has never been a species on this planet who has manipulated this planet like we have, the most pollutants previous species would have produced is methane, but we take fossil fuels out of the earth and burn them. why would you think that wouldn't have an effect??

[tbone77]

What you see in this cycle, scientists explain as the result of earth-sun geometry.
- eccentricity of orbit: earth's orbit around the sun changes from being more circular (less eliptical) to less circular (more eliptical). This cycle is about 100,000 years.
- precession of equinox: as earth rotates on its axis, it wobbles like a spinning top changing orbital timing of equinoxes and solstices. This cycle is about 26,000 years.
- earth axis tilt (obliquity): the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation can deviate from approximately 22.5 to 24.5°. This cycle is about 41,000 years.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20Tempertatures.gif

+

http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg

= "We are in an ice age right now"

[tbone77]

Here it is with the relation of CO2 to Temperature over 400,000 years
(Note spike in CO2 at right end of graph.)

source: http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/history.html
Using ice core data, we can deterimine global temperatures and atmospheric composition going back 430,000 years. This is done via analysis of oxygen and carbon isotopes found in air bubbles in the ice cores. Here is the graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years:
http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/img/vostok.jpg

SOURCE: New Antarctic Ice Core Data
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif

[tbone77]

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

[tbone77]

I'm not cherry picking data here. I'm going to .edu sites.

The willful ignorance amazes me.

Even Bush has apparently pulled his head out of the sand on this topic...
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-03-voa6.cfm?CFID=317560987&CFTOKEN=79213622
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/2007-02-05-voa9.cfm?CFID=243754140&CFTOKEN=94482259

[philhos]

Here it is with the relation of CO2 to Temperature over 400,000 years
(Note spike in CO2 at right end of graph.)

source: http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/history.html

http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/img/vostok.jpg

SOURCE: New Antarctic Ice Core Data
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif

According to those graphs, there were periods of time where the temperature was actually higher than it is now! How can that be if there were no cars or hummers or airplanes or any other modern day invention supposedly responsible for global warming?

[jamiethelanky]

According to those graphs, there were periods of time where the temperature was actually higher than it is now! How can that be if there were no cars or hummers or airplanes or any other modern day invention supposedly responsible for global warming?
Account for the CO2.

[philhos]

Account for the CO2.

According to the one chart, the CO2 levels have been higher in the past as well.

[jamiethelanky]

According to the one chart, the CO2 levels have been higher in the past as well.
Er, no it hasn't. Note the spike towards the end, kind of Industrial revolution onwards...

[tbone77]

According to those graphs, there were periods of time where the temperature was actually higher than it is now! How can that be if there were no cars or hummers or airplanes or any other modern day invention supposedly responsible for global warming?

see post#102: cycles in the earth-sun geometry (wobbly earth axis and morphing orbit that you can sense on a yearly basis but repeats every so many thousand years and interfere to create mean global temperature fluctuations and climate change)....those cycles occur over long periods of time.

Anthropogenic (post industrial rev) climate change is occurring in a relatively short time.

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. Everyone who spends a day studying it agrees that it is a fact. The only disagreement at this stage of the game is whether or not we should do something about it. McCain and Obama will do something about it. Even a republican congress will probably be forced to do something about it as more and more people realize that we do impact the environment and the climate.

[philhos]

Everyone who spends a day studying it agrees that it is a fact. .

Not everyone.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html

There are more who agree than disagree, sure, but not everyone who studies it agrees it's a fact.

[tbone77]

Not everyone.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html

There are more who agree than disagree, sure, but not everyone who studies it agrees it's a fact.

I'm talking about anthropogenic climate change.

Anthropogenic sources of CFC (refrigerant, spray can propellant, etc.) put a hole in the ozone. That's a fact. CFC has been forcibly replaced by HFC and HCFC which are far less hazardous to the environment.

Anthropogenic sources of CO2 (coal and natural gas fired power plants, gas engines, heating oil combustion) have greatly increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. That's also a fact. CO2 emissions are about to be regulated once McCain or Obama take office. Oil, coal and natural gas will not be totally replaced like CFC, but alternative technology and fuels will be more widely adopted once a "cap and trade" system or CO2 tax takes effect.

[pamar427]

Al Gore needs to come with something better than what he has. Maybe invent a better model of the internet?

Are you serious? You still think Al Gore actually said he invented the internet? Really?

Anyway back on topic....

Ok so global warming/climate change may just be a bunch of skewed data blah, blah, blah.....
But what if it isn't? Is it worth the risk to not do anything if there is even a possibity that it is true? Shouldn't we have the same reasoning on this as so many of you have for military spending?
Prepare for the worst, stop it before it happens, etc....
What is so bad at looking a the way we use energy, emit CO2, reuse/recycle products, and change the things that could be causing damage?
I do not understand why this is such a heated debate. This is not a political issue, even though we all seem to want to make it one.
Putting limits on companies for the pollutants they release, looking for alternative energies, how are these bad things?
Cleaner air, cleaner water, less waste, sounds fantastic to me.
I wouldn't care if it was the right wing's poster boy's idea, I would stand behind it.

[GoldenArm9]

Here is a great game aimed at children .....:sarcasm:....but this game is geared for kids and it's sick ....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

Are you serious? You still think Al Gore actually said he invented the internet? Really?

Anyway back on topic....

Ok so global warming/climate change may just be a bunch of skewed data blah, blah, blah.....
But what if it isn't? Is it worth the risk to not do anything if there is even a possibity that it is true? Shouldn't we have the same reasoning on this as so many of you have for military spending?
Prepare for the worst, stop it before it happens, etc....
What is so bad at looking a the way we use energy, emit CO2, reuse/recycle products, and change the things that could be causing damage?
I do not understand why this is such a heated debate. This is not a political issue, even though we all seem to want to make it one.
Putting limits on companies for the pollutants they release, looking for alternative energies, how are these bad things?
Cleaner air, cleaner water, less waste, sounds fantastic to me.
I wouldn't care if it was the right wing's poster boy's idea, I would stand behind it.

spot on :thumbsup:

[jamiethelanky]

Here is a great game aimed at children .....:sarcasm:....but this game is geared for kids and it's sick ....
http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm
Well, Aussies never hold back...