Global warming - fact or conspiracy?

Why on Earth would we want to do this? Even if, as you say GH gases are not a primary mover in climate change (a conclusion not held by research independently funded) it will still increase global temperature with all the consequences that that will bring. So not knowing wheather the sun is the biggest culprit or not you still advocate the above?Good grief! If? I refer you to the above. References please. If, if, if........Need I go on?

With that statement, you show ignorance. Of course there is bias on both sides. There wouldn't be "both" sides if there weren't bias on both sides. It's ok to be biased. It is the fuel for debate. It's whether the scientific community as a whole listens to both sides of the biased advocates. This is the ugly and beautiful way science distills ideas into believable theories. Bad conclusion. Profit is not the only motive for bias. Good science needs checks and balances. Another motive (both sides of GW debate)is personal ego-driven scientific recognition. And, don't forget that there are evil business rivals to big oil, and they have incentive for bringing down their rivals enough to sell their own goods (or in the case of some folks, their books and movies). There seems to be plenty of grant money going to GW folks. I guess this is not your definition of "profit". Yes. But that has nothing to do with my point. Besides, I love preservation (not conservation) of large-scale natural man-minimized environments. I would love to keep Brazilians from chopping all the Amazon trees down, but "leading by example" by not chopping my backyard's trees down will not stop them. The same is true with energy consumption, IMO. Don't forget the Anasazi Indians at Mesa Verde!
You seem to conclude that I am in favor of that. Erroneous and incorrect conclusion. Besides, killing-off species and destroying habitats was still an issue before GW became popular. Ultimately, this pits the poor (who want the resources) vs the rich, the haves vs have-nots. I am in favor of population control as an approach, but darned if I know how to ethically make that happen world-wide. Cart before horse again, EZ. Before you accuse me and conservatives of selfishness on this issue, you need to have a convincing case that humans are the cause. You don't. Rather than belly-ache, have all the biased scientists from both sides hash it out. American economy is collapsing, but it will have nothing to do with GW. The invasion from the south, the socialistic benefits, the debt, the outsourcing of work, the legal quagmire for business, and some other things are enough to bring us down. The illegal alien issue is already a time-bomb waiting to cripple us with benefit costs once they become citizens. Look, I am being a bit sarcastic, but chalk that up to my practical sense that there is nothing we really have control over.
OK, EZ, since you need to be told sarcasm... warning! sarcasm follows: By causing mass-extinction, we are opening the door of opportunity for species variation to express itself in different ways. This has been a hypothesis from evolutionary scientists. Snap out of it!! You are starting to make arguments like a Creationist!

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

I am wondering where you get your ideas about science.

So, truth is the same as lies? Those who advance the truth are just as biased as those who promote lies?You need to stop watching Fox News. "Balance" is not something to strive for; accuracy is. You don't balance the truth with lies. You don't need to present "both sides" when one side is truth and the other side is fiction. Do you know what a grant is?It's not "here's a big sack of cash money; don't spend it all at once place."Spending that money is a lot of work. A lot of headache. A whole lot of people are always looking over your shoulder and counting the receipts. You don't even usually get paid out of your grant.The idea that a scientist would fudge the data, or lie, just to get some grant money is ridiculous on its face. They don't get to spend it on cars and jewelry. Getting a grant isn't getting a blank check; it's more like when the boss sends you down to pick up lunch for everybody. You don't get to get the lunch you want; you have to pick up the lunch that you think everybody else would like and that isn't going to cost a whole lot. At best, if you do it right, nobody cares. At worst if you get the wrong lunch everybody's pissed. It's thankless. Grant money's just about the same.On the other hand...The profits you get from being an oil shareholder are free money. You can do whatever you want! Go to Paris? Sure. Plasma-screen TV? Get two! Coke and hooker parties? Print up the invitations.Now, you tell me where the profit motive lies? Now, this I think you're right about. There's just far too many people who won't be convinced no matter what evidence.Honestly? I think we'd be much more successful trying to prepare for the consequences of runaway climate instead of trying to stop it. Probably too late, at this point.

In the ocean Co2 is sequestered from the atmosphere and forms precipitates. This is how our limestone, chalk, marble deposits formed.I've heard massive algae blooms were caused by low Co2, never heard they were caused by high levels of Co2.* references belowAs carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, an equilibrium is established involving the carbonate ion, CO32. The carbonate anion interacts with cations in seawater. According to the solubility rules, "all carbonates are insoluble except those of ammonium and Group IA elements." Therefore, the carbonate ions cause the precipitation of certain ions. For example, Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions precipitate from large bodies of water as carbonates. For CaCO3, the value of Ksp is 5 109, and for MgCO3, Ksp is 2 103. Extensive deposits of limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (mixed CaCO3 and MgCO3) have been formed in this way. Calcium carbonate is also the main constituent of marble, chalk, pearls, coral reefs, and clam shells.http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.htmlAdding additional light without CO2, however, can lead to massive algae blooms... not fun. If you must choose between either CO2 or light... go CO2 first.Aquaria Central - which comes first: the lighting or the CO2?

you were the one that claimed that more CO2 leads to increased plant growth, (due to a link with photosynthesis). It is therefore logical to sya that, increase CO2, and you will increase algae numbers, until there is a new limiting factor on the growth (like a lack of iron).Is it a good thing to increase marble production in the ocean? You forgot to mention that the carbonic acid increases the acidity of the surface water. Now then, what happens to highly snesitive organisms when you change the acidity? If it kills a good chunk of the algea, we're all screwed.Point is, we don't need 600ppm CO2. We don't even need 330 ppm CO2. World did just fine without that much. I say bring the level down to at most 300 ppm. Unfortunately, you don't see a problem with 600 ppm CO2. There is a major problem once it starts screwing over the oceans. Point in case--last year's hurricanes were more intense because of global warming. The latest study looked at the effect global warming was having on the natural cycles of the hurricane intensity. While el nino was mostly to blame, the AMO (or is it ALO?) the fluctuating cycle of temperature in the atlantic, played an almost insignificant role in the hurricane intensity. Rita, Wilma, and Katrina were due to el nino and global warming. Thank you CO2.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Try again. They are the key ingredients in those materials, but it is the organisms that take up the carbonic acid (coral reefs, shellfish, most likely others) that make those. Limestone and chalk are directly formed from dead shellfish shells.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

Limestone and chalk are directly formed from dead shellfish shells.

---

Not entirely correct, some limestone is chemical, not biological in origin, which is why not all limestone contains fossils.

True, but that still invalidates the claim that ALL limestone and chalk and marble are created by the CO2 in the ocean.Thanks for the correction.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

The link below will take you to a website that collects "end of the world Scenarios", few of which address climate trouble and global warming.WELCOME TO EXIT MUNDI: A COLLECTION OF END-OF-WORLD SCENARIOSLook under the scenario titled "Boil!", which talks about the "runaway Greenhouse effect. Very frightening.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

You are quite wrong about that. The stoma are not going to stay closed all of the time and greater leaf surface area means more stoma. Plants with a lot of leaf surface area suffer more greatly during a drought than plants with less leaf surface area, regardless of carbon dioxide levels. That is a fact. That is why desert plants don't have leaves but instead have spines and needles. Also higher photosynthetic rates associated with greater leaf area will use more water so the plant needs more.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Science is not a democracy.

Take a look at the following. It's not like we increase CO2 and watch simply and incremental rise in temperature. When we reach about +8 degrees celcius the Methane Hydrate in the sea and river deltas melt, the Amazon starts to burn and up goes your carbon sink. All that and we go up to about + 15 degrees celcius fast.http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/...l/articles/1_global_warming.htmhttp://www.hydrogen.co.uk/.../journal/articles/3_Methane.htmMethane is 40 times the green house gas that CO2 is.Take a look at what can happen if global temperatures rise to far; are you familiar with the Permian Extinction Event?Global warming 'threatens Earth with mass extinction'http://www.washingtonpost.com/...icles/A24732-2005Jan20.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/02/050223130549.htm95% of life gone.

I don't share your fear of increasing Co2, methane, causing global warming. I however agree the cottail of gases including methane is
contributing gases into the water vapor in the atmosphere is all a part of the canopy absorbing heat radiated from the earth.Is oxygen nitrogen a greater contributor than Co2 to global warming or is these gases simply absorbing their heat from the water vapor and not directly from the earth.I thought pressures is the main reason why methane hyrates crystalize. Its similar why they pump Co2 into oil wells and it does not return to the surface because of the pressure.You'd think that rising ocean levels are a good thing because it will help keep these methane hydrates from burping bigtime if its based on pressure. A good reason for the earth to melt the polar caps to keep these massive methane hydrates contained, better to flood the coastlines than burn the planet bigtime. In a desert with no clouds the nights are cold and the days hot. I suspect all gases without water vapor does nothing to promote global warming.I suspect given the massive amounts of heat given off from a hurricane moisture condensing that water vapor is the biggest contributor to global warming next to the suns solar cycles.Is the water canopy causing global warming because of the solar cycles presently heating up the waters of the earth.Is it the water vapor capturing the heat radiated from the earth and is it transfering its heat to the cottail of gases. If so then the earth is not directly heating these gases if it was the deserts would be warmer throughout the night.New web address for RenewAmericaEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

while the CO2 might stay in the oil wells due to pressure (I'm not sure on this--oil engineering is not something I'm familiar with), methane hydrates are formed by temperature. While initially thought to exist only on the fringes of the solar system, we have found them at the bottom of the oceans and other places--whereever the methane gas streams meats cold water. All it really is is methane gas trapped in ice.In order for pressure to be responsible for keeping water a solid, there would have to be incredible pressure--probably comparable to that used for making diamonds.On this you are wrong. Gases can retain heat. In fact, any matter can retain heat. Ever wonder why the road is hot? Water holds heat better than a lot of things. It does it even better than methane, which is one of the more worse global warming gases. It retains heat about 40 times more than CO2 does, or some number to the effect.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences