I too am not affiliated with any political party but wow this thread is funny...if i wanted to see liberal vs. conservative i would turn stupid hannity and colmes or something.

 

Well thank you. And I am no republican or democrat. I am a true american and a bit of a nationalist. It is not wrong to love your country and the ideals of freedom. Thats what nationalsim is all about. A true nation is a nation of freedom not tyranny. And now our nation is in tyranny of another sort. Our nation miles well be under a dictator cause thats what politicians are these days. It used to be that a common man could be a politician in this great country now the only people becoming politicians are rich people. Our country is a country that is ruled by an oligarchial nature of the few rich.

Our tyrant isnt man or machine or a single dictator it is money. Once we have eliminated the tyrant out of our political office is when our society today can heal.

 

so skilmatic what you are telling me is that you have been studying weather and climate for 20 years? how old are you? where did you study such things? I've been studying this stuff intensely now for three years. I'm an english major and I am doing a special certificate program in ies. maybe you studied climate change 20 years ago when we didn't know the things we know now. If you are going to claim to be an expert in the field then let me know why i should believe you. Me, I'm just a student. Yes I do fieldwork, no i'm not a weather man yet. Do I know a lot about climate change? Yep, so give me a reason to take your word for it. You aren't telling me anything by talking about macro and micro climates, i need specifics if you've got them.

 

A couple of the more well reasoned people have already made this point in their ways, but I wanted to explain it this way: the conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat debate as presented by the radicals on either side is a false dichotomy. You simply cannot split all human thought into two mutually exclusive views.

 

yes i can. those who are correct (me)....

and those who think different from me

 

Well first off did I say I have been studyiong weather for 20yrs? No I was just implying that as an example that just because youare learning somehting now deosnt make YOU an expert. When you look back on life after you studied and worked in the field of climate and forecasting for many years you will rendor yourself a moron when you first started.

Just because some left wing liberal nut in your socialistic liberal commanded school says global warming is alive and a theory is true doesnt mean he is correct. If I listened to every professor I had in college I woudl turn out worse than a Marxist Stalin-like Ward Churchill. You need to form you own opinions on things backed with evidenciary support. So far all global warming has proved is nothing. They cant prove any link that because of the burning of fossil fuels is why our macro climate temp is climbing. Also there are small gaps in our ozone at the poles. How come those gaps arent located at the heart of where the most burning of fossil fuels?

Yes, I have come to you with facts. You have come to me with theories. If Global warming was apparent to life then it would also be apparent that our ozone layer would decrease in strenght over places where the most fossil burning fuels is at. However, it is basically the exact opposite. Last time I looked there werent 10million cars at antarctica.

Also even in the event of a atomic bomb scientists thought it would cause the ozone layer to dissipate over japan but it didNOT. The ozone layer isNOT depleting cause of how much fuel we consume its because of another reason and that reason is also causing our ice caps to melt too(due to gaps in the ozone layer). Whethor is all patterned. Same thing with temp. Temp is the cornerstone to weathor.

I would be more adherent to learning then trying to disprove something(ie my suspected knowledge).

 

dude, did you actually go to school? could have fooled me. i'm not an environmental expert, but i can tell you why the o-zone holes are not located over top of the source of most O3 destructive contaminates. it is called WIND. just like when you fill a balloon with helium, it never flys straight up, the wind and other more large scale pressure differentials will move the contaminates like CFC's thousands of miles by the time they reach the upper atmosphere where the O3 is most prevailent. it can also be seen on a smaller scale where i was born and raised. we lived north east of chicago and gary indiana. however, we would get massive pollution levels due to the winds carrying everything along the lakeshore. don't beleive me yet? well then how about i have my mexican friend stand up wind of you after eating a greasy burrito...

 

uhm... formulate your own opinions... do you formulate your own opinions about facts? that's called dellusion. global warming exists... whether or not it is a global problem of catastrophic proportions is what's debateable. the fact that there are more c02 emissions means that the green house gas effect is amplified. what are the consequences of this? the earth retains more of its reradiated heat. this is fact. now you can go ahead and debate whether or not it will cause the ice caps to melt and all that day after tomorrow ****. but hte FACT is that it exists... it's the consequences that we're not sure of. so i think it's still best to not **** our selves due to ignorance.

 

Hey uh Skilmatic fossil fuels do not cause any significant depletion of the ozone. Those are CFC's you are reffering to and they exist in aerosols and refrigerators. Greenhouse gases are not the reason the ozone layer is depleted at the poles. CFC's are degrading the ozone at the poles because atmospheric pressure is lowest there; Therefore less ozone, therefore ozone layer is thinner, therefore gaps in the ozone are greatest at the poles. Ever notice that your hairspray bottle says, "Contains no CFCs" on it? did you go to school?

The only way automobiles have destroyed the ozone layer is by old air conditioning systems leaking freon in the atmosphere. Please, like I said before, get your facts straight before you make such bold statements.

On a side note the ozone layer has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth. It has no insulating qualities, but GREENHOUSE gases do. Thus, more CO2 insulation, more longwave radiation reflected back to earth, more heat.

 

Umm yes I did. Also the polltion you were seeing was from me to you. If you look at the jet stream it goes NNE and fluctuates in those direction from time to time but the jet stream does NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE NORTH POLE SO TO SAY. It continues to the east along the border of canada and the US. However, you are seeing pollution from the west coast which is the most scarcely populated of the US. Yes although cali is the most populated state with around 40million people in it the rest of the west is very desolate compared to the east which is where most of the pollution comes from and from the east the wind stream just goes hard east. NOT NORTH! If you want I can submit a link for you so you too can learn about the jet stream and where it flows. Now if there was a stream of air that carries all of our most densely populated areas pollution up to the north pole then I would agree with you but this is NOT the case.

Also smog is heavier than o2 which is why it settles low compared to helium which is usually a high flying element. Yes smog is carried by the wind but if you follow the wind patterns they dont travel all the way north. Also smog may tend to stay at one particular place due to temp inversion. Which also proved me to be true cause if these inversions occur which I can assure you that they do that the smog gasses will NOT flow all the way north; rather they will be trapped where they are cause it shuts off any convection affects. Therefore the movement of these gases will be rendored non-kenetic.

If you are at Gary indiana(fine town btw I drove through there on my way to Chi town for a sports convention a couple years ago) I can assure you alot of the pollution you were seeing was from not only your own town from all the factories in the area but from Chi town as well cause if you look at the direction of the jet stream winds from chi town they go right across into indianaand down into the heart of the apalachians.

Well I hope that shed some light to you guys. Let me know when you find out why our ozone layer on our poles is depleted. Also if what you say is true then our poles would be so bogged down with smog gases that those areas would become so dangerous with so many combustible gases that our poles would not have holes in the ozone but our whole pole areas ozone layer would be decimated.

 

yeah not quite, your gonna have to do better then a conservative magazine owned by a right wing corporation publishing an article written by the cousin of Michael Chertoff, who just happens to be secretary of the Dept. Of Homeland Security. geee, I wonder if someone at PM magazine would have an interests in covering up the truth, nah couldnt be.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...offscousin.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/popmechdat.htm

 

Dude must I edumacate everyone? Ok class has begun. Look, adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer(gee I wonder where these gases usualy come from? Try looking at your poop and your exhale gases haha). Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, absent indirect mitigating effects. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be. The combustion of fossil fuels(ding ding ding we have a winner johnny), including the coal-burning power plants, automobile exhausts, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the human environment contribute about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere each year. About half of human emissions have remained in the atmosphere. Animal agriculture, manure, natural gas, rice paddies, landfills, coal, and other anthropogenic sources contribute about 450 million tons of methane each year according to TAR. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.

I can go on and on all day buddy. I can basically sum up your whole class in about 4 posts if you want. But then again I think your smart enough to get the point.

 

hey i just posted why there are holes at the poles. look up a few posts! ^

 

And I just posted why you are wrong. AGAIN.

 

VOTE REPUBLICAN