I'm bored so ask me anything.

[Vardak]

That's my whole point! The question is stated that because there isn't something there to "hear" the sound, then it isn't really a sound.

But it is. It exists unto it's self, not on being observed or whatever. it's a sound. Just because I'm not around to hear "krrrreeeee-ASH!" doesn't change it's nature.

The energy wave exists, as energy, thats its nature. Not until its recieved does it become something useful, sound.

[Borrigain]

It doesn't even take a volcano's worth of greenhouse gas to trigger the change - a tiny fraction, depending on the conditions. And volcanoes are sudden phenomena, while humanity's greenhouse-gas output is continuous, day after day, year after year. That kind of stuff adds up.

...

adds up to:

Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role than natural occuring sources, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

I'll concede human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and
transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Bottom line is earth goes thru 100,000 year cooling and warming cycles and we are on a warming trend right now. Check the geologic record. Humans didn't do squat to affect the trend over the previous 800,000 years and it happened anyway. So, are we the CAUSE? No. So, are we adding to global warming: you betcha. How much? Insignificant. I'll even grant you that we are accelerating it a wee bit. Can we stop it? Fuggetaboutit. The point of my previous post was that we delude ourselves into thinking that if we stop industrial activity the sea levels won't rise. Ain't gonna happen. They are going to rise anyway. So if you live on the ocean, get ready to move.

Now, I'm not trying to pick a fight Wolf and Sheck, but my point is that there is not enough scientific evidence...hard evidence....to conclude that changing our behavior will stop anything. Healthier for us, you bet, for the planet....the planet don't care about us.....it will shrug us off like fleas when it's ready

So, in conclusion, for my next question, if you believe Al Gore's documentary, are you saying that you believe a POLITICIAN is actually telling the whole truth? Or just a "convenient one"?

Don't hate me cuz I'm skeptical,
Borr.

[mocat]

I think the cat would point out that the tree couldn't fall if it didn't exist.

Hey! Leave me out of this!

What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

Oh ya..... see what happens Vardak? You drag me into this and now someone wants to cook me.

/eyes Lorein accusingly.....

[Vardak]

Hey! Leave me out of this!







Oh ya..... see what happens Vardak? You drag me into this and now someone wants to cook me.

/eyes Lorein accusingly.....

I dono, I did here some discussion over roasted or Barbequed. The good news is, they need to figure out how to prove your existance in a closed box first.

[Dane_McArdy]

The energy wave exists, as energy, thats its nature. Not until its recieved does it become something useful, sound.

I take issue with the word useful.

The energy wave exists. Whether or not some thing recieves it doesn't matter as to it's nature. Light exists, and all creatures see it differently. Bees see into a specturm we don't.

Dogs hear pitches we can't. So if I blow a dog whistle in the presence of a human and a dog, it's a sound, but if I remove the dog, it's no longer a sound?

Again, it's being egocentric to say that something is useful, or defined because we say it is. Some one hearing the energy wave doesn't change it's natuer. I might reshape it as it bounces of the object and moves in a different direction, and it might cause a chain reaction, such as nerves sending signals, eardrums vibrating and so forth. But those are reactions to the energy wave.

[Dane_McArdy]

adds up to:

Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role than natural occuring sources, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

I'll concede human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and
transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Bottom line is earth goes thru 100,000 year cooling and warming cycles and we are on a warming trend right now. Check the geologic record. Humans didn't do squat to affect the trend over the previous 800,000 years and it happened anyway. So, are we the CAUSE? No. So, are we adding to global warming: you betcha. How much? Insignificant. I'll even grant you that we are accelerating it a wee bit. Can we stop it? Fuggetaboutit. The point of my previous post was that we delude ourselves into thinking that if we stop industrial activity the sea levels won't rise. Ain't gonna happen. They are going to rise anyway. So if you live on the ocean, get ready to move.

Now, I'm not trying to pick a fight Wolf and Sheck, but my point is that there is not enough scientific evidence...hard evidence....to conclude that changing our behavior will stop anything. Healthier for us, you bet, for the planet....the planet don't care about us.....it will shrug us off like fleas when it's ready

So, in conclusion, for my next question, if you believe Al Gore's documentary, are you saying that you believe a POLITICIAN is actually telling the whole truth? Or just a "convenient one"?

Don't hate me cuz I'm skeptical,
Borr.

I think Al Gore goes outside of just being a politician, but what you are doing is just trying to smear the messanger.

THAT ASIDE.

What humans do is more then just contribute to greenhouse gases, and it's more then just a small amount.

Where we really make a difference is we have dramaticly lowered the planets natural resources for processing those greenhouse gasses. IE, plants that take those gasses and turn them into oxygen.

Even if we just raise greenhouse gasses as little as you suggest, we've reduced the ability to process those gasses so much, that the planet couldn't process a normal amount.

There is no denying, we have stripped the planet of it's natural resources, and as such, lowered it's ability to function.

[Vardak]

I take issue with the word useful.

The energy wave exists. Whether or not some thing recieves it doesn't matter as to it's nature. Light exists, and all creatures see it differently. Bees see into a specturm we don't.

Dogs hear pitches we can't. So if I blow a dog whistle in the presence of a human and a dog, it's a sound, but if I remove the dog, it's no longer a sound?

Again, it's being egocentric to say that something is useful, or defined because we say it is. Some one hearing the energy wave doesn't change it's natuer. I might reshape it as it bounces of the object and moves in a different direction, and it might cause a chain reaction, such as nerves sending signals, eardrums vibrating and so forth. But those are reactions to the energy wave.

Ok, rather than useful lets say action/reaction. The nature of energy is to cause an action; the reflection of this energy produces "sound". Other forms of energy produce other reactions; bees see a particular spectrum of light, dog's here within a specific range of frequencies, and so on. My point here is until something reflects a particular form of energy, causes an action, it exists only as potential. So, while a falling tree creates the potential for sound, until that energy is received no sound exists.

[The_Cataclysm]

What is the best way to cook a " Mocat " ?

For kobolds, I have always found grilling them brings out the best taste. Season to your tastes.

Thank you for your assistance. Being that you have been wonderfully helpful, I must ask,

Coke or Pepsi?

Coke. Always coke. Pepsi just doesn't taste right.

[Vardak]

There is no denying, we have stripped the planet of it's natural resources, and as such, lowered it's ability to function.

Hmm, perhaps you mean lowered its ability to support us as a species. Sure, Man has in impact; the question really is how much? More to the point; what is the cost/benefit of reducing that impact?

Several extinction events have occurred in Earth's history. Are we arrogant enough to believe we are the first species able to cause/prevent the next?

[Dane_McArdy]

Hmm, perhaps you mean lowered its ability to support us as a species. Sure, Man has in impact; the question really is how much? More to the point; what is the cost/benefit of reducing that impact?

Several extinction events have occurred in Earth's history. Are we arrogant enough to believe we are the first species able to cause/prevent the next?

There have been 8 major waves of extinction, and only a few are attributed to natural disaters. Ther rest are thought to be caused by the arrival of a species or several species whose behavior causes an imbalance in the eco system's balance, it causes catastrophic collapse of the current system.

How many speices has man himself caused to go extinct? And not just in current times.

And correct, we have lowered the planets ability to support our kind of life.

We really don't have the ability to destroy or save the planet as we see things related to ourselves. We do have the ability to possibly save ourselves. And no, I don't think we can prevent a natural extinction. We certainly can speed it up it seems.

[Borrigain]

Thank you Vardak

But, I too, with my B.S. in Geophysics, (i know just a b.s. atm, but then I joined the Army to pay off the college loans. And of course I know I'm not as smart as Al with his B.A. in Gov't, even though my speciality was planetary science) also agree with you Dane.....

it's just that all that climate change "save the planet" hogwash is just that.....the planet will be around long after we're gone. Any changes we "cause" will not affect "the planet", it will adapt and regulate itself over time. Conversely, I believe we "should" change the slogan to read "save the stoopid humans and the species their arrogance threatens". So yeah, if I could convince Brazil to stop clear-cutting the rainforests, I would. Helps process the junk we put into the atmosphere.....for "our" health. Is is smart to live cleaner and develop cutting edge technologies to reduce our "footprint"? **** skippy. It will help "us" to "continue" to thrive in this "present" environment.

But the planet will still go thru it's warming period whether we want it to or not. And life here will adapt, just as it has for millions of years. So to say climate change is all our fault is just screaming "DOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!" for doom's sake.

Borr.

[Vardak]

There have been 8 major waves of extinction, and only a few are attributed to natural disaters. Ther rest are thought to be caused by the arrival of a species or several species whose behavior causes an imbalance in the eco system's balance, it causes catastrophic collapse of the current system.

How many speices has man himself caused to go extinct? And not just in current times.

And correct, we have lowered the planets ability to support our kind of life.

We really don't have the ability to destroy or save the planet as we see things related to ourselves. We do have the ability to possibly save ourselves. And no, I don't think we can prevent a natural extinction. We certainly can speed it up it seems.

Hmm 8, 5 whatever but. These all sound like natural disasters to me. Man has caused a tiny fraction of total species extinctions. Global warming is a fact, however that our species is its cause is largely unproven and unlikely.

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, probably caused or aggravated by impact of several-mile-wide asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater now hidden on the Yucatan Peninsula and beneath the Gulf of Mexico.

End Triassic extinction, roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, most likely caused by massive floods of lava erupting from the central Atlantic magmatic province.

Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago. Many scientists suspect a comet or asteroid impact, although direct evidence has not been found. Others believe the cause was flood volcanism from the Siberian Traps and related loss of oxygen in the seas. Still others believe the impact triggered the volcanism and also may have done so during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction.

Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago, cause unknown. It killed 22 percent of marine families and 57 percent of marine genera. Erwin said little is known about land organisms at the time.

Ordovician-Silurian extinction, about 439 million years ago, caused by a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed, then by rising sea levels as glaciers melted.

[Dane_McArdy]

Hmm 8, 5 whatever but. These all sound like natural disasters to me. Man has caused a tiny fraction of total species extinctions. Global warming is a fact, however that our species is its cause is largely unproven and unlikely.

Man has caused more then a tiny fraction of recent extinctions.

Man's history is littered with causing this. There used to be large heard animals in the LA area, like rhino and elephant and giraffes. Prehistoric man hunted them to extinction.

I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.

[Ziggy]

I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.

CAUSE THATS HOW WE ROLL.

well technically you dont know if any other specied are taking credit cause you dont speak their language.

How do you know they arent?

[Dane_McArdy]

CAUSE THATS HOW WE ROLL.

well technically you dont know if any other specied are taking credit cause you dont speak their language.

How do you know they arent?

I can talk with the animals,
walk with the animals,

[cdbd3rd]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

How much chuck would a chuck up chuck if a wood chuck could up chuck?

[cdbd3rd]

Why won't anyone love me?

Are you kidding?!? Have you seen your gutter recently??
LOL.

Oh, yeah. My question....
Ummm.....

Prove or Disprove: Everything I say is a lie.

[cdbd3rd]

But the planet will still go thru it's warming period whether we want it to or not. And life here will adapt, just as it has for millions of years. So to say climate change is all our fault is just screaming "DOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!" for doom's sake.

Borr.

Yeah, but it's a real pain in the utility bill meanwhile.

_

[Vardak]

Man has caused more then a tiny fraction of recent extinctions.

Man's history is littered with causing this. There used to be large heard animals in the LA area, like rhino and elephant and giraffes. Prehistoric man hunted them to extinction.

I don't see many other speices getting the credit for causing the extinction of another speices in such a manner.

Recent, perhaps. Total, not even close. The fact is we are the dominate species on the planet for the moment, everything else is in competition to compete for resources with us. Frankly, Yea US!

Natural Selection is good, as long as you are not selected for extinction.

[Borrigain]

...

Natural Selection is good, as long as you are not selected for extinction.

That's what I'm talkin' about!

Borr.