StarGateWars Forums

Theres a reason we dont have bigger plants & animals than we do now KMA & its really quite simple to understand, those lifeforms cant adapt quikly enough to any changes in their environment.

You really want food sources & CO2 scrubbers that might fail at any moment?? Wow talk about retarded, thats the path to starvation & the destruction of the human race.

Really a lil Astro study wouldnt hurt you in the slightest, try & learn a little about how planets form and the lifecycle of planets along with the changes that occur as the planet ages from a brand new ball of rock to a planet sustaining a full ecosystem.

Hihger levels of C)2 would pretty much mean the end of the human race, if anything what we need in the atmosphere is just a tiny amout more O2, which could have many beneficial effects on many different forms of life.

Oh & your argument about the seas is wrong, they arent the biggest producer of CO2, they are the biggest known absorber, completely the other way around.

your right about the oceans, i rushed that remark without thinking what i was writing. yes the oceans absorb more CO2 than anything else. but because it is such a massive storage system (if you like) of CO2, it also gives off more CO2 than anything else...i believe limestone is the 2nd largest storage "system" of CO2.


i urge you to watch that channel 4 documentary and share your thoughts...please

[KMA]Avenger wrote:your right about the oceans, i rushed that remark without thinking what i was writing. yes the oceans absorb more CO2 than anything else. but because it is such a massive storage system (if you like) of CO2

No, it's not.
athe oceans can't just "absorb" co2 indefinietly.
the CO2 "absorbed" in the oceans is being used by allgea, whice give off oxygen. allgea are thought to give about 80% of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

watch the film, see the science, and here from experts in oceanography.

Why would I want to see a flm created by people who have an agenda to push when I can instead rely on cold hard science which is much more reliable than some folks saying 'this is the way it is 'cause we say so like'

You shouldn't be afraid to hear to other side of argument Kit. The film insn't actually half bad but should be taken with a grain of salt.

They also ignore counter evidence and do not give an objective view of the debate

The more i read up on climate change the more i realise how uncertain the issue is. More research needs to be done on both sides. I beleive any claims made either way are premature and misleading.

A base this on the fact that models on both sides have hit and missed on their predictable outcomes. Correlation graphs are good and all, but all scientists should know you can't base axioms of truth upon them. There are oustanding variables that need to be acounted for in order to make realistic claims about the data they are intrepreting. The law of gravity doesn't just hold for when somethings fall and not when others fall. It holds true all the time. The same cannot be said for the predictions made on the climate models.

for once, i am in complete agreement with Thriller


my personal opinion (as you all probably know) is that man made climate change is about as real as clash of the titans...BUT, that's not to say the argument ends there, far from it.

the problem i have with those who pro-MMCC (man made climate change) is that their reaction to the sceptics borders on religious zeal rather than rational argument/counter-argument.
there is also evidence that they have subverted the peer review process and even gone as far as to sack scientists because they don't agree.

one thing we all hear about all the time is the pro side of the agenda but never a full blown debate with both sides bringing their evidence to the table in an open debate. in fact, MANY of the sceptics have challenged the pro mob to an open and fair debate and they have declined...why would so many supporters of a theory decline if they believe so much in their argument?!


@KF, i would NEVER ask you to watch anything that was completely biased or a program that tries to force an opinion...even if i happen to share that opinion i personally dont like my arm twisted, so to speak.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:for once, i am in complete agreement with Thriller
my personal opinion (as you all probably know) is that man made climate change is about as real as clash of the titans...BUT, that's not to say the argument ends there, far from it.

Hmm I would have to argue that the sheer quantity of greenhouse gas production/release over the last century has been a contributing factor, possibly a causing a slight acceleration of a natural cycle. But the only. or even a significant cause NO, I would agree that anyone that thinks the climate was stable and unchanging before mans contribution is foolish. Climate has changed dramatically throughout history and will continue to change regardless of human invention.

What gets me mad is when politicians say we have to stop driving and insulate out homes to solve this problem, and raise taxes to on this pretense. Such minor changes would have no effect whatsoever even if climate change was totally man-made, and is just an excuse to tax us. Most human production of greenhouse gases comes from heavy industry and all human production combines is still less than natural production. Just look at the quantities of carbon
emitted by volcano's, or the methane releases from frozen tundras in Siberia, hell I recently read that termites produce more methane than any other creature on earth.

The vast majority of greenhouse gas release is beyond human control but you cant tell people that flooding, storms, crop failure, famine etc are inevitable because that could end in panic and loss of control.

i'd also have to agree with you for the most part, but not 100%.