I don't disagree with what you are saying here, just your odd comment suggesting that gases could escape through the hole in the ozone layer.
I'm not a prepper...but my son will be...
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
My history is limited, but wasn't the import and use of guano an interwar thing?
There are holes in the sky
Where the rain gets in
But they're ever so small
That's why the rain is thin
Where the rain gets in
But they're ever so small
That's why the rain is thin
Yes, I found that one too. It's a lot more complex than a blanket "Plugging the Ozone hole causes global warming". What the research actually shows explains the discrepancy that was observed regarding ice loss in the Arctic vs Antarctic.
The ozone hole allowed for the south to be a bit cooler than the north, and thus didn't see the loss of sea ice that was observed in the Arctic. By fixing the ozone layer, we have merely brought the Antarctic in line with the north. Nothing more.
Julia
I don't know that bit of history; but it would explain much and give credence to Julia's claim. It would mean that WWII interrupted the supply of guano and created a need for a replacement (whether that replacement was the product of deliberate research or accidental discovery would be irrelevant)
Not at all. Guano deposits were discovered in 1802, and in the later part of the 19th century their exploitation grew. Based on dates from wikipedia, take with the usual pinch of salt (a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila...)
Julia
Still think it's all hokum... Every generation has had a scare story of some sort , this is no different.
If I put you in a sealed glasshouse with enough plants etc. to maintain a balance....how many days can I exhange a cupful of exhaust fumes for a cupful of your atmosphere before you start to complain?
How long can you maintain the idea that what I am introducing is not a problem?
How long can you maintain the idea that what I am introducing is not a problem?
How utterly delightfully selfish of you.
Out of interest, do you wash your hands? Have you seen proof of the germs that these scientists talk about?
I take you back to my previous quote:
"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies."
Julia
Best scientific explanation yet Mousey
Give this guy a windmill
Do the holes get bigger when it snows
How utterly delightfully condescending of you.. Please respect my opinion regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Indefinitely if you follow a single condition: Anything you introduce must also come from that balanced greenhouse. After all, all the carbon being "introduced" is from this enclosed planetary system.
Fair enough. By the way, where does that 97% get it's funding? Universities perhaps? The same universities that are themselves always seeking grants and donations from wealthy alumni?
There's no such thing as unbiased research on either side.
I respect your right to have an oppinion. However I think you are in the wrong. What is more, the selfish view has a larger impact than the condescending view. We have to share this planet, it's atmosphere is a communal resource. Therefore a selfish viewpoint where someone concludes that the surprising body of evidence is wrong, is an impact on everyone on the planet.
Fine by me, we can take the plants in that system, and store them away in anaerobic conditions within the system, and wait for your own CO2 to take effect...
Science is funded by many people. The point behind science tho is that with the scientific method, I can go out and do some research and make an observation and reach a conclusion, say:
"I have done extensive research and found that drinking beer makes me drunk"
You can look at my research, my observations, and my methods, which are open for anyone to see. You can then repeat the experiment. You can take the test subject (me) to the pub, and ply me with beer for an evening, and observe for yourself that I am drunk. Science relies on adherence to the scientific method, and a large aspect of that is transparency of data and reproducibility of the experiment.
Julia
Madam, I can see you are trying really hard to get your ideas across especially by the use of repetition and your use of statistics ( like 97%) and we all know how reliable and accurate statistics really are. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts, they really have put a smile on my face but to be honest the only question I'm left with after reading them is , when you stand up does the stick fall out?
I'm in no doubt that the universe is in a constant state of flux. As the sun expands the solar system will increase in temperature. That being said, I believe man has and is increasingly affecting the balance of our planet, at a rate that isn't in keeping with the natural speed of change in the rest of the solar system/ universe.
No proof but just my opinion.
No proof but just my opinion.
The thing with global warming/climate change is that it is happening on ALL the planets in our solar system.
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
