You make a good point about non-scientific people misinterpreting scientific results. I think global warming makes a good case for that. Unfortunately, it seems to be gaining ground as a political issue more than a scientific one. That's not a good thing. Global warming (and cooling) are a natural cycle for our planet which is something people don't understand. Science is merely trying to evaluate how the increase in carbon dioxide levels (due to our industy) will impact our current warming cycle. At this point, they don't know for sure. It may be innocuous, but on the other hand, could cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Most people don't get it. My mother in law thinks that anyone who talks about global warming is a tree hugging extremist. I try to tell her, "The earth has been warming and cooling for some 4 billion years. We just need to know *how much* it's going to warm given the current carbon dioxide levels. Certainly, dumping tons and tons of that stuff into the atmoshpere every day is not a good thing to be doing."

Each century has had its own version of "reality". Only for the next one to expose their reality as naive. I've no proof that this century is any different than those before it.

Our problem is we work with models to help understanding. But a model of something is not the thing itself.

@ FROOKIE Im not an american... shame on you for lumping me in with them!

Oops-me and my big brush!..

The pragamtic aspect would point out that, compared to Newton we certainly do understand the universe better. As already pointed out, the operation of the electronic computer which you are happily typing on, gives false testomy to your statement we are getting nowhere. The metaphysical aspect is interesting enough to discuss (are we iterating to ever closer approximations of the 'truth' and will there ever be a stop to this?) , but I won't discuss it with you. Yup we are definitely getting somewhere...Bravo richrf, nicely put. Metaphysical aspect, pray tell? oh and i really don't want to be pedantic, but isn't iteration where the same formula is used repeatedly to get to the answer. In the present discussion the formulas and theories are evolving and so iteration will not apply. Actually, there's a simpler pragmatic answer. I just don't feel like having that argument. It's a massive headache that leads to nowhere except cynicism and headaches.

What pragmatic answer? And cynicism is a facet of maturity. And I'm told it helps with bowel problems..so spill the beans!

Both of you.

As for global warming...Now why would you want to bring up that? This was a friendly discussion. Now its personal...
The thing is global warming is a reality. And the fact of the matter is: earth is going to shit on us soon, in a big way. If anyone has seen "the day after tomorrow", then you'll know what i'm talking about. I know its a sensationalist movie and it aint that good to boot, but there is truth there. The mammoth with the mouthfull of food is real. The movie may depict absolute worse case scenario, but look at it from this point of view:
Ice ages have happened and in all likelihood are going to happen again.
Desalinisation of the atlantic ocean WILL stop the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift.
Northern europe will have a localised ice age - @ 10-20 degrees cooler. We rely on the gulf stream to keep us warmer than we should be; Southern alaska shares the same latitude as us in England.
Now imagine what that would do to weather patterns: warm air meets cold, they dont like each other. a fight ensues. hey presto we got a superstorm...
ice ages have happened.

But we can stop this:
Even if we:
Sell your car(s)and use public trans.
Buy local foods.
put solar panels on your roofs.
use a lot less gas and electricity
recycle
use nuclear power

and a whole other host of energy saving and ultimately futile gestures, we are gonna get nowhere unless the govts get together and sort things out. And this goes double for the worlds biggest consumer. And even if they do they are going to just set things back by a decade or two.

Earth needs some serious, serious help. Now.

Now if anyone wants to tell me i'm wrong. go ahead, i'm all eyes.

if we add dark matter, then please, add Black Holes, neutron stars, pulsars, super novas, gas cloads and all the likes! (actually these would be cool things to add in my view!)
Yup, they would - be a good idea that is. We've gone full circle man!

later.

sorry for the mixed up greens - I'm sure the quoted will know what i mean. man, do you remenber the good old days when the quotes actually worked?

Alright, you people are starting to play with some seriously theoretical stuff now.... but if you want something that is absolutely insane, and yet, by all means, mathematically true, then read this: according to some physicist (i dont know his name, i just remember being told about it and seeing the book), the entire universe is an illution, and, in basic terms, a computer program like "The Sims". so imagine: maybe "The Matrix" was more science than fiction.

heres another odd thing. unless somebody looks at an object, it technically isnt there. something to do with wave packets or the such and quantum mechanics. only a creature or an object that is self-concious (meaning it is aware of itself, like a human is, or like some species of primate) looking at an object will make it actaulyl be there. something has to perceive it. otherwise it would be like a waste of energy. leaving a light on when nobody is in the room. now some people think "well if you record a video of something that nobody is looking at it will still apear!" yes, true, but taht is because people are now perceiving the what the movie recorded. its all quantum mechanics. it makes no sense, and is more or less like an anti-universe.

note: everything i have said may or may not be true. it could be vastly outdated.

As for global warming...Now why would you want to bring up that? This was a friendly discussion. Now its personal... The thing is global warming is a reality. And the fact of the matter is: earth is going to shit on us soon, in a big way. If anyone has seen "the day after tomorrow", then you'll know what i'm talking about. I know its a sensationalist movie and it aint that good to boot, but there is truth there. The mammoth with the mouthfull of food is real. The movie may depict absolute worse case scenario, but look at it from this point of view: Ice ages have happened and in all likelihood are going to happen again. Desalinisation of the atlantic ocean WILL stop the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift. Northern europe will have a localised ice age - @ 10-20 degrees cooler. We rely on the gulf stream to keep us warmer than we should be; Southern alaska shares the same latitude as us in England. Now imagine what that would do to weather patterns: warm air meets cold, they dont like each other. a fight ensues. hey presto we got a superstorm... ice ages have happened.

Oh, boy, one of these... I was hoping to not have one of these... Ah, well. I'm refering to the argument, not the poster.

The main issue is that, you're right: Global warming happens. It's happened hundreds of the times in the past and will happen hundreds of times in the future. Assuming we don't accidentally burn off the atmosphere while trying to save it, that is. But, here's the problem: We don't actually know if it's natural this time or not.

The continual doexyfication of the Earth that is contributing to it we pretty much can't stop. In order to do so, we need to drastically increase Earth's tectonic acticity. This means we need volcanos to erupt more often than they do. We can do temporary fixes, of course. By temporary, I mean drilling a hole to the center of the planet and firing a nuke into it. That would increase tectonic activity for a short amount of time. The amount of deaths will be extreme, but nothing compared to the entire species. Of course, people don't always like to hear the solution.

The rest of it may actually be natural. Yeah, it's true the North Atlantic current will shut down. How many times has it done this in the past? For all we know, it could shut down just long enough to cause a cooling effect before it restarts. We have a lot of doomsayers when it comes to global warming, but a lot of these predictions rely on data that we don't actually have yet. And the only way to get it is to let the warming effect continue, which means the only way they can be proven right is for the very thing they are predicting to actually happen.

Also, if the warming itself is natural, then there's nothing we can do, short of causing a nuclear winter, to stop it. And no matter how you like it, the weather patterns themselves are not going to be normal for about a thousand years or so, due to the shifting of the poles. Right now, we are beginning an era that will be a meteorologist's nightmare. And if all of this is natural, then we'll only screw ourselves over even more by making radical changes without enough information now. And, no, we don't have enough information as of yet. There's still too many untested variables for it to be certain that humans are at fault.

The continual doexyfication of the Earth that is contributing to it we pretty much can't stop. In order to do so, we need to drastically increase Earth's tectonic acticity. This means we need volcanos to erupt more often than they do. We can do temporary fixes, of course. By temporary, I mean drilling a hole to the center of the planet and firing a nuke into it. That would increase tectonic activity for a short amount of time. The amount of deaths will be extreme, but nothing compared to the entire species. Of course, people don't always like to hear the solution.

I'm sorry, but how would tectonic activity increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere? And thereby reduce the overall percentage of co2, will this make a difference? because I'd always assumed it was the amount of c02 rather than the percentage that really impacts here. or does it have something to do with sun choking dust that simultaneous major volcanic eruptions would create?)

Extreme? your doomsday device to save the earth from itself is quite..er, insane (no offence, geeza). Why not build giant solar/nuclear powered air "scrubbers" that separate the c and the o in co2? Or geneer superplankton that consume huge quantities of co2, and nocturnal sea bugs to munch them overnight. Both these ideas are long term plans and will more likely succeed (iff. the ideas can be realised) than the planet buster idea.

Also, if the warming itself is natural, then there's nothing we can do, short of causing a nuclear winter, to stop it. And no matter how you like it, the weather patterns themselves are not going to be normal for about a thousand years or so, due to the shifting of the poles. Right now, we are beginning an era that will be a meteorologist's nightmare. And if all of this is natural, then we'll only screw ourselves over even more by making radical changes without enough information now. And, no, we don't have enough information as of yet. There's still too many untested variables for it to be certain that humans are at fault.

I've been doing some reading on iceages and the 'lore' of the paeleoclimatologists (nice word eh?) and they notice that the ice age cycles are always followed by extremely warm periods - duh! how else would the ice melt numbnuts. but they are also preceded by those same warm periods. Now, if we are heading for blizzard county: the six billion people on earth and the vast quantities of energy expended to keep a modest percentage of us living in luxury can only add to the heat, so therefore we ARE part of the problem and we are speeding up the process. And we are also pumping co2 and various poisons into the atmosphere by the megatonne.
My point is that we need to negate our input into the system by taking proactive measures, even if it just to delay the inevitable, because if we do delay things we may have the time to find an answer to keep this planet pretty.

it could shut down just long enough to cause a cooling effect before it restarts.

if / when it happens (more like when) the areas affected will be covered by a lot of snow / ice - apparently the change will be very sudden. funny thing about snow is that it reflects light really well. now if the area of impact is large then a lot energy will be relected back into space. and this will compound the problem so these ice sheets will begin to advance as the years progress. And then you can chuck out the fridge cos you can keep your beers cool in the garden. No more soccer! no more football - it'll be ice hockey and curling and ice fishing that will rise to the fore. depressing aint it.

As for the poles shifting, yeah my old physics prof chatted about it. apparently north and south poles switch places. don't worry everybody, I dont think the earth is going to flip. the rate will probably be same as its present shift for the duration of the migration. and how that will affect things? dunno.

We live in interesting times.

heres another odd thing. unless somebody looks at an object, it technically isnt there.

A variation on the tree in the forest falling and not making a sound unless someone is there to hear it. Has anyone found a use for quantum mech. yet? apart from confounding people. The thing is if you remove a whole load of factors from things then you can make maths say pretty much anything you want. I may be wrong but that tree that fell, it made a sound. and yeah that object you aint looking at is still there. I mean come on the percentage of universe that we cannot see could, using this quantum method, quite reasonably be made of shite. bulls in all fairness..

I'm sorry, but how would tectonic activity increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere? And thereby reduce the overall percentage of co2, will this make a difference? because I'd always assumed it was the amount of c02 rather than the percentage that really impacts here. or does it have something to do with sun choking dust that simultaneous major volcanic eruptions would create?)

You need to look up an article in Scientific American on dinosaur extinction. December of... 2002? 2003? Wasn't long before 2004... The main theory it presented is that the dinos simply suffocated to death. The evidence involved has a lot to do with a peculiarity of how Earth's atmosphere works. Apparently, volcanos provided most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. As the volcanos shut down, the oxygen levels begin to drop (due to life). In fact, this may be what led to Mars not maintaining an oxygen atmosphere.

Extreme? your doomsday device to save the earth from itself is quite..er, insane (no offence, geeza). Why not build giant solar/nuclear powered air "scrubbers" that separate the c and the o in co2? Or geneer superplankton that consume huge quantities of co2, and nocturnal sea bugs to munch them overnight. Both these ideas are long term plans and will more likely succeed (iff. the ideas can be realised) than the planet buster idea.

Because the first requires a reliance on nuclear tech, which many nations are not willing to allow, and the second is a direct alteration of nature without knowing the true long-term side effects. What's going to eat the bugs?

I've been doing some reading on iceages and the 'lore' of the paeleoclimatologists (nice word eh?) and they notice that the ice age cycles are always followed by extremely warm periods - duh! how else would the ice melt numbnuts. but they are also preceded by those same warm periods. Now, if we are heading for blizzard county: the six billion people on earth and the vast quantities of energy expended to keep a modest percentage of us living in luxury can only add to the heat, so therefore we ARE part of the problem and we are speeding up the process. And we are also pumping co2 and various poisons into the atmosphere by the megatonne.

Actually, that's not something we can really negate. Even if we get rid of all of our cars, shut down our factories, and stop all uses of fire, we'll still be pumping C02 into the atmosphere by the megaton. The current human population alone produces more CO2 just by breathing than some nations do. And we're only adding to our numbers. Want to solve that? Simple: Kill off a few billion people and put breeding controls into place.

Oh, and last I checked, Antarctic ice proved CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since before human civilization. Even if we are accelerating the process, the problems remains that there may not be much we can do about it.

My point is that we need to negate our input into the system by taking proactive measures, even if it just to delay the inevitable, because if we do delay things we may have the time to find an answer to keep this planet pretty.

Okay, several problems: One, how do we do that? Two, what kind of effects will that cause? And, three, what evidence is there that we have not already passed the point of no return if we are the cause or that any of our efforts will make a dent? Whhat we need is a permanent solution. Using temporary solutions are what got us into this mess in the first place (gasoline was a temporary solution to solve the issues of electrical power, and ironically those issues have never been solved).

My favorite is the idea of hydrogen-powered cars. Okay, that's a nice, stupid idea. We will need to get the hydrogen from somewhere. The most likely candidate is the oceans. Problem is, drawing it out of the oceans in the quantities needed will cause the oceans to lower and will, in turn, have rather drastic effects on Earth's weather patterns, effects I have not seen anyone attempt to model. Also, no one has solved the issue of water vapor increasing in most areas of the world. You see, water vapor has two interesting qualities: One is that it is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The other is that, when a water vapor rich area starts to cool, it tends to cool quite a bit. Combined together, you have the Earth potentially heating up faster than it is and ending with a much, much more apocalyptic ice age than depicted in any movie. And then, it truly will be humanity's doing.

if / when it happens (more like when) the areas affected will be covered by a lot of snow / ice - apparently the change will be very sudden. funny thing about snow is that it reflects light really well. now if the area of impact is large then a lot energy will be relected back into space. and this will compound the problem so these ice sheets will begin to advance as the years progress. And then you can chuck out the fridge cos you can keep your beers cool in the garden. No more soccer! no more football - it'll be ice hockey and curling and ice fishing that will rise to the fore. depressing aint it.

Actually, sounds like Europe in the... 1500s? 1400s? Mid-to-late Middle Ages. People were getting lost in the snow and dying of cold in July in the more northern areas. Oh, and you really need to check geology: What you're describing has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of times in Earth's past, with several being while humans are around. We not only survived, we thrived. The ice sheets only advance so far before they, in turn, trigger a warming effect. Greenhouse effect of water vapor in action.

As for the poles shifting, yeah my old physics prof chatted about it. apparently north and south poles switch places. don't worry everybody, I dont think the earth is going to flip. the rate will probably be same as its present shift for the duration of the migration. and how that will affect things? dunno.

Well, one of the known effects is weather pattern instability... In fact, all of the descriptions I have seen of it currently match what we're blaming on El Nino. And far more interesting patterns. The problem is that the magnetic polarity of the poles fade to neutral, and then fade to the opposite side. Since all of Earth's weather patterns are affected by Earth's magnetic field (and even a lot of ocean currents)... Well, you figure it out.

The criticism is of the ability to explain science, not of the actual science. One of the major problems science has is trying to explain its discoveries to the common masses, which is what results in a lot of misinterpretations and even results in the occasional piece the people do understand that comes to cause trouble for science for several years.

The funnest thing about all this is that it's not all the fault of scientists, it is understood by even the dimest reader that a lot of issues brought up in scientific journals (particularly ones geared for the masses) are new and tenative, so clearly a layperson who thinks that what he reads is a 100% undeniable fact, is going to be very disappointed.

Unforunately we have some of the 'masses' who read some half understood article and comes to forums like this half cocked, claiming theories and speculations as fact, things that even the most highly qualified scientist would say is tenative

People like you for example....

Actually, with observations that show that Alpha, one of the universal constants, actually was different in that past than it is now, even the nearly-proven concepts of science are now on shaky ground.

See what I mean? LOL. What is it with you. You just love pointing to the wildest speculations don't you?. Yeah I read about that too. But it's no where has clear cut as you seem to imply. And there is not even close to a concensus that , this is what is happening.

and even results in the occasional piece the people do understand that comes to cause trouble for science for several years.

Again I repeat, at any moment, if you want to venture to the furtherest and wildest speculations of science, you will always find "trouble for science". I seriously doubt people like you and me truly understand deep issues like Dark matter and the question of cosmological constants, not enough to start making judgements on what parts of science are wrong, whether the new theories really contradict existing theories and if so whether the old theories need to be modified.

The wise layperson will recognise this and reserve judgement, and let the scientists sort it out until there is some kind of concensus, and not go blindly into the fray out of some misguided feeling (due to an inferiority complex?) just to
show up science which seems to be exactly what you are doing.

If your point is simply to say science doesn't always know everything and that a lot of science particularly the newer parts are tenative, everyone knows that.

Actually, there's a simpler pragmatic answer. I just don't feel like having that argument. It's a massive headache that leads to nowhere except cynicism and headaches.

Yes and also from what you are posted, you are clearly unqualified to have that discussion too. I don't think scientific american covers a lot of philisophy on the scientific method.

. My main issue is with the ego a lot of scientists have.

Go google up the difference between context of justification and context of discovery, my friend. Scientists can be egotic, but science as a whole is self correcting.

Personally I find the idea of a self professed none scientist whose main source of the latest and greatest ideas appears to be scientific american posting the latest scientific crap in this forum professing to know what really happened on diverse subjects such as what caused the extinction of dinosuars, the truth of global warming, shifting of constants and the existence of dark matter even more egotistic.

Of course there's a slant in my posts. Can't argue the antiscience side for a bit without having one. I said I am a fan of science. I never said I'm not arguing the antiscience side.

You are a 'fan of science' but aruging the antiscience side. Does that make you a troll? Or merely a Devil's advocate?

BTW , you critise scientists for having big egos and knowing nothing, but clearly the only person on the planet who is qualified to judge on weighty issues like global warming , Dark matter, is you despite being a self professed none-scientist.

As you say you are not a scientist, reading Scientific American doesn't make you one either. So why should I believe your views on global warming, Dark matter?

You need to look up an article in Scientific American on dinosaur extinction. December of... 2002? 2003? Wasn't long before 2004... The main theory it presented is that the dinos simply suffocated to death. The evidence involved has a lot to do with a peculiarity of how Earth's atmosphere works. Apparently, volcanos provided most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. As the volcanos shut down, the oxygen levels begin to drop (due to life). In fact, this may be what led to Mars not maintaining an oxygen atmosphere.

For someone who has been pretty goddamn vociferous in their contempt for scientists over the last few posts, you should realise that you shouldn't beleive everything you read even if it is from they highly laudable *sic* scientific american. As for the dinosaurs dying out - man it could have been pretty much anything - big chunks of rock falling outta the sky even an ice age might have done it.. What peculiar property of the atmosphere? being ambiguous is not helping here...

Because the first requires a reliance on nuclear tech, which many nations are not willing to allow, and the second is a direct alteration of nature without knowing the true long-term side effects. What's going to eat the bugs?

I'm sorry, but which one of us proposed dumping a nuke into the the planet?.. And anyway if its the USA that does it, whos gonna stop them? Especially if the whole project is for mankinds benefit...And nothing needs to eat the bugs, if we get to this level of geneering technology then I'm sure that they can be made like the mayfly...

Actually, that's not something we can really negate. Even if we get rid of all of our cars, shut down our factories, and stop all uses of fire, we'll still be pumping C02 into the atmosphere by the megaton. The current human population alone produces more CO2 just by breathing than some nations do. And we're only adding to our numbers. Want to solve that? Simple: Kill off a few billion people and put breeding controls into place.

Its amazing how statistics can be used to good effect to fool even intelligent people such as yourself that sitting on your arse is a good thing. The population of earth counts towards about 12% of co2 emmissions, the rest is from industry, automobiles and energy production and use. So instead of killing off a few billion people, which is a pretty f*@king dumb thing to say at best. we need to stop burning so much F$@king fossil fuels, get the f*@k out of our cars, and start conserving some F*@king energy. pardon the invective, but it is necessary. Whatever information you've been fed up till now needs to be revised drastically. Beleive half of what you see, a quarter of what you read and none of what you hear..
Doing nothing is the worst thing we can do. As people we can only do so much to curtail energy usage. its our governments that need to really really think about things and start whipping industry into shape.

Oh, and last I checked, Antarctic ice proved CO2 levels have been rising exponentially since before human civilization. Even if we are accelerating the process, the problems remains that there may not be much we can do about it.

An exponential increase eh? did you know that exponential increases needn't be massive, it all depends on the rate you apply to the situation. Like compounded interest that applies to savings accounts... Not averse to a little bit of sensationalism yourself are you? And there is always something that we can do, pump money into research programs and find answers. develope new ways of energy production. Improve the efficiency if photoelectric cells so that solar power can become a viable energy provider. stop being so bloody defeatist.

Okay, several problems: One, how do we do that? Two, what kind of effects will that cause? And, three, what evidence is there that we have not already passed the point of no return if we are the cause or that any of our efforts will make a dent? Whhat we need is a permanent solution. Using temporary solutions are what got us into this mess in the first place (gasoline was a temporary solution to solve the issues of electrical power, and ironically those issues have never been solved).

repeating your earlier statements in a different way does not count as a different argument. We need to find the time to get to the solution and sitting on our fat arses is not going to help us. Again what issues of electric power? you have got to start clarifying your statements a little bit better. BTW i like the hydrogen powered cars idea too, cos the emmissions will be water vapour which will eventually have to come down as rain and replenish the original supply...As for water vapour being a great greenhouse gas. did you know that we have the tecnology to make rain happen by cloud seeding? that should bring that water vapour back down to earth.

Actually, sounds like Europe in the... 1500s? 1400s? Mid-to-late Middle Ages. People were getting lost in the snow and dying of cold in July in the more northern areas. Oh, and you really need to check geology: What you're describing has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of times in Earth's past, with several being while humans are around. We not only survived, we thrived. The ice sheets only advance so far before they, in turn, trigger a warming effect. Greenhouse effect of water vapor in action.

Freaks of nature happen all the time, so i'm not going to read too much into the freezing effects in july in the middle ages. and yeas i do know ice ages have happened many times before, its why i brought up the topic in the first place. We did not thrive in the ice ages. Homo sapiens has only survived one ice age. our other less impressive 'ancestors' faced more. What the ice ages did do for mankind was to hit less adaptable species and push them further down the food chain leaving us on top. if thats thriving, then okay you're right. i think that ice ages slap everyone around, we just get up quicker.

about the poles...we'll see what we'll see when we see it.

Really though, to summarise this post and your prior post its simple a case of:

i say: we can and we must.......you say: we cant and we wont.
thats a pretty negative and defeatist attitude you have there, sort it out.

Actually, all our inferences, hypothesis, and theories are all hypothetical models that gives us something to "work with" and may or may not have any 'truer' glimpse into the 'real' reality than any other. While some ideas can be tested and proven, you can never say "this is the truth", because you usually can not observe the underlying causitive agent.

You can't see gravity. Anybody who says so is an idiot. We observe the effects of gravity on objects (including ourselves). It's totally inferential. We have 2 very good theories, both Newton and Einstein, that can explain and predict the effects of gravity in almost any speed, scale, or situation. But "gravity" itself is just a name and idea that we give to a very small portion of the forces in the universe. Like a scaffold, it's just something to stand on while we work out our perceptions of the materials and mechanics that make up our universe.

'Dark Matter', likewise, is a theoritical substance posed to 'explain' the gravitational effects observed in galaxies which can not be reconciled with the observable data. However, many of the 'inferred' properties that this substance would have to possess to ovoid being detected for so long make it highly 'exotic' and, hence, probably wrong (in the spirit of "Occams Razor"). More likely, there is probably an underlying force at work that we don't fully understand yet.

Rich, little late on your post. We've been over that argument and I've been soundly beaten in it.

Oh, it makes me a Devil's Advocate. Sometimes the best way to advance science is to oppose it.

For someone who has been pretty goddamn vociferous in their contempt for scientists over the last few posts, you should realise that you shouldn't beleive everything you read even if it is from they highly laudable *sic* scientific american. As for the dinosaurs dying out - man it could have been pretty much anything - big chunks of rock falling outta the sky even an ice age might have done it.. What peculiar property of the atmosphere? being ambiguous is not helping here...

... I wasn't being ambiguous and actually stated said peculiar property. And, after doing some research, I found something important that makes the entire concept inaccurate: http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/01-028.shtml

I'm sorry, but which one of us proposed dumping a nuke into the the planet?.. And anyway if its the USA that does it, whos gonna stop them? Especially if the whole project is for mankinds benefit...And nothing needs to eat the bugs, if we get to this level of geneering technology then I'm sure that they can be made like the mayfly...

... Okay, we need someone who actually knows quite a bit about biology and ecology in here.

Have you ever stopped and looked at the mayfly? I've been in the areas they like to inhabit. When its mating season, you can literally get so many mayflies covering everything that you can't see the ground below their bodies. And considering they do it every year, I would say the mayfly is a very, very bad example. What we get is a fast-living, fast-breeding species that will very quickly spread... And, since we're talking about bacteria and insects (two of the fastest-evolving types of life on Earth), we're talking about the possibility of extreme populations within a mere five years. As the bacteria and the insect spread, what food supplies will they cut off from other species? What kinds of effects will these new species have on the long term?

Keep in mind that "short term solution for the good of mankind" often equals "long term problem that causes mankind a lot of problems." Gasoline is in that category, and look at all of the issues we're comming up with related to it now. Putting antibiotics in various items is another example, and right about now we're having problems with supergerms as a result, and we know the immunity that makes them such is only going to spread as time goes on. Top it all off, we're getting more and more evidence that all of our efforts to improve the health of mankind are actually having the opposite effect in that people in the nations with the best medical care also tend to have the worst immune systems when compared to the areas with the worst medical care.

All of those were short-term solutions for the good of mankind, and every one of them is only serving to cause mankind more harm in the long run. What's the next short term solution going to do? Introduce a superplague that kills all of humanity? Create an AIDS-Ebola hybrid (yes, this is something that was actually proposed)? Burn off Earth's atmosphere? Gee, why don't we just go for the ultimate short-term solution and simply nuke mankind out of existance?

Its amazing how statistics can be used to good effect to fool even intelligent people such as yourself that sitting on your arse is a good thing.

It's amazing how even intelligent people can be convinced by statistics to rush in head first without all of the information, such as yourself. I'm not saying to do nothing. I am saying to take the time to do research and gather more information about possible long-term affects. I don't want mankind to look back, twenty years from now, and say, "You know, all of those doomsayers about [insert solution here] were right..." I'd rather them say, "Wow! This solution is going to work for centuries! We won't need to replace it within a few generations, like we did with gasoline."

The population of earth counts towards about 12% of co2 emmissions, the rest is from industry, automobiles and energy production and use.

Okay, let's use the information from this page for now: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/volcanoes.htm

12% of 110 billiob tons is 13.2 billion tons. That's still more than the amount produced by volcanos. Consider that, when volcanoes do it, it's usually part of or a warning of a possible disaster and potential loss of life. Humans do it just by breathing. To add to that, keep in mind that 88% also includes such pollution-intense activities as producing solar panels (more pollution produced per panel than that of diesal engine in one year), public transportation (must buses around here use diesal engines, the most pollutive type of engine out there), creating or disposing of batteries (which can be considered toxic waste due to the acid), and even producing chemicals for our lovely farms and the very electricity and components your computer uses. Now, let's see what heavily-pollutive activities the modern nations can do without.

Factories- Nope. Something has to produce the goods for billions of people.
Medicines- Nope. Some modern nations (like the U.S.) wouldn't be able to survive without these. And that's before you deal with people.
Power- Nope. Without this, there's no way we can produce hydrogen, solar panels, etc. Nuclear power is the only truly clean known power source that can be used on a wide basis... Luckily, meltdowns only happen if you do something stupid, like not maintain proper maintenance. Unluckily, an internet search can show you how often people have done something stupid and give you the information you need to extrapolate a percentage chance of it happening. The rest are either extremely pollutive in their operation or creation, lacking in providing enough power in most areas, or both.
Transportation- Hell, if we're doing away with this, might as well do away with power. Hydrogen vehicles have unknown short- and long-term affects on the atmosphere, and the rest are all unviable for their own reasons (electrical was actually replaced by gasoline, and using it requires more pollution from the area of power).
Food production- Well, hell, we need to feed all of these people we have. Maybe we could do away with this if we weren't so concerned about starving to death...

Now, those are the most pollutive areas each nation has. Now, have you noticed a certain thing they all have in common? That's right: People. Every one of those is related to maintaining or advancing modern life for the average person. As we adjust the population of the more advanced nations, we also adjust the amounts of pollution created by those nations, as each of the areas above adjusts as well.

So instead of killing off a few billion people, which is a pretty f*@king dumb thing to say at best. we need to stop burning so much F$@king fossil fuels, get the f*@k out of our cars, and start conserving some F*@king energy. pardon the invective, but it is necessary.

Necessity and capacity to fill necessity are not the same thing. What do you suggest to replace fossil fuels? Solar panels are a no, as fossil fuels are a requirement of making them. Hydrogen is a no, as fossil fuels are a requirement for it. Windmills are a no, as they typically do not provide enough energy in most areas to make them worthwhile, and some studies suggest they have damaging effects on the atmosphere when used in mass. Pretty much all of the water options are out, as they either do not produce enough power for most areas or are extremely pollutive themselves. Geothermal is out due to risks involved with it (unless you like the idea of your power plant being destroyed by magma), and nuclear power produces radioactive material and tends to cause a lot more damage to the environment when people start getting stupid about it (which they inevitably do). Top it all off, we need to use fossil fuels in everything from farming and medicine to power generation and have yet to come up with truly viable replacements for them that don't have equivolent or higher costs.

Oh, and we kinda can't abandon motor vehicles. Many modern societies today rely on them to survive. It's what allows a company to get the best employee they can and have him live several miles away. Plus, without those vehicles, everything else simply falls apart. And I mean everything.

As for energy: Hah. Good luck. I've yet to see a solution in that area that doesn't end up using up more energy than we are currently using.

So, here's the problem: We don't have the technology to do it. That's pretty much our main issue. Science has gotten us this far, but it can't get us any farther at the moment. We have a problem, and so far the only solution that actually works on the short term requires us to kill off half of humanity. The only way at this point to truly reduce energy usage is to reduce the number of people to use it, and the only model I've seen that allows us to solve the pollution problem before it gets to be a major problem for humans is to reduce population to about 3 billion. Once we do that, some solutions that are not viable now become viable. Sometimes what needs to be done isn't what you want to be done, or even something you can stomach being done. Call it stupid all you want, but I have yet to see a better solution that is also viable.

Whatever information you've been fed up till now needs to be revised drastically. Beleive half of what you see, a quarter of what you read and none of what you hear..

I advise you to do the same thing. I've been looking for another answer than the one I have. I've been hoping there's another one. And I keep getting the same answer: We're not advanced enough yet, and we don't have enough information on the problem. Want to do a solution now? I provided you the only option we have that we know the full effects of.

Doing nothing is the worst thing we can do. As people we can only do so much to curtail energy usage. its our governments that need to really really think about things and start whipping industry into shape.

In what way? Where can we reduce energy usage at? Maybe if we eliminate militaries... Well, yeah, that would eliminate an area of significant energy and resource usage... But I sleep better at night knowing the weapons are there.

An exponential increase eh? did you know that exponential increases needn't be massive, it all depends on the rate you apply to the situation. Like compounded interest that applies to savings accounts...

Actually, I knew it when I stated it. The problem with exponential increases is that they do get massive. Not being able to stop it doesn't mean it's going to happen right now. It just means that we're spinning our wheels, but are still stuck in the same mudhole that we slid into to begin with.

Not averse to a little bit of sensationalism yourself are you? And there is always something that we can do, pump money into research programs and find answers. develope new ways of energy production. Improve the efficiency if photoelectric cells so that solar power can become a viable energy provider. stop being so bloody defeatist.

Hey, guess what? You're saying the exact same thing I am. I'm not being defeatist: I'm saying we can't do anything right now. We need time to research, time to experiment, time to observe and collect data. We don't have the capacity to solve the problem right now and still keep our hands free of blood. That's a simple fact. Better yet, with time, we can better understand the problem and whether or not we have the capacity to solve it. As it stands now, we don't have the capacity at all. We can't improve efficiency, mainly because the most efficient power stations in terms of actual pollution and danger are gasoline power stations. Part of why they became preferred in cars to begin with.

repeating your earlier statements in a different way does not count as a different argument. We need to find the time to get to the solution and sitting on our fat arses is not going to help us.

Ya see, here's the thing: We have people working on the problem. They have been for years. Guess what? All they've come up with is another short-term solution, and all they've proven is that we need more time to know the problem. Most of humanity can't do anything more than wait, since most of humanity isn't in the field of science (if they were, then the actual pollution would be massively higher, as science is another high-pollution aspect of humanity, which makes it ironic). All you and I can do is "sit around on our fat asses and wait" while the people studying the issue try to find viable solutions or make current solutions viable. My main argument over the whole thing is that we need to wait on an actual answer. Rushing forward without all of the information is what led us to consider whether or not this is a problem in the first place.

Again what issues of electric power? you have got to start clarifying your statements a little bit better. BTW i like the hydrogen powered cars idea too, cos the emmissions will be water vapour which will eventually have to come down as rain and replenish the original supply...As for water vapour being a great greenhouse gas. did you know that we have the tecnology to make rain happen by cloud seeding? that should bring that water vapour back down to earth.

The issues with electrical power is that we need so much of it and most of it is produced through fossil fuels, with most of the solutions to that problem requiring even more fossil fuels than we are currently using in the area of power production. The irony is that most of the cures are worse than the disease.

Oh, and you might want to go back and reread what I stated. Your statement about it is exactly what, in the only modelling of it I have seen, leads to a rather horrible ice age and the exact same situation we're now trying to prevent.

Freaks of nature happen all the time, so i'm not going to read too much into the freezing effects in july in the middle ages.

Um, what I was talking about wasn't freaks of nature. It was actually normal climate for awhile.

and yeas i do know ice ages have happened many times before, its why i brought up the topic in the first place. We did not thrive in the ice ages. Homo sapiens has only survived one ice age. our other less impressive 'ancestors' faced more. What the ice ages did do for mankind was to hit less adaptable species and push them further down the food chain leaving us on top. if thats thriving, then okay you're right. i think that ice ages slap everyone around, we just get up quicker.

Actually, there've been several since the one you're talking about, although none of them was as bad as that. Most ice ages humanity has survived are micro-ice ages, which means they are pretty mild. Mild enough humans might not even notice it's happening back then. They just bundle up a bit more and go on. Humans are incredibly unobservant creatures at times.

about the poles...we'll see what we'll see when we see it. Really though, to summarise this post and your prior post its simple a case of: i say: we can and we must.......you say: we cant and we wont. thats a pretty negative and defeatist attitude you have there, sort it out.

Well, technologically, we can't. If we can't do it, we definitely won't. But, at one time, we couldn't go to the moon and we didn't go to the moon until we could. "We can't and we won't" is simply where we are at now in our development on this issue. In time, we might be able to turn it into "we can and we will," but by that time we'll probably have done something stupid and gotten ourselves into a worse mess. You may consider it a sad attitude, but keep in mind gasoline was a temporary solution (we were supposed to have replaced it decades ago).

an example of dark matter

a black hole
newtons three laws of motion still count just becouse we don't have all the numbers on everything

Okay, I'm sorry about this, but I'm still having a forum issue with this topic and I can't locate the problem. It's not my version of IE, and nothing on the computer that I know of could cause this. And, no, I'm not switching to Firefox. Too much stuff I have to alter or replace, and as much as I joke about it, I like the IE setup.

So, I'm withdrawing from all discussion on this topic.

@ Amenostep - Since you are not going to be able to reply to this, cos it seems you are just plain running away after attempting to get the last word in, I am not going to break your arguments into itty bitty pieces, The simple fact is that there are things we can do to improve the situation:

As people we need to rely less on our cars. conserve energy wherever we can, and be more green. if you don't know how, read up on it and I'm sure you'll be able to get a decent idea.

As for our govts: tighter controls on industry to reduce their production emissions. laws and bonuses to industry to produce energy saving appliances (also applies to vhicles). I don't care what you say nuclear power is definitely a good option esp if the govt takes over the handling of waste properly. More dams, more wind farms, more solar power where it would work the best. Better public transport. more schemes to get car sharing and the like. increase the amount spent on research towards a solution.

All this would help reduce the greenhouse gas emmissions per year. And since we are reducing the rate (good old exponential increases again): It will help and may give us the extra time needed to get tech wise enough to sort it out properly.

I agree with a lot of what you say amenostep, but the slant you put on the information is pretty crap. you've repeatedly asserted that the only 'way' is to kill a few billion people. Nothing really constructive in there at all. I just hope that there are not more people around with your messed up mentality.

And if anybody else is reading: there is always something that can be done. If we all do our bit and start making the environment more of an issue: whenever somebody with a questionairre comes near us or the polls happen or whatever. push the idea wherever you can. Only good can come of it.

Later

Frookie

Amensotep has already admited to being a devil's advocate, he doesn't believe what he is saying.

Amensotep, after reading your response to my post near the top of page 2 I now realize that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you think E=(+ or -)m*c^2 is the Dirac equation you are sorely mistaken, so mistaken in fact that anything that you say that deals with physics can't be taken seriously anymore. I, on the other hand, have used the Dirac Equation (yes, the one that allows for the existance of antiparticles and in fact was responsible for the discovery of them) in several quantum mechanics classes. So next time before you spout physics that you obviously know nothing about (you'd probably have to look up what h-bar is, which is a constant used in the real Dirac Equation) stop and think about how that will make you look when someone like me comes along and shoots down your fantasy physics.

FROOKIE- Go and check the bugs forum, specifically searching for someone complaining about posting issues on a topic that involves Dark Matter. I complained about the problem days before it got to be too much of an annoyance. The rest of your post I'm not really responding due to having quit the discussion. Feel free to tear my post apart, though. Trust me, getting the last word in is not my goal. In fact, I'd rather someone post after whatever my last post is.

flayed_one- Check my wording carefully. In context, I was talking about Dirac's version of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, not the Dirac Equation, which itself deals with particles like electrons. The Dirac Equation is just an extension of the Shrodinger equation, which should let you know that talking about Dirac altering Einstein's equation means that the Dirac Equation is not the actual equation made by Dirac that I was talking about. Dirac did not write just one equation in his lifetime.

Amenostep - whatever.

Hey richrf, yup I guess you're right its pointless debating with someone who argues against what they themselves beleive to be true, just for the sheer sake of argument. Pity I wasted so much time...shit happens.