I'd rather eat a dog turd than listen to any garbage peddled to the gullible publicas truth by Al Gore. Has anyone seen his energy gobbling house? George W actually has a energy saving house. I don't have a tom of love for W either. i think he is a moron. But he's still better than Al Gore.

 

I'll refrain from commenting on my thoughts about dubyuh

 

Wow you're on a roll today 00Accord!

Falk: apparently the accuracy of carbon dating is a huge debate so no one knows for sure

 

the ice isnt carbon dated, there is no carbon in ice, except that found in the CO2 samples, and that is a different style of carbon than carbon dating.

they can tell how old the ice is because it forms something similar to a tree, a line for each year it goes through. Everyone knows that the icecaps enounter 6 months of light and 6 months of darkness. During the light, it is warmer outside, and the ice is not as dense, however during the dark, the ice gets denser because of the cold, and is also usually more apparent. so count the number of lines and BAM thats how old your sample is.

 

I was using the analogy that CO2 dating via an icecap is probably about as accurate as Carbon dating is (not very accurate), the age isn't the question, it's the accuracy of the sample that's curious.

 

ahhh icic. Dont really know enough about the matter to quote it, but since the CO2 level is so much higher now than 60 years ago (which IS fact...) woudlnt the data be skewed upward if it was skewed in any direction?

Although really Im not really sure on either front, ive just seen a lot more evidence to support global warming than evidence against it.

All I know is that I can remember there always being snow on the ground when I was a kid.
Although we get snowstorms every once and awile still, its still not nearly as much as we used to get.
And although The evidence supporting global warming isnt concrete, there sure is a helluva lot more TO support it than evidence that is against it. In fact, I have yet to see any scientific evidence that supports your theory against it.
from what ive seen its just people that hate Al Gore...

and even if its NOT true, why be wasteful?
ive been taught (in school mind you) to conserve energy long before anyone was worried about global warming.

 

From here (my emphasis in bold):
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...1/icecore.html

....................................... " The layers of the core were dated by counting the annual layers of oxygen ratio, ice electro-conductivity and hydrogen-peroxide concentration, and then the chronology was verified by detecting the acidic layers due to known volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1815, 1450 and 1255 AD.

It appears that the air bubbles trapped in the ice represent the atmospheric composition at the time of snow deposition, in other words gas diffusion through the ice is negligible. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles dated to be from 1958 or later agrees very well with direct free-atmospheric CO2 measurements, which have been made since then." ............................................

How long do you think the earth has been in existence, and on what evidence do you base that belief?

 

Well that answers my question *L*

Even though I'm not certain of it's existince I'm still all for saving energy since that saves me money *L* It's one of those things that why not do it? If it is in fact a farce so what, but if it isn't then we have big issues

 

Although Iconsider myself amoral person, I amnot a religious person. Even so, some recent posts havemade me remembera religious organization's publicationthat some HAF members may be interested in reading.

In February 2006 (before Al Gore's real climate change celebrity), "a group of 86 evangelical Christian leaders gathered in Washington to announce formation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative." http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1361

The document they issuedisentitled The Evangelical Climate Initiative - Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action
http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/fe...lltoaction.pdf
and here:
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement

To me it would be very ironic indeed if the national motivation for action on climate change finally arosefrom, for lack of a better expression, the religious right. But I suppose if belief in the reality of climate change is more faith-based than hard-science based, maybe it is precisely from there that such a thing would be born.

 

I believe what the Bible says. I believe GOD created the heavens and the earth. I do not believe it evolved over billions of years. I am not sure how accurate the people are who estimate the age of the earth based on the Bible, but I believe it is only around 10,000 years old or so. I have seen other estimates of like 25,000 years, but I have never seen a Biblical based estimate of the age of the world that suggested anything close to even a million years.
Any scientist who has ever tried to disprove anything in the Bible has not been successful. They just believe in evolution becasue they choose not to believe in God.

I do not doubt we are polluting the world with all of our actions, but I do not believe the world will come to an end becasue of something men do. I believe God will destroy the world on judgement day......by fire. After the flood, God said he would never cover the earth with a flood again, and I believe that. This whole Global Warming thing has led me to believe people think eventually all of the ice is going to melt and the earth will be covered by water. I don't buy that because I believe what God said.

I never said I didn't believe the CO2 level has risen over the years. I am sure it has. I just don't agree with the scientistsmethods of dating their samples.

Not trying to push my religious views on anyone. Just explaining my rationale behind my beliefs.