I support your intent of countering the “intelligent” design “theorists” and their stealth efforts to bring in Creationism into the classroom (and kick out science). However, what’s this business of pirates vs. global surface temperature. Sure, you make a point that there’s a difference between correlation and causation. Perhaps you’re trying to point out that the true cause of GW may not be man-made green-house gas emissions. Well, the scientists have studied this problem and have come to the conclusion that it is. Please don’t give with one hand and take with the other. You support the scientists in Darwinian evolution and on the other hand don’t in GW science.
I suggest you remove your references to pirates and global surface temperature (your curve does look compelling though).
Regards,
Alan
[A response: No deal, Alan. I tend to agree with the Global Warming hypothesis, and I certainly think it makes sense to err in that direction whether or not you agree with it - I'm all for conservation and green technologies. But, there is an almost religious type of dogma surrounding the Global Warming issue that makes me uncomfortable. Global warming is probably happening, but that is a world apart from saying it is Truth that must be supported. I'm against dogma and a priori reasoning, not any specific beliefs. -bobby]
As a physicist it’s nice to see Alan support our effort to keep creationism out of science class rooms. Pity that he probably takes the pirates-GW thing a bit too serious.
.
And for those doubtful about GW, please realise that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2 but also things like SO2 and NOx. These are undesireable in just about anyones book, no controversies there (as far as I know). Cutting down on fossil fuel use makes sense, even if you don’t believe CO2 causes GW. And since reserves are limited it may also avoid conflict over dwindling resources. (end of preaching, we now return you to your normal program)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
gold?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In science, there are usually multiple competing theories on something before one wins out. At the moment we may be a bit of the underdog, but also showing how much backing we have from the scientific community as well as our graph, it is almost impossible to say we’re wrong. Meanwhile, there are multiple holes and uncertainties with other scientific models of global warming, most of which completely ignore pirates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
woooosh
some people just don’t get it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Precicly dave, there is no evidence to suggest that global warming HASNT been caused by the decrease in pirate numbers. As a close minded individual who chooses to ignor all overwhelming scientific evidence and instead believe in the pirates theory which has no grounding in fact what so ever, i intend to do my bit for global warming by always wearing a pirate hat and possibly getting a pet parrot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alan,
Creationism has been refused by 99% of the scientific community. GW so far does not have a unified decision on scope, causation, and future outlook. Basically the scientific communnity has not agreed yet on the issue. The truth is that both sides tend to exagerate the facts. Which menas that the anwer is somewhere in the middle.
Is the world warming? Yes, but not at the rate some are saying.
Is it man made? Yes and no. We are coming out of a recent mini-ice age, but at the same time chave contributed a large amount to warming.
Is it the end of the world? No. The forecast of eco nuts is the end of human civilization…but really it will be more like a lifestyle change.
WE NEED to stop it now? Not really. We can stop some things…but it just simply costs more money to reduce carbon than it takes to build some dikes in the future.
We are to blame? Yes and no. We live in a living world that has gone through startling changes without any type of human intervention for millions of years. It is extremely arrogant to think that we have that large of an impact. The world will still be here long after we are all gone…
I agree with bobby. Just like creationist idiots, there are too many scientists that enter this debate with a preset conclusion, and then try to find “facts” that support their conclusion. That is just bad science. And that is the hardest thing about issues that are this polarizing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you think Alan knows what a question mark is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey guys, sorry i haven’t been around much (if u even remember me)
Anyway… when did we start supporting Darwinian evolution???
FSM made midgets then teh midgets turned into pirates and…
People came from pirates, end of story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Logan the grog keeper
Of course we still remember you. Welcome back and a pasta-filled 2008 to you.
As far as support for evolution is concerned, we do support it in the sense of letting children hear all sides of the story. In the same way that creationists and IDiots wouldn’t want just their religious mythology to be taught. Wouldn’t they? I’m sure they wouldn’t be so dishonest, now would they?! I mean, that would be sneaky. So much at odds with their own values about not bearing false witness etc. I’m sure they wouldn’t stoop so low. Come on, would you NOT TRUST CREATIONISTS??!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A call upon ‘Alan’ and other scientists who read the forums on this website,
I will post this as a response to Alan’s post as well, regarding global warming, http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/31/from-a-scientist.htm
Alan, I appreciate the well thought out post to the website, and on behalf of the pastafarian community, I would like to thank you for breaking free from the masses in spelling correctly.
I would like to hear you response to a debate between myself and Dr. David H. Berkebile, formerly of DuPont, and Larry Evans, formerly of numerous Tire and polymer-based companies. Both have hundreds of patents to their name, and dozens of papers and essays.
After a rigorous, lengthy debate, the following was agreed. While it has been proven true that there is a large portion over the southern hemisphere, specifically the south pole, absent, it has not yet been proven to have existed. Current scientific processes lack the ability to prove that that specific portion of atmosphere ever existed. We came up with the following explanations.
1) The rate of emissions and their effect on the atmosphere within the last thirty years is fractionally smaller than the rate of emissions and their effect during the nineteenth and early-mid twentieth century. While this is untestable due to the time boundary, it is very possible, nay likely, that any significant damage to the atmosphere done by homo sapiens took place between 1800 and 1950 sue to the large-scale industrialization of the superpowers of the world, namely England, America, Russia, and the majority of Europe, china and Japan. During that time period, large quantities of fossil fuels were burned without regard to the environment. Within the last, say, fifty years, though, the rate of emissions has dropped greatly, and continues to decrease, as the awareness proportionally rose.
2) Many millennia ago scientists agree a large asteroid or meteor impacted the planet. This collision, purportedly the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs, caused trillions of metric tons of ash, sediment, and other debris to be launched into the atmosphere of the planet, blocking out the sun for years. This one event could be the culprit of the missing ozone above the southern hemisphere. Such a catastrophic event could have very well done whatever damage was done to the atmosphere if, in fact, there was a cause leading to the lack of an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere.
3) Since the birth of the worldly body we came to know as Earth many millennia ago, before the purported super-continent Pangaea, the planet has been undergoing significant temperature and climate changes. Some millennia the changes would be low, some fifteen degrees Fahrenheit. Other millennia, the average planetary temperature would fluctuate as much as thirty degrees which, in a decrease, combined with the ash scattered by the impact of a large meteor or asteroid, sent the planet into a pre-human global cooling known as the Ice Age (according to numerous paleontologists and archaeologists) could be the suspect convicted of destroying ozone.
4) The final explanation is simply this; there never was an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere. It is very possible that the atmosphere did not exist, and that is why life could have come to be on earth. It is possible that had there been ozone completely surrounding the planet, the solar rays that heat the planet and are held like a convection oven by the ozone, could have baked the planet, that earth could have overheated, and life never would have come to be.
I am very interested to see any response Alan, or other scientists of any background, have to the above presented theories. Having said this, I think Bobby Henderson is right to ridicule the dogmatic aphorism surrounding the global warming theory purported to be scientific fact. As scientist, you know well there is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory, validated theory, and law, which can be overturned or edited (Newton’s third law: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed – Changed after data collected from the blast of the testing of the first nuclear bombs), but never fact. While we know this, men such as Al Gore [self-proclaimed inventor of the internet] receive the Nobel Prize for Science simply because he threw a few concerts and attended some gatherings in the name of global warming. As is the interjection of Jesus Christ and God into classrooms as scientific anything, this is an affront to the scientific community, a thorn in the side of human progress, and a step toward the another spiral into the Dark Ages. I think the ridicule of these issues creates a public sentiment against them, or at least draws more attention and criticism to the issues at hand, a humorous method of solving issues scientists are battling against; stupidity. I want to hear from those who have educated opinions, not hatemail claiming God is so angry He’s cooking the earth with a side of grits. That’s crazy. He’d rather enjoy Pasta.
-An American for a better America
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am tottaly with Logan the Grog Keeper. Darwanian Evolution is pure bullcrap, the FSM created the midgits, which I am a straight descendant due to the fact that I am only 1.54m, and the trees and the dinosaurs.
.
Ramen…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Alan:
Thank you for your kind letter. I feel the need to point out however that your so called “science” merely confirms what we already knew. Pirates are cool. Therefore, more pirates = cooler global surface temperature. Green house emissions, quite possibly an effect of fewer pirates, is a symptom and not a cause.
Presto, Ragu, Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lets keep focused here, guys. Our key purpose is to keep religious nonsense out of science classrooms by attempting to push even more nonsensical religious notions into science classes until the creationists cry “uncle”. Let’s keep the FSM out of legitimate scientific debate. He’d just change the results with his noodly appendages anyway.
.
I have been following the evidence on Global warming since the 70’s, and it is alarming. Our CO2 levels are skyrockting, our glaciers are melting, our climate patterns are changing in unpredictable ways, and if the ocean warms enough to cause the melting of the deep-sea methane hydrate deposits, we’re sunk. Or, at least, Manhattan is. And Bangladesh. And South Florida. I’ve been watching for years, and I have been seeing, not dogma, but a scientific consensus that has developed and solidified over the long-term. Just like science is supposed to work.
.
So, my next car will be a Prius, and I have been switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs. And I telecommute. And I recycle.
.
Now, lets get back to Fundie-bashing! And Piracy! And Lasagna!
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Blasphemy!!!! You can’t make me believe my aerosol hairspray has ANYTHING to do with global warming!!!! I am not part of the problem!!! I participate in Pirate behavior on a regular basis, therefore, I am part of the SOLUTION!!! If more people would get this into their thick domes, then MAYBE it wouldn’t be 80 degrees outside right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, everyone. This is my first post, so please be gentle. I can remember (barely) that back in college in the 1970’s, we were very concerned about the potential for global climate change, and we discussed various scenarios that we felt had significant potential to actually occur. The Big Scary Idea was that we would reach a “tipping point”, where all at once the oceanic circulating currents would shut down, and , instant ice age in the North Atlantic. Well, it’s been snowing pretty enthusiastically here most of the day, but I just looked out the window, and no glaciers. How boring. Global climate change is pretty much an ongoing fact of life. Sometimes it’s warmer, and other times … wait for it … it’s cooler! I am not averse to the idea that some of the current warming trend may be anthropogenic, but then again, maybe not all that much. The last time I attended a lecture and forum on carbon sequestration, they still had no idea where most of the carbon humans generate anually actually ends up. I forget the actual amount, but it was a really big number. So, being a practical (albeit superfluous) terrestrial, I intend, like Ubi Dubium, to do what I can as an individual. I try to minimize fuel consumption, and maximize pasta consumption. My wife makes a dynamite sauce.
Arrr!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
pirates are the answer to all problems
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The reason I don’t buy into the whole CO2=Global warming is because of how little CO2 there is in the air. There is currntly 380 Parts per million of CO2 give or take 5. 380 out of 1,000,000 is the reason the globe is warming? And it increased from 316 to 380 in the last 120 years or so.
.
The book State of Fear by Michael Crichton has a fantastic representation that I will quote from.
.
If you take the breakdown of air and put it into a chart that resembles a football field thats 100 yards long. Nitrogen will take you all the way to the 78 yard line, add Oxygen and you are now at the 99 yard line. Most of whats left is argon which brings you about 3 1/2 inches away, about the thickness of the chalkline. Co2 only represents about an inch of whats left.
.
Thats 1 inch in a 100 yard football field, Now we have all been told that CO2 has increased in the last 50 years. Do you know how much on our football field? 3/8 of an inch, less then the thickness of a pencil.
.
This is the reason that I can not accept the fact that CO2 is the driving force behind the warming of the globe.
.
And if you were OPEC and wanted to drive the price of oil up how would you do it? Maybe manufacture shortages in supply? Or remind everyone that it wont last forevereven if we have enough for the nex 200 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Prophet Bobby and Benny–I understand the problem of the dogma of global warming. Still, I’d rather err on the side of caution, and recycle, cut down on my driving, etc. By the way, has anybody else noticed that the abbreviation for global warming and the first two initials of the US’s current erstwhile president are the same. Proof to me that both are bad and need to be stopped.
.
@Alan–your concern is noted, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry on FSMism. It mentions the pirate/global warming chart, and the problems of statistical significance vs. actual reality. In other words, it’s a joke. Please take it as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ubi Dubium
How bad could it be??? Suirely a glacier becoming a water slide has it’s advantages??? All this scare mongeringing is making me thirsty… Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium …say it three times and the problems go away…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Satire is a great way to teach.
But there is a problem with satire. Lots of folks don’t understand what it is, even, apparently, scientists.
I think Alan needs to look up the concept.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm.
I always figured the theology of the FSM is aimed at poking the tummies of folks who trot out pseudo-scientific arguments without understanding what they’re talking about – such as:
- Non-falsifiable theories, like ID, Intelligent Falling, or His Noodliness creating the volcano/midget/etc.
- Confusing correlation with causation, like pirates/global warming.
One could posit other correlation/causation theories. For instance, street people are often hungry, street people often have dirty hair, so if you’re hungry, you can solve that by washing your hair.
However, if Alan wants to see Bobby or other Pastafarians as having a different axe to grind, that’s fine with me, as long as that axe is used to chop tomatoes for use in the Divine Marinara.
- Another scientist: physical organic chemist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s okay, Alan; you can curse. Scientists curse… sometimes… right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Definition of irony: the word science comes from the Latin word “scio” meaning “I understand”. A scientist, then, is one who understands, or at least strives to understand. Yet this one just doesn’t seem to get the whole “satire” thing. With each dead pirate, temperatures rise and my hope for humanity falls.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh hey. Didn’t the “Pirates vs Global Warming” graph not actually have anything to do with either of them, but was solely there to prove that just because two things are happening at the same time they’re not technically related? I’m sure someone has already said this, but yeah.
As for global warming itself, while I believe that human actions are CONTRIBUTING to it, I don’t believe that they are the primary cause. I believe that it is simply part of a natural cycle the earth goes through. After all, wasn’t the earth much hotter a few billion years ago, then we had an ice age, then it got warm again?
So yeah, I wish I could have articulated that more clearly, but it’s 3:48 AM here, and I’m a bit out of it. Damn insomnia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@rmw Jan 1st, 2008 at 3:28 am
“In other words, it’s a joke. Please take it as such.”
.
All you people keep saying stuff like that! I don’t believe you all. How do you think we remain planted on the planet….huh? Huh?
I think you’re just testing my faith in His Noodliness! I’ll cry if you all keep saying that…I will…I mean it…I really really will!!
Hail His Noodly Appendages
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@John
You wrote a lengthy post with various theories and said
.
“I am very interested to see any response Alan, or other scientists of any background, have to the above presented theories.”
.
I am a scientist, although definately not a climate scientist. I did a PhD in materials science, now working in physics. I haven’t studied climate change professionally. I am however quite interested in it (as well as in wildlife preservation issues) and have done a goo deal of hobby reading on it. I’d be happy to give my non-expert, non-professional opinion on some of the points you raise.
.
“1) The rate of emissions and their effect on the atmosphere within the last thirty years is fractionally smaller than the rate of emissions and their effect during the nineteenth and early-mid twentieth century. While this is untestable due to the time boundary, it is very possible, nay likely, that any significant damage to the atmosphere done by homo sapiens took place between 1800 and 1950 sue to the large-scale industrialization of the superpowers of the world, namely England, America, Russia, and the majority of Europe, china and Japan. During that time period, large quantities of fossil fuels were burned without regard to the environment. Within the last, say, fifty years, though, the rate of emissions has dropped greatly, and continues to decrease, as the awareness proportionally rose.”
.
My first point here would be that it’s not the rate of emission you should be looking at, but the cumulative effect. And contrary to what you said about untestability, ice cores provide a good way to determine CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere dating back to very far before the onset of the industrial age. Gas bubbles get trapped in the ice and are well isolated as far as the CO2 content is concerned. And every year a recogniseable layer is formed in the polar ice cap. So you can count back the years, somewhat similarly as with tree rings, and measure the CO2 concentration in bubbles enclosed in layers of different ages. The picture that emerges from that strongly contradicts what you said. The CO2 concentration is not rising any slower now, on the contrary. And more importantly, as I said in my first sentence, the rate of increase is not the quantitiy to look at, its the accumulated concentration.
.
“2) Many millennia ago scientists agree a large asteroid or meteor impacted the planet. This collision, purportedly the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs, caused trillions of metric tons of ash, sediment, and other debris to be launched into the atmosphere of the planet, blocking out the sun for years. This one event could be the culprit of the missing ozone above the southern hemisphere.”
.
Sorry, I feel I have to be a bit harsh here. That seems nonsense to me (not trying to insult you btw). The meteor impact that is speculated to be the cause of dinosaur extinction took place more than 63 million years ago, not the millenia ago that you said. Given that ozone is continuously being created in our atmosphere at a low rate, that effect would no longer be even vaguely measureable.
Also, you seem to be mixing up CO2 emission (linked to global warming) and the hole on the ozone layer (dangerous as ozone filters out harmful sun rays) which is caused by CFKs from old fridges etc.
.
“3) Since the birth of the worldly body we came to know as Earth many millennia ago, before the purported super-continent Pangaea, the planet has been undergoing significant temperature and climate changes. Some millennia the changes would be low, some fifteen degrees Fahrenheit. Other millennia, the average planetary temperature would fluctuate as much as thirty degrees which, in a decrease, combined with the ash scattered by the impact of a large meteor or asteroid, sent the planet into a pre-human global cooling known as the Ice Age (according to numerous paleontologists and archaeologists) could be the suspect convicted of destroying ozone.”
.
Oh dear. A millenia old earth, eh? People, I fear we’ve got YEC again!!
And apart from your time scales being off by about a factor of a million, I would also like to point out that those same ice core measurements don’t show any dramatic jumps in CO2 concentration as one would expect if your asteroid or meteor explanation is true.
.
“4) The final explanation is simply this; there never was an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere. It is very possible that the atmosphere did not exist, and that is why life could have come to be on earth. It is possible that had there been ozone completely surrounding the planet, the solar rays that heat the planet and are held like a convection oven by the ozone, could have baked the planet, that earth could have overheated, and life never would have come to be.”
.
See earlier: nonsense, mixing up GW and the hole in the ozone layer again. Peppered with gems like “there never was an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere.” That’s enough I think.
.
“As scientist, you know well there is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory, validated theory, and law, which can be overturned or edited (Newton’s third law: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed – Changed after data collected from the blast of the testing of the first nuclear bombs), but never fact.”
.
Oh my FSM!! You really are full of it, aren’t you? Newtons third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It has nothing to do with matter or energy conservation. And mass-energy conversion was not measured from nuclear blast sites to my knowledge. Would be a bit hard wouldn’t it, given that the blast products are strew about rather violently?!
.
“I want to hear from those who have educated opinions, not hatemail claiming God is so angry He’s cooking the earth with a side of grits.”
.
Well, my education about the issues you raised is limited, but you may still learn a few bits from it I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ID LOL ha ha ha
While I’m posting boring things about GW I might as well throw in another post. You quoted and wrote
.
“If you take the breakdown of air and put it into a chart that resembles a football field thats 100 yards long. Nitrogen will take you all the way to the 78 yard line, add Oxygen and you are now at the 99 yard line. Most of whats left is argon which brings you about 3 1/2 inches away, about the thickness of the chalkline. Co2 only represents about an inch of whats left.
.
Thats 1 inch in a 100 yard football field, Now we have all been told that CO2 has increased in the last 50 years. Do you know how much on our football field? 3/8 of an inch, less then the thickness of a pencil.
.
This is the reason that I can not accept the fact that CO2 is the driving force behind the warming of the globe.”
.
Sorry, no go. Pointing out the minute concentration of CO2 offers very little in the way of valid reasoning. Let me give an analogy. Your blood consists mostly of water. Suppose I said I was planning to inject your blood stream with cyanide. Not much, just as little as that extra pencil on the football field. You wouldn’t have a problem with it then? In your reasoning, your blood would still mostly consists of water, dissolved minerals, blood cells, etc. So shall I get the needle out and you happily sit still as I inject just a tiny bit of cyanide into you?
Hopefully this will give you an idea of the terminal inadequacy of merely looking at the concentration of some substance and say ‘Heck, only so few ppms, couldn’t possibly be important’. In some cases very small concentrations can still have dramatic impact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@☠DutchPastaGuy☠ Jan 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm: “Hopefully this will give you an idea of the terminal inadequacy of merely looking at the concentration of some substance and say ‘Heck, only so few ppms, couldn’t possibly be important’. In some cases very small concentrations can still have dramatic impact.”
.
Reminds me of an interview I saw, some years ago, with someone from the American petrol lobby, who wasn’t impressed by a global raise of 2 degrees Celsius, since he was from Texas, and there those extra two degrees wouldn’t mean much…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ID LOL ha ha ha Jan 1st, 2008 at 2:58 am: “And if you were OPEC and wanted to drive the price of oil up how would you do it? Maybe manufacture shortages in supply? Or remind everyone that it wont last forevereven if we have enough for the nex 200 years.”
.
It will last long enough to enable us to ruin the climate… for ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench Nikkiee
“I think you’re just testing my faith in His Noodliness! I’ll cry if you all keep saying that…I will…I mean it…I really really will!!”
.
Oh my poor Nikkiee. Please don’t cry, I can’t bear to hear a wench cry. And there’s really no need to do so. Philip and pb will drop by in a moment to console you with witty, uplifting, insightful talk :D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what kind of scientist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DutchPastaGuy,
Cyanide in blood is a poor analogy because the regular blood concentrations of cyanide are measurable by only the very most sensitive tests. To get to the percentage level you are referring to would require an increase of many orders of magnitude. Not the razor thin adjustment associated with carbon dioxide and global warming.
Fly In The Ointment Spotter,
Fizzmick PaChee
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The international board on climate change said there is a 90% chance that humans contributed to GW.
This leaves a 10% chance that humans did not contribute.
Now add 99% to that 10% because that’s the percentage of stupid humans on THIS planet. As you can see, there is actually a 109% chance humans did NOT cause GW.
When I left the Sirius system, our federation had recently dealt with a similar occurrence relating to Sirius A’s energy output.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alan,
I am also a scientist. The GW thing is part of the sarcasim. The fact that you can prove almost anything if you skew the information in the right way. That is what supporters of ID do all the time, and what undos them in the long run, it is also what oppontents of Global Warming do as well. The compairison between Pirates and GW is just a representation to the other camps of how truely absurd their attempts at justifying their possitions are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s still blatantly obvious that some people just can’t take a joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A big rAmen to Bobby’s response. I also agree that global warming is probably happening but that people don’t ask enough questions about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Fizzmick PaChee
“Cyanide in blood is a poor analogy because the regular blood concentrations of cyanide are measurable by only the very most sensitive tests. To get to the percentage level you are referring to would require an increase of many orders of magnitude. Not the razor thin adjustment associated with carbon dioxide and global warming.”
.
Point taken that the relative increase would be far bigger. But hopefully ID LOL would still get the idea that a minor concentration (in absolute terms) can have a great impact.
.
Does anyone know a better example of a poisonous substance already present in the blood in small but more significant concentrations than cyanide?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Global warming is only a minor concern. There use to be forest in the Antarctic, so what if it gets hot again?
Changes in environment cause changes in life it self, that’s evolution.
Now I know some will say that the climate change is man made and therefore unnatural, however as a product of nature everything we do is by default natural.
Every life form has an impact on its environment.
I will also point out that more rapid climate change has been brought about by volcanoes and meteors over the eons.
So wile I do care about such things I know life will go on, even if it’s no longer human life (but then why should we be special?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dutchpastaguy
Dutchie, everything I have heard regarding global warming, from scientists, media, al gore, etc. directly referenced the hole in the ozone layer, and citing global warming and emissions as directly related to the hole, in many causes having caused it. From what I gather, this hole is the focal point of the fight global warming campaigns.
As for my terms, as defined my the Merrium Webster dictionary, a millenium is a period of 1000 years. Millenia is the plural form of millennium, as in many millenia, or many thousands of years. Yes it is alot of thousands, but it sounds cooler than saying many millions of years. I think we need a word to represent clusters of millions of years.
Another note – Yes, Ozone is being produced daily, in large quantities. However, were such a devastating effect as a meteor impact to occur, it would be so devastating on the atmosphere that ozone would have to be produced at exponentially higher levels to repair the damage. I do not know the data personally, so I cannot say exactly how long it would take to repair the damage, or for that matter, how large the hole was in the first place.
The other main factor in CO2 levels people don’t notice, or don’t want to believe, is the rise in population. The world population is far larger than it has ever been, and because I do’t know the specific figures I cannot draw proper inference, but it may be directly proportional to the rise in CO2 levels. Yes, we exhale, yes plants take that CO2 in, but the plant population and the human population are inversely proportional, as the plants get killed off, humans grow to take their place.
I apologize for my confusion regarding Sir Isaac Newton. He originally proposed a notated theory which Albert Einstein later cleaned up to E=mc2 where E represents the energy-mass conversion, m= the mass, and c= the speed of light.
No, obviously reading would not be taken at the test site at the time of the detonation, but after the detonation and resulting blast they went in and took readings. “Energy and mass can be neither created nor destroyed” was changed. It was determined, after the atomic bomb, that the mass of the reactants are nto always equivalent to the mass of the resultants. This was when it was discovered that mass could be converted into an equivalent energy state, thereby destroying matter, and creating energy, or converting it.
Also, not to offend you in any way, and no, I did not take offense to the harshness. With special regard to “Newton’s third law” it was MUCH deserved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Repmuht
“How bad could it be??? Suirely a glacier becoming a water slide has it’s advantages??? All this scare mongeringing is making me thirsty… Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium …say it three times and the problems go away…”
.
Well, if the Greenland ice cap melted, estimates are that it would raise sea level by about 7 meters (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm).
Here is a link to maps showing the effect on coastline with different changes in sea level, look at the three and ten meter rise maps for an idea: http://resumbrae.com/archive/warming/east.html.
.
So the waterslide is maybe what used to be your front yard. Regardless of how much our actions are causing this, stopping it is a really good idea.
.
“Ubi Dubium” is from the Latin “Ubi dubium, ibi libertas” (Where there is doubt, there is freedom). Plus it sounds like scat singing! Bonus! Shoo-bee-do-bee-ubi-dubium…sing it enough and the religion goes away…
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ John
ooo! ooo! pick me!!! I have a term for clusters of millions of years!!
it could be “a really wicked lot” of years!!
pretty cool, huh?
mmm, only two nights till spaghetti night at my house…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@john (who reminds me of ‘pb’ on a certain British blog?)
You really are full of it, aren’t you? There’s really no point in debating it seems when you follow up your original post of gaffes with new gems like ‘the plant population and the human population are inversely proportional’. So just after the first humans appeared there must have been almost infinitely many plants then? (sorry that the math of this one is so far over your head)
Or the truly magnificent statement about Newton and Einstein saying ‘He originally proposed a notated theory which Albert Einstein later cleaned up to E=mc2 where E represents the energy-mass conversion, m= the mass, and c= the speed of light.’. Try this one in your local pub this Friday night when your buddies have had a good number of pints. Then they may swallow it. The Pastafarans on this site however aren’t so dumb.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s this i hear about pirates and GW?
When i first learned of Pastafarianism, I, being an athiest, of course, jumped at the idea of a group that actually sticks up for science, but this whole pirate – GW thing has effectively turned me off to pastafarianism. I just don’t see how a group that holds the beliefs of the scientific community can dismiss GW in such a rude and heedless manner.
You have disappointed me greatly, pastafarians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pluto: So in your mind It’s OK if the human race goes extinct?? After all it’s a natural process, some species goes extinct etc….
I find it hard to believe that you mean this.
I think that we, the human race, should try to survive as long as possible, and it will be easier for us to survive if we keep our habitat as stable as possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ET
Et, my sad extraterrestrial friend,
as a pastafarian, EVERY night is spaghetti night!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Michael Cho, adamant athiest and pragmatic
“You have disappointed me greatly, pastafarians.”
.
I’m sure many of my fellow Pastafarians will join me in being disappointed at your failure to spot the ironic nature of the pirtaes-GW claim. Or was that in turn meant to be ironic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pluto Jan 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm said:
‘Changes in environment cause changes in life it self, that’s evolution.’
Err yes, but current estimates of change the environment due to Global Warming are likely to be a lot faster than human rate of evolution.
‘Every life form has an impact on its environment.’
The rate at which a species can change its environment, is likely to have never exceeded the rate at which it can evolve to suit that environment. Species that could would tend to be the ones we only find in the fossil record.
‘So wile I do care about such things I know life will go on, even if it’s no longer human life (but then why should we be special?)’
So exactly which species on the planet should be trying to stop humans making the planet unsuitable for current homo sapiens? Looks like none of the other species are likely to step up to the plate … Its up to us to do enough to maintain a balance in the environment, a balance that can support us.
I’m reminded of an old adage:
‘live like you will die tomorrow, but work the land like you will live forever’
Either that or pray to the FSM for a quick fix, perhaps he can send a co2 absorbing meteor on a near mis path with earth and skim the co2 off the top
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alan,
Just to beat this horse a little more, let me say: the point is that pastafarianism is NOT science, just as “intelligent design” is not science. Allowing things “not science” into the classroom opens the door to all things not science being in the classroom- assuming that the intelligent design people do have any sense of fairness at all. (OK, probably not a safe assumption.) The FSM designs quite intelligently, IMO, and should have the same air time in science classrooms as any other theory of intelligent design- that is, if anything other than science is allowed into science classrooms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Michael Cho, so your all for Pastafarianism, but have just learned of the Pirates Vs GW graph?
Isn’t that like a 43 yo avid Christian, just finding out about Xmas?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anyone else not convinced ‘Alan’ is a scientist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0