[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Youi mean kangaroos don't fart?

I am sure they do, but the only way to measure the methane is the scientific way with matches and farting kangaroos. Someone could perhaps do this at their zoo, as I think they might be hard to sneak up on in the wild

On second thought. some of the adrenaline junkies could chase them in the wild with jeeps and a torch....not a blow torch though, I think that would be overkill....or overgrill

[brillser]

Hi Gabriel,

This thread is truly never solved, even that it is marked solved....evidence everyday is mounting, but LAN has other names for it all.

I agree entirly

[brillser]

I heard that kangaroos are very good at the boxing...

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by brillser

I heard that kangaroos are very good at the boxing...

Could be a trait acquired on the ARK. Noah and his gang may has engaged kangaroos for recreational activity. LAN might have some insights into that too

[pyritechips]

Actually, kangaroos have quite the attitude and being cooped up on the ark, over crowded with all those other animals got them to punching their way through the crowds just to gain a little elbow room. You see? It had nothing to do with evolution, which doesn't really exist.

[brillser]

I wonder how the biggest, badest, meanest kangaroo, with a full bag of wind would manage in a tussel with the good LAN. I giveing 3 to1 the kangaroo wins by a knockout

[pyritechips]

No, my money is on LAN, First he would quote Revelations to the 'roo then beat it do death with a bible.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

No, my money is on LAN, First he would quote Revelations to the 'roo then beat it do death with a bible.

Nope...the Bible wasn't written yet....he would first prophesize the roo's demise, then punch him out cold ......he would also threaten him with signs that read roobeques in case the roo got any ideas of grandiosity in knocking out LAN.....

[brillser]

This is also worth reading


http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

[iltos]

Originally Posted by brillser

This is also worth reading


http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

pretty interesting....but knowing the way folks are around here, the first thing that caught my eye was that the article had very few sources.....so it could easily be construed as the spin of the environmental defense fund....which, as everyone knows ....is just another liberal apologist organization

or, at least, it says crazy stuff

like human are responsible for global warming.....

the article did link to the edf's in depth report on those myths, tho...so i followed along and and found this

MYTH #6: The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) generated by human activities is much
smaller than natural sources; therefore, human activities cannot be responsible for the
large observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past few centuries.
FACT: It is undisputed that humans are entirely responsible for the increase in
atmospheric CO2 over the past few centuries. In pre-industrial times, large natural
sources of CO2 were balanced by equally large natural removal processes, such as
photosynthesis in plants, maintaining a stable level of CO2 in the atmosphere for
thousands of years. Human-produced emissions, though smaller than natural
emissions, upset this balance. Because human-produced emissions aren’t completely
absorbed by natural processes, they accumulate in the atmosphere, increasing the
concentration of CO2 (McElroy 2002).

http://www.edf.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf

which pretty much just restated what the article you linked to layed out.....except it sourced this McElroy character....so i googled him

OMG....he's a SCIENTIST!!!!!
and not just some johnny come lately -one of those so often dismissed in this thread as a scientist looking to further his reputation, or grab up some grant money.....or something else the bloggers can sink their teeth into.....

the man actually has got some info....about 3/4 of million years worth of info

McElroy is among the scientists who since the 1970s have been using paleoclimatic data to chart changes in the earth's atmosphere. To obtain these data, researchers drill several kilometers down into polar ice sheets and extract gases from the tiny air bubbles trapped inside.
Through these, says McElroy, "you can not only infer a surrogate for temperature,
but you can also measure the composition of the atmosphere at that point in the earth's
history. There is a close association between climate and the level of gases like CO2
and methane."

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...alwarming.html

so when your article goes on about

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

it's coming from the horses mouth....or the earth's ice....or someplace above reproach.
and so.....

what strikes me is the whole idea of a tipping point....prior to man's industrial civilization, the earth's natural systems tended to balance everything out.....which is not to say they couldn't be thrown out of wack by cataclysmic volcanic eruptions, for example, spewing an inordinate amount of junk into the atmosphere, and altering the climate suddenly, dramatically, and extensively....but eventually, the natural systems would restore a balance.....

the point now is that there is a new, significant player (us)....something else for mother earth to deal with....and if we just thumb our noses at our significance, things are not gonna get any better anytime soon.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Nope...the Bible wasn't written yet....he would first prophesize the roo's demise, then punch him out cold ......he would also threaten him with signs that read roobeques in case the roo got any ideas of grandiosity in knocking out LAN.....

Ah! Thanks for the clarification Gabe. You know I'm rusty when it comes to the bible.

But sesriously, I would love to calculate how much room every species that Noah saved would take up and determine how big the ark really would have needed to be to hold them all, considering how many millions of species there are.

[brillser]

Hi iltos,

the point now is that there is a new, significant player (us)....something else for mother earth to deal with....and if we just thumb our noses at our significance, things are not gonna get any better anytime soon.

Thanks for taking the time

I'm going to add a little Paul Simon, and I can hear the laughter already...

The she I refer to is mother earth.

...she said it's really not my habit to intrude,further more,
I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued,
but I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being rude...

...there must be 50 ways to save your own lives.

Less trees, more cars and planes equals more methane, which, aparently, means a tipping piont. Way to go humanity


The planet will manage, that's not up for question. What's up for question is, will we? and who? and how?

I hate to sound so spooky.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climatechange1

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011


You could do worse things than read the above articles

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Ah! Thanks for the clarification Gabe. You know I'm rusty when it comes to the bible.

But sesriously, I would love to calculate how much room every species that Noah saved would take up and determine how big the ark really would have needed to be to hold them all, considering how many millions of species there are.

That would be a fascinating calculation. LAN and I have talked a little about this. He sort of has the idea that it is a matter of species that acquired incredible variation after the time they departed the ARK, that is when the incredible explosion of speciation occured after . Either he can expand on that, or you can do a thread search here, or I will when I get the time.

Anyway, LAN....if you are viewing this, I am only funnin' you about he kangaroo stuff. I don't want to alienate you cause of funnin'

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

That would be a fascinating calculation. LAN and I have talked a little about this. He sort of has the idea that it is a matter of species that acquired incredible variation after the time they departed the ARK, that is when the incredible explosion of speciation occured after . Either he can expand on that, or you can do a thread search here, or I will when I get the time.

Anyway, LAN....if you are viewing this, I am only funnin' you about he kangaroo stuff. I don't want to alienate you cause of funnin'

So you are saying that LAN supports evolution after all?

A closet Darwinist! I knew it!

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

So you are saying that LAN supports evolution after all?

A closet Darwinist! I knew it!

Yes, he does, in the short term sense of it. Not the long term at all