can i buy zithromax buy priligy dapoxetine
Comments on: Global Warming: Is it for real? http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/ common sense university - a common sense educational resource Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:08:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Daniel http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-1070 Daniel Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:58:42 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-1070 I read similar article also named Warming: Is it for real? | Common Sense Politics, and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me I read similar article also named Warming: Is it for real? | Common Sense Politics, and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me

]]> By: Bulletin News http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Bulletin News Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:25:43 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-64 Outstanding summary on Global Warming: Is it for real?. Always love this posts! Outstanding summary on Global Warming: Is it for real?. Always love this posts!

]]> By: tamino http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-60 tamino Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:48:51 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-60 To the Common Sense Editors: You're entitled to stand by your belief; I just hope you realize it has no basis in fact. Whoever fed you that line about "2%" was pulling a fast one; you have been hoodwinked. To satisfy Jim Bosser's curiosity: I got my CO2 concentration data from the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, the Law Dome Ice core, the Greenland Ice Sheet Program, the Vostok Ice core, and the EPICA dome C ice core. In short, it comes from the <i>peer-reviewed scientific literature</i>. But you probably dismiss <i>actual scientists</i> (a group of which I am a member) as "arrogant clowns." Where did you get <i>your</i> information? To the Common Sense Editors:

You’re entitled to stand by your belief; I just hope you realize it has no basis in fact. Whoever fed you that line about “2%” was pulling a fast one; you have been hoodwinked.

To satisfy Jim Bosser’s curiosity:

I got my CO2 concentration data from the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, the Law Dome Ice core, the Greenland Ice Sheet Program, the Vostok Ice core, and the EPICA dome C ice core. In short, it comes from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. But you probably dismiss actual scientists (a group of which I am a member) as “arrogant clowns.”

Where did you get your information?

]]> By: Jim Bosser http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Jim Bosser Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:01:02 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-59 I would be curious to find out where Tamino got his reliable information going back from 11000 years to 23 million years. It's probably from the same sources who now predict the end of the world in this century. What a bunch of arrogant clowns there are. I would be curious to find out where Tamino got his reliable information going back from 11000 years to 23 million years. It’s probably from the same sources who now predict the end of the world in this century. What a bunch of arrogant clowns there are.

]]> By: Common Sense Editors http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Common Sense Editors Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:49:20 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-58 We stand by our statement that "global CO2 emissions for which we as people are responsible for are only 2 percent of the total greenhouse gas volume". The CO2 concentration may have risen, but this doesn't affect the portion of global CO2 emissions that man can affect. The remaining 98% is what happens naturally. You are comparing two different percentages. We stand by our statement that “global CO2 emissions for which we as people are responsible for are only 2 percent of the total greenhouse gas volume”.

The CO2 concentration may have risen, but this doesn’t affect the portion of global CO2 emissions that man can affect. The remaining 98% is what happens naturally. You are comparing two different percentages.

]]> By: tamino http://www.considercommonsense.com/global-warming-is-it-for-real/comment-page-1/#comment-57 tamino Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:34:18 +0000 http://considercommonsense.com/wp/?p=32#comment-57 There are so many severe factual errors in your post, one hardly knows where to begin. So I'll pick the most egregious example: ==> "The global CO2 emissions for which we as people are responsible for are only 2 percent of the total greenhouse gas volume, ..." Answer me this: why is it that before the industrial revolution, CO2 concentration was stable at about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) for 11,000 years, and in fact hadn't been above 300 ppmv for 23 million years -- but levels today are 380 ppmv. That's an increase, since the industrial revolution, of about 36%. There are so many severe factual errors in your post, one hardly knows where to begin. So I’ll pick the most egregious example:

==> “The global CO2 emissions for which we as people are responsible for are only 2 percent of the total greenhouse gas volume, …”

Answer me this: why is it that before the industrial revolution, CO2 concentration was stable at about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) for 11,000 years, and in fact hadn’t been above 300 ppmv for 23 million years — but levels today are 380 ppmv. That’s an increase, since the industrial revolution, of about 36%.

]]>