It’s the glass that makes a greenhouse work, not carbon dioxide. Radiation (light etc.) enters the greenhouse, and a portion is converted to infrared light when it hits solid objects inside the greenhouse. This radiation won’t penetrate glass as easily so the net result is the greenhouse interior gets warmer.

This is scientifically proven. That means millions of experiments have shown it to be the case and not one has shown that glass doesn’t have this property. Now, greenhouses do in fact work, the question is by which mechanism. Science has given a solid explanation, demonstrated its usefulness millions of times (literally) and not once has glass been shown not to have this property.

So either the greenhouse effect is real or God is pulling the wool over our eyes by warming greenhouses throughout the world to make us think science is right (and why would he do that if science were wrong?). Given that God is supposedly able to do that, you can’t deny the possibility, but in science you search for useful explanations, not just “God did it”. The whole point of science is to try to understand the world – it’s a reduction of God to those things that are truly mystical and unexplainable – such as how the Big Bang could *start*. Nobody knows. And we never will, because it’s non-logical. So God did it.

Rejecting science is perfectly valid, but you don’t see all these soccer moms and the likes denying that microwaves, refridgerators and cars work. These are products of science, ie. mans search for understanding, not products of God.

Now, science showed (and again, through millions of experiments) that atmospheric air has the same reflective property as glass, although to a lesser extent. Then they showed that the level at which this property manifests can be correlated to (among other things) the concentration of CO2 in the air. They also proposed theories to explain WHY this is the case, but the point is that they’ve already shown that it IS the case.

To claim that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t have anything to do with the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect is like saying electricity is a hoax. (Yet happily communicating that via a computer, the most complex and hard-to-fathom application of electricity science has yet to produce.)

The reason why there’s debate in the *scientific* community “over the greenhouse effect” is that it has not been shown to a satisfactory degree that the greenhouse effect will cause global warming.

Speculations go that the Earth’s average temperature does vary over time and has done so before man-made CO2 emissions. The current increase is smaller than the natural fluctuations recorded in the past 100 or so years, so that’s only “suggestive”, not “conclusive”.

Likewise, if global warming does occur, it will cause more water to vaporize, which will form more clouds, which will shield the surface from some radiation, so it might reach a consistent equilibrium with only a small degree of warming. It might also cause a feedback effect leading to much more radical extremes of temperature.

On the other hand, the system is incredibly complex, so predicting its behaviour is like predicting the weather – we have a pretty good idea, but on a large scale and in the long run, it’s really hard.

The point is that we’re not sure what will happen. Scientists are leaning towards global warming because it’s the most likely end result, given what we currently know, but nobody is 100% sure.

What bugs me personally is when non-scientists take that small uncertainty that still persists and turn it into an argument that global warming won’t happen. Because it *might* not, but it most likely will.

If it does, we will also most likely lose flat patches of land like Holland, many parts of America, etc. And general consensus is that this might happen very shortly.

The USA is a country that will go to a war on the basis of a suspected threat, but they will not make the slightest compromise in the face of an overwhelmingly probable threat to the world.

I don’t get it.

May peace be upon you brother!

Jesus loves you, but I’m not sure: How the hell can YOU call yourself australian when you spell “arse” “ass” ?? As any good australian knows, your behind is your ARSE. An ASS however, is the symbol of those evil Democ-rats, whom I’m beginning to believe you support. REPENT NOW!

Also: Excuse my naivete, but WTF does “No guns FOR THE WIN” mean?

http://www.csiro.au/csiro/search/CSIROau.html?query=global+warming&Go=Go&area=all

from ACTUAL scientists to proove that Global warming is not just a figment of out imaginations.

Take Care

Are you joking? New Scientist is an ultra-left wing junk-science paper. They believe in things like The Big Bang, Evolution and other wildy absurd junk-science concepts. Have you even read this paper?

but you have yet to proove they are qualified scientists…

Are you joking? New Scientist is an ultra-left wing junk-science paper. They believe in things like The Big Bang, Evolution and other wildy absurd junk-science concepts. Have you even read this paper?