[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race?
The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race?
The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't exactly reffering to global warming to our downfall, it was just me showing my infinite pessimism towards the human race :)
You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race?
The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't exactly reffering to global warming to our downfall, it was just me showing my infinite pessimism towards the human race :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race?
The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't exactly reffering to global warming to our downfall, it was just me showing my infinite pessimism towards the human race :)
[/QUOTE]
Ah, now that makes sense.
You're right though, the human race is doomed. We really are such an arrogant, naive and flawed species.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that a simple increase in temperature is sufficient to doom the human race?
The earth changes all the time. Those that can adapt live, and those that cannot die. Then the earth populates itself once again. I'll put my money on the human race when it comes to a small temperature increase. Now, nuclear war? Maybe not so much.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't exactly reffering to global warming to our downfall, it was just me showing my infinite pessimism towards the human race :)
[/QUOTE]
Ah, now that makes sense.
The "simple increase of temperature" has serious consequences: draught, erosion, rising of the sea level, floods which lead to hunger, homelessness, poverty etc.
I think there is not much use in discussing the issue with people who keep telling us there is no "proof". There have been attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in Europe since the 90s. Here people do not "believe" in global warming - it's accepted as a fact rather than a theory. It's accepted because temperature can be measured and weather can be described. The dramatic rise of CO2 emission since the 19th century is nothing natural, it's a direct result of the industrialization. I am really surprised there are still people who deny it.
I think there is not much use in discussing the issue with people who keep telling us there is no "proof". There have been attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in Europe since the 90s. Here people do not "believe" in global warming - it's accepted as a fact rather than a theory. It's accepted because temperature can be measured and weather can be described. The dramatic rise of CO2 emission since the 19th century is nothing natural, it's a direct result of the industrialization. I am really surprised there are still people who deny it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think there is not much use in discussing the issue with people who keep telling us there is no "proof"..... I am really surprised there are still people who deny it.[/QUOTE]
Geez, Barb, that's a pretty "give up" stance. I expected more from you, but the fact is there is NO PROOF. I'm still waiting for someone to give a link to some kind of factual results.
Now, all of the sudden, your scientists, that you believe (without factual evidence, I might add), seem to know EXACTLY what's going to happen to the Earth.
[QUOTE]The temperature is rising so the Earth is going to implode[/QUOTE]
How can we know that? How can scientists make a hypothetical guess and you (and countless millions) take it as FACT.
We've got scientists that can predict that stuff? That's incredible!!! Then why is there a problem? If they're so smart, why isn't their some kind of potion they've invented that will make it all better?
So, basically your argument, Barbara, is essentially:
[QUOTE]Global warming is destroying the Earth and THAT IS A FACT.[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't change the FACT that it costs more to recycle a plastic bottle than it does to produce it. And what happens to that bottle during the recycling process? Carbon emissions are released into the atmosphere.
So it has A LOT to do with that as well.
Geez, Barb, that's a pretty "give up" stance. I expected more from you, but the fact is there is NO PROOF. I'm still waiting for someone to give a link to some kind of factual results.
Now, all of the sudden, your scientists, that you believe (without factual evidence, I might add), seem to know EXACTLY what's going to happen to the Earth.
[QUOTE]The temperature is rising so the Earth is going to implode[/QUOTE]
How can we know that? How can scientists make a hypothetical guess and you (and countless millions) take it as FACT.
We've got scientists that can predict that stuff? That's incredible!!! Then why is there a problem? If they're so smart, why isn't their some kind of potion they've invented that will make it all better?
So, basically your argument, Barbara, is essentially:
[QUOTE]Global warming is destroying the Earth and THAT IS A FACT.[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't change the FACT that it costs more to recycle a plastic bottle than it does to produce it. And what happens to that bottle during the recycling process? Carbon emissions are released into the atmosphere.
So it has A LOT to do with that as well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Because your kind of people remind me that, when mankind finally DOES become extinct, that will be a GOOD thing.[/QUOTE]
Wow. So what are you? Are we conversing with a higher life form here on Queenzone?
You've been following me, haven't you, Font Color Quinn?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-ufosighting_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.37d63d5.html[/QUOTE]
I am no higher life-form, but you are a very low one indeed if you keep denying the obvious: whether or not global warming is man-made doesn't matter. It is positively man-accellerated. The pollution that is clouding our skies and poisoning our waters is no chimaera either, it is the very real spectre of what will come to pass if we do not, every single one of us, work now to improve our ways. For a good two centuries we have been speeding up our rate of destruction. Many species have become extinct, many lands uninhabitable.
So you don't care about posterity. I should have known. Then I'll make it a moral issue: you are, like every organism with you, part of this earth, and it is your DUTY, your honour-bound task to maintain it.
If there is one issue all religions in the world have agreed about, it is that the earth is a gift. No gift should be so abused as we are doing now with our earth. But it is not too late yet, though the hour IS growing late.
Oh, and that wasn't me. I'd NEVER use orange.
Because your kind of people remind me that, when mankind finally DOES become extinct, that will be a GOOD thing.[/QUOTE]
Wow. So what are you? Are we conversing with a higher life form here on Queenzone?
You've been following me, haven't you, Font Color Quinn?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-ufosighting_15tex.ART.State.Edition1.37d63d5.html[/QUOTE]
I am no higher life-form, but you are a very low one indeed if you keep denying the obvious: whether or not global warming is man-made doesn't matter. It is positively man-accellerated. The pollution that is clouding our skies and poisoning our waters is no chimaera either, it is the very real spectre of what will come to pass if we do not, every single one of us, work now to improve our ways. For a good two centuries we have been speeding up our rate of destruction. Many species have become extinct, many lands uninhabitable.
So you don't care about posterity. I should have known. Then I'll make it a moral issue: you are, like every organism with you, part of this earth, and it is your DUTY, your honour-bound task to maintain it.
If there is one issue all religions in the world have agreed about, it is that the earth is a gift. No gift should be so abused as we are doing now with our earth. But it is not too late yet, though the hour IS growing late.
Oh, and that wasn't me. I'd NEVER use orange.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] .....ASSDUDE...... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] .....ASSDUDE...... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think The New Foo's album is pretty good.
Most new music these days just comes and goes, some bands who are great dont even get a shot, but who know's what there ambition is..
Im mean, if all EMO's dont like conformity, why do they all dress the same? [/QUOTE]
I can't even say what I did about Microwave about YOU, sadly. Your importance in the universe would rank about the same as a random dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
oh really.... is that a fact??? I must be important to you to make such an absurd comment like that T.Q.
and whats this you say to Microwave??? what a big load of sucking ass... I maybe a dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy, but that ranks much higer and than any of those whimps such as your self who spend all there time sucking ass and sucking up to people to make friends and get some where in life... get a back bone you looser. [/QUOTE]
Ah, NOW I see what's wrong with you! You interpret a heated argument as KISSING UP! No wonder your mother tried to drown you.
Most new music these days just comes and goes, some bands who are great dont even get a shot, but who know's what there ambition is..
Im mean, if all EMO's dont like conformity, why do they all dress the same? [/QUOTE]
I can't even say what I did about Microwave about YOU, sadly. Your importance in the universe would rank about the same as a random dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy.[/QUOTE]
oh really.... is that a fact??? I must be important to you to make such an absurd comment like that T.Q.
and whats this you say to Microwave??? what a big load of sucking ass... I maybe a dustspeck in a mostly abandoned and slightly ghetto-like backwater of the galaxy, but that ranks much higer and than any of those whimps such as your self who spend all there time sucking ass and sucking up to people to make friends and get some where in life... get a back bone you looser. [/QUOTE]
Ah, NOW I see what's wrong with you! You interpret a heated argument as KISSING UP! No wonder your mother tried to drown you.
OK...my brain is still a bit fuzzy right now, but I'm going to try and make an reply to this. Please forgive me if my points don't seem to make sense.
1) Global Warming is a fact. Global Warming is simply, by definition, the rise in the average temperature of the planet. This is not the controversial part of the Global Warming argument. The controversial part is how much or how little it is caused by us (us being human beings).
2) My own personal point of view is this: We are exacerbating the problem, but we are not the cause. Historically there have been huge fluctuations in temperature on the planet. While industrialization has sped up the problem and is probably making it worse than it would be naturally, we have evidence of other "bursts of human activity causing the build up of carbon"...anthropologists use carbon amounts in the soil and ice cores to determine when ancient societies did things in the past like discover fire and when societies moved into the "bronze age".
But in the end, what does assigning blame accomplish, besides picking a fight? As far as I can see, it does no good at all. Global Warming is a reality, so the question shouldn't be who got us into this mess but how we can prevent the mess from getting worse. It's far more important, in my humble POV, to do what we can to prevent the exacerbation of the problem rather than fight about who caused it.
How do we go about doing that? Well, that's the million dollar question. The affects of global warming unfortunately aren't known, because nothing in the natural world is isolated from everything else...everything is inter-related and tied together. What is going to be affected, and in what ways, is something that probably cannot be answered until after the fact. We have limited evidence from the past (mainly archeology and physical anthropology evidence) on what happened before, but no written records or certainties. The earth has also changed dramatically in the intervening millenia. But from the educated guesses (and that's the best we are going to get until after the events actually take place) of science, the affects look to be pretty nasty.
What can we do to help? The US could definitely burn less coal and oil, and that would help (though the coal burning industries I know in electric production via my father who works in the industry have made outstanding leaps in atmospheric cleaning technology that makes coal burning cleaner than it was previously). But we can't do it alone...we need everyone else's help. But again, we didn't cause the problem to begin with, so we aren't likely to solve the problem completely either via any method. So, some would ask, why bother? To which I pose a question in response: Why not? What harm is there is becoming more environmentally conscious? What harm is there in trying to be better about how much waste we throw out, how many pollutants we dump into the water, how many pollutants we spew into the air?
1) Global Warming is a fact. Global Warming is simply, by definition, the rise in the average temperature of the planet. This is not the controversial part of the Global Warming argument. The controversial part is how much or how little it is caused by us (us being human beings).
2) My own personal point of view is this: We are exacerbating the problem, but we are not the cause. Historically there have been huge fluctuations in temperature on the planet. While industrialization has sped up the problem and is probably making it worse than it would be naturally, we have evidence of other "bursts of human activity causing the build up of carbon"...anthropologists use carbon amounts in the soil and ice cores to determine when ancient societies did things in the past like discover fire and when societies moved into the "bronze age".
But in the end, what does assigning blame accomplish, besides picking a fight? As far as I can see, it does no good at all. Global Warming is a reality, so the question shouldn't be who got us into this mess but how we can prevent the mess from getting worse. It's far more important, in my humble POV, to do what we can to prevent the exacerbation of the problem rather than fight about who caused it.
How do we go about doing that? Well, that's the million dollar question. The affects of global warming unfortunately aren't known, because nothing in the natural world is isolated from everything else...everything is inter-related and tied together. What is going to be affected, and in what ways, is something that probably cannot be answered until after the fact. We have limited evidence from the past (mainly archeology and physical anthropology evidence) on what happened before, but no written records or certainties. The earth has also changed dramatically in the intervening millenia. But from the educated guesses (and that's the best we are going to get until after the events actually take place) of science, the affects look to be pretty nasty.
What can we do to help? The US could definitely burn less coal and oil, and that would help (though the coal burning industries I know in electric production via my father who works in the industry have made outstanding leaps in atmospheric cleaning technology that makes coal burning cleaner than it was previously). But we can't do it alone...we need everyone else's help. But again, we didn't cause the problem to begin with, so we aren't likely to solve the problem completely either via any method. So, some would ask, why bother? To which I pose a question in response: Why not? What harm is there is becoming more environmentally conscious? What harm is there in trying to be better about how much waste we throw out, how many pollutants we dump into the water, how many pollutants we spew into the air?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is positively man-accellerated. [/QUOTE]
Source, please?
And "they say" is not a credible source.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The "simple increase of temperature" has serious consequences: draught, erosion, rising of the sea level, floods which lead to hunger, homelessness, poverty etc.
[/QUOTE]
So stop giving your money to panhandlers! You're fighting against Mother Nature.
Source, please?
And "they say" is not a credible source.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The "simple increase of temperature" has serious consequences: draught, erosion, rising of the sea level, floods which lead to hunger, homelessness, poverty etc.
[/QUOTE]
So stop giving your money to panhandlers! You're fighting against Mother Nature.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, some would ask, why bother? To which I pose a question in response: Why not? What harm is there is becoming more environmentally conscious? [/QUOTE]
Hey, I've got no problem with that theory. Unfortunately it has become a marketing tool more than a human concern. I'll use my Spring Water analogy again.
How come the water bottling companies aren't more aggressively concerned with disposal of their product. THEY'RE MAKING MILLIONS SELLING WATER!!!
And what about computers? Do you know how many carcinogens are produced by old circuit boards and parts? It's actually alarming. But I bet the computer you're using isn't a re-built, re-furbished computer? Your old computers are sitting in a landfill somewhere. Some impoverished boy (lets call him Phred) is trying to remove the copper and mercury from the internal parts so he can eat. Unfortunately PHREDDY'S MERCURY exposure will cost him his life at a young age. And the Mercury will probably seep into the water supply, so add a few more premature deaths to that.
All so you could have a new speedy computer.
(Maggie, I'm sure you know that the YOU I refer to isn't just you. It's a collective you.)
(Note: See how I tied Queen into this?)
Hey, I've got no problem with that theory. Unfortunately it has become a marketing tool more than a human concern. I'll use my Spring Water analogy again.
How come the water bottling companies aren't more aggressively concerned with disposal of their product. THEY'RE MAKING MILLIONS SELLING WATER!!!
And what about computers? Do you know how many carcinogens are produced by old circuit boards and parts? It's actually alarming. But I bet the computer you're using isn't a re-built, re-furbished computer? Your old computers are sitting in a landfill somewhere. Some impoverished boy (lets call him Phred) is trying to remove the copper and mercury from the internal parts so he can eat. Unfortunately PHREDDY'S MERCURY exposure will cost him his life at a young age. And the Mercury will probably seep into the water supply, so add a few more premature deaths to that.
All so you could have a new speedy computer.
(Maggie, I'm sure you know that the YOU I refer to isn't just you. It's a collective you.)
(Note: See how I tied Queen into this?)
I agree, Maggie - blaming does not help. However when people continue to deny that CO2 emissions and the "greenhouse effect" are the main cause of global warming and are a danger for the whole planet, then people won't be willing to reduce the CO2 emissions. That's the whole problem since the Kyoto protocol. You say we need to work all together, that is right. But we are not the same. If you look at the CO2 emissions per capita you have
USA approx 24 tons per person and year
EU approx 10 tons per person and year
China approx 3 tons per person and year
We cannot expect that a country like China gives up on all economic progress only to allow the Western community to continue wasting energy and to continue to emit all this CO2. Only if all countries get a chance to develop, there will be a way to limit CO2 emissions on a global scale. There are many ways to reduce CO2 emission which won't even affect our comfort and luxury. For example, why does an American car need 20 l fuel when they are not even allowed to drive that fast? Building smaller, energy saving cars would not only reduce CO2 emissions, it would also save oil, give the US car industry better export chances and would probably spare a future President the embarrassment to beg in Saudi Arabia for higher oil production. Cars are only one problem and an international effort is needed. Also, we should not forget that the know-how of modern CO2 avoiding technology and alternative technologies will determine the progress and the future of any country. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are too narrow minded to realize the necessity as well as the chances of global cooperation.
USA approx 24 tons per person and year
EU approx 10 tons per person and year
China approx 3 tons per person and year
We cannot expect that a country like China gives up on all economic progress only to allow the Western community to continue wasting energy and to continue to emit all this CO2. Only if all countries get a chance to develop, there will be a way to limit CO2 emissions on a global scale. There are many ways to reduce CO2 emission which won't even affect our comfort and luxury. For example, why does an American car need 20 l fuel when they are not even allowed to drive that fast? Building smaller, energy saving cars would not only reduce CO2 emissions, it would also save oil, give the US car industry better export chances and would probably spare a future President the embarrassment to beg in Saudi Arabia for higher oil production. Cars are only one problem and an international effort is needed. Also, we should not forget that the know-how of modern CO2 avoiding technology and alternative technologies will determine the progress and the future of any country. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are too narrow minded to realize the necessity as well as the chances of global cooperation.
@ Microvave:
you ask for the "source" or for "proof" that the global warming is man-made.
In all science you have models abstracted from reality and you observe and calculate the phenomenons in that model. There is never a 100% proof for any such model, every scientist will agree. For example modern scientists today say there is no 100% proof for the gravity, it's just a model. But nobody ever saw a ball fly after it was dropped on the ground. Although it's just a model, all common sense tell us that the next ball won't fly either, it will drop on the ground like any other ball (a certain weight provided). We have to use our common sense.
What's a panhandler?
you ask for the "source" or for "proof" that the global warming is man-made.
In all science you have models abstracted from reality and you observe and calculate the phenomenons in that model. There is never a 100% proof for any such model, every scientist will agree. For example modern scientists today say there is no 100% proof for the gravity, it's just a model. But nobody ever saw a ball fly after it was dropped on the ground. Although it's just a model, all common sense tell us that the next ball won't fly either, it will drop on the ground like any other ball (a certain weight provided). We have to use our common sense.
What's a panhandler?
@ Microwave
Indeed, I do know that it is not me specifically you are referring to...it's the collective "You". In French, the Vous form, rather than the Tu form. And I do know what you mean...the marketing of things like spring water do very little to help the environment, and actually do more damage to it since they just create more waste. But I'm sure that you've live on planet earth long enough to know that there will always be a segment of the human population that uses a pretty good idea to exploit it for capital gain...most call it the "Entrepreneurial Spirit". However, does that discredit the whole idea the exploitation is taking advantage of?
Nice working in of Queen by the way...LOL
@ Barb
Indeed, you are right. Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of The Scientific Method knows that there is no such thing as a scientific fact...perfect example with gravity Barb. Nothing can ever be said with any scientific certainty, because we cannot be sure that there is not some circumstance where gravity will not be present at any point in the future.
You also hit upon a prime example of the American Psyche...we are a culture of consumers. Big cars that have sh*t gas mileage and just waste space and gas, big houses that cost a fortune and a half to heat just so that we can have it at 80 degrees all year round...everything in America is "the bigger the better, and the more money you can spend on it makes it even better than just being bigger" (unless you are talking about technology things like phones, in which case it's the number of objects you have). It's going to take a MAJOR culture shift to get Americans out of that point of view.
Indeed, I do know that it is not me specifically you are referring to...it's the collective "You". In French, the Vous form, rather than the Tu form. And I do know what you mean...the marketing of things like spring water do very little to help the environment, and actually do more damage to it since they just create more waste. But I'm sure that you've live on planet earth long enough to know that there will always be a segment of the human population that uses a pretty good idea to exploit it for capital gain...most call it the "Entrepreneurial Spirit". However, does that discredit the whole idea the exploitation is taking advantage of?
Nice working in of Queen by the way...LOL
@ Barb
Indeed, you are right. Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of The Scientific Method knows that there is no such thing as a scientific fact...perfect example with gravity Barb. Nothing can ever be said with any scientific certainty, because we cannot be sure that there is not some circumstance where gravity will not be present at any point in the future.
You also hit upon a prime example of the American Psyche...we are a culture of consumers. Big cars that have sh*t gas mileage and just waste space and gas, big houses that cost a fortune and a half to heat just so that we can have it at 80 degrees all year round...everything in America is "the bigger the better, and the more money you can spend on it makes it even better than just being bigger" (unless you are talking about technology things like phones, in which case it's the number of objects you have). It's going to take a MAJOR culture shift to get Americans out of that point of view.
Excellent points, both of you.
However, the gravity argument holds little gravity. Primarily for the fact that it doesn't take a scientist to prove gravity exists. Simply take an apple and let go. Bam! You're Isaac Newton.
That same "layman" can't go outside and lookup to see the big hole in the ozone layer.
You also said 100% of the scientists agree. On this issue, they most certainly DO NOT. Go to the NASA website. I'd say that's a pretty credible source of scientists. Search the entire site for the hole. It's not there.
So who do we believe? A bunch of people that say "everybody knows" and "Scientists agree" <<OR>> scientific fact?
However, the gravity argument holds little gravity. Primarily for the fact that it doesn't take a scientist to prove gravity exists. Simply take an apple and let go. Bam! You're Isaac Newton.
That same "layman" can't go outside and lookup to see the big hole in the ozone layer.
You also said 100% of the scientists agree. On this issue, they most certainly DO NOT. Go to the NASA website. I'd say that's a pretty credible source of scientists. Search the entire site for the hole. It's not there.
So who do we believe? A bunch of people that say "everybody knows" and "Scientists agree" <<OR>> scientific fact?
@ Microwave
This is a good website for the gravity issue:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
It explains how gravity is both a law and a theory, but it states that gravity is only accepted as a law in a limited sense, basically so that further scientific work can be done. So it is a law (or fact) with an asterisk by it, which indicates that it may not necessarily be a law or fact at all, but we are taking it as such simply to be able to move on to other issues.
As far as "proof" the temperature of the earth is increasing, take your pick:
From NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at
http://carto.eu.org/article2480.html
From the Climactic Research Institute of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Center of the UK Meteorological Office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
This is a good graphic for showing that warming cycles are not new to the earth (I'm thrilled they show the Medieval Warming Period which allowed for the development of the agricultural revolution around the year 1200; the Medieval Warming Period itself lasted from the 10th to the 14th centuries):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (part of the US Department of Commerce):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO
Now as much as I HATE and DETEST pulling info from Wiki, some of the data is from there. But I always check out the external links and the information that Wiki is quoting from before I pull from it.
This is a good website for the gravity issue:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
It explains how gravity is both a law and a theory, but it states that gravity is only accepted as a law in a limited sense, basically so that further scientific work can be done. So it is a law (or fact) with an asterisk by it, which indicates that it may not necessarily be a law or fact at all, but we are taking it as such simply to be able to move on to other issues.
As far as "proof" the temperature of the earth is increasing, take your pick:
From NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at
http://carto.eu.org/article2480.html
From the Climactic Research Institute of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Center of the UK Meteorological Office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
This is a good graphic for showing that warming cycles are not new to the earth (I'm thrilled they show the Medieval Warming Period which allowed for the development of the agricultural revolution around the year 1200; the Medieval Warming Period itself lasted from the 10th to the 14th centuries):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (part of the US Department of Commerce):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO
Now as much as I HATE and DETEST pulling info from Wiki, some of the data is from there. But I always check out the external links and the information that Wiki is quoting from before I pull from it.