Sato, what do you mean by hurt the atmosphere. If you are referring to global warming your probably way off. If your referring to chlorine depletion of the ozone then that is possible but unlikely. And anyway you can find a scientist to support any theory from the earth being 6 thousand years old to well this guy http://najmita.150m.com/szukalski/ma...tisyny_ang.htm

Just because a guy has a PhD, or clams to have one doesn’t mean they aren’t nutty.

Well, I did believe global warming was the idea the earth was slowly increasing in temperature, by the greenhouse effect becoming TOO extreme. And some say flatulation can cause gases to build up.

by the way guys, great job blaming bush for the senate voting 92-0 against kyoto. go back and read the constitution, the senate has to ratify a treaty first. then the president signs it.

I'd just like to say that global warming is NOT fact. Its just a theory. A lot of which has recently been disproven.

The West Antartic Ice Sheet, for instance, is not melting but is rather growing thicker. *sigh* I really don't feel like writing a lot right now...so tommorrow probably expect a longer argument. Anyway, even if Global Warming WAS real, it poises absolutely no threat to the Earth.


Here, put this in your brain and spin it.
http://www.greencity.com/globalwarm.htm

That link was far from convincing. This doesn't sound at all like how the scientific community works, but rather like a view of it skewed in a very particular way.

And that:

Is an empty statement. Of course it's not a threat to the Earth. The Earth won't melt from it or anything of the sort, and life, even humanity will thrive even if it is real and led to its extreme. On the other end, as stated by some arguments made earlier in the thread, it is a threat to a good deal of people.

i just dont understand spazz's continued ranting about nulear power. nuclear power is great and all, but there is only so much uranium in the world, and it isnt like you can go in your backyard and dig some up. also, when environmentalists complain about america's energy they complain about nuclear waste as much as fossil fuels.

also, they HAVE converted (or at least a lot of people) to renewable energy. when i was on a road trip to california i saw FIELDS full of wind power gatherer thingies (yes, that IS a technical term...). also take into account stuff like hoover dam (which produces a whole lot of energy). point being that it isnt like everyone's sitting on their hands.

i think that the answer to the energy problem is to further research fusion. its possible now, and in fact has already been done. (for those that know this next part bear with me) the temp required to produce fusion is so great that no material known can contain it. so they use a magnetic field to contain it instead, but this uses more power than is gained by the fusion reaction, so it isnt a viable source of energy at the moment.

one pair of scientists once claimed to have discovered cold fusion, but they were unable to prove it to anyone. perhaps cold fusion IS possible though, and its worth looking into at least.

to sum up: pollution isnt as bad greenpeace would have us believe. we are going towards renewable energy (cant forget those hydrogen cars). 70 meters of flooding would be bad, but probably wont happen. humans arent the only reason for the warming trend. the earth will survive whatever we put it through. better, cleaner power is on the way.

When will people act? When it's proven that it is actually a threat and humans can do anything about it. (Hint: neither has been proven.)

Just because "experts" say it is doesn't mean that all other "experts" agree. Consider studies suggesting that global climate change as has been measured is completely natural, be it caused by the sun or cyclical ice ages and interglacials or continental drift. Consider also that average global temperatures in the Mesozoic era was ten degrees (Centigrade) warmer than it is today (scroll down a bit) but actually had more biomass and biodiversity.

There are a lot of facts from the "The end is near" crowd - they're drowning out the facts from the "No it isn't!" crowd. You need to consider both sets of facts, not just the ones that a single ideology espouses.

True, very true. I definately agree with you on that. To explain, I want nuclear power because it is cleaner than fossil fuel power and even though it will only last a short period, that short period may be long enough to make renewable energy a practical reality. We need energy while setting other sources up. Id rather use nuclear power than fossil fuels.

P.S: about fusion, I may be wrong with this but there are materials that when cooled to about 175 Kelvin become so good at conducting electricity that it can run for several minuites without a power source if the circuit is complete. Would those be capable of maintaining a magnetic field strong enough? (unless the heat of the reaction made it immpossible to cool the material down that much).

What do you think?

i'm no physics major, so i dont really know a whole lot about magnetic fields. variables to consider in your plan would be the energy cost of keeping those materials at 175 K and the strength of the electricity they would maintain. also, the field must require a buttload of energy, because fusion produces several times more energy than fission, and the current magnetic fields still use up more energy than the fusion creates.

which is a long way of saying i dont know

Superconductors. 175 Kelvin is cold. That's -98 degrees celcius cold (-144.4 Fahrenheit). It would probably be impossible to keep something that cold when it's right beside a reaction taking place at 100,000,000 degrees celcius. Besides, I don't know if the superconductivity would help that much. Even with zero resistance in the superconductive wire, you still need to pump a lot of current through it to produce a strong enough magnetic field, and that takes a lot of energy. Besides, I would think any benefit gained would be counterbalanced by the costs of running a gargantuan cooling system.