What in hell ever gave you the idea you needed to be replaced????????????
Although, if the process of sterilization made you walk the walk, you may have a case for a malpractice suit...[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#cc3399"> LOL hehe As for replacing myself, that is the function of all living organisms. I contributed a 0 net gain, I could have gone forth and multiplied as my religion dictates ;) </font>

What in hell ever gave you the idea you needed to be replaced????????????
Although, if the process of sterilization made you walk the walk, you may have a case for a malpractice suit...</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#cc3399"> LOL hehe As for replacing myself, that is the function of all living organisms. I contributed a 0 net gain, I could have gone forth and multiplied as my religion dictates ;) </font>[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So if you were an amoeba, would you go forth and divide? Would a Borg go forth and integrate?

Back on topic, I think any issues as far-reaching as global warming, and other potentially adverse ecological problems should be approached with caution foremost. To misquote Shakespeare, "The ecosystem is not only more complex than we imagine, it's more complex than we can imagine" I think it would be better to find in thirty years that we had spent effort on cleaning up our planet that may not have been necessary for survival rather than discover that we didn't spend effort when we should have. For example, if the degeneration of the biosphere proceeds geometrically, we may be alright, but if we assume that, only to find later that it's a logarithmic process, we're going to be very sorry.

<font color="#cc3399"> Which is exactly why I advocate technology and explorations into newer and more efficient sources of power, on cleaner technology and all of that, I just don't go along with the alarmist, sensationalism that is so prevelant in the media. It can be done in a calm and affordable rational way.....it has been going on...cars are cleaner now than ever, our factories are cleaner our goals are for cleaner.....we do not have to wreck our society to get there is my message. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You know, I am from Pennsylvania, and I still have vivid memories of going to Pittsburgh to see a Steelers game....I remember all the buildings being covered with soot, I remember the haze in the air, and the smell of the steel mills (and the background roaring)...if you go to Pittsburgh today, you see clean buildings, no haze in the air and it is not such a bad place to be. (yes they did close the steel mills eventually, but they have far more people there now with far more business and far more cars and yet it is also one of the cleanest cities)</font>

[ 09-12-2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I agree 100% that technological advances are a major part of the answer to our problems. The internal combustion engine is well over a hundred years old, and has not evolved significantly in the last fifty or so. There was very little pressure until recently to make it significantly more efficient, which means cleaner in the end, so little was done to improve it. The changes did not take place until economic pressures were applied to the industries who manufacture the cars and components. Those pressures came about in part due to the shitty state of the atmosphere, the dwindling resources, political pressure, and so on...
My concern with the questions we now face is that if insufficient economic return is seen, will we be able to stop or change in time to prevent lasting damage? In the early 70's would the more fuel-efficient and cleaner engines have even been developed if it weren't for the OPEC crisis?
As you noted with environmental extremists, a change in the status quo toward cleaner technologies would not necessarily benefit those who make their money doing the research. Likewise, without the pressure to change, the companies who are making money with equipment and systems that are unclean will have no reason to do anything that would lessen their profits. It's certainly not a light issue, this state of our planet.

That brings up an interesting point. Don't listen to your Science teacher!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You know, I heard an intriuging theory, a while back, that said that the suns changes in temperature could be the cause of ice ages, heat ages (thats what I call global warming). Its only a couple of degree's kelvin, but apparantly that makes an impact on our planet. I think this is the best theory.

My religion says "Go forth and take the partial derivative." ;)

<font color="#cc6699">LOL Lox that was funny [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the Sun, it is the single biggest factor for temperatures here on earth. Variations in solar output, changes in the density of dust and gas in the solar system also plays a part, for all we know the earth goes through a dust cloud every so often, it wouldnt have to be very dense, just enough to block a small percentage of incoming radiation.

As someone mentioned onece, there are as many theories as there are people researching the problem. </font>

this is my 2 cents

* human interference can't warm up the earth like that (except for nuclear holocaust etc.)
* not so long ago we were in the Ice Age (few thousand years)... who knows what the concequences of that are...
* the guys that discovered this whole gobal warmth stuff is now disclaiming it all ...

The thing is that over time there has grown an entire industry (thousands of people working in that field) in this stuff ...

Now that same guy that made all te newspapers with his idea's/findings is now being almost "silenced" ...

<font color="#ff6699">Yes there is quite a lot of political and professional fall out for anyone who dares to question the "Global Warming" crowd. They do NOT seem to want to allow anyone with discrepancies to report to be allowed to have a voice. It really is a case of intelectual barbarism. </font>