djrob1943

I found it at the link below, but here it is. Have the laws of math failed us?

Theorem: 3=4

Proof:

Suppose:

a + b = c

This can also be written as:

4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c

After reorganizing:

4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c

Take the constants out of the brackets:

4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)

Remove the same term left and right:

4 = 3

http://www.ahajokes.com/m003.html

His name is Al Gore, not "Algore" or "algore". Just type "algore" in the Yahoo Answers search window and you'll get 100's of denier misspellings of their "arch enemy", Al Gore.

Actually, it's kinda funny that they go after a politician who is not even a climate scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

I'm sure most of the light originates at the sun and reflects off the planets, but could there be other sources?

My newspaper has a weather almanac that, for example, says that the high temperature on Feb 13 was 55 degrees F in 1995, and the record low on this date was -10 in 1942. So how do I get that kind of data for a whole year? If global warming is real, should not I see more record highs occurring in more recent years, and record lows occurring in more distant years?

Let f(x) = x^2. That gives us a nice parabola.

If I add to it, say, 2x, making g(x) = x^2 + 2x, does that warp the parabola, or does it just shift it? Is there some general principal at work here? Please explain.

I have plotted this on the computer, but I can't believe the parabola doesn't get deformed somehow.

If our poor planet is clobbered by an ElectroMagnetic Pulse (whether man-made or sun-made), then most electronic micro-devices get fried, right? And so fossil fuel combustion plummets, right? Therefore, global dimming due to air pollution ceases, right? And so the earth warms up even more, right? And even though we stop burning fossil fuels, the excess carbon dioxide of the last 100 years persists, and will continue to cause more global warming, right? Fun stuff, right? NOT!

CO2 is heavier than air, right? So why doesn't it accumulate in low areas and displace the oxygen? This question came up in a discussion about global warming/ climate change.

And are they rewarded for publishing research that supports global warming? If a climate scientist discovered proof that climate change is bogus, would he get demoted? Why are their salaries increasing by 30%? See link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261776/all-...

We are all influenced by what we read or hear or see. What has formed your opinions on climate change? Tell us

1. Do you accept or reject the notion of a warming planet?

2. Your list of most persuasive sources, such as:

a. A certain book...what?

b. A web site...link?

c. A person you know: friend, mom, pastor, dog catcher?

d. College professor: what discipline?

e. Talk show host: who?

f. Experience in some extreme weather event on non-event?

g. Newspaper? Which?

h. Yahoo Answers?

i. Other?

I'm not asking WHAT exactly convinces you, but what kinds of sources influence you.

For example, on person might answer:

Accept. Rush Limbaugh.

Another:

Reject: Physics professor.

Thanks!

Assuming you accept the predictions by climate scientists about a warming planet, how are the freedoms we enjoy in Western culture likely to be affected? I worry that as people suffer under ever more frequent and catastrophic weather events, that nations will band together under one government to force carbon output reductions and adaptations. Could we find ourselves enslaved to a world despot?

If you are a climate skeptic, suspend your disbelief for a moment please. Assume global warming is real. How will nations react when it is obvious that we are doomed. Will a new Hitler arise, justified by the need for urgent action against the new worldwide enemy called global warming?

Maybe we can agree that we need to stop burning coal to reduce the amount of mercury that finds its way into tuna and many other species of fish, both in ocean and lakes. If we switch to clean energy, like wind, solar, and geothermal, we clean the air AND reduce the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the air.... and clean up your tuna sandwich.

The article below will explain that "U.S. coal-fired power plants pump more than 48 tons of mercury into the air each year....about 3 percent of the global total".

Got kids? "One thing that isn't in question, though, is that developing fetuses are particularly sensitive to the toxic effects of methylmercury. Two out of three large-scale studies have found that children born with it in their system have trouble with coordination, concentration, language, and memory—and continue to have the same deficits many years later".

From same article: Nancy Lanphear is a behavioral developmental pediatrician who works at a clinic in Vancouver for children with disabilities like autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Several years ago, a mother came into her clinic with a four-and-a-half-year-old girl who had cerebral palsy as well as speech and motor delays. But what attracted Lanphear's attention was that the child was drooling. I'm looking at this four-year-old and saying, 'This is mercury,'" Lanphear recalls, hypersalivation being a classic sign of mercury poisoning. The child's chart showed that a heavy metals screening at age two had found high mercury levels in both mother and child, as well as in the child's grandfather. The mother recalled being encouraged by her physician to eat fish during her pregnancy; she ate tuna or other seafood two to four times a week, sure that she was helping her baby's development.

Thanks for your interest. Let's make a difference...for the kids.

SOURCES:

http://sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/mercury.aspx

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archiv...

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/tuna.as...

Time magazine says: "All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are "unsettled" and that "more research" is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change".

Sometimes it is worth asking ourselves: "Who pays to persuade me to believe as I do"?

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,209...

A friend has a friend that works for an oil company in northern Alaska. Drilling can only be done when the ground is frozen, for some reason. (Why)? Every winter for years, he said, the oil drilling season gets shorter, because of summer's melting permafrost. Does anyone have more information on this? Could this be yet one more measure of climate warming?

I'm wondering how many people read our posts here in this category of Yahoo Answers. I would say, for example, "3 times per week". Just tell us how often you read us. Maybe "first time" is your answer.

Also tell us if you feel you are getting closer to the truth about global warming by reading the posts here. THANKS!

By calling working climate scientists "alarmists", and dismissing their warnings, are we inviting the collapse of civilization? Read the latest National Geographic article on "Hothouse Earth":

"In much of China, India, southern Europe, and the United States, summer temperatures would average well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, night and day, year after year. Climate scientists don't often talk about such grim long-term forecasts, Huber says, in part because skeptics, exaggerating scientific uncertainties, are always accusing them of alarmism. "We've basically been trying to edit ourselves," Huber says. "Whenever we see something really bad, we tend to hold off. The middle ground is actually much worse than people think. If we continue down this road, there really is no uncertainty".

--National Geographic, Oct 2011.

--Go to http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/hothouse...

It seems to me that a lot of people confuse the politics and character of Al Gore with the science of climate change.

Being curious yet skeptical is good. Here is a skeptical question.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas with a concentration in the atmosphere of only 390 parts per million. Sure seems like not much to worry about; that's much less than 1%. I know that the sun warms the earth and sea with visible radiation, and that much of that is absorbed then re-radiated as infrared radiation. So trace a little IR photon in its path from the ground, and up through the air. If it hits a CO2 molecule, it is absorbed and then re-radiated in a random direction, trapping much of that photon's energy in the atmosphere. But there is so little of that CO2 gas! So I ask, what is the probability that a given IR photon will collide with a CO2 molecule as it travels through several miles of atmosphere in it's path to space? How do you calculate that probability?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEXAS_WI...

If you live or travel in Alaska, tell us what you have SEEN regarding melting permafrost and sea ice, etc. It it really warmer there on average than it was 20 years ago? Do you really see new birds that have never appeared there before, like robins? Are the forests really warmer and drier, with more forest fires? Are the glaciers really receding? What else?

A person told me that he can't believe that humans could be so conceited as to believe that we could actually affect the climate of this huge planet. How's that for a scientific argument against global warming?