799842ss2i2455558 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Goto __IHATEJEN(.)COM__byeonce world

cstrand31 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Perhaps you could share your source material with the rest of the class. I just did some checking for myself and didnt find anything of the sort on either the NAS or AAAS websites. "In fact 2007 was deemed the year anthropgenic global warming died"WHO deemed it dead? perhaps a page number from your source material,or maybe a URL?

dave576m (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Read an actual Scientific Journal. Nobody believes in Global Warming anymore. In fact "2007" was deemed the year anthropgenic global warming died. Bureacrats still believe in global warming, Scientist do not. People like this "physics" teacher, are hurting real people in Africa that need power plants, they need fossil fuels. Fat American teachers like this guy want to sip lattes and think he is superior while real people are suffering. Your the villain not the hero in this story.

faszika (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

funy stuff i have no bank account, no car, nothign so im not responsible for this shit. and im 28 not a 12 year old =D ive done my part assholes if all of you lived like me we'd be doin good right about now

mallardhead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'm no scientist, but have been a science teacher myself. My credibility is simply remembering how the scientists have talked about the deforestation problem as time has passed. Ask a kid in the 60's the buzz was all about the rainforests being the lungs of the planet, recycling atmospheric CO2 into plant food energy and oxygen. As Brazil cut and burned in the 70s the warnings were about impending climate change. That happened in the 90s and is why hurricanes are stronger in the Gulf of Mex.

jazzmessenger8 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'm not challenging you, but I'm just wondering, why should I believe you? What credibility do you have?

mallardhead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Your yard would have to hold from ten to thirty trees to begin to match whats lost. It would have to be near the equator as well. Lots of people don't have the scientific knowledge to know this, BUT this guy should. I messaged him about it and he gave me the same answer you did, SO he is totally ignorant of what really impacts the levels of CO2: dense rainforests. His solution will not work because the CO2 processors, trees, are almost gone where it counts.

jazzmessenger8 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

My scientific knowledge isn't very extensive, so I can't argue about that. SO yeah, we definitely need to focus on trees. Just think, what if eveybody in the UNited States that owned a lawn also owned two trees? That would definitely add up, and would not be very expensive. Technically, but unlikely, it could be free.

mallardhead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

IF the rainforests were at 100% the CO2 problem would not be severe. I agree just dumping carbon into the atm is reckless and destructive and must be stopped. BUT it is deforestation that will kill people in spite of emissions. Cut emissions to zero and deforestation still prevents nature from making the needed adjustments in the CO2 already there and locked in the oceans. Increasing plant growth must be a priority.

jazzmessenger8 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

deforestation has contributed to it, but you're actually going to deny that the extra seven billion tons of carbon aren't going to do anything? And he NEVER said or implied that emissions were the sole cause of gloabl warming. Emissions are the biggest cause; that's why he focuses on it.