global warming is a myth!

[TheDudeAbides85]

I don't care what you all think global warming is a myth!

[chook]

The fucking trolls back!!!!!!!!!


Cheers Chook :bigrin:

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

LMAO Well, this one didnt last long! All hail Drew! :bowdown::bowdown:

[rissababynta]

The fucking trolls back!!!!!!!!!


Cheers Chook :bigrin:

lmfao

talk about ratting them out!!! :)

[FalconAngel]

Light the torches!!!! Grab your pitchforks!!!

oops. That's for ogres.........oh what the hell, we can use it for trolls, too.:devil:

[darkeyes]

Cant abide the dudes wot open ther gobs fore puttin ther brain inta gear... bout normal for the poor lil trollies...:bigrin:

[Delilah]

:eek: Girl, did you feed the troll after midnight? :eek:


Cant abide the dudes wot open ther gobs fore puttin ther brain inta gear... bout normal for the poor lil trollies...:bigrin:

[elian]

Hehehe..well - personally - I don't care whether global warming "exists" or not, there are only so many resources to start with so why WOULDN'T you want to use the least amount anyway? Some people/corporations are just greedy - "Oh, woe is to me - we built this coal fired plant to make money - and now that we have to put scrubbers on the top it's too 'spensive" - friggin whiners - I guess you shoulda thought of that BEFORE you decided to build a coal plant then eh?

I'm not particularly green but I do get tired of the same old excuses - people still trying to sweep the chemical lagoons under the rug and pretend that there's no impact to future generations. We do have technology to help with some of these problems but people are too lazy/ignorant/greedy to use it.

<rummages in pack> I know I had a can of "TROL-B-GONE (tm)" in here somewhere..

-E

[grayhound]

If there is global warming it is because of all of the hot people out there having fun. Bi, Streight, whatever ..... have all the fun you want.

[12voltman59]

You have to say one thing about this person--he sure is persistent!!! He must have one of those motivational posters up on his wall with that word and some inspiring photo!!

He never gives it up!!! LOL

[FalconAngel]

:eek: Girl, did you feed the troll after midnight? :eek:

Isn't that for gremlins?

[chuck1124]

I'm disappointed. For all of you folks that want understanding because we are bi, you all seem so insensitive. Unfortunately, for all of you, The Dude is correct. The global warming myth is a means to dip into your pocket books and to make you subserviant. Its another way for the masses to be controlled.

[rissababynta]

I'm disappointed. For all of you folks that want understanding because we are bi, you all seem so insensitive. Unfortunately, for all of you, The Dude is correct. The global warming myth is a means to dip into your pocket books and to make you subserviant. Its another way for the masses to be controlled.

lol oh boy

[FalconAngel]

This subject has been talked to death by person and troll alike in another thread.
The trolls lost and the facts won out. Both sides of the argument are only partially right.

Global warming exists and man has done nothing to facilitate humanities part in helping minimize it's effects; or at least the part that man has contributed to the naturally recurring global warming/cooling problems.

[Rambigent]

Wow, I'm pretty sure there has to be a troll guidebook somewhere that says, "When all your other attempts to get the board riled up have failed, start a thread with the title 'GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!"

:tong:

[wolfcamp]

Wow, I'm pretty sure there has to be a troll guidebook somewhere that says, "When all your other attempts to get the board riled up have failed, start a thread with the title 'GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!"

:tong:

Riled up? Oh...this ain't nothin!

[proseros]

A myth? Perhaps...Perhaps not.
But of Trolls, there is no question of it.

[darkeyes]

I'm disappointed. For all of you folks that want understanding because we are bi, you all seem so insensitive. Unfortunately, for all of you, The Dude is correct. The global warming myth is a means to dip into your pocket books and to make you subserviant. Its another way for the masses to be controlled.
Me takes the opposite view.. all round the evidence is ther ifya wanna c it.. spring earlier by 3 weeks.. autumn lata.. planet hottest on record umpteen times in las decade.. warmer oceans, meltin ice caps, meltin ice sheets...lotsa otha stuff if ya care 2 look... wer me mite jus agree wivya Chuck hun..wile summat is certainly happenin, prob because a natural an man made reasons.. it is anotha thing wich the establishments round the planet mite use 2 control ther peoples...

[dash2us]

lol oh boy

i agree look at the 70;s there was global cooling now it is warming,n guess what the goverments everything they put in place for the envoirment is another cost on all our wallets the reson......it is fo rthe envoirment your for saving the envoirment,certain stores aren;t using paper or plastic bags,,why to help do there part to save the envoirment,nothing to do with the money thery are saving not purchasing these eh,corpartions are saving money anfd we are spending more....hmmm makes ya wonder,organic foods are more expensive,wonder why that is throw a seed in the ground water it,,,,thats organic,gas companies no way they knew about the shortage,but wait all the major gas companies put in securty cameras about 3 monthes before the sky rocket in prices,but that was for safety,all i can say is look around pay more attention to whats goin on around ya,when the gov, is pushing for one thing means it is gonna cost you more in the long run,the envoirment,ever think the continnetal shelf shelf is shifting,wait no ,,,,couldn;t be,is that what some of us who paid attention in school were taught,weather changes etc....are part of the change.......oh well no one cares about this ,to willing to show the world they are on the popular band wagon,n agree with what yer told to ,,,,now go make fun or make a stupid remark,,,,take care n enjoy givin yer money away

[darkeyes]

We stand at diff sides a this equation Dash.. no prob.. peeps differ an thats wot debate is about.. agree wivya tho 100% that every 1 shud question everythin our "leaders" ask of us an tell us.. we shud question as objectively as we can an weigh up the evidence as we c it.. an make sure wer ther is scant evidence that govts produce it.. hard 2 do often me knows..but not imposs..

Wot we shud neva do..an ere me splits off from ya is worry bout things cos they cost... an will cost us!!! Yas rite 2 question wy govts an corporations do things an rite 2 b cynical of ther motives.. if global warmin or ne thin else is a reality..combattin those issues will cost an thats the way it always has been.. govt has no money of its own an hasta raise funds from taxpayers.. if summat can b justified, is open an rite then who r we 2 b so miserable as 2 grudge govt those financial resources.. an who r we 2 grudge doin our bit practically an financially for wot is rite an mite in the long term save very existence?

[bisexualinsocal]

This subject has been talked to death by person and troll alike in another thread.
The trolls lost and the facts won out. Both sides of the argument are only partially right.

Global warming exists and man has done nothing to facilitate humanities part in helping minimize it's effects; or at least the part that man has contributed to the naturally recurring global warming/cooling problems.

Yours in the typical arrogance of the religious environmentalist. Your religion has blinded you into believing that mankind somehow controls the weather or for that matter, the fate of the planet.

Despite what your god tells you, man is not that powerful.

[rissababynta]

LMAO!

[mindfinding]

Yours in the typical arrogance of the religious environmentalist. Your religion has blinded you into believing that mankind somehow controls the weather or for that matter, the fate of the planet.

Despite what your god tells you, man is not that powerful.

Completely agreed. Btw, your such a stud for feeling the way you do. I really need to come to SoCal and by you a drink man.

[Hephaestion]

The answer is 42 but as we all know, what we have to define is the question.

It doesn't matter whether gobal warming is accurate/true or not. What is evident is that the previously more stable environment that we had is becoming more turbulent as the dynamic equilibrium of the earth is assualted by whatever.

We are also running out of both the long and short term relenishables. I does make sense to try and understand what is happening and it does make sense to try and reduce ANY human contribution to the problem. Whether the last is sufficient or timely remains to be seen. It doesn't help to bury one's head in the sand and ignore, in the same way that it does not help to over react individually. At the global level, we certainly need to review unfettered commercialism and consumerism whilst bearing in mind the failures of most command economies.

Meanwhile as good sexually orientated people we shall quietly go on breeding and celebrating the overpopulation of and trashing of this rather unique rock in space (except those of us exclusively into sodomy). Unique because although the probabilities that another earth like planet exists somewhere in our universe, it will not be reachable by any single generation even if they had the power supplies to do so. Should we reach it with our flimsy bodies evolved to earth, what biological rights would we have to inhabit (cf War of the Worlds). Possibly we should sacrifice middle management and telephone sanitizers to the endeavour whilst making sure that the rest of us use hands free telephones from a distance?

NB - The assumption is that the main sequence star we call Sol shall wait politely for 700 million years and that its metamorphosis into a red giant will be sudden and not gradual. What is worrying here is that goverments have already denied this influence specifically (as well as solar flares) but have also opted for Mars as another stepping stone into space.

The phrases:
a) 'I think that a denial would seem appropriate Minister'
b) 'She'll no take anymore Cap'n!'
c) 'We're doomed laddie! Aye, we're doomed!'
seem aposite.

In case it is not clear - man's influence should not be discounted out of hand. I would sooner take Darkeyes' cautionary approach than anything else.

[darkeyes]

Scuse me Haeph babes.. not only them exclusively inta sodomy that don breed.. no 1 eva gonna make me look like a bloody gr8 whalie!!!:bigrin: Kate don hav the bits!!!:tong:

[FalconAngel]

Yours in the typical arrogance of the religious environmentalist. Your religion has blinded you into believing that mankind somehow controls the weather or for that matter, the fate of the planet.

Despite what your god tells you, man is not that powerful.

Our religion has nothing to do with it.
We are not Christian, so we don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

What we are talking about is what scientific fact has shown.
It is also logic.
For example; if you clear cut all the trees then the oxygen that they used to produce is no longer produced. No air; we all die.

And we are not as arrogant as you and we do not believe that we can control the weather, but man made pollution adds to natural global warming which has an adverse effect on the outcome of weather patterns.
It has also adversely affected the ozone layer which has added to natural global warming as well as planetary weather patterns.

A prime example is this......2 days ago, the first hurricane of the season was born. In less than 24 hours of becoming a hurricane (category 1) it became a category 3 storm. As long as I have been living in Florida, that's almost 30 years now, I have never seen a Hurricane go from a cat 1 to a cat 3 in less than 24 hours. That is the effect of global warming on weather patterns.
You would understand that if you understood how those storms were formed, but I am not going to launch into a course on meteorology for you. you can look it up for yourself.

Do you know what effect that clear cutting forests has on global oxygen production or how that clear cutting affects the earth's temperature? Probably not. Different types of terrain heat and cool differently. This has been known in aviation since before WWI. A clear cut (previously forested) area produces more surface heat than a forested area, which is cooler. Enough areas produce enough warmer air and it adds to global warming.

We, as a species, have had an adverse effect on this planet. Right now it is our only home, unless you know something that the rest of our species doesn't. I can't speak for everyone, but the idea of trashing my only home does not appeal to me.

Does it appeal to you?

Would you trash the only home you have and make it unlivable? I would hope not.

We, as a species, have ignored our part in making global warming worse than it could have been and hiding your head in the neocon sand will not change that fact, nor will it make global warming, natural or man made, go away.

Sure, global warming exists as part of the Earth's natural cycle and science has shown that it has happened before, along with global cooling.

But man has been a major contributor to global warming starting in the age of industrialization. At that time, we started going hog wild and man made pollution exploded after the 1940's.

The warnings we out there to us all since the 70's and we chose to ignore them.

As a species, we need to do everything that we can to minimize, and where possible, reduce or eliminate OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

Did you know that there are exotic types of wood that used to be commonly used in construction and furniture making which cannot be forested anymore because of over-foresting of those types of trees?

If we can reduce or remove that part of global warming that we are responsible for, then at least it won't be as bad as it could be if we do nothing.

[vittoria]

since we dont happen to have a baseball bat icon... let alone a dead horse icon... this will have to suffice:

:banghead:

[jem_is_bi]

I do my best to keep the earth cool. I use my stove for storage. I do not know how to cook anything.

[NumberSix]

What we are talking about is what scientific fact has shown.
"Scientific fact" becomes a maleable term where money (as in grants, or even simply payoffs) is involved


It is also logic.
In many cases, logic is only a matter of opinion and ultimately means nothing


As long as I have been living in Florida, that's almost 30 years now, I have never seen a Hurricane go from a cat 1 to a cat 3 in less than 24 hours.

You do know that this kind of thinking is no different than 500 years ago, when man thought that the earth was flat and the sun the center of the universe, right?

The earth is 4 billion years old. How you can think that an observation of 30 years, hell even 200 years, is enough to think you understand how things work ... well, the arrogance of man has no bounds i guess

"Global warming" has become a well oiled money making machine. Plus, most people seem to live on fear, that's simply the latest one. Like all the other fears, it's a lie.

Of course, doing something to prevent us from being up to our necks in trash makes sense, just don't do it blindly.

[bisexualinsocal]

Our religion has nothing to do with it.
We are not Christian, so we don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

What we are talking about is what scientific fact has shown.
It is also logic.
For example; if you clear cut all the trees then the oxygen that they used to produce is no longer produced. No air; we all die.

And we are not as arrogant as you and we do not believe that we can control the weather, but man made pollution adds to natural global warming which has an adverse effect on the outcome of weather patterns.
It has also adversely affected the ozone layer which has added to natural global warming as well as planetary weather patterns.

A prime example is this......2 days ago, the first hurricane of the season was born. In less than 24 hours of becoming a hurricane (category 1) it became a category 3 storm. As long as I have been living in Florida, that's almost 30 years now, I have never seen a Hurricane go from a cat 1 to a cat 3 in less than 24 hours. That is the effect of global warming on weather patterns.
You would understand that if you understood how those storms were formed, but I am not going to launch into a course on meteorology for you. you can look it up for yourself.

Do you know what effect that clear cutting forests has on global oxygen production or how that clear cutting affects the earth's temperature? Probably not. Different types of terrain heat and cool differently. This has been known in aviation since before WWI. A clear cut (previously forested) area produces more surface heat than a forested area, which is cooler. Enough areas produce enough warmer air and it adds to global warming.

We, as a species, have had an adverse effect on this planet. Right now it is our only home, unless you know something that the rest of our species doesn't. I can't speak for everyone, but the idea of trashing my only home does not appeal to me.

Does it appeal to you?

Would you trash the only home you have and make it unlivable? I would hope not.

We, as a species, have ignored our part in making global warming worse than it could have been and hiding your head in the neocon sand will not change that fact, nor will it make global warming, natural or man made, go away.

Sure, global warming exists as part of the Earth's natural cycle and science has shown that it has happened before, along with global cooling.

But man has been a major contributor to global warming starting in the age of industrialization. At that time, we started going hog wild and man made pollution exploded after the 1940's.

The warnings we out there to us all since the 70's and we chose to ignore them.

As a species, we need to do everything that we can to minimize, and where possible, reduce or eliminate OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

Did you know that there are exotic types of wood that used to be commonly used in construction and furniture making which cannot be forested anymore because of over-foresting of those types of trees?

If we can reduce or remove that part of global warming that we are responsible for, then at least it won't be as bad as it could be if we do nothing.

It's like with some people, all you have to do is slap the word "SCIENCE" in front of the title of a study and all of a sudden it becomes "Scientific fact". And if you don't agree with them, they put on their "science mask", look down their nose at you and call you ignorant.

Don't disagree with them or you are ignorant. A non-believer. You are a science heathen.

Then they wonder why you label them as "religious" even though their faith in science runs along the same faith as Islamic fundamentalism.



“The weekend at the college didn’t turn out like you planned

The things that pass for knowledge, I can’t understand.”

[FerociousFeline]

Ok, those who wish to cover their eyes and ears, now might be a good time to do it.

I do not wish to address this issue in a manner that is disproportionately passionate, however, I find it amazing that people are so far into denial that they would rather believe in harry potter than believe that the TRILLIONS of automobile engines on this planet belching exhaust on a daily basis ALL DAY LONG, ALL MONTH LONG, ALL YEAR LONG, .....for how many years now?

Yeah Global warming is a myth. Nothing unnatural about setting fire to the planet and then scratching our heads like chimps and saying, "hmmmm you don't think WE had anything to do with all that smog, do you?" "naaa, it's a MYTH".

Oh my #$&%(#)@*$*$&#@.

Anyone who thinks that the increase in carbon dioxide and accumulated green house gasses is not a threatening alarming side effect of humanities way of life which is 100% NOT NATURAL, pretty much needs to just shut up.

It is better to be thought a fool.....


(hopping down off soapbox crate before I REALLY lose my temper)

[proseros]

Ok, those who wish to cover their eyes and ears, now might be a good time to do it.

I do not wish to address this issue in a manner that is disproportionately passionate, however, I find it amazing that people are so far into denial that they would rather believe in harry potter than believe that the TRILLIONS of automobile engines on this planet belching exhaust on a daily basis ALL DAY LONG, ALL MONTH LONG, ALL YEAR LONG, .....for how many years now?

Yeah Global warming is a myth. Nothing unnatural about setting fire to the planet and then scratching our heads like chimps and saying, "hmmmm you don't think WE had anything to do with all that smog, do you?" "naaa, it's a MYTH".

Oh my #$&%(#)@*$*$&#@.

Anyone who thinks that the increase in carbon dioxide and accumulated green house gasses is not a threatening alarming side effect of humanities way of life which is 100% NOT NATURAL, pretty much needs to just shut up.

It is better to be thought a fool.....


(hopping down off soapbox crate before I REALLY lose my temper)

Mmmmmmwah!:kiss:

Well said...

[mindfinding]

It's like with some people, all you have to do is slap the word "SCIENCE" in front of the title of a study and all of a sudden it becomes "Scientific fact". And if you don't agree with them, they put on their "science mask", look down their nose at you and call you ignorant.

Don't disagree with them or you are ignorant. A non-believer. You are a science heathen.

Then they wonder why you label them as "religious" even though their faith in science runs along the same faith as Islamic fundamentalism.



“The weekend at the college didn’t turn out like you planned

The things that pass for knowledge, I can’t understand.”

Someone buy this man a beer, please! Maybe I should just send him a case from Canada....You rock, bro.

[rissababynta]

Ok, those who wish to cover their eyes and ears, now might be a good time to do it.

I do not wish to address this issue in a manner that is disproportionately passionate, however, I find it amazing that people are so far into denial that they would rather believe in harry potter than believe that the TRILLIONS of automobile engines on this planet belching exhaust on a daily basis ALL DAY LONG, ALL MONTH LONG, ALL YEAR LONG, .....for how many years now?

Yeah Global warming is a myth. Nothing unnatural about setting fire to the planet and then scratching our heads like chimps and saying, "hmmmm you don't think WE had anything to do with all that smog, do you?" "naaa, it's a MYTH".

Oh my #$&%(#)@*$*$&#@.

Anyone who thinks that the increase in carbon dioxide and accumulated green house gasses is not a threatening alarming side effect of humanities way of life which is 100% NOT NATURAL, pretty much needs to just shut up.

It is better to be thought a fool.....


(hopping down off soapbox crate before I REALLY lose my temper)

:bowdown:

[proseros]

Okay I need to clear up a coupla things here...

1. While there is no recorded proof that Human Beings control weather-Human beings DO and CAN collectively and cumulatively, influence weather.

Such a fact may well over most people's heads, and you don't necessarily need to read Appendix III: Notes on the Astral Plane to figure that out. I don't agree that 'weather' is an arbitrary condition solely independant of human existence or influence. I know this personally not to be the case, but there is nothing I can argue to convince anyone of that one way or the other.

All I can say is read Appendix III...

2. Logic- is NOT A MATTER OF OPINION! Logic has nothing to do with opinion and any opinion can be expressed divorced from logic. Logic points to an assertion based on a condition or circumstance that can be proven, duplicated or simulated to PROVE it as either a true or false variable of the condition or circumstance in question. opinions do not have, nor are dependant upon any requirement of truth or logic whatsoever.

It is therefore LOGICAL (that which follows) that 2+2=4. I can demonstrate this. I can simulate a condition that proves it. It is not an arbitrary assertion.
It is an OPINION that the sky is a specific shade of blue at any given time.
Why? Because that is a matte of perception, or conditions that provide for the perception so the assertion can be made in the first place, and which otherwise can be agrued based on the same circumstances.

How in the heck logic got confused with opinion is beyond me...:banghead:

[Hephaestion]

Scuse me Haeph babes.. not only them exclusively inta sodomy that don breed.. no 1 eva gonna make me look like a bloody gr8 whalie!!!:bigrin: Kate don hav the bits!!!:tong:


Oops! - Anocentricity stumbles again. Humble and grovelling apologies. Much botty kissing offered. Rejection accepted already

Heph

[Gina7777]

It's always been a controversy - whether there is global warming, and if there is, whether we have caused it or would it have happened anyway. But I still think it's thoughtless and wasteful the way we live our lives as though all these finite resources are somehow magically going to last us forever. On this occasion I do think it's right for our governments (national and local) to "train" us into recycling as much as possible, and not using plastic bags and all those things that pollute air and water and kill wildlife. Asthma, cancer and obesity are far more prevalent here in recent decades ... is this just through personal lifestyle choices or should we be regulating what goes into our air, food and environment generally? Yes I too hate the idea of the "Big Brother" approach, but we humans do sometimes need a bit of a kick up the butt now and then or shall I say some firm but gentle guidance. :three:

[darkeyes]

Ole sayin up ere Gina.. "there are nane si blind as them that canni see" .. ya prob hav the English variation down ther.. jus wish peeps wud open ther eyes 2 the world round em an stop worryin bout the inconvenience an cost that doin summat 2 combat climate change will mean.. nowt more inconveient than dyin cos our home will b uninhabitable because a our greed selfishness an stupidity..

[darkeyes]

Oops! - Anocentricity stumbles again. Humble and grovelling apologies. Much botty kissing offered. Rejection accepted already

Heph
Apology accepted.. offa ya knees.. jus leave the bootie alone.. tee hee:tong:

[jamieknyc]

A fras as human impact on global warming in concerned, whatever Western people to to control carbon emissions isn't going to help if China and India aren't participating.

There is a sensible approach to global warming and there are silly ones. It makes sense to recognize that the world will be 4-5 degrees warmer in 2099 than it is today. People who say that in ten years Florida will be under water are being silly.

[Cesca]

I have always said this Jamie, but someone pointed out to me if western countries pollute as they do now, then things will only get far worse than they otherwise would. Also China and India still pollute far less than the US for instance and certainly far less per head of population. In China's case about 80% less per head, and in Indias 2/3 less than China. They should be doing more I agree but as they start from a lower industrialised base than the west, understand their reluctance to change while they see western countries just playing at the game.

[jamieknyc]

I have always said this Jamie, but someone pointed out to me if western countries pollute as they do now, then things will only get far worse than they otherwise would. Also China and India still pollute far less than the US for instance and certainly far less per head of population. In China's case about 80% less per head, and in Indias 2/3 less than China. They should be doing more I agree but as they start from a lower industrialised base than the west, understand their reluctance to change while they see western countries just playing at the game.

That may be true today, but it won't be in 5-10 years

[darkeyes]

That may be true today, but it won't be in 5-10 years

So true Jamie..bitta a cleft stik then huh?? Mite b 2 far gone in 10 years 2 do ne gud ne way..

[*pan*]

I'm disappointed. For all of you folks that want understanding because we are bi, you all seem so insensitive. Unfortunately, for all of you, The Dude is correct. The global warming myth is a means to dip into your pocket books and to make you subserviant. Its another way for the masses to be controlled.


i agree with chuck on this one, but i feel global warming is a natural occurence happening every so many thousand or million years, i have read of the earth going through 6 ice ages, and that the last ice age ended in the 1860's, if this is true then were just warming up from it and will turn back again and get colder eventually to form another ice age. the cycles of the earth are just beginning to be understood but it is a harvest for politicians that have an agenda and for people wanting to come up with an idea to make money by making laws that restrict things, the valcano's that erupted in the past one in particular cracatoea ( spelling is probly wrong as usual lol) was felt around the world and was so violent it exploded and pushed out more fumes dust and smoke then man could ever produce in a hundered years. and even the scientists are looking at past eruptions to solve the riddel of global warming. the earth will cause gobal warming on her own to complete her cycle as she as always done and man's littel contribution to the atmosphere isn't even significant enough to matter. all the hype today about global warming is mans doing is bullshit and just another way to control and get your money and acquire their agendas.

[darkeyes]

i agree with chuck on this one, but i feel global warming is a natural occurence happening every so many thousand or million years, i have read of the earth going through 6 ice ages, and that the last ice age ended in the 1860's, if this is true then were just warming up from it and will turn back again and get colder eventually to form another ice age. the cycles of the earth are just beginning to be understood but it is a harvest for politicians that have an agenda and for people wanting to come up with an idea to make money by making laws that restrict things, the valcano's that erupted in the past one in particular cracatoea ( spelling is probly wrong as usual lol) was felt around the world and was so violent it exploded and pushed out more fumes dust and smoke then man could ever produce in a hundered years. and even the scientists are looking at past eruptions to solve the riddel of global warming. the earth will cause gobal warming on her own to complete her cycle as she as always done and man's littel contribution to the atmosphere isn't even significant enough to matter. all the hype today about global warming is mans doing is bullshit and just another way to control and get your money and acquire their agendas.
Ya jus don listen Pan.. start thinkin wiv ya head.. start readin moren stuff that gives ya the excuse for doin nowt.. fact is the planet is heatin up ova las cupla hundred years fasta than it has eva dun in its history.. wy? Lil clue.. cuppla hundred years ago the industrial revolution started 2 take off..

Always did suspect ya wer 11 pence shorta the full shillin'.. tee hee. :bigrin:

[jamieknyc]

So true Jamie..bitta a cleft stik then huh?? Mite b 2 far gone in 10 years 2 do ne gud ne way..

Not entirely. In China, they are starting to realize that if they go on with a billion people burning coal, in 10 years they won't be able to breathe.

[*pan*]

Ya jus don listen Pan.. start thinkin wiv ya head.. start readin moren stuff that gives ya the excuse for doin nowt.. fact is the planet is heatin up ova las cupla hundred years fasta than it has eva dun in its history.. wy? Lil clue.. cuppla hundred years ago the industrial revolution started 2 take off..

Always did suspect ya wer 11 pence shorta the full shillin'.. tee hee. :bigrin:

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.

Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.

Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:


Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.

By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.

Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

i do listen but am careful who i listen to.

[darkeyes]

We kno alla that Pan.. we daft not stupid... we jus tryin 2 say that humankind affects our climate far more than u givin it credit for an thats wy we warmin up as fast as we r.. we also kno its arguable.. an a case that its all natural can b made.. but its so flimsy an gettin more flimsy wiv every year ..nay..month that passes...

Diff tween u an me..me not careful who me lissens 2..me lissens 2 every 1.. an take it from ther...

[darkeyes]

Not entirely. In China, they are starting to realize that if they go on with a billion people burning coal, in 10 years they won't be able to breathe.

.. an doin wot precisely??

[*pan*]

oh no doubt man has some impact but i believe even if he didn't it would eventualy warm then freeze again, as a natural cycle. and i do hear all who speak but draw my oun conclusions based on the givin data along with doing a lot of reading and study of the data. the thing about this global warming thing is who has politicle and financial agendas that that would benifit by influencing the data and statements. the scientists that recite the raw data and proof that says it's a natural cycle have nothing to gain but the ones that go along with man made global warming theory have a political and financial agenda, al gore claims to be a conservationalist but is politicialy motaved for votes and financing as is the scientista that refuse and ignore the factual data only citeing data within the last hundred years or so, for funding and reconition from political figures such a al gore. if someone says warming within the last few hundred years must reconize that industry polution then and now would be like a thimble to a tanker truck today so why did global warming start to be noticed over 200 years ago, but in reality it was thousands of years ago when it started?

[CuddlyKate]

Actually global warming only began to be noticed within the last 30 years. Scientific studies over that time show a very close link between the amount of industrial gasses and pollution humanity has been putting into the atmosphere and the gradual and increasingly swift increases in temperatures over the last two hundred years.

One thing which will put the brake on global warming is if the North Atlantic current switches off. The two miles high ice sheets of 10000 years ago will most likely return and where I live will be under that great sheet. If air and sea temperatures get so warm that it switches off everyone is in trouble, but worst of all we in the northern hemisphere. There now are signs that it is weakening and that must concern everyone. It will switch off very suddenly but will take centuries to start up again.

[*pan*]

i like it warm and dont like the cold lol
who knows who's right or wrong but it seems like it's gonna happen no matter what we do. if it's natural it will just take a littel longer even if we stopped burining fosil fuels all together and if it's man made i think we've gone too far to stop it totaly, so get out the sun tan lotion and enjoy the warmth but keep your fur coats and blankets handy lol.

[vitt&cho]

The answer is 42 ......

RIP Douglas Adams

RIP Shawn Steinmetz (April 2, 1975-July 1, 2008) Miss you big brother

[vitt&cho]

FerociousFeline
Ok, those who wish to cover their eyes and ears, now might be a good time to do it.

I do not wish to address this issue in a manner that is disproportionately passionate, however, I find it amazing that people are so far into denial that they would rather believe in harry potter than believe that the TRILLIONS of automobile engines on this planet belching exhaust on a daily basis ALL DAY LONG, ALL MONTH LONG, ALL YEAR LONG, .....for how many years now?

Yeah Global warming is a myth. Nothing unnatural about setting fire to the planet and then scratching our heads like chimps and saying, "hmmmm you don't think WE had anything to do with all that smog, do you?" "naaa, it's a MYTH".

Oh my #$&%(#)@*$*$&#@.

Anyone who thinks that the increase in carbon dioxide and accumulated green house gasses is not a threatening alarming side effect of humanities way of life which is 100% NOT NATURAL, pretty much needs to just shut up.

It is better to be thought a fool.....


(hopping down off soapbox crate before I REALLY lose my temper)

Verily!!

Nah...
California has ALWAYS had smog..

Came from the bison and buffalo patties in the desert and other regions....

PUH--LEEEZE!!!! ;)

:impleased

[darkeyes]

i like it warm and dont like the cold lol
who knows who's right or wrong but it seems like it's gonna happen no matter what we do. if it's natural it will just take a littel longer even if we stopped burining fosil fuels all together and if it's man made i think we've gone too far to stop it totaly, so get out the sun tan lotion and enjoy the warmth but keep your fur coats and blankets handy lol.

Prob wiv climate change Pan babes is that it affects everywer diff.. will make sum places wetter..(ie the UK).. sum drier.. will mean less livin space for all land animals not jus human beins wiv seas risin cosa the ice melt an the loss a millionsa square miles a land 2 the oceans.. mayb as much as 5 or 6 feet this century an mayb 300 feet ova the next cuppla centuries.. now thats scary.. several Pacific island nations may disappear within the next cuppla decades at the rate seas r risin as it is..if all the planets ice melts...yas talkin bout summat like a 600 foot sea rise. Natural or no..we in the poop unless sumhow we do summat bout it.. if we can...

These r extreme predictions not by me me may add.. but wile they may b extreme they all 2 possible. By the time the planet dus get its act togetha an starts 2 cool gain..will humanity still b about?? We can but hope...

[12voltman59]

I guess I just can't stay away from this subject since it keeps coming back up---"Once more into the breach!!"

First going to bisexualinsocal's old reframe of "enviromentalism is a religion" is just pure hogwash--it is simply one of those mythic sort of things that the far right comes up with and then makes it "true" by continually saying it over and over again in many ways and in many forms and forums.

In regards to the past in relation to things that the evil enviromentalists got changed---I guess I can't ask this of bisexualinsocal since he is so brainwashed by his continued exposure to the mythos and cannons of the far right that he will think anything "liberals" did or do is bad--but to the rest of you----would you still like things to be as they were in regards to the environment dating back to the earlier days of the industrial revolution and continuing on many years into it----to the days that factories, mines and other industrial concerns had no limitations on pouring out all kinds of wastes like heavy metals, toxins and the likes into the air, water and land?

All of that crap being dumped into the enviroment did do substantial harm to the other life forms on the planet--but I guess we can take the devil's advocate position that "to hell with the fish, plants and animals--they aren't people so they do matter for much"--but humans were being harmed too---heavy metals like lead and such made it into the bodies of babies and caused birth defects and other health issues.

So--does anyone care to go back to the "good old days" when you could hardly take a breath without choking, hesitated before drinking the water, didn't know if you could swim in a lake, river or even the ocean without getting sick, eat the fish you caught in those bodies of water, and a whole bunch of things of that nature???

I sure don't and if you don't either-you can thank the evil, godless, marxist/socialist liberals who helped change the way things were done so that some measure of controls were placed on industry and the rest of society so that we cleaned things up to some degree---otherwise---we would be living in one huge chemical cesspool and life would hardly be worth living.

Also--thank the evil liberals that you actually get paid for doing work and don't go into the hole to your employer each time you got "paid" like good old Tennessee Ernie Ford sang about in a famous old song-- you only have to work 40 hours a week for the most part---get some vacation time, your kids don't have to go work in some hell hole factory or mine that won't kill or maim them in short order and many other things of that nature--but those are facts and reality and we all know that reality has a decidely liberal bias!

[darkeyes]

I guess I just can't stay away from this subject since it keeps coming back up---"Once more into the breach!!"

First going to bisexualinsocal's old reframe of "enviromentalism is a religion" is just pure hogwash--it is simply one of those mythic sort of things that the far right comes up with and then makes it "true" by continually saying it over and over again in many ways and in many forms and forums.

In regards to the past in relation to things that the evil enviromentalists got changed---I guess I can't ask this of bisexualinsocal since he is so brainwashed by his continued exposure to the mythos and cannons of the far right that he will think anything "liberals" did or do is bad--but to the rest of you----would you still like things to be as they were in regards to the environment dating back to the earlier days of the industrial revolution and continuing on many years into it----to the days that factories, mines and other industrial concerns had no limitations on pouring out all kinds of wastes like heavy metals, toxins and the likes into the air, water and land?

All of that crap being dumped into the enviroment did do substantial harm to the other life forms on the planet--but I guess we can take the devil's advocate position that "to hell with the fish, plants and animals--they aren't people so they do matter for much"--but humans were being harmed too---heavy metals like lead and such made it into the bodies of babies and caused birth defects and other health issues.

So--does anyone care to go back to the "good old days" when you could hardly take a breath without choking, hesitated before drinking the water, didn't know if you could swim in a lake, river or even the ocean without getting sick, eat the fish you caught in those bodies of water, and a whole bunch of things of that nature???

I sure don't and if you don't either-you can thank the evil, godless, marxist/socialist liberals who helped change the way things were done so that some measure of controls were placed on industry and the rest of society so that we cleaned things up to some degree---otherwise---we would be living in one huge chemical cesspool and life would hardly be worth living.

Also--thank the evil liberals that you actually get paid for doing work and don't go into the hole to your employer each time you got "paid" like good old Tennessee Ernie Ford sang about in a famous old song-- you only have to work 40 hours a week for the most part---get some vacation time, your kids don't have to go work in some hell hole factory or mine that won't kill or maim them in short order and many other things of that nature--but those are facts and reality and we all know that reality has a decidely liberal bias!Aaaah Voltie.. liberals an socialists of 'merica, Britain an the world r an evil lot indeed... wot wud the world b like wivout us an those that went b fore...:tong:

[NumberSix]

Aaaah Voltie.. liberals an socialists of 'merica, Britain an the world r an evil lot indeed... wot wud the world b like wivout us an those that went b fore...:tong:

The word "free" comes to mind

[vitt&cho]

I guess I just can't stay away from this subject since it keeps coming back up---"Once more into the breach!!"

Reminds me somewhat of Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country... "Cry HAVOC!!! And let slip the dogs of war!!!"

Damn General Chang!!



but those are facts and reality and we all know that reality has a decidely liberal bias!

So much that it makes Stephen Colbert proud :tong:

[FalconAngel]

Reminds me somewhat of Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered Country... "Cry HAVOC!!! And let slip the dogs of war!!!"


Yes, but that sounds so much better in the original Klingon.:tong:

[bisexualinsocal]

Ok, those who wish to cover their eyes and ears, now might be a good time to do it.

I do not wish to address this issue in a manner that is disproportionately passionate, however, I find it amazing that people are so far into denial that they would rather believe in harry potter than believe that the TRILLIONS of automobile engines on this planet belching exhaust on a daily basis ALL DAY LONG, ALL MONTH LONG, ALL YEAR LONG, .....for how many years now?

Yeah Global warming is a myth. Nothing unnatural about setting fire to the planet and then scratching our heads like chimps and saying, "hmmmm you don't think WE had anything to do with all that smog, do you?" "naaa, it's a MYTH".

Oh my #$&&#37;(#)@*$*$&#@.

Anyone who thinks that the increase in carbon dioxide and accumulated green house gasses is not a threatening alarming side effect of humanities way of life which is 100% NOT NATURAL, pretty much needs to just shut up.

It is better to be thought a fool.....


(hopping down off soapbox crate before I REALLY lose my temper)

Well consider this to be an open invitation to stop breathing and die. If you seriously believe in this witchcraft of greenhouse gas, why not be your own answer to the solution?

Die.

Seems pretty simple. All the carbon dioxide you've just emitted only adds to the problem. On top of that, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, too!

That's right! All dirt-worshippers need to recognize that their very own existence contributes to their beloved global warming. Stop farting, stop breathing and stop using up all the good oxygen.

In fact!

Turn off your COMPUTER RIGHT NOW!

Get off the electric grid. Burning coal causes global warming!

The internet causes global warming and so does breathing! Please cease immediately!

[bisexualinsocal]

I guess I just can't stay away from this subject since it keeps coming back up---"Once more into the breach!!"

First going to bisexualinsocal's old reframe of "enviromentalism is a religion" is just pure hogwash--it is simply one of those mythic sort of things that the far right comes up with and then makes it "true" by continually saying it over and over again in many ways and in many forms and forums.

In regards to the past in relation to things that the evil enviromentalists got changed---I guess I can't ask this of bisexualinsocal since he is so brainwashed by his continued exposure to the mythos and cannons of the far right that he will think anything "liberals" did or do is bad--but to the rest of you----would you still like things to be as they were in regards to the environment dating back to the earlier days of the industrial revolution and continuing on many years into it----to the days that factories, mines and other industrial concerns had no limitations on pouring out all kinds of wastes like heavy metals, toxins and the likes into the air, water and land?

All of that crap being dumped into the enviroment did do substantial harm to the other life forms on the planet--but I guess we can take the devil's advocate position that "to hell with the fish, plants and animals--they aren't people so they do matter for much"--but humans were being harmed too---heavy metals like lead and such made it into the bodies of babies and caused birth defects and other health issues.

So--does anyone care to go back to the "good old days" when you could hardly take a breath without choking, hesitated before drinking the water, didn't know if you could swim in a lake, river or even the ocean without getting sick, eat the fish you caught in those bodies of water, and a whole bunch of things of that nature???

I sure don't and if you don't either-you can thank the evil, godless, marxist/socialist liberals who helped change the way things were done so that some measure of controls were placed on industry and the rest of society so that we cleaned things up to some degree---otherwise---we would be living in one huge chemical cesspool and life would hardly be worth living.

Also--thank the evil liberals that you actually get paid for doing work and don't go into the hole to your employer each time you got "paid" like good old Tennessee Ernie Ford sang about in a famous old song-- you only have to work 40 hours a week for the most part---get some vacation time, your kids don't have to go work in some hell hole factory or mine that won't kill or maim them in short order and many other things of that nature--but those are facts and reality and we all know that reality has a decidely liberal bias!

Thanks for the exposition on typical revisionist history from the left but the fact of the matter is that capitalist driven innovation is why Americans work fewer hours, in cleaner environments for better pay.

You can't picket your way, you can't strike your way, you can't DEMAND your way into a better life. You have to innovate for it. You must work more efficiently for it and you must plan for it.

If American didn't innovate and instead threw tantrums (aka, union strike), we'd all be paying more the the goods and services we enjoy today. The car you drive would be infinitely more expensive and far unsafer were it not for the capitalist innovations of robotics and computer engineering. The email you enjoy would not exist! For fear of putting the mailman out of business.

The standard of life we enjoy in this country today is the result of capitalism and capitalist innovations. Not the results of tantrum throwers and corporate unions.

Stop spreading revisionist lies.

[jeancarleo]

Thank God I'm vegetarian lol. I pollute less because of that right SoCal guy?

[bisexualinsocal]

Thank God I'm vegetarian lol. I pollute less because of that right SoCal guy?

You're kinda like everyones friends. The religious environmentalist loves you because you don't eat cows which produce methane (Methane is one of the religious environmentalists 'sins' even though they themselves are full of methane producing shit). Critical thinkers such as myself think you're cool because your vegetables soak up all the carbon dioxide that my hamburgers produce.

In fact, you're one of the reasons I've been eating lots of ribeye lately. I want to give your vegetables more carbon dioxide to enjoy.

Carbon dioxide= good for plant life.

[jeancarleo]

eewww, sounds nasty but then good. Like Homer Simpson repeating tempting thoughts. It's all true, I like growing my own fruits and vegetables and herbs and plants but we all gotta go to the market to buy but I can't afford expensive organic produce so I just go to latino supermarkets, they have the best deals. So if someone was to eat me I would taste good? lol

[FalconAngel]

You're kinda like everyones friends. The religious environmentalist loves you because you don't eat cows which produce methane (Methane is one of the religious environmentalists 'sins' even though they themselves are full of methane producing shit). Critical thinkers such as myself think you're cool because your vegetables soak up all the carbon dioxide that my hamburgers produce.

In fact, you're one of the reasons I've been eating lots of ribeye lately. I want to give your vegetables more carbon dioxide to enjoy.

Carbon dioxide= good for plant life.


Too much carbon dioxide bad for all life. Too much oxygen can be bad for us, too; or perhaps you've never heard of hyperventilation?

It's called balance.

Too much of something can cause as much, or more, damage than too little of something.

On a related note, you are starting to behave very much like a troll and you've been on this site long enough to know better. Keep that up and people may start reporting you, if some haven't already begun doing it.

Really. There is no need to get offensive to people over this, even if it was your goal all along.
If you don't wish to be civil, like all but the trolls try to be, then we can start reporting you now. Particularly since, as I said, you've been on this site long enough to know better.

[Hephaestion]

"...Too much of something can cause as much, or more, damage than too little of something..."

Well said! Too many people chasing/exploiting too few resources. The result is present day problems; these set to get worse.

Opportunity to comment on the hard historical perspectives of others taken here. Propaganda and historical accounts tend to the black/white view and rarely the many shades of grey that are the reality.

[darkeyes]

The word "free" comes to mindhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a.. yea... rite.. jus like wer liberalism an socialism don exist peeps r free... jeez. get a life, grow up an stop talkin bollox..

[darkeyes]

Thanks for the exposition on typical revisionist history from the left but the fact of the matter is that capitalist driven innovation is why Americans work fewer hours, in cleaner environments for better pay.

You can't picket your way, you can't strike your way, you can't DEMAND your way into a better life. You have to innovate for it. You must work more efficiently for it and you must plan for it.

If American didn't innovate and instead threw tantrums (aka, union strike), we'd all be paying more the the goods and services we enjoy today. The car you drive would be infinitely more expensive and far unsafer were it not for the capitalist innovations of robotics and computer engineering. The email you enjoy would not exist! For fear of putting the mailman out of business.

The standard of life we enjoy in this country today is the result of capitalism and capitalist innovations. Not the results of tantrum throwers and corporate unions.

Stop spreading revisionist lies. God.. talk bout revisionist history... ifya use ya fingies for makin luff like ya dus for postin on ere God help ne 1 ya fingies play wiv..

[FerociousFeline]

Exhibit A is right here folks!

What degree of overt illustration would anyone need to determine the obvious?

Let's just do a quick bit of my "WitchCraft" and see what it reveals.

Let's take a LOOK at the picture posted on BS's profile....oh! WAIT!~ coincidence? (I don't think so)

I don't know about you, but I think that the wafting oder of this particular cowchip's opinion smells like his initials far more than it does the fragrance of "critical thinking" . His primary concern is methane. (hmmmmm)

(Now wondering if I should feel guilty for having picked the essence of such "critical thinkers" out of my truck tires after having spent the day out at the ranch.)

ROFLMAO!

This persons posted picture reveals to this particular Witch ...ambition of grandeur, lack of firm skeletal superstructure, excessive self indulgence, infantile state of social maturity, thinly disguised condition of a massive inferiority complex, incapacity for being sensitive to others, and an absolutely loathing self hate.

Hmmm. Sounds pretty unhealthy.

Good LUCK with that, mr. BS.

(Feel lucky that I pity you far too much to spring claws and go after you)

FF

[12voltman59]

It looks like somebody got their BP and heartrate up there!!!

[darkeyes]

It looks like somebody got their BP and heartrate up there!!!
.. falied 2 spark is brain inta life tho Voltie..so ya not that gud..tee hee:tong:

[12voltman59]

.. falied 2 spark is brain inta life tho Voltie..so ya not that gud..tee hee:tong:

Well Franie--I can only do so much--giving IT a brain is a tall order!!

[darkeyes]

Well Franie--I can only do so much--giving IT a brain is a tall order!!

We bein vewwy vewwy vewwy naughtie Voltie.. brill innit?? tee hee..:bigrin:

[Ninnian]

.. makes me wonder.

Makes me wonder -if although I spent my previous life (before child) in an objective field of science, and I stated that *I* believe that Global warming exists but that it's not Man's doing, if I am veiwed as just as wretched as any other person stating the same thing? Does it matter that more scientists than not disagree with this "theory"... or is it enough that I Do disagree with it for me to be pounced upon rather savagely?

Bieng a conservationist and a scientist- I say that evironmentalists give pause. I see them as a group ( generalizations/not individuals ) who use emotion over reason. Who rail at anyone who disagrees with them fervently, and who attempt to castrate those who have the audacity to voice those opinions.
I see them thusly- it matters not to me if YOU don't. It doenst even matter to me what you think of *me*.. it just makes me wonder.

Relentlessly curious,
Nin

ps- i also wonder what darkeyes writes.... if I could hear her voice, I'm pretty sure that I coudl figure it out- but how she writes i sa personal dyslexic hell for me.Iv'e tried to figure it out.. but its like word scrambles for me. Doesnt make me any less curious about What sh ewrite s tho... ;)

[darkeyes]

.. makes me wonder.

Makes me wonder -if although I spent my previous life (before child) in an objective field of science, and I stated that *I* believe that Global warming exists but that it's not Man's doing, if I am veiwed as just as wretched as any other person stating the same thing? Does it matter that more scientists than not disagree with this "theory"... or is it enough that I Do disagree with it for me to be pounced upon rather savagely?

Bieng a conservationist and a scientist- I say that evironmentalists give pause. I see them as a group ( generalizations/not individuals ) who use emotion over reason. Who rail at anyone who disagrees with them fervently, and who attempt to castrate those who have the audacity to voice those opinions.
I see them thusly- it matters not to me if YOU don't. It doenst even matter to me what you think of *me*.. it just makes me wonder.

Relentlessly curious,
Nin

ps- i also wonder what darkeyes writes.... if I could hear her voice, I'm pretty sure that I coudl figure it out- but how she writes i sa personal dyslexic hell for me.Iv'e tried to figure it out.. but its like word scrambles for me. Doesnt make me any less curious about What sh ewrite s tho... ;)

Just to help you out.. I will do this little bit in English.. I can you know. I dont pounce on anyone who can argue rationally and reasonably. Not what I call pouncing anyway. When I pounce people know it and are in no doubt of it. I do accept that I am extremely critical of those with whom I disagree, although I do try to be more critical of their reasoning and argument and try to argue my point as best I am able. I am emotional, but do hold my emotions in check also as best I can, but sometimes someone says something so obviously out of kilter with any reason and sanity I blow up. Then my emotions do get the better of me and I say thing and do things I regret because it lessens me as a human being. Most of us do that at some time in their lives and I am no better or worse than anyone else for that. It is part of who I am.

On the issue of climate change it is a passion, just as socialism is a passion, and the well being of my fellow human beings. Just as equality is a passion and Gay, Bi and Transgendered rights are a passion, anti racism is a passion, world peace and pacifism are passions, as my football club is a passion, and my friends and family are a passion. All of these things and others I will defend to the enth degree by argument and reason. All of these things bring to the fore my emotions and this often shows in my writing and in other aspects of my life. I ask no one to like what I say but merely to listen and accept my beliefs as my beliefs, and yes hopefully to be able persuade others to my point of view for why else do we believe in open debate?

Most of the environmentalists I know have equally strong passion for the subject of climate change and saving the planet. They too are emotional human beings. Generalisation is often the only way others are prepared to listen because the minutiea involved in explaining the acts, just like on any subject can take forever and also can bore the arse of those who may otherwise be sympathetic to our cause. However, even such facts explained in a general manner are dismissed without thinking by some who in their own hap hazard and unthinking way simply dismiss climate change as a fiction whether it be change by natural, man made methods or a combination of both. These I have nothing but contempt and anger for as they offer not one iota of argument to support their case and argue black is white in the face of all or any evidence to the contrary. This sometimes does make me explode and my emotions then can and do run away with me. I do try to keep it in check but sometimes this is not possible.

PS. I speak nothing like I write. I have my reasons for writing as I do but it has nothing whatsoever to do with how I speak.

[Hephaestion]

".....As far as I'm concerned there's so much information both for and against global warming out there that it's impossible to tell if it's all true or not!..."

-------------------------------
I don't know how this is strictly measured. There is certainly evidence of periodicity over many years. The evidence / argument was that we were poised in this periodic behaviour to re-start another ice-age.

However, from measurements, the evidence has been that instead of falling, temperatures have been rising overall despite global dimming through air traffic (the 9/11 effect). The El Nino effect (seen by many as the seed for global weather patterns) has been returning more quickly than expected and its change of periodicity is coincident with overall increasing atmospheric temperatures. The overall rise in surface temperatures are coincident with rises in the atmospheric gasses capable of causing a greenhouse effect. These effects have yet to be detected in past temperature profiles and periodicities.

The story gets worse as forests have been slaughtered and so one component of CO2 consumption has been weakened. The oceans as THE major C02 sink are showing signs of acidification as they absorb evermore. There is evidence of poorly formed skeletons in bony (cf cartilagenous) fish and demise of corals (nursery areas for fish). Temperature elevations in one part of the planet cause stormy turbulences as the environment tries to dissipate energy inbalances. One major worry is the turbulent disorder in any one of the major ocean gyres that serves to moderate land climate. Climates are polarising into wet and dry. Growing and breeding seasonas inall sorts of organisms are falling out of kilter.

It may be that temperature rises were perceived as starting before the recorded rise of industrialisation in western society but that assumes that there is only ever one single effect. Solar flares, comets, Milancovich cycle have been investigated for contributions without certainty. Yes, Volcanoes can release massive disruptive forces. However, their effects are felt for many years afterwards. Yes there have been celestial collisions and there have been coincident obliterations of organisms. Yes there has been a recurrence of ice in Antarctica but this has been less than mildly restorative of the original conditions that existed there.

Of course someone will jump on the causality vs correlation argument. As we all know, when fecund males and females have sexual intercourse there is no causality in any resulting pregnancy just a tenuous coincidence.

Now I don't want to believe that we pathetic organisms can affect the planet but think of the relentless contribution we make to the inbalances involved in all of this with our combined processes. Chaos theory reliably says that when a certain dislocation point is reached in a previously stable system the system will shift to an attempted new stability The earth will self regulate as best it can. However, that self regulation may be outside the survival envelope needed by us humans and our relatively static societies. Our contribution may well be the straw that breaks this particular camel's back. Answer - do not put that straw on as a load, at least not with the current human population loading that we have.

Reminder here: Science is reliable knowledge. The essence of science is repeatability. So if we screw up the earth we can always go back and run another experiment lasting millions of years to prove things one way or the other. Note no mention of nuclear arms proliferation and possible outcomes.

'...for verily the cocroaches shall inherit the earth'.

[NumberSix]

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.. yea... rite.. jus like wer liberalism an socialism don exist peeps r free... jeez. get a life, grow up an stop talkin bollox..

We're all slaves to the government, no matter what side it's on.

And you, of all people, are in no position to tell anyone to grow up.

[vittoria]

Yes, but that sounds so much better in the original Klingon.:tong:


"P'agH p'ah p'agH peH!!"

"To be or not to be.. that is the question, Captain Kirk...we need BREATHING ROOM!!!"

"Earth.... Hitler..... 1938"

(And Spock promptly raises an eyebrow)
;)

[vittoria]

Just to help you out.. I will do this little bit in English.. I can you know. ....... However, even such facts explained in a general manner are dismissed without thinking by some who in their own hap hazard and unthinking way simply dismiss climate change as a fiction whether it be change by natural, man made methods or a combination of both. These I have nothing but contempt and anger for as they offer not one iota of argument to support their case and argue black is white in the face of all or any evidence to the contrary. .........


Soylent Green!!! Brand NEW!!!!! Made from the superfood of the sea... PLANKTON!!!!!

"ITS PEOPLE!!!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!"
.... nah... its SPAM dOOd.

[darkeyes]

We're all slaves to the government, no matter what side it's on.

And you, of all people, are in no position to tell anyone to grow up.

If u believe we r all slaves 2 the government me pities ya..... u let that happen hun an ther is no 1 2 blame but yasel.. its the Government that is sposed 2 b our slave... thats wy we live in a so called democracy.. we all kno it aint..but in principle... but wot me dus kno.. me no slave 2 ne 1..an neitha r mosta the peeps of my country.. they mite b daft, brain dead or conned..but they aint slaves a govt.. an wen govt thinks that...they don last 2 long mostly.. bit like ur place innit hun?

An bout me growin up.. don take how me sez stuff as a sign a immaturity.. mite b a spoilt brat in lotsa ways an jus a lil bit fun luffin.. but bout things that matta in this world.. me pretty much grown up..wetha or not ya agree or disagree wiv how an wot me lil mind thinks..

[Ninnian]

I argued with myself before posting before-
" Just get it off yoru chest! No, it wont matter, and you're bound to be flamed. Well, mabye not, an dwho cares? You don't much care what others think of How and What you think. hmm you're right. ..."

Im glad I did. Not that Heph. woudl not have made a delightful post if I had'nt sounded off... they might have. Still it wa senjoyed.
What I really wa spleased about was a thoughtful , readable (by me) response from Darkeyes. I don't expect you to write again so I can read it, but I wanted to thank you for doing so this one time. We're from opposing spectrums, I won't agree with you on socialism or many other cuases..... but I can respect you for knowing who and how you are(odd that some have no recognitiuon that they even own faults) and being abel to relate that in a cogent manner.

Im not devoid of feelings or emotion either- I think my bisexuality is product of my very physical dn sensual nature- Im just a oddity in teh female world. Ta- I thank you , Darkeyes, for your consideration. Im sure you write liek you do for reasons your own, and I wouldnt ask you to change that for anything. :)

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming

Nin

[darkeyes]

I argued with myself before posting before-
" Just get it off yoru chest! No, it wont matter, and you're bound to be flamed. Well, mabye not, an dwho cares? You don't much care what others think of How and What you think. hmm you're right. ..."

Im glad I did. Not that Heph. woudl not have made a delightful post if I had'nt sounded off... they might have. Still it wa senjoyed.
What I really wa spleased about was a thoughtful , readable (by me) response from Darkeyes. I don't expect you to write again so I can read it, but I wanted to thank you for doing so this one time. We're from opposing spectrums, I won't agree with you on socialism or many other cuases..... but I can respect you for knowing who and how you are(odd that some have no recognitiuon that they even own faults) and being abel to relate that in a cogent manner.

Im not devoid of feelings or emotion either- I think my bisexuality is product of my very physical dn sensual nature- Im just a oddity in teh female world. Ta- I thank you , Darkeyes, for your consideration. Im sure you write liek you do for reasons your own, and I wouldnt ask you to change that for anything. :)

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming

NinHav resisted the temptation 2 call ya big Ninni... tee hee... ask ne Brit wot it means if ya dunno.. but glad me did.. cos ya reely ratha nice... even if we don agree on owt... instead from me 2 u.. MUAH!!!:tong:

[bisexualinsocal]

On a related note, you are starting to behave very much like a troll and you've been on this site long enough to know better. Keep that up and people may start reporting you, if some haven't already begun doing it.


Yet another attempt by you to nanny others into behavior that YOU approve of.

This site does not need your personal approval nor do other users here.

And one more thing, others have reported me several times and still....



Here I Am

[FalconAngel]

Yet another attempt by you to nanny others into behavior that YOU approve of.

This site does not need your personal approval nor do other users here.

And one more thing, others have reported me several times and still....



Here I Am

Based on that statement, you need nannying.

Is it really that difficult to even make a reasonable attempt at being respectful of others?

Besides, it isn't about my personal approval. It is about giving respect to get respect.
You're not much of a man if you can't manage that.

And as far as being reported, perhaps you haven't had enough people report you.......yet.

We've been on this site a lot longer than you have and, like most long term members, never been reported for anything.

Wonder who's going to last longer; the ones who try to be civil or the trolls (and those that behave like trolls)?

You may want to consider that, if you are capable of following good advice, that is.

[wolfcamp]

i have read of the earth going through 6 ice ages, and that the last ice age ended in the 1860's,

If you are talking about a full blown ice age, the last one ended with the warming at the end of the Younger Dryas period, about 11500 years ago.



the valcano's that erupted in the past one in particular cracatoea ( spelling is probly wrong as usual lol) was felt around the world and was so violent it exploded and pushed out more fumes dust and smoke then man could ever produce in a hundered years.


Man produces somewhere between 100 to 200 times as much CO2 as the annual output of all the earths volcanos. This includes events like Pinatubo, Krakatoa, St. Helens, Tambora, ... all of them for the last several hundred years.

That isn't to say that volcanic eruptions don't affect the climate. One notable exception was the eruption of Toba around 75000 years ago. That one was extraordinarily huge, and might have actually started us on a downward spiral into the last ice age, but, because of reflective aerosols like SO2 that blocked sunlight, not because of CO2. I should note though, that the Milankovitch cycles were already taking us that direction anyway.

That brings up an interesting fact. The Milankovitch cycles should currently be taking us into a period of cooling. (Milankovitch cycles are the earth's tilt, wobble, and orbital eccentricity which have been the drivers of the ice ages for the last 700000 years.) Yet, in actuality, we are seeing a warming of the earth. Now, concept me on that one!



all the hype today about global warming is mans doing is bullshit and just another way to control and get your money and acquire their agendas.

Bullshit....hmmm. You would have a better argument if you researched your facts a little better.

On the flip side, are you implying that all the hype sponsored by Exxon and Peabody Coal are NOT ways to get into your pocket? Seems to me that they have a pretty big stake in all this, and we are paying LOTS of money to those guys.

[wolfcamp]

the thing about this global warming thing is who has politicle and financial agendas that that would benifit by influencing the data and statements. the scientists that recite the raw data and proof that says it's a natural cycle have nothing to gain but the ones that go along with man made global warming theory have a political and financial agenda,

A lot of the arguments used by the skeptics were conjured up by organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which was funded by Exxon-Mobile. You can't tell me that these organizations don't have a political or financial stake in this. That's preposterous.

I think I hear you saying that there is a vast conspiracy to fudge the data. That is way harder to swallow than global warming itself. The data is coming in from oceanographers and geologists and meteorologists and marine biologists and terrestrial biologists and chemists and glaciologists and many, many other kinds of scientists. The evidence is much too broad based and it correlates too well to be a conspiracy.

I don't think you understand how scientific data is reported. It's published in peer reviewed journals, and if anyone, ANYONE, can find fallocies in a publication, especially if it was deliberately misleading, then that scientist's career is basically toast. Scientists are very, very careful to validate all their findings before they publish. It would be career suicide to try to fudge your publications.



if someone says warming within the last few hundred years must reconize that industry polution then and now would be like a thimble to a tanker truck today so why did global warming start to be noticed over 200 years ago, but in reality it was thousands of years ago when it started?

A thimble full of chlorofluorocarbons in a tanker full of oil might be enough to shut down a pipeline. I know, because I used to do tests for that exact problem.

[wolfcamp]

Critical thinkers such as myself

That's a laugh!

[wolfcamp]

.. makes me wonder.

Does it matter that more scientists than not disagree with this "theory"... or is it enough that I Do disagree with it for me to be pounced upon rather savagely?

If more scientists that not disagree with this theory, then, yes, it might matter. But that isn't what I am seeing or hearing. I see many more scientists believing that global warming is real. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see the evidence.




Bieng a conservationist and a scientist- I say that evironmentalists give pause. I see them as a group ( generalizations/not individuals ) who use emotion over reason. Who rail at anyone who disagrees with them fervently, and who attempt to castrate those who have the audacity to voice those opinions.


I have asked time and again for evidence. What is it that makes you a skeptic? Give me hard and fast evidence that global warming is not a problem.

[bisexualinsocal]

Based on that statement, you need nannying.

Says a nanny.



Is it really that difficult to even make a reasonable attempt at being respectful of others?

You can cease responding to my posts, seriously. You seem to have a problem and you continue responding to my posts. Seriously, stop responding. Your thread patrolling is pretty sad.


Besides, it isn't about my personal approval. It is about giving respect to get respect.
You're not much of a man if you can't manage that.

And as far as being reported, perhaps you haven't had enough people report you.......yet.

Be my guest. But first stop replying to my posts, it's creeping me out.

[FalconAngel]

Says a nanny.



You can cease responding to my posts, seriously. You seem to have a problem and you continue responding to my posts. Seriously, stop responding. Your thread patrolling is pretty sad.



Be my guest. But first stop replying to my posts, it's creeping me out.

You are so right. so like all trolls, you go on the ignore list.

Byby junior troll. (applies liberal dose of "troll b gone")

[Hephaestion]

"...Yes, Volcanoes can release massive disruptive forces. However, their effects are felt for many years afterwards....."

needed to read "...Yes, Volcanoes can release massive disruptive forces. However, their effects are felt for many years afterwards as a cooling of the atmosphere through shielding"

Didn't get to edit this in time. However this gratefully aluded to by Wolfcamp.
(See what happens in the absence of peer review before publication? Of course, this means that my carreer as an eco-orientated bisexual is singed if not toasted).

Ho-o-o-o-wl(ing with Wolfcamp)

[bisexualinsocal]

You are so right. so like all trolls, you go on the ignore list.

Byby junior troll. (applies liberal dose of "troll b gone")

That explains why you have (as in cases similar to this) posted post after post about comments related to trolls.

Let's restate the original thread.



"Global Warming is a myth" and more than that, it's the faith of the desperate.

[darkeyes]

That explains why you have (as in cases similar to this) posted post after post about comments related to trolls.

Let's restate the original thread.



"Global Warming is a myth" and more than that, it's the faith of the desperate.
If we rite an u jus the arse ya seem 2 b..we all gonna b pretty desprit an need moren faith 2 dig us outa the mess.. an that hun is wetha or not the doubtin Thomases among r converted an we act as we havta...

[wolfcamp]

You are so right. so like all trolls, you go on the ignore list.

Byby junior troll. (applies liberal dose of "troll b gone")


Ditto

[FalconAngel]

Here's a pretty graphic example of Global warming;
Mt. Kilaminjaro used to have a snowcap that covered the mountain top down to more than 25&#37; (winter) and 20% (summer) of the mountain, year round.
This year photos of the mountain showed an almost 50% reduction of the winter snow cap, over previous years.

In addition to that, the proof that global warming and global cooling do occur in natural cycles is in the trees. The rings of a tree are indicative of many factors, which include, but are not limited to global warming and cooling trends, periods of severe drought (common during warming trends), over abundance of water (common during cooling trends) and other weather factors that are predominant during the course of each year.

There is a reason that Native Americans call the trees record keepers.

During the course of a "normal" year, a tree trunk grows to a certain thickness. This trunk thickness is a constant (varying with each type of tree) during years when the weather and climate are balanced (not too cool or too hot, no drought or floods).
When there are major climate changes or major weather events that span weeks or months that are outside of the norm, then the tree trunk gets thicker or thinner during those years.
Some of these trees are hundreds, even thousands of years old, so they have been through these warming and cooling trends. The rings of the trunk are the records of those major events.

So the trends are demonstrated to have happened, but only in the last 150 years has man made a significant impact on these trends, which has made them worse than the norm.

So, as I have stated before, and others here have demonstrated, global warming/cooling is a natural phenomenon, but man, for the first time in the history of our species, has added to it, making it worse than it normally would have been.

Saying that global warming does not exist is like insisting that the world is flat.

As a species, we need to "man up" and make what we have done, less of an impact; or at least minimize it for our future as well as the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Belief in the absence of proof is faith; belief in contradiction of proof is foolishness.

The proof is there, as long as the eyes wish to see what proof there is.

[12voltman59]

The site that I am linking to has some interesting stories and perspectives on the 'global warming' situation that seems to look at things rather objectively--at least for those who are reasonable and haven't closed their minds totally in regards to this subject.

While the site does hold that global warming is real--it does offer information regarding conflicting interpretations of "the evidence" regarding this subject.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

One thing is for sure---glaciers and such are melting.

I had read a report not long ago that the operators of ski resorts in the Alps and other mountainous regions in Europe had done regarding their future viability--and that report said that if the average tempertaures continue to rise---the ski industry in many areas will become extinct---they already have had some bad seasons thanks to lack of sufficient amounts of snowfall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/mar/26/travelnews.travel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/mar/26/travelnews.travel

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/682

http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/3609.html

In spite of these stories about warming climate threatening ski slopes and ice hockey rinks--I guess that these things are just figures of people's imaginations since "global warming is a myth!"

[darkeyes]

The site that I am linking to has some interesting stories and perspectives on the 'global warming' situation that seems to look at things rather objectively--at least for those who are reasonable and haven't closed their minds totally in regards to this subject.

While the site does hold that global warming is real--it does offer information regarding conflicting interpretations of "the evidence" regarding this subject.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

One thing is for sure---glaciers and such are melting.

I had read a report not long ago that the operators of ski resorts in the Alps and other mountainous regions in Europe had done regarding their future viability--and that report said that if the average tempertaures continue to rise---the ski industry in many areas will become extinct---they already have had some bad seasons thanks to lack of sufficient amounts of snowfall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/mar/26/travelnews.travel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/mar/26/travelnews.travel

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/682

http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/3609.html

In spite of these stories about warming climate threatening ski slopes and ice hockey rinks--I guess that these things are just figures of people's imaginations since "global warming is a myth!"

There ar nane si blind as them that canni see Voltie babes.

[wolfcamp]

So, as I have stated before, and others here have demonstrated, global warming/cooling is a natural phenomenon, but man, for the first time in the history of our species, has added to it, making it worse than it normally would have been.


I agree with everything that you are saying. I would probably use a little different terminology. I would say that the earth had it's own natural rhythm before man came along. The earth had achieved a state of equalibrium or a steady state where all the inbound fluxes (heat, CO2, sulfur compounds, etc.) equaled the outbound fluxes. The resulting reservoirs of heat and chemistry were, on the average, very constant. There were temporary perturbations in the system, and very rare permenant forcings like a comet strike, but on the average, things remained stable. We are now upsetting that stability. Here is a way that I heard it described that I thought made a lot of sense:

The earth has it's natural cycles that include warming and cooling, but those cycles have always centered around a very stable baseline. Man is now altering that baseline.

I probably have not said it as elegantly as the original speaker, but I hope you get my point.

[FalconAngel]

I would probably use a little different terminology.

I probably should have, but I was on a roll and trying to type as fast as the thoughts were coming, when I wrote it.

[Hephaestion]

Reported in Sunday's media (13 Jul 2008) that precipitation in Antarctica which, being south polar is currently in its winter phase, was falling not as snow but as rain and causing death amongst penguin young.

Hmm!

[BreeIsMe]

not that I want to legitimize certain people's threads by adding to them but global warming is certainly NOT a myth and its been going on for thousands of years... Glaciers used to cover much of North America and evidence for their existince in the middle of the US is fact. The fact that these glaciers have disappeared is evidence enough that the climate has wamred enough to allow them to melt. Global warming is a long-time phenomenon....it may be accelerating though...

[vittoria]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080702-endangered-penguins.html

HOLY SHIT!!!


Reported in Sunday's media (13 Jul 2008) that precipitation in Antarctica which, being south polar is currently in its winter phase, was falling not as snow but as rain and causing death amongst penguin young.

Hmm!

[darkeyes]

... an the geographical north pole expected 2 b ice free by enda summa.. Russians abandonin an arctic base cos ice breakin up early... so much an more.. evidence keeps rollin in... an still ther r them that canni c...:(

[FalconAngel]

In addition to all of those proven examples from everyone else, this morning we read, on livescience.com, that the "warm water pool" in the Atlantic ocean, that is needed for Hurricanes formation, has gotten significantly larger, which not only allows storms to form sooner and strengthen long before they hit the Americas and the Caribbean, it has also lengthened duration of the hurricane season.

Living in south Florida, we have noticed that hurricanes are forming sooner in the season and later in the season. Every year has gotten a bit worse than the one before.

Oceanographers and meteorologists are in agreement that this expansion of the "warm water pool" is due to global warming.

In addition to that, for those that live in Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma and other tornado magnet states, we'll bet that you have noticed that tornado season has started much earlier than normal over the past few years?

For those that think that global warming is a myth, well, when your or your neighbor's home is destroyed by a winter tornado or your coastal town is permanently under water because of ocean level rise, maybe you will believe in it then.

[vittoria]

"...And they took no note and the Flood came and swept them all away."

[wolfcamp]

not that I want to legitimize certain people's threads by adding to them but global warming is certainly NOT a myth and its been going on for thousands of years... Glaciers used to cover much of North America and evidence for their existince in the middle of the US is fact. The fact that these glaciers have disappeared is evidence enough that the climate has wamred enough to allow them to melt. Global warming is a long-time phenomenon....it may be accelerating though...


What you are saying is true as far as you take it. But this doesn't account for the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice. Ice at the poles has maintained itself even through the warm periods of past ice age cycles. Now we are beginning to see the breakdown of that regime. We are beginning to see a disappearance of polar ice which, according to the geological record, hasn't happened for millions of years.

The individual events that we are seeing now, like glacial melting and early springs and intense storms and floods, seem odd and out of place. We can't pinpoint any one event and say that proves global warming. Taken collectively though, these events start to raise concern. But when we realize that we may only be in the beginning years of a long term trend, and that most projections say is likely to intensify, that is alarming.

[hudson9]

There are many people that believe global warming is a myth.
There are many people that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
There are many people that believe the moon landings were faked.
There are even people who believe chickens have lips.

"The only difference between genius and stupidity, is that genius has limits." -- Albert Einstein

Submitted for your amusement.

[wolfcamp]

I argued with myself before posting before-
.......
Im glad I did. Not that Heph. woudl not have made a delightful post if I had'nt sounded off... they might have. Still it wa senjoyed.
What I really wa spleased about was a thoughtful , readable (by me) response from Darkeyes.
.......
Im not devoid of feelings or emotion either- I think my bisexuality is product of my very physical dn sensual nature- Im just a oddity in teh female world.


I keep coming back to your posts; this one, and the one before. You seem like a lovely, sensitive person, but yet strong enough to toss your opinion out there and take what ever harshness might be thrown back. You say that you can brush it off, but I get the idea that it still hurts you.

I keep rereading your posts partly because of what you said, and partly because of the posts you responded to. You seemed to be endeared to Darkeyes because of her words about passion and caring. You also seemed to be drawn to her kindness of stepping out of character to help you understand her feelings. With Hephaestion, I felt like you were taken by the poetry of his words. I think it was the feelings that you were responding to, and not so much the logic, although I know you have your own mind and your own way of thinking about things. I know by your words that you listen.

I may have pounced a little harshly on you, but that wasn't my intent. That isn't my intent with anyone here. (I only get combative with people if I feel they are being aggressive toward me, and I can only think of one person to whom that applies.) I really want to know what drives people to think the way they do. I am trying to see things the way others see. Is it that I see only with my mind and not with my heart? All the evidence that I see tells me that I see things correctly. I feel 90 percent that I am right, but I try to leave room that I might be wrong. It would be better for all of us if I were wrong.

Sometimes it's hard for me to understand that some people are driven by sensitivity and feelings, and not by facts and numbers like myself. Maybe it's my Germanic blood. If someone just gives me a reason for the way they feel, then I am mostly content with that. That is what you seem to have done.

And lastly, I was struck by the personal things you said about your state of learning and your bisexuality. You talked about your difficulty with dyslexia, and you also said that you consider yourself an anomaly in the female world. After stumbling terribly during my younger years in school, I am now passionate about learning. I have to work extra hard because I strongly feel I have a case of undiagnosed dyslexia. I discovered that I could master learning if I did it on my own terms, and learning is now one of my great passions. I'm curious about the complexities of the world and the way it works. That includes the human part.

While my experience isn't female, I empathize with your sense of uniqueness. I have thought a hundred times over about my own state of sexuality. I often feel that the things that drive me are different than those of most other men. It's hard for me to talk about it, and even more difficult to understand, so I won't get into that just now. But my drive to understand myself is one of the things that keeps me on this site. My point is that your comments made me stop and think and feel.

Warmest regards,
Wolfcamp

[Mysteryx]

I don't care what you all think global warming is a myth!

I try keeping politics away from this part of my life, but I have to agree with you. Man made global warming (the planet actually warms and cools as part of a cycle.) is a boogeyman based on junk science and it's hyped to scare the public into accepting more government control over their lives.

[NumberSix]

Living in south Florida, we have noticed that hurricanes are forming sooner in the season and later in the season. Every year has gotten a bit worse than the one before.

You said you've lived in Florida for what? 30 years? You know the hurricanes are getting worst. You know that the next one could kill you, or at the very least destroy everything you own. And yet, year after year, you stay there.

Am i the only one that sees the irony in this? You live in a possible disaster area, by choice, and yet you're trying to convince everyone else that the world is ending (yes yes i'm exagerating :tong: ) and that they should do something to prevent that?

[FalconAngel]

You said you've lived in Florida for what? 30 years? You know the hurricanes are getting worst. You know that the next one could kill you, or at the very least destroy everything you own. And yet, year after year, you stay there.

Am i the only one that sees the irony in this? You live in a possible disaster area, by choice, and yet you're trying to convince everyone else that the world is ending (yes yes i'm exagerating :tong: ) and that they should do something to prevent that?

No, you are not the only one that sees the irony here, but as long as I am paying child support for my son, I stay where he is. Trust me, the minute that he is out on his own and the wife can get a transfer out of this area, we are totally gone from South Florida.

And yes, with the exception of the time that I was in the military, I have been in Florida for effectively 34 years. Been through David, Andrew, Katrina and Wilma. Helped with the cleanup after Wilma and went for almost 3 weeks without power (and sometimes without water) after she did her damage.

And really when you think about it, what of all of the people living in the major earthquake zones in California, or the folks living at the foot of Vesuvius in Italy.

Humans plant themselves where ever they want and always hope for the best when they live in potential disaster areas.

But I am not saying that the world is ending, but it is doing a cleansing, or a culling of the herd, if you will.
You can live in a risky area and do nothing, or you can live in a risky area and make plans and prepare for the worst. We are of the later group. Fact is, when I was a kid, I lived in Illinois, which has it's fair share of tornados. Everyone lives in an area which can be very adversely affected by weather. Power outages form snow, avalanches and floods for those who live in the valleys of mountain ranges, tornados and floods in the plains states, hurricanes and tsunamis along the coast. All of these things put people at risk of life and limb.
No one is living in a totally safe area because weather as well as other aspects of nature, is everywhere. And nature can be ruthless and unforgiving without regard to one's belief in any phenomenon, natural or man made.

[vittoria]

BEHOLD!!! I'm agreeing with FalconAngel :eek:

Check this out...

Theres so many dangerous areas in the US alone its insane...

No matter where one lives there is potential for natural disasters and chaos. "Pour example"... The east coast gets hit by hurricane after hurricane.
The midwest gets floods. The 'plains states' get tornadoes. The west coast get the variety pack: forest fires, volcanoes, earthquakes!!

Nowhere is safe in these UnTIED States...Hell even Hawaii gets volcanoes.. ( and would you believe that Alaska has volcanoes too...

Yellowstone National Park is in a supervolcano...

The alleged "hills" of Northeast Ohio was once upon a time a mountain range (still is as far as I'm concerned).. and guess what? Home to volcanoes!!! (Ripley's Believe It or Not my friend) And Lake Erie sits comfortably on a fault line...

Theres a fault line in chicago too... just earlier this year there were nonsensical earthquakes in the Midwest (everyone forgot about those!!)

I havent forgotten about Mount St. Helenes in 1980 either ( yes I was cognizant for that..) and that damn acid rain...

So YEAH. No matter where you go, there you are. And the BS is only going to get worse no matter WHERE you live. It would stand to reason that if there is anything man made near where you live to prevent nature from doing its natural thing, that it will be overtaken by nature eventually, regardless of the precautions taken (how many levees will have to break before this is proven to be so??)





No, you are not the only one that sees the irony here, but as long as I am paying child support for my son, I stay where he is. Trust me, the minute that he is out on his own and the wife can get a transfer out of this area, we are totally gone from South Florida.

And yes, with the exception of the time that I was in the military, I have been in Florida for effectively 34 years. Been through David, Andrew, Katrina and Wilma. Helped with the cleanup after Wilma and went for almost 3 weeks without power (and sometimes without water) after she did her damage.

And really when you think about it, what of all of the people living in the major earthquake zones in California, or the folks living at the foot of Vesuvius in Italy.

Humans plant themselves where ever they want and always hope for the best when they live in potential disaster areas.

But I am not saying that the world is ending, but it is doing a cleansing, or a culling of the herd, if you will.
You can live in a risky area and do nothing, or you can live in a risky area and make plans and prepare for the worst. We are of the later group. Fact is, when I was a kid, I lived in Illinois, which has it's fair share of tornados. Everyone lives in an area which can be very adversely affected by weather. Power outages form snow, avalanches and floods for those who live in the valleys of mountain ranges, tornados and floods in the plains states, hurricanes and tsunamis along the coast. All of these things put people at risk of life and limb.
No one is living in a totally safe area because weather as well as other aspects of nature, is everywhere. And nature can be ruthless and unforgiving without regard to one's belief in any phenomenon, natural or man made.

[12voltman59]

Believe it or not--take it for what it's worth or whatever--but on Monday night I watched a very interesting episode of National Geographic Channel's
"Naked Science" on the subject of global warming and why the researchers who work in this area do believe in global warming and that the actions of human kind is largely to blame--those scientists to me hardly seem like wild eyed radical enviromentalists praying at the altar of religious environmentalism who are hell bent on destroying society as we have known it--but merely well motivated, well trained people working to try to figure things out in regards to their area of expertise--terrestial climate----

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/2902/Overview

I have been reading the National Geographic Magazine since about the time I could first read-and I tell ya--I sure as hell trust what they say over someone from say---the oil industry.

This episode is going to be aired again in coming days--if you access to this channel--and you have an open mind on the subject----it would be well worth your while to watch---I think if you do have an open mind---and are rational and reasonable about the subject----it is pretty clear that the evidence shows that mankind is indeed responsible for global warming/climate change.

[chulainn2]

Global warming is one of the greatest man-made money grab schemes created in my lifetime.
BTW, you global warming followers your guru, the almighty fat fuck gore has made over a $100 million dollars on his lil inconvenient truth.
HEY YOU GET OFF MY CLOUD

[NumberSix]

it is pretty clear that the evidence shows that mankind is indeed responsible for global warming/climate change.

There is no such thing as a "pretty clear" picture in this debate i'm afraid.

Because, according to this British documentary, it's pretty clear that Global Warming is just a political debate

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html)

That video is really worth watching, if for no other reason than an open minded person will listen to both sides of a debate. The video used to be free on Youtube, i don't know if it can still be seen for free.

The problem really is, which side do you want to believe?

I for one, unfortunately, have absolutely no faith in man. So i believe that it's (Global Warming) a huge scam.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that i don't think that we shouldn't be careful about how we deal with nature, or that we shouldn't recycle, or that we shouldn't care at all about pollution.

[wolfcamp]

Global warming is one of the greatest man-made money grab schemes created in my lifetime.
BTW, you global warming followers your guru, the almighty fat fuck gore has made over a $100 million dollars on his lil inconvenient truth.
HEY YOU GET OFF MY CLOUD

Hey, this is America. Are you saying a guy can't make a buck? Besides, that's chicken feed. Lee Raymond made $400 million merely by retiring from Exxon. Speaking of Exxon, last year they had their hand in your pocket to the tune of $40.6 billion. And that's just one company. It doesn't include Shell or Conoco-Phillips or BP or any of the others.

Just who is it that you claim is grabbing all the money?

[Hephaestion]

1) Making obsecene amounts of money out of a situation is called initiative or criminal exploitation depending on your point of view. However, it doesn't alter the existence of the situation at the focus of activities.

2) The Brits are not paragons of virtue and immutable truth. We have our share of loonies too. If needed we adapt and deploy else we invent. Thus we are familiar with the massage of statistics and misinformation all the way to barefaced lying. Hell, at the snap of a finger, we even send men innocent according to the laws of our land to other countries for prosecution that do not even have to present a prima facie case against them.

3) Face it nitwits - climate change is here. At the very least we contribute to its existence. Those who continue to ignore the situation will be priced into accepting the status quo through energy costs such as oil (not to mention food and water). There is no magic remedy. We plan on making adjustments to our life styles in the hope that we can at least ameliorate the effects. If there are sufficient countries that adapt to this then there is a chance. However, Idiotic misplaced investments and misinforming the voting public means that, when control effectively follows the money, control is not necessarily in the hands of the West (China and India have shown that they can outperform us and deny us raw materials in open competition).

4) The underlying cause of this planet's slow 'death by ants' is over population by the human race. Now let me see, what was it I heard about the population levels in China and India and just what was it about mass migrations that is currently topical?

[vittoria]

"The Matrix has you, Neo...."


just some food for thought... if its "over population" we are talking about...

HAVE NO FEAR :)

Just place more minorities in jail, turn old people into Soylent Green, have live executions a la "Running Man", make up some Articles of Rendition and we're AOK!!!

:tong:


"They" say life imitates art...Who knew Sci-Fi was art? (V for Vendetta, Soylent Green, Running Man)--and o... lets not forget Logans Run... we can start killing people off at 30!! Just have little red light thingys stuck in our hands!!!!

WHAT JOY!!! :bigrin:

We already HAVE to have all of our televisions interconnected by means of digital!!! (this is where 1984 comes in...)

Groovyiness~~ what I always wanted!


1) Making obsecene amounts of money out of a situation is called initiative or criminal exploitation depending on your point of view. However, it doesn't alter the existence of the situation at the focus of activities.

2) The Brits are not paragons of virtue and immutable truth. We have our share of loonies too. If needed we adapt and deploy else we invent. Thus we are familiar with the massage of statistics and misinformation all the way to barefaced lying. Hell, at the snap of a finger, we even send men innocent according to the laws of our land to other countries for prosecution that do not even have to present a prima facie case against them.

3) Face it nitwits - climate change is here. At the very least we contribute to its existence. Those who continue to ignore the situation will be priced into accepting the status quo through energy costs such as oil (not to mention food and water). There is no magic remedy. We plan on making adjustments to our life styles in the hope that we can at least ameliorate the effects. If there are sufficient countries that adapt to this then there is a chance. However, Idiotic misplaced investments and misinforming the voting public means that, when control effectively follows the money, control is not necessarily in the hands of the West (China and India have shown that they can outperform us and deny us raw materials in open competition).

4) The underlying cause of this planet's slow 'death by ants' is over population by the human race. Now let me see, what was it I heard about the population levels in China and India and just what was it about mass migrations that is currently topical?

[darkeyes]

There is no such thing as a "pretty clear" picture in this debate i'm afraid.

Because, according to this British documentary, it's pretty clear that Global Warming is just a political debate

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html)

That video is really worth watching, if for no other reason than an open minded person will listen to both sides of a debate. The video used to be free on Youtube, i don't know if it can still be seen for free.

The problem really is, which side do you want to believe?

I for one, unfortunately, have absolutely no faith in man. So i believe that it's (Global Warming) a huge scam.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that i don't think that we shouldn't be careful about how we deal with nature, or that we shouldn't recycle, or that we shouldn't care at all about pollution.God No.6.. wish they hadnt letya outa Portmerion...an that balloon thingie had eaten ya all up!! Agree not havin faith in man... but global warmin a scam? Silly boy...

[FalconAngel]

There is no such thing as a "pretty clear" picture in this debate i'm afraid.

Because, according to this British documentary, it's pretty clear that Global Warming is just a political debate

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/index.html)

That video is really worth watching, if for no other reason than an open minded person will listen to both sides of a debate. The video used to be free on Youtube, i don't know if it can still be seen for free.

The problem really is, which side do you want to believe?

I for one, unfortunately, have absolutely no faith in man. So i believe that it's (Global Warming) a huge scam.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that i don't think that we shouldn't be careful about how we deal with nature, or that we shouldn't recycle, or that we shouldn't care at all about pollution.

Darkeyes has a point.

Just because a documentary says something does not make it fact. With extremely few exceptions, documentaries make arguments for one, specific point of view. Like lawyers in court, each one will tell the audience their point of view and "conveniently" fail to point out the flaws in their arguments, for or against, whatever the subject matter.
At least in issues where there is argument over the facts.

There are a small number of documentaries about controversial subjects where they will clearly state both sides of the argument and allow the viewer to make their own conclusions.

In most cases, the answer ends up lying somewhere in the middle, between the two sides.

So, in the case of documentaries, take what they say with a grain of salt and watch documentaries from each side of the argument, if you want a clearer picture.

[NumberSix]

God No.6.. wish they hadnt letya outa Portmerion...an that balloon thingie had eaten ya all up!! Agree not havin faith in man... but global warmin a scam? Silly boy...

Since you can't be open minded about opinions that differ from your own, how about you respect the fact that others can think differently and not insult people who disagree with you?

I don't agree with you, and that's pretty much the end of that. I still try to be civil when answering you, even though I find the way you express yourself highly disrespectful.

[NumberSix]

Just because a documentary says something does not make it fact.

That is true for both sides of the debate.

The documentary has scientists saying that what the other scientists is wrong. Not only that, but apparently their names were used in the long list of consultants even though after they were consulted they disagreed.

The reports (from the UN i think?) don't mention that, the reports list all the scientists that were consulted. It doesn't mention the fact that not all these scientists agreed with the findings.

Any way, like i said before, in a debate, you listen to both sides. Both sides can't be right, so you have to choose who to believe.

[vittoria]

:yawns

scratches ass

BTW

RUSH was on Stephen Colbert for their first appearance on American TV in 33 years!!!

That fkkn rocked!

However, Neil Pert and his damn drumming STILL sends me into a tizzy( WTholyF is 9/4 time?!?!?!?!)

[wolfcamp]

That is true for both sides of the debate.

The documentary has scientists saying that what the other scientists is wrong. Not only that, but apparently their names were used in the long list of consultants even though after they were consulted they disagreed.

The reports (from the UN i think?) don't mention that, the reports list all the scientists that were consulted. It doesn't mention the fact that not all these scientists agreed with the findings.

Any way, like i said before, in a debate, you listen to both sides. Both sides can't be right, so you have to choose who to believe.

I looked at your website. It made a few interesting points, but mostly it was the same old arguments, sunspots, and variations in output from the sun. Nobody disputes that sunspots have an effect, but sunspots by themselves can't cause long term climate change. It's not that hard to calculate.

They also made quite an effort to quote Paul Ehrlich and the Population Bomb from 1968, and to say how wrong he was. Ehrlich predicted that overpopulation would overwhelm the earth's resources, and would cause starvation and cultural collapse by the end of the 20th Century. I guess the point of this is the same as Bisexualinsocal's, that science gets it wrong. I think it's a false argument.

Our knowledge has grown exponentially since then. In 1968 Ehrlich couldn't have known about the future technology that would prop up the world economy. In the 60's nobody forsaw biotech, personal computers, genetic engineering, etc. On the climate side, Charles Keeling had only 10 years of CO2 data, which was barely enough to show a trend. They were just figuring out plate tectonics and continental drift, which were found to have a role in the global climate. So, just because some predictions were off 50 years ago doesn't mean the knowledge we have today is invalid. Who knows, maybe Ehrlich was right and he just undershot the time frame for the collapse. Look at what's going on right now.

I read one of the articles cited on that website.

"Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle" by Ján Veizer, Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Vol. 1, pp. 13, March 2005.

It was interesting, and maybe plausible, but the author based his theory on some assumptions that were really a stretch. He said some things like life in the oceans of 4 billion years ago was as abundant as today. That's pretty hard to swallow. He also said that CO2 was the predominant gas in the early earth's atmosphere, but he didn't even mention methane, which was the most likely predominant greenhouse gas of the early earth until photosynthesis and oxygen came along. He used these shaky assumptions as the basis of his arguments. This may sound like gibberish to some people, but it's statements like these that lose credibility for the author to other scientists. He may be right, but it contradicts the work of a lot of other people.

Most of the skeptics' arguments are similar to this. They are generally based on hard-to-believe assumptions, and they go too much against the grain for anyone who is familiar with the subject. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that global warming isn't real.

[wolfcamp]

:yawns

scratches ass

BTW

RUSH was on Stephen Colbert for their first appearance on American TV in 33 years!!!

That fkkn rocked!

However, Neil Pert and his damn drumming STILL sends me into a tizzy( WTholyF is 9/4 time?!?!?!?!)



Have you ever seen the video where Peart's entire drum set is in a giant barrel, and they rotate him 360 degrees, upside down, while he is playing the whole time. It used to be on drummerworld.com. It's very, very cool. And I agree, 9/4 time is hard to dance to.

[nathantiffany]

I think the weather is definately changing, but I don't know if this is caused by global warming

[Hephaestion]

I think the weather is definately changing, but I don't know if this is caused by global warming

There are certainly temperature differentials. There are only 2 ways that can happen, cooling and heating both causing residual unevenesses in temperature to try and dissipate hence the turbulences that we generally call storms. The overwhelming evidence from global surface measurements (that's 'measurements') is that the world is heating up and that any cooling is through local disturbance caused by instability in moderating effects. The sources of surface cooling i.e. the polar regions are heating up also (measured).

The cause? Man is certainly contributing through his activities and through sheer numbers in these activities if nothing else.

Hope that helps.

[vittoria]

Have you ever seen the video where Peart's entire drum set is in a giant barrel, and they rotate him 360 degrees, upside down, while he is playing the whole time. It used to be on drummerworld.com. It's very, very cool. And I agree, 9/4 time is hard to dance to.


:eek:

That's insane... but who said Neil Peart was sane...

I'll have to hunt that one down... Cho will get a kick out of that!! (He was passed out when RUSH was on my dOOd Stephen Colbert's show... now I HAVE to rub it in :bigrin: )

[darkeyes]

Since you can't be open minded about opinions that differ from your own, how about you respect the fact that others can think differently and not insult people who disagree with you?

I don't agree with you, and that's pretty much the end of that. I still try to be civil when answering you, even though I find the way you express yourself highly disrespectful.
No 6 hun.. soz ifya don like the way me expresses mesel.. fraid ya jus havta put up wiv it.. am def soz ifya think me disrespectin ya, cos that wosn me intention..tho can c wy ya wud think it.. so no excuses ya thot it so there we r..

Am much more open minded than ya think.. even on global warmin.. admit 2 me mind bein closed as 2 the fact its happnin... so many reasons for that.. am not so sure a wy its happenin.. me THINKS, like Heph its prob part natural, part wiv a very substantial contribution from humanity, but so far am not sure.. the evidence such as it is dus show a correlation tween the amount a muck we pour inta the atmosphere, the sea an the land, an the amount temperatures been risin since the onset a the industrial revolution. it shows a speed up a retreatin ice, it shows risin sea levels, eva increasin desertification, lossa rain forest, plankton an the things wich produce our oxygen, an its shows eva increasin quantities a man made gasses an pollutants in the atmosphere an much much more. Deep down sumhow me feels we shud b beginnin 2 go through a period a global coolin tho but that aint happnin. Instead..eitha cos we hav simply overpowered for now the mechanism the planet has 2 naturally adjust its temperatures range cosa the sheer amount a pollution an greenhouse gasses we hav an r churnin out inta the atmosphere, or cos the planet has 1ce again decided 2 up the ante an singe us a lil is summat so far no 1 has given us ne definitive ansas... but me point ere is that cosa the huge amount a crap we pour inta the world, we r eitha aidin the planet 2 get hotter, or hamprin its natural coolin.. but am in no doubt..it IS happnin..for woteva reason.. an there me accepts me mind is closed.. in volume, 6.5 billion peeps havta hav an effect...its crazy 2 think they don..

So wetha its natural or not or a combination a both me don hav ne certain ansas..wot we havta think bout is wot can we do? An that is wer nations, corporations an ordinary peeps r gonna havta buck up there ideas...

[mindfinding]

Darkeyes has a point.

Just because a documentary says something does not make it fact.

Same for you. Look in the mirror when you talk. The art of perfecting your argument means it will stand up to scrutiny,....yours does not. Still waiting for you to admit you don't know everything, but that won't happen. :bigrin:

[bisexualinsocal]

I just thought I'd drop by to point this out...



There still is no proof than man has caused global warming.


Have a nice day! :)

[FalconAngel]

Same for you. Look in the mirror when you talk. The art of perfecting your argument means it will stand up to scrutiny,....yours does not. Still waiting for you to admit you don't know everything, but that won't happen. :bigrin:


I never said that I know everything, but if you are wanting to base your arguments on something other than oil company propaganda, I will be willing to look at it.

I never have an issue with admitting that I am wrong....if you can prove it to me.
Unfortunately, for your argument, it flies in the face of evidence to the contrary from more than a dozen different scientific disciplines. For some of us, this has been a concern since the 1970's. And while most of the science at the beginning wasn't available to either confirm or deny those theories, it is here now and has been for quite a few years.

Most of what people feared back then has been proven. Of course, the time frame has not been exactly on, but then, at that time they didn't expect that we would have the technology explosion that started in the mid eighties.

Like I said about the documentaries; if you only listen to or read reports that are made for only one side of the argument, then you won't get a clear picture of what is happening.

I've read both sides and the "no global warming" side has a lot of evidence that does not wash with the reality of what's happening to the world's environment.
Sure, they make a few (very few) points for their side, but let's face it; They are saying that it doesn't exist, when the evidence, provable evidence, says that they are wrong.

We are still waiting on YOU to say that you could be wrong, too.

That is less likely to happen because the more you are shown to be wrong, the deeper you dig in.

[wolfcamp]

Could we get back to anal sex?

[Hephaestion]

bisexualsocal - "...There is still no proof that man has caused global warming...."

1) no one is trying to convert you. If you choose to discount man's link to global warming or indeed discount global warming in its entirety, then that is up to you. There is no need for big-o-print. Calm down.

2) for general understanding, when you say 'caused', do you mean that man has made contribution or is responsible exclusively so?

3) also what would you accept as 'proof', one way or another, and for either of the conditions in #2) above?

4) For #3 above) consider a quip about the mentally challenged where the punchline is:

"I have determined through scientific experiment that a spider with no legs goes deaf and so cannot come forward when beckoned".

The poor man did not gain his release as it was found that the assertion failed when compared against other investigations more consistent with reality.

5) In the meanwhile, I suggest you try the following scientific experiment as a paradigm. Walk briskly and unwaveringly towards a brick wall. Your senses will tell you that you will collide painfully unless you take notice and alter you activity. While you are walking towards the wall plug your ears and shut your eyes. Hey presto! The wall has ceased to exist to you and so you may proceed along your predetermined path knowing full well that there is no problem to your progress. Indeed, there cease to be any obstacles or problems at all. I believe that the experiment also works with things such as sheer drops. Logical conclusion(s)? Well, I'll leave that(those) to you - possibly depriving all of sight and sound or even removing pain receptors?

Regards

[darkeyes]

bisexualsocal - "...There is still no proof that man has caused global warming...."

1) no one is trying to convert you. If you choose to discount man's link to global warming or indeed discount global warming in its entirety, then that is up to you. There is no need for big-o-print. Calm down.

2) for general understanding, when you say 'caused', do you mean that man has made contribution or is responsible exclusively so?

3) also what would you accept as 'proof', one way or another, and for either of the conditions in #2) above?

4) For #3 above) consider a quip about the mentally challenged where the punchline is:

"I have determined through scientific experiment that a spider with no legs goes deaf and so cannot come forward when beckoned".

The poor man did not gain his release as it was found that the assertion failed when compared against other investigations more consistent with reality.

5) In the meanwhile, I suggest you try the following scientific experiment as a paradigm. Walk briskly and unwaveringly towards a brick wall. Your senses will tell you that you will collide painfully unless you take notice and alter you activity. While you are walking towards the wall plug your ears and shut your eyes. Hey presto! The wall has ceased to exist to you and so you may proceed along your predetermined path knowing full well that there is no problem to your progress. Indeed, there cease to be any obstacles or problems at all. I believe that the experiment also works with things such as sheer drops. Logical conclusion(s)? Well, I'll leave that(those) to you - possibly depriving all of sight and sound or even removing pain receptors?

RegardsDus luff a gud piss take Heph babes.... tee hee:bigrin: Wer ther no sense ther no feelin..:tong:

[*pan*]

hmmm, it's pretty clear that this is a hot topic for debate and there are two sides that have different theroys, i lean towards the natural theroy although i can't help think that man does contribute. as i see it the warming trend is the start of the cold period and another ice age. as for the data being manipulate i was not saying it was corupted at the sicientific level but rather good data taken and misused as does all political partys. sample gun control people will only show the data that they deem important to their cause and other data is left out this dosent make the data bad or a lie it just omits data that would present a different view of the problem and not be good for their cause, the problem with people trying to make a point is they exagerate to further their cause with the thought that it's for the good so they are justified. sicientists present raw data as they get it and it's never all presented once a politicial party gets it. they manipulate it is what i was saying. and i believe your wrong on the fact that we produce way more then a volcano does when it erupts. because when mount saint hellens erupted and this was a small eruption by the way compared to catastrophic ones of the past it was noticed around the world and soot was noticed even in chicago, illinois. so imagine what a big eruption would cause as in the past history of valcano eruptions did. how can anyone even claim we are putting more into the air then they did ?

[FalconAngel]

hmmm, it's pretty clear that this is a hot topic for debate and there are two sides that have different theroys, i lean towards the natural theroy although i can't help think that man does contribute. as i see it the warming trend is the start of the cold period and another ice age. as for the data being manipulate i was not saying it was corupted at the sicientific level but rather good data taken and misused as does all political partys. sample gun control people will only show the data that they deem important to their cause and other data is left out this dosent make the data bad or a lie it just omits data that would present a different view of the problem and not be good for their cause, the problem with people trying to make a point is they exagerate to further their cause with the thought that it's for the good so they are justified. sicientists present raw data as they get it and it's never all presented once a politicial party gets it. they manipulate it is what i was saying. and i believe your wrong on the fact that we produce way more then a volcano does when it erupts. because when mount saint hellens erupted and this was a small eruption by the way compared to catastrophic ones of the past it was noticed around the world and soot was noticed even in chicago, illinois. so imagine what a big eruption would cause as in the past history of valcano eruptions did. how can anyone even claim we are putting more into the air then they did ?

When Mount St. Helens exploded, it was one of those one in a million years events. Now, admittedly, volcanos do spew a certain level of noxious gasses into the atmosphere, however, and this is a biggie, we must also consider mitigating circumstances.

1) Trees and plants contribute to the cleansing of the air.

2) Weather such as heavy rain, snow, hurricanes, typhoons and tornadoes also contribute to that cleansing by "grounding" or condensing some pollutants, trapping them in either the earth or in ice. This has been proven by scientific examination of ice core samples from the poles and glaciers around the world.

Other things that we need to take into consideration are:

A) While volcanoes contribute to the dangerous gases, they are either at a constant rate, such as in the Pacific rim, or in small intense bursts, such as Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, or Vesuvius, which only erupt extremely rarely.

B) Mankind, while contributing through industry or war for the past few thousand years, has made a tremendous jump in our own contribution to pollution and global warming just over the past 150 years.
That is a constant level which has increased even more since the beginning of the 20th century.
This is a man-made output level which has had a constant increase in output since the turn of the 20th century.
An increase that, combined with the natural output of the Earth, is more than the planet can compensate for on it's own.

C) Over-foresting and total deforestation has tremendously reduced the numbers of trees and other plants that contribute to cleansing the air we breath, and subsequently reduced the oxygen production by those trees that are now gone.
Less oxygen production and fewer trees reduces the Earth's ability to cleanse the air and provide us with breathable air.

That has been the problem for all 4 sides of this argument. Most of these issues happen because most of the groups are incapable of seeing that they could be missing something from their own arguments.

The side that says that global warming does not exist just have this attitude of "I don't believe, so it doesn't exist, no matter what the proof before my eyes shows me."

The side that says that it exists, but is all man made disregards the natural cycles of the Earth.

The side that says that it exists but is ONLY the natural cycle of the Earth completely disregard man's involvement and contribution to the problem.

Then there's the fourth and final side. That is the one that makes the most sense.
That side says "Global warming exists. It is natural and a cycle of the Earth, but man has contributed to it and damaged the Earth's ability to repair itself."

That side only completely disagrees with the first group that says that global warming doesn't exist at all.

Until the first 3 sides of this argument realize that none of them are completely right or completely wrong, then this issue will continue to be a problem.

[void()]

:yawns

scratches ass

BTW

RUSH was on Stephen Colbert for their first appearance on American TV in 33 years!!!

That fkkn rocked!

However, Neil Pert and his damn drumming STILL sends me into a tizzy( WTholyF is 9/4 time?!?!?!?!)

RUSH on American Television?

Oh fuck's sake and I missed it. 9/4 time is doing the four rhythm 9 times in a row, very swiftly if I recall what little bit of drumming I picked up from public education music classes in like junior high. I may be in error, usually am about such things. Once thought about being a drummer for a while. Not sure why I never followed that vision.

Now, i'm just kicking meself in the arse. I missed RUSH on TV because I don't watch TV ... curses, foiled again! Damn television always plotting to steal book readers, and RUSH on TV ... hm, damn fine secret weapon. You'll excuse me now, I must go hang myself. :)

[mindfinding]

I never said that I know everything, but if you are wanting to base your arguments on something other than oil company propaganda, I will be willing to look at it.

I never have an issue with admitting that I am wrong....if you can prove it to me.
Unfortunately, for your argument, it flies in the face of evidence to the contrary from more than a dozen different scientific disciplines. For some of us, this has been a concern since the 1970's. And while most of the science at the beginning wasn't available to either confirm or deny those theories, it is here now and has been for quite a few years.

Most of what people feared back then has been proven. Of course, the time frame has not been exactly on, but then, at that time they didn't expect that we would have the technology explosion that started in the mid eighties.

Like I said about the documentaries; if you only listen to or read reports that are made for only one side of the argument, then you won't get a clear picture of what is happening.

I've read both sides and the "no global warming" side has a lot of evidence that does not wash with the reality of what's happening to the world's environment.
Sure, they make a few (very few) points for their side, but let's face it; They are saying that it doesn't exist, when the evidence, provable evidence, says that they are wrong.

We are still waiting on YOU to say that you could be wrong, too.

That is less likely to happen because the more you are shown to be wrong, the deeper you dig in.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your arguments are weak to the point of hilarity. If you even knew my opinion, you satirical mother fucker, you would not be calling it Oil company based.

Wow, and by simply stating "I don't know everything" you counter follow by saying everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is wrong. FUCK!!!!!

I'm laughing out loud looking at my computer screen wishing I could laugh in your face. You are the living embodiment of a lost little sheep, doing his best to please his master. You have not said one original thought or idea that comes from your own head; keep it coming I guess. It's predictable.

Say just for kicks, why don't you tell us all about how a carbon tax is a great idea that in no way rewards the rich and segregates the poor. Love to hear it you ignoramus.

[darkeyes]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your arguments are weak to the point of hilarity. If you even knew my opinion, you satirical mother fucker, you would not be calling it Oil company based.

Wow, and by simply stating "I don't know everything" you counter follow by saying everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is wrong. FUCK!!!!!

I'm laughing out loud looking at my computer screen wishing I could laugh in your face. You are the living embodiment of a lost little sheep, doing his best to please his master. You have not said one original thought or idea that comes from your own head; keep it coming I guess. It's predictable.

Say just for kicks, why don't you tell us all about how a carbon tax is a great idea that in no way rewards the rich and segregates the poor. Love to hear it you ignoramus.An this dross contributes 2 the betterment a the world jus how?

[mindfinding]

An this dross contributes 2 the betterment a the world jus how?

..and letting people make false statements about ones self is good how? Simply defending myself love. Though not pretty, it is what it is and it's apt.

[darkeyes]

..and letting people make false statements about ones self is good how? Simply defending myself love. Though not pretty, it is what it is and it's apt.

Triff... u thnk wot u dus..me me... wen it cums 2 a row...an diff of opinion,,,,wot is?

[FalconAngel]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Your arguments are weak to the point of hilarity. If you even knew my opinion, you satirical mother fucker, you would not be calling it Oil company based.

Wow, and by simply stating "I don't know everything" you counter follow by saying everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is wrong. FUCK!!!!!

I'm laughing out loud looking at my computer screen wishing I could laugh in your face. You are the living embodiment of a lost little sheep, doing his best to please his master. You have not said one original thought or idea that comes from your own head; keep it coming I guess. It's predictable.

Say just for kicks, why don't you tell us all about how a carbon tax is a great idea that in no way rewards the rich and segregates the poor. Love to hear it you ignoramus.

Since you have decided that, instead of providing the arguments that you have been challenged to provide, you have fallen back on insults.
That is the action of someone who has no argument to provide, has been proven wrong and still will not admit they are wrong, even though they know they are.

Are you a scientist involved, in any way, with any of the sciences that have been studying all of the factors of global warming? Not very likely. So what "original" thoughts have come from you, since you are pissing and moaning about my lack of any "original thoughts"?

You have the same data that is available to the rest of the world; the same data that I have access to.

You have no idea of how far from the mark you are and in order to make it look as if you are not wrong, you have decided to misdirect the argument to something that has nothing to do with the actual subject of global warming and it's causes.

Taxes, good or bad, have nothing to do with the causes of global warming, unless you have something that shows that taxes contribute to global warming. But that is NOT very likely.

And since you brought up the subject of the carbon tax, here's what I have to say on the subject:

Taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed.

And since I refuse to argue with someone who insists on reverting to insults rather than logical debate, you now get on my ignore list, just like any other troll.

[mindfinding]

Since you have decided that, instead of providing the arguments that you have been challenged to provide, you have fallen back on insults.
That is the action of someone who has no argument to provide, has been proven wrong and still will not admit they are wrong, even though they know they are.

Are you a scientist involved, in any way, with any of the sciences that have been studying all of the factors of global warming? Not very likely. So what "original" thoughts have come from you, since you are pissing and moaning about my lack of any "original thoughts"?

You have the same data that is available to the rest of the world; the same data that I have access to.

You have no idea of how far from the mark you are and in order to make it look as if you are not wrong, you have decided to misdirect the argument to something that has nothing to do with the actual subject of global warming and it's causes.

Taxes, good or bad, have nothing to do with the causes of global warming, unless you have something that shows that taxes contribute to global warming. But that is NOT very likely.

And since you brought up the subject of the carbon tax, here's what I have to say on the subject:

Taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed.

And since I refuse to argue with someone who insists on reverting to insults rather than logical debate, you now get on my ignore list, just like any other troll.


Maybe I should ignore every point you make completely, deny you have anything good to offer, and slander your every point by calling you stupid and unscientific...oh wait, you do that to everyone who disagrees with you:rolleyes:. I'll come up with something else then. Sorry ya douche.

[bisexualinsocal]

I'm laughing out loud looking at my computer screen wishing I could laugh in your face. You are the living embodiment of a lost little sheep, doing his best to please his master. You have not said one original thought or idea that comes from your own head; keep it coming I guess. It's predictable.



You are right and that behavior is typical of the atheist intellectual.

They are not articulate in thought but they are especially talented in memorizing the assumptions of artificial knowledge (science).

Religious environmentalists are a frustrated breed. They hide behind the mask of icy-intellectualism and proclaim all who disagree with them are 'ignorant'.

Intellectualism is their shield from reality. Hard ass, common sense, street smart reality. When reality hits them, they run to the library. Rather than contend with common sense, they use the impotent teachings of Freud to rationalize away real life.

They're like drug addicts and alcoholics, except worse. Their poison is their own thoughts and beliefs. Voodoo.

It's high school type shit. Grade school behavior.

[wolfcamp]

. so imagine what a big eruption would cause as in the past history of valcano eruptions did. how can anyone even claim we are putting more into the air then they did ?

That's not so hard. Start by calculating the amount of emissions from 50000 coal burning power plants world wide. Add about a billion car, truck and motorcycle tail pipes. Throw in the exhaust of all the airplanes for good measure. Figure in all the furnaces and water heaters of home, office building and factory in the world. Don't forget the carbon that is produced making steel and cement. (which is a lot, btw) And remember that, unlike a volcanic eruption which is a one time event, these emitters are operating constantly, 24 by 7, week after week, year after year. Run the numbers and I think you would see that the claim is valid.

One more thing about Mt St Helens ash being seen in Chicago. Consider this; You have almost certainly breathed molecules of air that came out of a smokestack in China. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

[Hephaestion]

Whatever the gaseous emissions, there is ample evidence in records that massive vocanic eruptions in e.g. the Indonesian archipelago cause global cooling. The epitome of this is one of the largest erruptions recorded in history of Mount Tambora 1815. The shlelding of sunlight caused the "year without summer" in 1816 and beyond.

As an incidental, I wonder what effect the Yellostone caldera will have when it goes off. Records indicate that it is due. Suggestion has been that the atom bomb testing of yesteryear in the Nevada area has released some of the pressures introducing a delay.

Paraphrasing - industrial China polluting the air above USA & Canada. Wan't there a time when baloons released from the chinese side of the Pacific were retrieved from N.American soil but the thing was hushed to prevent panic - was it the Japanaese during WWII taking advantage of the jet-stream?

The debate on global warming will no doubt grind on with the tantrums of the lead doubters continuing without substance. Remembering to type s-l-o-w-l-y for them in future would appear a requisite. If, repeat REALLY BIG 'if', there was any duplicity taking place with global warming then the adoption of lower energy consumption and alternative energy strategies is surely a benefit regardless.

However, the true value in all of this has been realising just who the realy sexy couple are (although you did nothing - thank you for the erotic dreams you two).

[Cesca]

As an incidental, I wonder what effect the Yellostone caldera will have when it goes off. Records indicate that it is due. Suggestion has been that the atom bomb testing of yesteryear in the Nevada area has released some of the pressures introducing a delay.Did you not watch the BBC drama documentary on that very subject Hephaestion? If and when it does happen, it will certainly end any suggestion of global warming. I think it was called Super Volcano and while the effects werent that good, it certainly made me sit up and take notice and think about just how small and insignificant we really are and how dangerous a place our planet is.

I am unsure of whether I would rather be living in its immediate kill zone, or living where I do.

[Cesca]

Did you not watch the BBC drama documentary on that very subject Hephaestion? If and when it does happen, it will certainly end any suggestion of global warming.

As will the continued melting of the Arctic and Greenland Ice fields which feed the North Atlantic Conveyer. Once the ice is gone there is no conveyer and once again the northern hemisphere will plunge into an ice age. That alone should make us endeavour to stop global warming as quickly and effectively as we can. And to do that we must understand why it is happening. Whether natural or man made is only relevant in so far as mankind can do more about one than the other and I would think much more easily.

[rissababynta]

I wonder if this thread is finally starting to become so chaotic that everyone forgets that it was started by a TROLL for the sole purpose of pissing people off and causing an uproar. But of course, I don't see people getting pissed off at all so the plan MUST have failed :tongue:

[FalconAngel]

Cesca makes a couple of valid points, but (and this is critical), both of the major sides of the global warming argument tend to ignore evidence from multiple sources.
Some of that is human nature. We want to make our points, but cannot cede any points from the other side.

When we look at the issues involved here, global warming and global cooling both are affected by multiple factors. Changes in the weather are affected by a number of factors, but changes in the climate are affected by even more factors, that, in turn affects the weather patterns and severity.
In some ways, it can be a self-sustaining cycle once it gets started.

Either way, we have a lot of things that need to be checked and watched to determine what is affecting Global warming/cooling. Volcanic activity, temperature changes that consistently move either one direction or the other during the course of decades, Changes in ocean salination levels (due to polar ice melting at abnormally low or high levels), levels of oxygen output from the world's forests (dwindling because of man's over-foresting in many areas) and man made pollution levels; these are just the biggest factors, but there are many others from almost a dozen other disciplines.
That does not include the related scientific disciplines that are used to determine natural trends in the past.

But, as I said, there are some points on both sides. Since both sides can't be right, then the answer that best fits the available evidence from both sides is somewhere in the middle.
It occurs normally, but man has contributed; dangerously contributed just over the past 150 years and increasing that contribution to his damage every year, thus making a natural cycle worse than it could have been.

This is not a new statement. I have made it before and ignoring the realities, as some have chosen to do because of our own ethnocentrism, is not making the problem go away. It is making it worse. Had we left things alone and not made the major contributions to the problem, we would still have global warming/cooling, but it would not be as bad as it is.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it; just asking that everyone on either one side or the other, open your mind and look at both sides. Accept what either side can demonstrate as truth and see if what I, and others, have said is true about the problem being somewhere between either side.

See for yourselves. Look at it with an open mind and accept that both sides could be somewhat right AND somewhat wrong.

Use critical thinking.

One side says one thing about an incident and the other side says something else about the same incident......the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

[Ninnian]

Im not the 'troll' who started the topic(nor am I a troll at all-if I understand teh definition- it seems to change), but I had been asked to provide factual info for my opinions . Its been awhile since Ive been able to get here an dhave more than 5 minutes for things in life sometime sgo a bit haywire an dyou find yourself up to your arse in alligators. Im not without alligators yet,and thusly havent had time to go find all teh research papers that I had perused over the last few years. I may not have the time, and frankly may not remeber (or care)to do so when in teh next few weeks I rid myself of said reptiles.

I just stopped in long enough to give my excuse, my apologiesfor laxness...
and to thank Dark for her comments of which I was able to make out that there was a smooch for me. :D YAY!...

eh, yall go play now....

Nin

[vittoria]

Did you not watch the BBC drama documentary on that very subject Hephaestion? If and when it does happen, it will certainly end any suggestion of global warming. I think it was called Super Volcano and while the effects werent that good, it certainly made me sit up and take notice and think about just how small and insignificant we really are and how dangerous a place our planet is.

I am unsure of whether I would rather be living in its immediate kill zone, or living where I do.


It appears that great minds think alike... I brought that point to bear about a week or two ago

[12voltman59]

I wonder if this thread is finally starting to become so chaotic that everyone forgets that it was started by a TROLL for the sole purpose of pissing people off and causing an uproar. But of course, I don't see people getting pissed off at all so the plan MUST have failed :tongue:

Actually--this discussion has been pretty good---it is perhaps pointless I must say---all you do have is both sides talking more at each other instead of TO EACH OTHER--but I guess such is the nature of such discourse these days----look at all of those talking head shows on both the "right and the left."

The fact is--for those who don't like or accept the global warming argument--and I have made this point time and again for what it is worth--the leaders of the vast majority of countries and corporations----for good or ill depending upon where one sits or stands on the subject----they are acting as if global warming is real--and that mankind plays at least some role--and the actions that they take---is going to have an effect on every man, woman and child on the planet.

Get used to that cold hard reality folks---our arguing about it here is proverbial pissing in the wind!

[vittoria]

Not to wax Biblical ( whether you believe it or not is up to your discretion), but there was a statement made around 2000 years ago about this...
"Man has dominated man to his own injury"

and

"He will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth"

now if our planet wasnt ruined 2000 years ago ( as in there was plenty of forests, plenty of fresh water, no threat of polar ice caps melting, no atmospheric pollution caused by industry of ALL types), the writer wouldnt be talking about NOW, would he?

:eek:





Cesca makes a couple of valid points, but (and this is critical), both of the major sides of the global warming argument tend to ignore evidence from multiple sources.
Some of that is human nature. We want to make our points, but cannot cede any points from the other side.

When we look at the issues involved here, global warming and global cooling both are affected by multiple factors. Changes in the weather are affected by a number of factors, but changes in the climate are affected by even more factors, that, in turn affects the weather patterns and severity.
In some ways, it can be a self-sustaining cycle once it gets started.

Either way, we have a lot of things that need to be checked and watched to determine what is affecting Global warming/cooling. Volcanic activity, temperature changes that consistently move either one direction or the other during the course of decades, Changes in ocean salination levels (due to polar ice melting at abnormally low or high levels), levels of oxygen output from the world's forests (dwindling because of man's over-foresting in many areas) and man made pollution levels; these are just the biggest factors, but there are many others from almost a dozen other disciplines.
That does not include the related scientific disciplines that are used to determine natural trends in the past.

But, as I said, there are some points on both sides. Since both sides can't be right, then the answer that best fits the available evidence from both sides is somewhere in the middle.
It occurs normally, but man has contributed; dangerously contributed just over the past 150 years and increasing that contribution to his damage every year, thus making a natural cycle worse than it could have been.

This is not a new statement. I have made it before and ignoring the realities, as some have chosen to do because of our own ethnocentrism, is not making the problem go away. It is making it worse. Had we left things alone and not made the major contributions to the problem, we would still have global warming/cooling, but it would not be as bad as it is.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it; just asking that everyone on either one side or the other, open your mind and look at both sides. Accept what either side can demonstrate as truth and see if what I, and others, have said is true about the problem being somewhere between either side.

See for yourselves. Look at it with an open mind and accept that both sides could be somewhat right AND somewhat wrong.

Use critical thinking.

One side says one thing about an incident and the other side says something else about the same incident......the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

[chuck1124]

Socal, you are so right. Global warming has become an obsession and, in effect, a "religious" belief, and has become, almost, a new "Inquisition". Yes, there have been those that say that any meteorologist that does not believe in global warming should be discharged. Yes, climate is changing, but man is a very minor cause. If mankind is causing global warming, what is causing global warming on Mars, as NASA has reported?

[mindfinding]

You are right and that behavior is typical of the atheist intellectual.

They are not articulate in thought but they are especially talented in memorizing the assumptions of artificial knowledge (science).

Religious environmentalists are a frustrated breed. They hide behind the mask of icy-intellectualism and proclaim all who disagree with them are 'ignorant'.

Intellectualism is their shield from reality. Hard ass, common sense, street smart reality. When reality hits them, they run to the library. Rather than contend with common sense, they use the impotent teachings of Freud to rationalize away real life.

They're like drug addicts and alcoholics, except worse. Their poison is their own thoughts and beliefs. Voodoo.

It's high school type shit. Grade school behavior.

Very well put. Thank you. That sums it up about perfectly.

[Hephaestion]

As will the continued melting of the Arctic and Greenland Ice fields which feed the North Atlantic Conveyer. Once the ice is gone there is no conveyer and once again the northern hemisphere will plunge into an ice age. That alone should make us endeavour to stop global warming as quickly and effectively as we can. And to do that we must understand why it is happening. Whether natural or man made is only relevant in so far as mankind can do more about one than the other and I would think much more easily.

The term supervolcano has been used for the yellowstone caldera because the average man knows more what a volcano is and the familiar term 'super' gives it scale. It will become the supervolcano when there is sufficient pressure in the underlying magma lake to blow the individual vents in unison.

I am aware of the likelyhood that 'global warming' will actually result in places such as the uK getting colder overall. From the instabilities in weather patterns we are already experiencing for want of better terminology on/off climate effects rather than the gradual seasonal transitions we used to have

I think FalconAngel's 4 way division comes closest to summarising the opinions in here. The topic has been going on for so long that many of the points being mentioned have been raised before in either this thread or in previous threads/topics.

I shall now sit back and allow the mad dogs to continue barking their dissent - why let facts spoil a good delusion?

Regards

[captslaprock]

JUST REMEMBER THE DATE: 2012

[frenchvikki]

JUST REMEMBER THE DATE: 2012

21 December 2012 to be precise. We will miss Christmas.:(

[rissababynta]

holy shit tester was post happy tee hee

[chulainn2]

this is such a stupid post; those who have a double digit iq and believe in man made global warming, please raise your hands and then go to the back of the bus and please dont vote until you find reality.

[FalconAngel]

holy shit tester was post happy tee hee

Looks more like the troll hunters were on and active when tester 21/22 was on.

[wolfcamp]

this is such a stupid post; those who have a double digit iq and believe in man made global warming, please raise your hands and then go to the back of the bus and please dont vote until you find reality.

I don't think that condescending attacks are helpful for either side of this argument.

Here is my reality. The activities of 6 billion people on this planet are having an impact on the land, the water, and the air. At the very least we should learn everything we can about this change and how it might effect us geographically and economically, and I think we should make plans to cope with, and mitigate those changes if necessary. That is the smart thing to do.

I'll vote accordingly.

[frenchvikki]

this is such a stupid post; those who have a double digit iq and believe in man made global warming, please raise your hands and then go to the back of the bus and please dont vote until you find reality.
I was raised to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Chulainn. From what I can see within this thread, most seem to believe that humanity is making warming worse than it otherwise need be. Few believe it is entirely down to mankind which is a reasonable hypothesis considering the reality of what is happening in the world. I concur with that theory faced with the weight of evidence that warming is upon us and an absence of any evidence to the contrary.Not one person, you included has produced a single iota of evidence that it is not happening, or that it is simply down to the natural cycle of things. I do not dismiss that, but do perceive it as a very unlikely scenario considering the evidence to the contrary, and the damage we have inflicted upon the planet.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that most, not all, of the disbelievers are selfish individuals who simply do not wish any change in their lifestyle, and who want to continue to plunder the planet without a care for what we are doing to it, and worse, without a care for generations to come. A colleague of mine calls people like that materialistic environmental bastards, and who am I to disagree?

[rissababynta]

I am currently writing a final paper for an environmental science class right now and it must consist of the contrasting approaches and values that industrial society and native cultues have towards the environment. Since industrial society can be considered utilitarian, it is fairly easy to see how the topic of global warming has briefly popped it's head up in my paper.


With this said, I am having a BLAST reading all of these posts on this topic everyday AND THEN having to write about this stuff!

[chulainn2]

Al Gore must be laughing his fat ass off all the wy to the bank. That two-bit politician has made over 100 million dollars since the first airing of his eighth grade level mocumentary, an inconvenient truth. wake up folks, man-made global warming is a tax-money grab and all the bastards in congress have their hands out for your dollars and they cant wait to make you suffer.
personally, i plan to double my carbon footprint this year and the trees love it!

Viva la revolution

[frenchvikki]

Al Gore must be laughing his fat ass off all the wy to the bank. That two-bit politician has made over 100 million dollars since the first airing of his eighth grade level mocumentary, an inconvenient truth. wake up folks, man-made global warming is a tax-money grab and all the bastards in congress have their hands out for your dollars and they cant wait to make you suffer.
personally, i plan to double my carbon footprint this year and the trees love it!

Viva la revolutionSo u plan to help increase the amount of acid rain then? More trees to die. Selfishness and stupidity personified. Give trees more co2 to breathe and poison them at the same time. Clever move. Less oxygen for us. What a clever boy.

[chulainn2]

What a clever boy.
Thank you Frenchviki, and Im not a boy, Im actually several years your senior. However I will accept the clever comment regardless of the tongue in cheek. THere is NO proof that man is creating global warming, the world has NOT increased in temperature since 1998. There are over 30,000 scientists now speaking out that this is simply, chicken little. As I said, I am older than you and lived this same global armagedon back in the 70's but then it was acid rain and the world was supposed to be going into another ice age.
If you want to be a ' clever' sheep and be told what to believe by people who want to raise your misery index, then go ahead. But marke my words, in ten yrs from now this will all have past like the Pet Rock and Disco from the 70's.

[wolfcamp]

Al Gore must be laughing his fat ass off all the wy to the bank. That two-bit politician has made over 100 million dollars since the first airing of his eighth grade level mocumentary, an inconvenient truth. wake up folks, man-made global warming is a tax-money grab and all the bastards in congress have their hands out for your dollars and they cant wait to make you suffer.
personally, i plan to double my carbon footprint this year and the trees love it!

Viva la revolution

You say the same thing over and over, but you still don't give any reason for your view, except that you don't like Al Gore. You seem obsessed with Al Gore. Hahaha, that sounds like a good Shyamalan movie. 100 people dress up like Al Gore and go to chulainn's house. "We are coming to take away all your money." Noooooooooooo!!! :eek:

Frankly, I don't think anyone really cares that you double your carbon footprint. That seems a little silly to me. Most people, along with most businesses, are trying to become more efficient to save themselves money. You, on the other hand, want to spend more and more for some reason that you can't explain to us. But, hey, whatever.

[frenchvikki]

What a clever boy.
Thank you Frenchviki, and Im not a boy, Im actually several years your senior. However I will accept the clever comment regardless of the tongue in cheek. THere is NO proof that man is creating global warming, the world has NOT increased in temperature since 1998. There are over 30,000 scientists now speaking out that this is simply, chicken little. As I said, I am older than you and lived this same global armagedon back in the 70's but then it was acid rain and the world was supposed to be going into another ice age.
If you want to be a ' clever' sheep and be told what to believe by people who want to raise your misery index, then go ahead. But marke my words, in ten yrs from now this will all have past like the Pet Rock and Disco from the 70's.The only thing which makes me miserable is your refusal and the refusal of others like you to at least try and understand the evidence which exists that man has at least contributed to global warming. I dont insist you accept it but I do at least insist you put forward your own to disprove it. Not much sign of that so far.You are like a spoiled little boy who refuses to accept anything he is told. Who insists he is right in the face of all the evidence to the contrary and has no arguments to back him up except to stomp his feet and have a tantrum and insists everyone else is wrong. Acid rain for your information is still with us and much of the northern rainforest is dying because of it. The seas are being poisoned and plankton dying because of it. Fish in lakes and rivers are dying because it is killing the plant and other life upon which they feed by removing the oxygen from them. "Clever, Clever" boy.

[chulainn2]

Oh French, EVIDENCE???

[chulainn2]

umm Frenchvikki, now tell me about your evidence and please forward it to the Oregon Institute of Science, Im sure they would be interested in it, but maybe they are all just what did you say i was? a clever boy and something about tantrums.


…the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

[chulainn2]

"We are coming to take away all your money." Noooooooooooo!!!

not sure where that came from wolf, i must have pissed you off somewhere.
BTW, nice bike dude!! Im thinking of trading up my Honda maybe to a BMW ,Triumph or the Honda ST 1300

[MetaSexual2]

FYI - The OISM is a crank organization with no scientific standing whatsoever and has falsified the names on their (10 year old) petition.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine


umm Frenchvikki, now tell me about your evidence and please forward it to the Oregon Institute of Science, Im sure they would be interested in it, but maybe they are all just what did you say i was? a clever boy and something about tantrums.


…the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

[chulainn2]

http://www.oism.org/
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/

i have no problem and truthfully I fully support you believing in what ever you wish.
but until your THEORY of global warming can be proven, I simply ask that the sky is falling fanatics do not infringe on the quality of my life.
My quality of life maybe better than yours, or maybe not, but dont dictate my lifestyle to meet your political ideologies and I will return the favor.

[frenchvikki]

http://www.oism.org/
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/

i have no problem and truthfully I fully support you believing in what ever you wish.
but until your THEORY of global warming can be proven, I simply ask that the sky is falling fanatics do not infringe on the quality of my life.
My quality of life maybe better than yours, or maybe not, but dont dictate my lifestyle to meet your political ideologies and I will return the favor.
I too can tap in a few web sites in support of my argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/default.stm
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/index.html

I have never doubted there are two sides to this story. We each choose to believe what we believe. I also use the additional evidence of my own eyes and the fact that in the last decade the warmest temperatures since recording began have occurred in 8 of them. The fact that in a country where winter frost and snow was relatively frequent when I was a child it has now become a rarity. The Scottish skiing industry is now near collapse because of this and even the European alpine skiing industry is beginning to feel the pinch with much later and much less snow than even 10 or 15 years ago. Spring comes several weeks earlier than it did in the 1970s and trees retain their leaves much longer as autumn is also delayed. This is reflected throughout northern europe. Sea temperatures are rising, ice is melting, coastline is disappearing at an ever increasing rate. The oceans are rising now at 3 times the rate they did for most of the last century. I could go on and on. You may deny that global warming is caused by man if you like Chulainn, but you are a fool if you close your eyes to the fact that it is happening, and argue that we should do nothing.

Whether or not you or I have the better lifestyle is irrelevant. I have no wish to dictate to anyone how they live their lives and how they spend their money. But I will not allow you or anyone else to threaten our home, the earth, with your irresponsible, foolish, self centred, pompous and at the same time flippant and arrogant disregard of what is staring you straight in the face - the well being of this planet and all of the life that lives upon it. For your further I have no idealogical bone to pick. I am not that kind of person. I have listened to and read a great deal on the threat I believe faces us all, and the overwhelming weight of evidence is contary to that which you and your 30000 scientists come up with. Several million have quite a different view.

[chulainn2]

i did not realize that there were 'several million' scientists

[NumberSix]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

[wolfcamp]

"We are coming to take away all your money." Noooooooooooo!!!

not sure where that came from wolf, i must have pissed you off somewhere.
BTW, nice bike dude!! Im thinking of trading up my Honda maybe to a BMW ,Triumph or the Honda ST 1300

Thanks. I've been wanting a sport touring bike. I like Triumphs, but the only thing they have in an ST right now is the Sprint, which is a little too spartan for me. I hear the Rocket III is a nice riding powerwagon, but it has that gawd-awful looking radiator. Yuck!

I was looking at adding an R11500RT or an ST 1300 to my garage, but I decided to go back to school instead. Well...maybe someday.

[frenchvikki]

i did not realize that there were 'several million' scientists

Probably sweety. Although not all in the field of climate change and the environment, so I concede an agitated exaggeration. I do not concede my main arguments however, and nor do I concede that the weight of scientific opinion and evidence backs up me rather than it does you - by a long way and overwhelmingly.

[NumberSix]

Probably sweety. Although not all in the field of climate change and the environment, so I concede an agitated exaggeration. I do not concede my main arguments however, and nor do I concede that the weight of scientific opinion and evidence backs up me rather than it does you - by a long way and overwhelmingly.

It does not. More and more scientist are speaking against the supposed evidence.

[wolfcamp]

Well, at the risk of beating a long dead horse into a pile of dust...


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb


Probably sweety. Although not all in the field of climate change and the environment, so I concede an agitated exaggeration. I do not concede my main arguments however, and nor do I concede that the weight of scientific opinion and evidence backs up me rather than it does you - by a long way and overwhelmingly.


It does not. More and more scientist are speaking against the supposed evidence.

I read through a good portion of the above link. It seemed to me that some of the quotes might have been taken out of context. Many of the dissenters didn't take issue with global warming. They disagreed on the scope of the effects that global warming might have. To be fair, there were many on the list who just plain didn't believe that global warming is happening. Most of those didn't give good reason, they just said they didn't believe it.

The other thing I found interesting was the 52 against 400 argument. The skeptics stated that the IPCC report had 52 authors, but that they (the skeptics) had put together a list of 400 dissenters, and that somehow proves the dissenters outnumber the proponents of global warming. This is convoluted and flawed logic and a bad case of apples and oranges. It makes no mention of proponents who were not on the list of authors. Consider this. The U.S. turns out four hundred thousand advanced degrees each year. Europe and Asia turn out eight hundred thousand and 1.2 million advanced degrees respectively each year. A large proportion of those are science degrees. If the skeptics can only muster up 400 dissenting scientists, that's not even a drop in the bucket. It's not even statstically significant.

I noticed that Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University is on the list of skeptics. I've read about Gray. [Mooney, Chris (2007). Storm World. New York: Harcourt.] He was a very respected climatologist and a hurricane expert in his time, but in his older years has become known for his rambling diatribes against his fellow scientists. He is an old schooler who doesn't believe in computers, and his eccentric outbursts have become an embarrassment at meteorological conventions. Even so, Gray doesn't question carbon buildup and atmospheric warming so much as he disputes the claim that global warming is increasing the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Only time will tell.

[chulainn2]

Thanks. I've been wanting a sport touring bike. I like Triumphs, but the only thing they have in an ST right now is the Sprint, which is a little too spartan for me. I hear the Rocket III is a nice riding powerwagon, but it has that gawd-awful looking radiator. Yuck!

I was looking at adding an R11500RT or an ST 1300 to my garage, but I decided to go back to school instead. Well...maybe someday.

I love the Honda ST 1100 but dont overlook the Yamaha FJR 1300
lil less money than the Honda and BMW. I got pulled over the other day by a sheriff on a Honda ST1300 at first I thought it was an FJR He got me doing 60 in a 45 in my car (the speed limit just changed). I asked him if he would show me the modifications they are doing to his bike while he wrote me the ticket. I ended up having a very informative conversation on the side of the highway for about 15 minutes about his ST 1300. He realy likes it. He preferred it above the equal BMW his partner was riding. A higher top end and more stable. BTW, he let me off with just a warning. TY buddy, that would have been an expensive ticket!

[wolfcamp]

I love the Honda ST 1100 but dont overlook the Yamaha FJR 1300
lil less money than the Honda and BMW. I got pulled over the other day by a sheriff on a Honda ST1300 at first I thought it was an FJR He got me doing 60 in a 45 in my car (the speed limit just changed). I asked him if he would show me the modifications they are doing to his bike while he wrote me the ticket. I ended up having a very informative conversation on the side of the highway for about 15 minutes about his ST 1300. He realy likes it. He preferred it above the equal BMW his partner was riding. A higher top end and more stable. BTW, he let me off with just a warning. TY buddy, that would have been an expensive ticket!

I think one of the classiest looking sport tourers is the Moto Guzzi Norge, and I've heard they are a nice ride, but I hate to think of breaking down on a Wyoming back road with one of those.

I sat on both the ST and the FJR when I was trying to decide on a bike. I sat a little higher on the ST, and my legs weren't bent up as much. I liked that because my knee gets stiff when I ride. The FJR was cheaper. I was about to write a check when I saw the Triumph. I didn't know they were making them again.

Nice story about the sheriff. Every once in a while ya catch a break.

[FalconAngel]

I think one of the classiest looking sport tourers is the Moto Guzzi Norge, and I've heard they are a nice ride, but I hate to think of breaking down on a Wyoming back road with one of those.

I sat on both the ST and the FJR when I was trying to decide on a bike. I sat a little higher on the ST, and my legs weren't bent up as much. I liked that because my knee gets stiff when I ride. The FJR was cheaper. I was about to write a check when I saw the Triumph. I didn't know they were making them again.

Nice story about the sheriff. Every once in a while ya catch a break.

I used to sell bikes (been riding since 81, the wife owns the car) and the FJ and ST1300 are great bikes. The ST is more suited to the ST role, since it was designed for it and so, comes with most of the luggage already.

My dream bike is the Stratocruiser, from Yamaha. Better mpg than a Harley and has the sweet lines of the late 40's classic American cruiser.
And it's cheaper, by about 9 grand, than a GL or Harley FLH.

Add a sidecar for the puppy/grandkids and a trailer and we are set for the long ride. Maybe the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Pacific Northwest, New England or the PCH. Maybe ship it to the UK for a self-guided tour.

[FalconAngel]

One thing on the articles that get posted.

Watch out for "quote mining". The honest reports and findings will not quote mine.

For those that have never heard the term, quote mining is when, in order to make a theory/argument appear valid, the person takes quotes from more learned and intellectual people, out of context, and place them in their theory/argument.
Normally, the more invalid the theory/argument, the more quote mining is done in order to make it appear valid when it is, in fact not.
Quote mining can also, as often as not, invalidate a good theory/argument which has been under researched.

The ones that are trying to hide something will quote all sorts of people, but use the quote out of context in order to make you believe that the quote supports their argument.
Creationists do that all the time, using quotes, out of context, from people as notable as Bill Gates and Albert Einstein.

Bill Gates actually sued the Christian publication, "The Watchtower" for a retraction and apology for quote mining him. The statement that they used was taken out of context and sounded as if he supported Creationism.
They gave in and printed the retraction, also apologized for misusing his words and taking them out of context and changing the meaning of the original statement in order to support their point of view.

So if you see a report using quotes from outside people to help "prove" their arguments, then research that referenced quote and make sure that they are being used in proper context.

Quote mining is neither demonstrated proof of, belief in, nor scientific evidence for any theory.

Documentaries can quote mine, too. A quick cut to something else, when a person is saying something about a subject, or a quick cut to them in the middle of a sentence, is a good indication that the person has been quote mined.

Something for all of us to consider when we read those reports or watch those "documentary" videos.

[zman64]

sorry I have to agree with George Carlin on this topic. Whichever side of the debate you are on is irrelevant. this planet has withstood natural violence for eons before our existence, and it will stand it for eons longer. when this planet gets tired of us, or what we "doing" to it, it will respond in kind and no matter which of us has helped or harmed, we will all suffer the same fate. when mother nature reaches the breaking point, it will be human, animal and plant life in all forms that will be broken by mother nature. and I consider myself an environmentalist..my motto is SAVE A TREE: EAT A BEAVER:bigrin:

[rissababynta]

sorry I have to agree with George Carlin on this topic. Whichever side of the debate you are on is irrelevant. this planet has withstood natural violence for eons before our existence, and it will stand it for eons longer. when this planet gets tired of us, or what we "doing" to it, it will respond in kind and no matter which of us has helped or harmed, we will all suffer the same fate. when mother nature reaches the breaking point, it will be human, animal and plant life in all forms that will be broken by mother nature. and I consider myself an environmentalist..my motto is SAVE A TREE: EAT A BEAVER:bigrin:

I've been saying this for years as well.

[Doggiestyle]

Hey there to The "Dude" that abides. You better straiten up or i'll sick ole Al Gore on you. OK?


Also, the problem isn't the global warming thing! The problem is with the gov't trying to fix the problem. The cost will incredible!!!!

Just my :2cents: ........ Your friend, :doggie:......:bipride:

[zman64]

Azrael, I was not replying to your post that appears previous to mine directly, i was posting my thoughts in general on the topic...I apologize if you you thought I was...:)

[NightHawk]

Of course the earth has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, but with warming and cooling cycles imposed on the slow longer term warming. The Industrial Age just happened to start as the Little Ice Age was ending and at a time of unusually low CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations have increased since then, but they are still low compared to those of the longer term past and they are actually much less than optimal for plant growth. Despite an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 11 years, there has been no warming. The last few years have even brought on cooling. The satellite measurements made since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was put out in 2006 indicate a decrease of 0.74 degrees F in the global temperature.

The claims that man has caused global warming based on his CO2 emissions due to computer models have some major problems. First, even a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere will only increase the temperature by less than 0.5 degrees C. Second, the temperature profile with increasing altitude is nothing like that predicted by the computer models, which shows them to be based on very faulty science. Third, the CO2 variability in the atmosphere corresponds much better to the ocean surface temperatures than it does to man's emissions of CO2. The temperature cycles very much depend upon natural forces such as changes in the sun's irradiance and the ocean cycles, not the CO2 atmospheric concentrations, as evidenced in the last 11 years without warming. Claims that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would cause a positive feedback to further increase temperatures are now known to be wrong. The feedback is actually negative due to increased cloud cover, which cools the earth in most circumstances. Very long term studies of the relationship of CO2 and temperature show that the temperature increases first and then CO2 usually increases as a response. Aside from the local heat island effect of population centers, which has skewed the surface temperatures in the record up artificially, it has not been shown that man has warmed the planet.

The good science makes it clear that natural forces are still in control of our long-term climate. It is also false to term CO2 a pollutant. It is plant fertilizer and plants both feed us and make us more oxygen. That does not seem like a bad thing to me. As for a slight possible 0.5 degree C warming over the next 100 years, well last I knew more people want to move south than want to more north. A bit of warming will make many more parts of the earth pleasant to live in than it will make areas less pleasant. What we should worry about, is not a mild warming, but the fact that if the trend of the last couple hundred thousand years is followed, we are coming due for a real Ice Age. How many of the earth's 6 billion people will survive that?

Great increases in the cost of energy cannot be justified on the basis that huge reductions in energy use will decrease CO2 in the atmosphere and that will avoid a climate catastrophe. Those great energy cost increases or prohibitions will cause the loss of many jobs and will greatly decrease everyone's choices with respect to their personal lifestyle. Besides, the people of China, India, Brazil, and Australia are not going to stop their increases in energy use just because America might. We insist on cleaning the emissions that are harmful from our coal-fired plants, while the developing nations do this much less or not at all. We will accomplish nothing good for the U.S. or the planet by exporting American jobs to the developing world.