Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Proof that Gobal Warming is a joke and Al Gore is an idiot, just some facts

jdynasty

New member
False prophets of doom
WALTER WILLIAMS
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich said 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

World `likely to be ruined' by 2000

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 work "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. According to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?

In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?

Why believe them this time?

Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

A few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.

Walter

Williams
 
all of it is foolish, global warming is just the flava of the decade, starting in 2010 we will be discussing how the sun is about to burn out, didn't you get the memo
 
What is it that you feel the need to prove that climate change is a 'joke'?

Just wondering, it does seem to be a very emotive issue for a lot of Americans.
 
Tatyana said:
What is it that you feel the need to prove that climate change is a 'joke'?

Just wondering, it does seem to be a very emotive issue for a lot of Americans.

i don't know if you've paid attention to some of the proposed legislation regarding air quality and CO2 emissions, but there are some very ambitious policies that could very well be implement in the near future. basically there are so many uncontrollable sources of CO2 emissions such as agriculture, cement making, and land-use changes that to achieve the desired goals of CO2 emissiosn reduction, carbon will pretty much have to be eliminated from the entire energy sector - this includes coal power plants and oil-powered vehicles. This will hurt our economy very badly. Even without clearcut goals, alternative fuel sources are very expensive, the research is also costly, and reducing your carbon footprint is a huge pain in the ass. So if it turns out that humans really don't have any impact on climate change, it will be a huge debacle, as we would have incurred all these costs for nothing. (which is a possibility)
 
Last edited:
Just another way for the left to expand government control and influence into our lives.
 
nimbus said:
i don't know if you've paid attention to some of the proposed legislation regarding air quality and CO2 emissions, but there are some very ambitious policies that could very well be implement in the near future. and basically there are so many uncontrollable sources of CO2 emissions such as agriculture, cement making, and land-use changes that achieve the desired goals of CO2 emissiosn reduction, carbon will pretty much have to be eliminated from the entire energy sector - this includes coal power plants and oil-powered vehicles. This will hurt our economy very badly. Even without clearcut goals, alternative fuel sources are very expensive, the research is also costly, and reducing your carbon footprint is a huge pain in the ass. So if it turns out that humans really don't have any impact on climate change, it will be a huge debacle, as we would have incurred all these costs for nothing. (which is a possibility)

Whether or not there is an issue with climate change, there is an issue with coal and petrol as a limited resource, air pollution from car emissions causing health problems in children and the elderly etc.

I would have thought that addressing some of the energy policies rather than trying to disprove climate change would be far more logical and productive.

I often wonder if it is more about people fearing the unknown and change rather than the actual issues.

Technology will advance, and it would be wise to seek out alternate energy sources, reduce pollution and waste wouldn't you agree?
 
Tatyana said:
Technology will advance, and it would be wise to seek out alternate energy sources, reduce pollution and waste wouldn't you agree?
It would. What wouldnt be make sense is doing stuff like taxing individuals who drive specific types of automobiles, running the risk of corn shortages because we decide to burn a large portion of it for 2mpg more, etc.

Stuff thats already being proposed or in motion.
 
75th said:
Just another way for the left to expand government control and influence into our lives.

Correct. The issue isn't important. Being able to further regulate individuals and businesses is what this is all about. If it weren't global warming, we'd be doing the same dance over global cooling. Since it keeps bouncing in both directions, they are calling it "climate change" so they are covered either way.
 
It has traditionally been that the liberal minded big government types try to solve problems by jumping to conclusions, passing needless legislation, and regulating things that make no difference.

Why can't we use real data to make some adjustments that will help, instead of taking a wild ass guess and causing a world wide panic resulting in crazy prices for things there are no shortage of?
 
75th said:
It would. What wouldnt be make sense is doing stuff like taxing individuals who drive specific types of automobiles, running the risk of corn shortages because we decide to burn a large portion of it for 2mpg more, etc.

Stuff thats already being proposed or in motion.

Would you mind elaborating please.

I do watch a few bits of American news, BBC 24 does have an hour blurb of it from one channel, but I can't remember if it is NBC or erm........ :)

Anyway it is quite interesting to see different takes on the news.

We don't get the same sort of thing either side of the ocean.

I know that in England, there is a lot of information about how certain alternative fuel crops are not the big solution that they have been made out to be, and that there is no point just jumping onto the alternative fuel bandwagon if it is going to be just as environmentally, economically and socially damaging (especially in the countries where some of these crops will be grown.
 
Tatyana said:
Would you mind elaborating please.

I do watch a few bits of American news, BBC 24 does have an hour blurb of it from one channel, but I can't remember if it is NBC or erm........ :)

Anyway it is quite interesting to see different takes on the news.

We don't get the same sort of thing either side of the ocean.

I know that in England, there is a lot of information about how certain alternative fuel crops are not the big solution that they have been made out to be, and that there is no point just jumping onto the alternative fuel bandwagon if it is going to be just as environmentally, economically and socially damaging (especially in the countries where some of these crops will be grown.

In multiple states (as well as federall, I believe) there have been numerous propositions to tax individuals who drive SUVs or any vehicle that doesnt get (around) 20-25mpg.

Soccer moms will have it rough.
 
Tatyana said:
Whether or not there is an issue with climate change, there is an issue with coal and petrol as a limited resource, air pollution from car emissions causing health problems in children and the elderly etc.

I would have thought that addressing some of the energy policies rather than trying to disprove climate change would be far more logical and productive.

I often wonder if it is more about people fearing the unknown and change rather than the actual issues.

Technology will advance, and it would be wise to seek out alternate energy sources, reduce pollution and waste wouldn't you agree?

no issue with the availability of coal yet. Toxins from new cars are pretty much negligable; technology like cat. converters can pretty much eliminate NOx, VoC's, and PM10, so health issues aren't that menacing either. global warming has taken center stage because CO2 from petrol cannot be solved with technology, burning oil will always release the same amount of CO2
 
What the article fails to point out is the world is indeed getting warmer. If you ever visited a glacier when you were a kid, go back and take a look at it today. It will shock you.

The question is, is this a normal weather pattern or are we really fucking up our climate.
Wouldn't it suck if we sat around on our asses and did nothing and then 20 yrs from now found out it is the later? The downside to that is too great, we have to take some action.

I am not a believer that the government can legislate correctly anything especially something this important. This has to be something that is demanded from the consumer!!!
 
jdynasty said:
all of it is foolish, global warming is just the flava of the decade, starting in 2010 we will be discussing how the sun is about to burn out, didn't you get the memo

In the 1970's we were going to enter a new ice age.

In the 1980's it was the ozone hole.

Now it is global warming.

The media, that wants to destroy capitalism and everything it represents, creates problems, blames mankind, and concocts weird solutions to fix non-existent problems.
 
75th said:
It would. What wouldnt be make sense is doing stuff like taxing individuals who drive specific types of automobiles, running the risk of corn shortages because we decide to burn a large portion of it for 2mpg more, etc.

Stuff thats already being proposed or in motion.

Alternative fuels and food shortages are not linked. The secretary of commerce got on the news about two weeks ago and said that speculation over alternative fuels might have up to a 2% impact on the food cost situation.

The food costs argument is a great way for oil to keep their stranglehold on our 155 billion gallon per year fuel use.
 
mrplunkey said:
Alternative fuels and food shortages are not linked. The secretary of commerce got on the news about two weeks ago and said that speculation over alternative fuels might have up to a 2% impact on the food cost situation.

The food costs argument is a great way for oil to keep their stranglehold on our 155 billion gallon per year fuel use.

converting land to be used for biofuel stock releases a fuckton of carbon into the atmosphere and pretty negates the benefits from a global warming perspective. the process also results in monocropping which ruins the soil and requires a crazy amount of resources to sustain future growth
 
billfred said:
What the article fails to point out is the world is indeed getting warmer. If you ever visited a glacier when you were a kid, go back and take a look at it today. It will shock you.

The question is, is this a normal weather pattern or are we really fucking up our climate.
Wouldn't it suck if we sat around on our asses and did nothing and then 20 yrs from now found out it is the later? The downside to that is too great, we have to take some action.

I am not a believer that the government can legislate correctly anything especially something this important. This has to be something that is demanded from the consumer!!!


typical left wing fear mongering
 
billfred said:
Trust me - I am a right wing republican that makes my living in the oil industry. Sorry - left wing label doesn't work here.

I can't even trust my own hand to be near my penis, why would I trust you?
 
mrplunkey said:
Alternative fuels and food shortages are not linked. The secretary of commerce got on the news about two weeks ago and said that speculation over alternative fuels might have up to a 2% impact on the food cost situation.

The food costs argument is a great way for oil to keep their stranglehold on our 155 billion gallon per year fuel use.

Total BS. You can not food energy to fuel energy and not reduce food supply.
 
billfred said:
Total BS. You can not food energy to fuel energy and not reduce food supply.
When you have millions and millions of acres set aside to not grow corn on, combined with paying farmers not to grow corn, you can safely increase feed corn consumption without impacting food costs.

Even Monsanto tried diffuse the situation a while back. If you look at their historical yield increases and project them forward combined with releasing land for corn, its very easily done.

Besides, whens the last time you ate #2 yellow corn (which is what ethanol plants use). You take a pound of animal-designated corn in and still produce 1/3 of a pound of animal feed (DDGS) out.

Disclaimer: I will admit corn ethanol may slightly increase the cost of high-fructose corn syrup. Personally I wish it would go-up 2000% so my tax money wouldn't go toward buying insulin and insulin supplies toward people who can't put down the coca-cola.
 
BNG said:
It has traditionally been that the liberal minded big government types try to solve problems by jumping to conclusions, passing needless legislation, and regulating things that make no difference.

Why can't we use real data to make some adjustments that will help, instead of taking a wild ass guess and causing a world wide panic resulting in crazy prices for things there are no shortage of?


I always find the two terms, liberal and conservative a bit confusing.

Is there really that much difference in the parties in the US?

I just watched a blurb on BBC 24 about how the Conservative party in the UK now has a major platform on addressing homelessness, as the 5th richest country in the world, it was not acceptable so many people slept rough, and how the Conservative party was going to address both economic and social wealth.

I do agree on the real data bit.

The media does love to jump on a 'good story', and that is all it is, a 'story', not facts.

Climatology is just so complex, I think it does get over-simplified and mistakes are made in reporting things about global climate.
 
Tatyana said:
I always find the two terms, liberal and conservative a bit confusing.

Is there really that much difference in the parties in the US?

There is a massive difference here in the US.

Liberals solve problems with regulation and with making government play a bigger role in people's lives. Their motives are often good -- they just believe that government can improve people's lives through transferring wealth. There's also a pseudointellectual air of "I'm doing what's best for you" in their tone though -- because a lot of liberals feel that their good intentions make their theories and programs justified regardless of their actual efficacy.

Conservatives (true ones) try to minimize the scale and scope of government and let free markets sort things out. Its a fundamentally cynical view of government and many conservatives believe that as long as its run by people, people will be wasteful and corrupt. Conservatives can sometimes cling to their beliefs too strongly and fail to give some people a "leg up" who could actually use one. For that reason, conservatives often get tagged with being "mean spirited" or "cold hearted".

I personally believe that liberals underestimate "the masses" and want to do what's "best for them". Conservatives overestimate "the masses" and think any given person can lift themselves up out of bad conditions and thrive.
 
LOL, so no mid-point party?

There doesn't seem to be that much difference between the parties in the UK.


It does seem that whatever party is in, 50% think they are doing a great job, 50% think they are doing a rubbish job.

And they get blamed for all the woes of the world.
 
Nothing in that article conclusive or even slightly convincing. So if it’s the case that this is a big hoax then what was with all that speeded up photography showing the icecaps melting over decades and the scientific community issuing warnings? This is the problem with the internet information age, what to believe, there's just as much misinformation out there as there is legitimate fact.
 
mrplunkey said:
Alternative fuels and food shortages are not linked. The secretary of commerce got on the news about two weeks ago and said that speculation over alternative fuels might have up to a 2% impact on the food cost situation.

The food costs argument is a great way for oil to keep their stranglehold on our 155 billion gallon per year fuel use.

Ah, did not know that. Thanks for destroying half my argument.

I hate being wrong.
 
JayC9 said:
Nothing in that article conclusive or even slightly convincing. So if it’s the case that this is a big hoax then what was with all that speeded up photography showing the icecaps melting over decades and the scientific community issuing warnings? This is the problem with the internet information age, what to believe, there's just as much misinformation out there as there is legitimate fact.

I think there is a big issue with media literacy and scientific literacy.

I usually only read scientific and medical journals, and even the 'dumbed down' scientific magazines, like New Scientist and Scientific American are not on many people's reading lists.

I think people believe that just because it is in the news, newspaper, or there is a website, it must be true.

You really have to go to the source, or an 'easier' scientific mag like the ones I mentioned.

Otherwise, it is likely to be skewed or just opinion, heresay, fear mongering, or propaganda really.
 
Tatyana said:
I think there is a big issue with media literacy and scientific literacy.

I usually only read scientific and medical journals, and even the 'dumbed down' scientific magazines, like New Scientist and Scientific American are not on many people's reading lists.

I think people believe that just because it is in the news, newspaper, or there is a website, it must be true.

You really have to go to the source, or an 'easier' scientific mag like the ones I mentioned.

Otherwise, it is likely to be skewed or just opinion, heresay, fear mongering, or propaganda really.
aye, there's a severe lack of reference in this thread other than some guy called Walter Williams
 
jdynasty said:
all of it is foolish, global warming is just the flava of the decade, starting in 2010 we will be discussing how the sun is about to burn out, didn't you get the memo

If you want to debate it intelligently with some scientific facts thats one thing, but to debunk because some predictions didn't come to be realized is a short cut to thinking.

A lot of Erlich "perdictions" are true today and in some cases way worse, like the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers all over the world. The rise is sea levels. WTF man?>
 
JayC9 said:
read what you wrote but just not sure with it yet, still trying to get a grip with what's actually going on and the math behind it

i listened to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/costingtheearth this afternoon, really kind of spins some things on its head and alters how you do the equation


You have to love the Beeb, they are great at providing both sides of the equation.


I think because it is funded more like the PBS, we pay for it, no adverts, if they are not balanced, then they get complaints.

There is even a show every week where the viewers get to have their say about the programmes and perspective of the BBC.
 
Tatyana said:
You have to love the Beeb, they are great at providing both sides of the equation.


I think because it is funded more like the PBS, we pay for it, no adverts, if they are not balanced, then they get complaints.

There is even a show every week where the viewers get to have their say about the programmes and perspective of the BBC.
when i lived in the UK, i’d complain about the lack of choice or programming, now that i've actually been around the world and seen what there is on offer i'd never utter another bad word about the BBC again, seriously head and shoulders above anything else out there, they've really got their shit together, the news site has gone stale but the radio still retains its character
 
mrplunkey said:
When you have millions and millions of acres set aside to not grow corn on, combined with paying farmers not to grow corn, you can safely increase feed corn consumption without impacting food costs.

Even Monsanto tried diffuse the situation a while back. If you look at their historical yield increases and project them forward combined with releasing land for corn, its very easily done.

Besides, whens the last time you ate #2 yellow corn (which is what ethanol plants use). You take a pound of animal-designated corn in and still produce 1/3 of a pound of animal feed (DDGS) out.

Disclaimer: I will admit corn ethanol may slightly increase the cost of high-fructose corn syrup. Personally I wish it would go-up 2000% so my tax money wouldn't go toward buying insulin and insulin supplies toward people who can't put down the coca-cola.
Put down the Pepsi, not the Coca-Cola....damn Vols.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
If you want to debate it intelligently with some scientific facts thats one thing, but to debunk because some predictions didn't come to be realized is a short cut to thinking.

A lot of Erlich "perdictions" are true today and in some cases way worse, like the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers all over the world. The rise is sea levels. WTF man?>

rise in what sea levels, where, ice melts, get over it, that's not man made global warming, that's climate shifting.
 
jdynasty said:
rise in what sea levels, where, ice melts, get over it, that's not man made global warming, that's climate shifting.
carry on man explain it, if you're going to make broad sweeping statements that supposedly refute the common sway of thought then at least post something vaguely of substance to back it up
 
the earth goes in cycles people.... yes it will get hotter before it cools down again but the earth has been here for millions of years and has gone through so many changes that this is just that, a change. the earth has a natural way to maintain homeostases. when one thing changes it corrects itself to counteract it. its called evolution. just because we are much smarter than the caveman doesnt mean we are still not changing. look at our foreheads. we no longer use parts of our brains that were only being used thousands of years ago. we have evolved. i dont trust our government one bit. i spent 12 years in the military and the shit i saw and witnessed disgusted me. the government is all about spending every dollar it gets on dumb ass shit just to get more next year. al gore needs to stop making a fool of himself and recognize he will be remembered just like those fools in the original post are.
 
bigmann245 said:
the earth goes in cycles people.... yes it will get hotter before it cools down again but the earth has been here for millions of years and has gone through so many changes that this is just that, a change. the earth has a natural way to maintain homeostases. when one thing changes it corrects itself to counteract it. its called evolution. just because we are much smarter than the caveman doesnt mean we are still not changing. look at our foreheads. we no longer use parts of our brains that were only being used thousands of years ago. we have evolved. i dont trust our government one bit. i spent 12 years in the military and the shit i saw and witnessed disgusted me. the government is all about spending every dollar it gets on dumb ass shit just to get more next year. al gore needs to stop making a fool of himself and recognize he will be remembered just like those fools in the original post are.
+1. I think Jebus was capable of creating a planet that was capable of withstanding 20-30 years of human neglect. After all, a gigantic meteor/asteroid/whatthefuckever impact is probably what killed off all the dinosaurs, yet the planet is still here. I don't think cow farts and plastic will do it either.
 
Dial_tone said:
+1. I think Jebus was capable of creating a planet that was capable of withstanding 20-30 years of human neglect. After all, a gigantic meteor/asteroid/whatthefuckever impact is probably what killed off all the dinosaurs, yet the planet is still here. I don't think cow farts and plastic will do it either.


so true
 
JayC9 said:
this thread is like watching the fox news channel

you know, it's not good for dumb people to watch smart people news because you won't understand it.
 
I don't know who is right or wrong. I almost don't care.

What I do know is that we need to give up our addiction to foreign. We can't sit here and be worried about what Chaves or every other dictator sitting on Oil will do when they get up on the wrong side of the bed.

We need to explore cheaper means of making renewal energy like wind, water and solar.



jdynasty said:
False prophets of doom
WALTER WILLIAMS
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich said 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

World `likely to be ruined' by 2000

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 work "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. According to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?

In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?

Why believe them this time?

Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

A few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. And natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas annually than all human sources combined.

Walter

Williams
 
Dial_tone said:
I don't think cow farts and plastic will do it either.


Still no reason for all that gas to go to waste when farm can use it themselves to be self-sustaining. Still no reason to dispose of plastic into the earth when we can just recycle it.
 
JayC9 said:
this thread is like watching the fox news channel


Nice cop out. I love how if someone challenges your views, they are automatically some right wing nut.

I dont believe in man made global warming for the same reason I dont believe in God...there is absolutely no verifiable proof.

The ancient egyptians had these things called "facts." I know its old fashioned, but that's usually what I go off of.
 
75th said:
Nice cop out. I love how if someone challenges your views, they are automatically some right wing nut.

I dont believe in man made global warming for the same reason I dont believe in God...there is absolutely no verifiable proof.

The ancient egyptians had these things called "facts." I know its old fashioned, but that's usually what I go off of.
Funny. I was going to say the same to both teams. Both sides say that the facts support them and both think that the others are idiots.

If you want to believe, then great. If you don't want to believe, then great. I don't give a fuck either way and stop fucking preaching to me and stop calling each other an idiot because you're both a bunch of fucking idiots.
 
EnderJE said:
Funny. I was going to say the same to both teams. Both sides say that the facts support them and both think that the others are idiots.

If you want to believe, then great. If you don't want to believe, then great. I don't give a fuck either way and stop fucking preaching to me and stop calling each other an idiot because you're both a bunch of fucking idiots.

IDIOT!!!
 
Tatyana said:
I always find the two terms, liberal and conservative a bit confusing.

Is there really that much difference in the parties in the US?

I just watched a blurb on BBC 24 about how the Conservative party in the UK now has a major platform on addressing homelessness, as the 5th richest country in the world, it was not acceptable so many people slept rough, and how the Conservative party was going to address both economic and social wealth.

I do agree on the real data bit.

The media does love to jump on a 'good story', and that is all it is, a 'story', not facts.

Climatology is just so complex, I think it does get over-simplified and mistakes are made in reporting things about global climate.

This is what is so crazy. Somehow the whole global warming issue became a political ideology issue. Since when did politicians no anything??

Since when being a republican mean that I have to not give two cents about the environment?? It is all a bit ridiculous now.
 
jdynasty said:
rise in what sea levels, where, ice melts, get over it, that's not man made global warming, that's climate shifting.


climate shifting that "MAY" have been precipitated by the human footprint. THe amount of influence we have on the environment is still debateable. I'm not sold yet we're "completely" to blame. "BUT", I see no problem with starting to green out the planet now instead of later. If we start now we don't have to make as many lifestyle concessions as we would in 50 or so years..........plus, it's an area where the free market can stimulate creativity into how we use energy. I'm waiting for the trash bin that creates energy from refuse........the car that I can shit into in the morning and it'll run all or a good portion of the day on it. That can all happen unless we allow big energy interests to dictate to us how we use energy. Oil really should go the way of the dodo...........at least for our every day use. Using it mainly for aircrafts and some other high energy needs is fine. Day to day use should really shift to other more sustainable alternatives.
 
nimbus said:
i a lways feel like im talking to a wall in these threads

Because you are.

No one wants to argue science and facts -- that involves reading hard stuff they might not understand. People want to argue politics and what they watch on the evening news. That way, they think they know what they're talking about.

LOL @ people arguing about people arguing about people arguing about stuff.



:cow:
 
samoth said:
Because you are.

No one wants to argue science and facts -- that involves reading hard stuff they might not understand. People want to argue politics and what they watch on the evening news. That way, they think they know what they're talking about.

LOL @ people arguing about people arguing about people arguing about stuff.



:cow:

Agreed. How many people here have actually been above the Arctic Circle. Or walked on the Arctic ocean. Probably only 1. That would be me. Once you are actually there and look around, you see that what is said on TV is hype. My wife and I NEVER watch TV. Its such a waste of time.
 
pin said:
Agreed. How many people here have actually been above the Arctic Circle. Or walked on the Arctic ocean. Probably only 1. That would be me. Once you are actually there and look around, you see that what is said on TV is hype. My wife and I NEVER watch TV. Its such a waste of time.

Sweet! What journal did you publish your data in?



:cow:
 
pin said:


no, not " :rolleyes: "........what fucking proof do you have of your visit and your observations. Samoth is asking you to back up your shit science stylie...........now back it up or stfu!!, no offense.

I can say "how many people here have shagged a hot piece of movie star ass??", and than say I bagged "so and so" before she was famous. What fucking proof can I offer? None, zip..........so don't roll your eyes. The glaciers falling off and the ice shelf splitting hundreds of years earlier than it should have is "SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE", what exactly it means is up for debate......but it's valid.
 
redsamurai said:
no, not " :rolleyes: "........what fucking proof do you have of your visit and your observations. Samoth is asking you to back up your shit science stylie...........now back it up or stfu!!, no offense.

I can say "how many people here have shagged a hot piece of movie star ass??", and than say I bagged "so and so" before she was famous. What fucking proof can I offer? None, zip..........so don't roll your eyes. The glaciers falling off and the ice shelf splitting hundreds of years earlier than it should have is "SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE", what exactly it means is up for debate......but it's valid.
Fortunately for me, I have proof.

I've been at the arctic circle every month for the past 1200 years and have measured the ice both depth ad length. I have noticed that it has been shrinking. I've also measure the air with the magic measuring device and notice that carbon increase has cause it. Finally, I've time traveled 1000 years in the future at met Charlie Heston on the beach (planet of the apes was a documentary).

Fortunately for me, this is the internet, so you know I can't be lying...
 
redsamurai said:
no, not " :rolleyes: "........what fucking proof do you have of your visit and your observations. Samoth is asking you to back up your shit science stylie...........now back it up or stfu!!, no offense.

I can say "how many people here have shagged a hot piece of movie star ass??", and than say I bagged "so and so" before she was famous. What fucking proof can I offer? None, zip..........so don't roll your eyes. The glaciers falling off and the ice shelf splitting hundreds of years earlier than it should have is "SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE", what exactly it means is up for debate......but it's valid.

What do you care asswipe? Just because I don't publish my my findings in some fucking journal. I spent almost a year up there. I'll post some pics of my brother and I. Half my family works up there. There was a shitload of Ice just of shore for most of the summer. I drove a track vehicle that weighed 60,000 pounds across the ice. (which was scary as hell by the way. The ice checkers said it was safe, I just had to take their word for it.)

So fuck off. I don't need to lie to kick it.
 
EnderJE said:
Fortunately for me, I have proof.

I've been at the arctic circle every month for the past 1200 years and have measured the ice both depth ad length. I have noticed that it has been shrinking. I've also measure the air with the magic measuring device and notice that carbon increase has cause it. Finally, I've time traveled 1000 years in the future at met Charlie Heston on the beach (planet of the apes was a documentary).

Fortunately for me, this is the internet, so you know I can't be lying...
You maniac! You blew it up!

Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

planetofapes.jpg
 
75th said:
Nice cop out. I love how if someone challenges your views, they are automatically some right wing nut.

I dont believe in man made global warming for the same reason I dont believe in God...there is absolutely no verifiable proof.

The ancient egyptians had these things called "facts." I know its old fashioned, but that's usually what I go off of.
thanks for the history lesson and clarifying the whole issue

not sure where you make that logical leap from a cheap dig, exactly what views were challenged?

as i have already stated i don't know enough about the facts myself :flick:
 
75th said:
Nice cop out. I love how if someone challenges your views, they are automatically some right wing nut.

I dont believe in man made global warming for the same reason I dont believe in God...there is absolutely no verifiable proof.
.
There was absolutely no verifiable proof of WMD in Iraq. Do you support the war for the reasons that were initially given?
 
Dial_tone said:
There was absolutely no verifiable proof of WMD in Iraq. Do you support the war for the reasons that were initially given?
No, I dont support the war at all. Waste of time, money, and lives.
 
Dial_tone said:
There was absolutely no verifiable proof of WMD in Iraq. Do you support the war for the reasons that were initially given?

r u sure about that
 
I'll wager that by the year 2025, many Americans will have to wear oxygen masks to survive in such a polluted enviornment. I don't really care. All people will die and if it were up to me, I'd blow the whole universe up and stop the insanity now so that no more in the future will have to suffer.
 
Top Bottom