Yes, it seems the urgency of climate change is finally beginning to penetrate the halls of power in Washington. In a bold, courageous move, Congress is passing legislation forcing auto makers to improve the fuel efficiency of their cars!
By 2020.
What courage! What leadership! (What leadership?)
::) :P
This reminds me of the bogus talk that never did anything in the 70s. Is it really that difficult for people to foretell the future of oil dependency? I'm pretty sure a group of 5th graders would have more sense than these greedy senators.
Why did Rome fall again?
Hmm well at least Fallout 3 will be released by then so we can all practice our wasteland survival skills. *whistles Always look on the bright side of life*
regards,
Will
Until just a few months ago, the head of the Senate subcommittee (a senator from Kansas, iirc) playing the largest role in shaping climate policy still openly denied the existence of global warming. Never mind debating causes, this guy still says there's no such thing. (One of those left-wing media conspiracies, doncha know.)
I wasn't joking about the fallout thing... Grab your pipboy 3000 open the vault and face to new world!
;D ;D
Have you seen "Blast from the Past"? :P
Well, and in old Europe people are getting aware that global warming is rather a calm wind against the rage of global dimming and another iceage ;D
They were even forced to stop some TV global warming "propaganda" on behalf of public intersection.
Either, both have the same cause. So keep your fuels down.
What is public intersection?
Quote from: Volker Harun on July 06, 2007, 08:08:37 PM
Well, and in old Europe people are getting aware that global warming is rather a calm wind against the rage of global dimming and another iceage ;D
They were even forced to stop some TV global warming "propaganda" on behalf of public intersection.
Either, both have the same cause. So keep your fuels down.
intervention? ??? ::)
That sounds like it is the right word. What is it that you are hearing there about public intervention? This sounds good. Is it like what Al Gore promotes, which is using better bulbs, changing air filters, etc.?
Quote from: Volker Harun on July 07, 2007, 12:39:36 PM
intervention? ??? ::)
Well,
the following does not represent my personal believes. At the moment I am quite convinced by the points that Al Gore has.
But a bunch of people - most of all those who are or were investigating 9/11 and got discriminated by their believes are on the way to pull the global warming discussion to the benefits of lobbyists.
I am not quite in this and have no opinion about that. First I might have to get a copy of the fundament which seems to be a british documention called "The global warming swindle"
Maybe interesting at least to open the 'field of view' ,-)
This is all so very funny, I think, though I understand why anyone would want to look into what's true. In the 60s and 70s, there was no discussion about pollution. It was just plain wrong and companies who didn't do anything about pollution were seen as a$$holes. I believe the same is true of them today (their still a$$holes), but the pull and declension is now toward the working "Joe and Mary" to get us to believe that what we do doesn't matter.
We're destroying our Earth and we're about to annihilate it with fighting over petty crap like oil when there's a whole universe full of wonder where we could focus our attention. Strange how we don't think that real space travel is even possible. Isn't it?
The wealthy are afraid they won't have "theirs" when everything starts falling apart and that's why we're seeing so many foolish political decisions - greed.
I don't mind discussing any of this, but I can't be convinced otherwise.
Well I think two or three generations from now they will look back on us with both pity and amazement on or ignorance to the big things that were happening around us. Frankly no matter what we to to the planet life will exist in some form or another but we may not be here to see that.
There is an american natives' saying:
"Our children do not inherit our world - we have borrowed their world."
Will, I hear this quite often lately that "life will exist in some form or another" and this is probably based mostly upon the belief that evolution is the strength of life and how could it be stopped? It's amazing how many "candles of the wind" are actually in this world and life is one of them. Hard to come by and easy to be snuffed out. Of course, we could always say that viruses are a form of life but even they don't live forever without a host of some sort.
Fascinating how easy it is to accept the "it doesn't matter" route and I'm sure this is because there's so much craziness we just close it down to survive it all. I'm curious how you came to your conclusion about planet life, Will.
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 09:09:57 AM
Well I think two or three generations from now they will look back on us with both pity and amazement on or ignorance to the big things that were happening around us. Frankly no matter what we to to the planet life will exist in some form or another but we may not be here to see that.
Wow...and it's possible much of the resources and wildlife and vegetation in the U.S. would still be intact if they had been left to it.
Quote from: Volker Harun on July 09, 2007, 09:46:34 AM
There is an american natives' saying:
"Our children do not inherit our world - we have borrowed their world."
One thing that is making the 2 or 3 generations mentioned by Will to maybe a few hundred generations is the following fact.
Most of the world's CO2 is stored within the oceans. As soon as the oceans get warmer (due to more CO2 in the atmosphere) they will release more and more of this storage. So there is an exponential increase - and nobody really knows when it ends.
It might be interesting to revisit that old DOS-simulation SIM Earth. As far as I know it is free for download and runnable on Win XP with DosBox.
http://www.abandonia.com/games/en/185/SimEarth.htm (http://www.abandonia.com/games/en/185/SimEarth.htm)
I usually don't get involved in these kinds of discussions on this board because that's not what I come here for but I will make an exception for this. So far, this discussion has been crawling with global warming alarmism (a.k.a. we are going to die!). I, for one, do not believe in manmade global warming. There are several reasons for this. 1) It is completely arrogant to assume that we have the power to fundamentally alter the climate of our entire planet. After all, one volcano erupted more pollution and CO2 gasses into the air in one day than mankind has in years. Sometime we forget just how small we really are. 2) There is no direct link between man's actions and global warming. In fact, global warming climate models have been consistently wrong in there predictions. Conversely, non global warming models – such as those based on the sun spots and earths oceans – have been correct, though ignored by the global warming alarmist movement. 3) The uniting call of the global warming movement is that there is a "consensus" among scientist that global warming is a man made phenomenon rather than a natural cycle. The problem with this is that science is not consensus. Scientist don't get together and agree on something and call it science – that's just an opinion. And, for that matter, such an opinion (that global warming is manmade, hypothesis may be a better word) cannot be scientifically tested because we just don't have the means to accurately study the global climate in such detail. Moreover, while the media claims this consensus it also acts as if there is no descent whatsoever inside the scientific community. And that's a lie. 4) Even scientist who do agree with the manmade hypothesis have wondered if they might not have "oversold" the idea of global warming to the public. 5) More than anything, global warming is a political movement; I'll come back to that. 6)Al Gore's arguments have been refuted time and time again, both before and after the making of his film. Many scientists who agree that global warming is manmade have rejected Al Gore's claims as nonscientific, inaccurate and over stated. I would encourage you all to read this http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. Interestingly enough, despite the failures of global warming climate models people such as Al Gore continue to spread their manmade global warming message as absolute, undeniable truth – even going so far as to try to censor dissenting opinions (i.e. revoking licenses). By the way, if Al Gore is as right as he claims why has he never accepted the chance to debate with the people he says don't have a leg to stand on? Despite the failures of global warming climate models their advocates continue to assert their accuracy. Even if the model has been wrong for years, if the climate even slightly lines up with the model at one time it is called proof. Everything is blamed on global warming, be it a hot summer day or cold winter night – without any scientific proof, global warming alarmist claim all sorts of absurd connections without evidence or rational analysis. Global warming is no more than a catalyst for the politically driven environmentalist movement. Politically driven? Yes, as I have already said, there is very little science in global warming. Communism is on the rise again; only this time it's called environmentalism or, more immediately, global warming. Hillary Clinton has already discussed "wealth redistribution" and "redistributing profits" from oil companies to research programs for alternative fuels. These are only the beginnings of the government invasion of the private sector and the free market if the alarmist claims continue to invade Washington and are treated as facts. As was the stated at the beginning of this topic, the government has imposed itself into the auto makers industry. We are not destroying the earth. The earth is merely fluctuating as it always has. After all, how much has the earth warmed as a whole? Something like 2 degrees? And for that matter, what is the earth's "normal" climate which we supposedly are altering? What causes global warming? The Sun.
Bold leadership? I think not. I think it's communism. I think it is the government implanting itself into areas in which it has no buisness or authority.
Calico, are you saying that the government not taking over the free market is a foolish decision? What do the wealthy and greed have to do with anything?
And by the way, if you are referring to the war in Iraq, it was not fought over oil.
nvseal -
I have addressed different topics, which to me are connected. One topic is what the wealthy are doing: destroying the Earth. The proof of this is widespread (beyond Global Warming) where rivers are destroyed, ocean wildlife is destroyed, alarming numbers of animal life and plant life going extinct, forests are destroyed, and people are being massacred. This is global and if it's doubted that any of these things are happening, it would be nice to know (with the resource of the Internet available as it is) who is blinding anyone from seeing the truth. I've seen proof after proof of this - rivers are pouring silt into the ocean worldwide, which is based upon poor stewardship by various countries. Anyone been to a beach and not seen signs of retreating numbers of fish and coral? Extinction is real. Forests in South America and Alaska have been raped without concern for re-planting. Forests on the West Coast of the U.S. have been up in smoke for years upon years. Look at Africa's political situation, if we have any doubt that greed is literally killing people who are considered less than garbage to maniac bastards.
So, I see man destroying Earth.
Secondly, I see potential destruction of much of our planet by nuclear exchanges. Much of this will likely be surrounding the religions of the Middle East. This isn't global warming, but it is man destroying the Earth.
Thirdly, global warming can be traced back to multiple incidences, some of which are manmade and this is what Gore exposes. He realizes other factors, but is showing clearly that the temperatures are altering much more that 1 or 2 degrees. Mountains and glaciers around the world are melting down to the bare earth.
As far as the old argument about Communism vs. Capitalism. It's moot. A form of government of any sort can be ruined by fools. You could have a King who is wise and make his people happy, while having a democracy full of corrupt old senators who...(oh, we know this story).
Loving things more than loving God (and hence people) will lead people to destroy everything (and everyone) in their path to get what they want. If that throws you, it's because it sounds so religious. In fact, it's just true. And maybe we're reaching a point (or have we reached it?) that people just don't care what happens and will pursue whatever they want to get whatever it is they want even if it's in the name of God. Who knew a religion could convince multitudes of its followers to explode themselves, killing and maiming many other people all in the name of God? Or who could have believed that a man who says he believes in God could lead America to fight a war by lying to his own people to lead them there and then pardoning the man who put his own country's protectors at risk (the same protector whose husband opposed this "believer")?
Oh wow, anywho I was just stating the fact that there is bacteria deep in the earths crust that is still around form the disasters of bygone eras. all of the animals and plants, including us, will die off eventually but many have lived for millions of years (ferns, crocodiles, ect). But of course we are doing a lot to accelerate this process and this has become increasingly apparent. It will be seen how much damage we will cause before taking steps beyond the initial one that are taking place today and the near future. Hopefully we will not be too late. In other news the threat of dies is also pretty near as the doomsday clock is set around 11pm (where 12am is a nuclear apocalypses or something) so thats good. Also I'm watching the planet earth DVDs thatt I got as a gift and there is some pretty cools stuff out there that I'm going to miss (like fungi that take over ants and then sprout out there heads /evil smile) But I'm going to be around for roughly another sixty to seventy years so I have plenty of time to make a mark for the good of the planet. I already to workshops and stuff teaching people and do some work in land conservation so thats good.
But if it all goes south then I'll be all trained up on fallout and wasteland :P
First, the "Bush lied" call has been uttered time and time again but it has no factual bases; it is just political rhetoric. To say that Bush lied is to say the he KNEW that there were no WMDs in Iraq yet pushed for war anyway while manufacturing evidence to support his claim. That is to say that he knowingly, purposefully, and deviously misled the American people. However, there is no evidence to support such a claim that he deceived. If anything, the most that can be said is that he – along with the UN and congress, for they all agreed that Iraq had or was working to produce WMDs – where wrong. If Bush lied, everyone lied. There is a big difference between being wrong and being deceitful. However, I do not believe that our intelligence and that gathered by others internationally was wrong. Many of our ground forces, commanders, intelligence gatherers, and captured enemy combatants point toward the high probability that Saddam moved what weapons and programs he had to surrounding nations such as Syria. Besides, we did find chemical weapons which were supposed to have been destroyed. Bush didn't lie; Saddam did. The only mistake Bush made was giving Saddam too much time to erase his programs.
Second, you are really going off subject as I thought you were talking about global warming. Global warming can be traced back to the Sun. Did you read the article I posted about some of the myths Gore puts forward?
Communism vs. Capitalism is by no means moot. The question is which one of these is the government of fools. Capitalism by definition cannot be ruined by fools in government because it is not ruled by them. That is what the free market means. Communism is the government of fools because it places control of the market directly under the authority of fools. Not fools so much because they are stupid per se or evil, but because there is know way they can have the completeness of knowledge and understanding to make wise decisions regarding what is placed under their authority. That is the problem with central planning. Which is the fool, the one who assumes to know everything or the one who recognizes how little one can know? Such an important question is not moot, especially in the case of the government and environment. One's answer to this question can mean the difference between freedom and tyranny, clean air and pollution, forest and wastelands. The communist Soviet Union, though not as prosperous and productive as the US capitalism, produced far more pollution and destroyed far more of the earth than Capitalism. Where do we find these countries you mention were people are massacred and large portions of the environment are destroyed? Not the capitalist countries. Capitalism is the best thing for the environment. Moot? How could you say something so unconsidered?
Gore's film (among other things) is covered in junk science and shady connections – which is what I said in my first post. Even scientists who agree with his basic thesis (global warming is manmade) disagree with his evidence.
Does silt flowing out of rivers constitute such an extreme, rather over exaggerated and overly general statement such as "destroying the earth?" While I understand how one can use this phrase with correct implications, you seem to mean the that we are literally destroying the planet as a whole. And that simply is not true. If someone does not believe in God that does not mean that they will destroy the environment. To the contrary, modern environmentalism to many people is a religion in and of itself (after all, if god does not exist, only the world, then the world – stuff – becomes god). They worship the environment. Any alteration to the environment by man is a sin. Mankind is seen as a disease, a plague of the earth.
My question to you was what does greed and the wealthy have to do with global climate change, which was the topic. Many nations in Africa are restricted from utilizing electrical power to advance or use insecticides by organizations such as the UN for the purposes of "protecting the environment." People die because of these environmental safety measures. It is easy to get caught up in the cause of saving the environment without examining the consequence of ones actions. Intentions don't change reality.
I was replying to calico, sorry was that directed at me? I'm so confused at the moment... ???
The only reason we went there was because of the nukes. I was there. This was Bush's reason for going over there, since he couldn't pull the "Al Queda" card.
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
First, the "Bush lied" call has been uttered time and time again but it has no factual bases; it is just political rhetoric.
Any government can be screwed and a democracy can be screwed as easily as any other form of government. There is no "free market" in the U.S. It's nearly (almost all) monopolized by a handful of wealthy, including the media. That doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. is evil, but with businessmen in the White House they aren't looking out for anyone but themselves.
Even our founding fathers (in the U.S.) have addressed the fact that without men of character in power
in our government there is no hope of true freedom.
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
Communism vs. Capitalism is by no means moot. The question is which one of these is the government of fools. Capitalism by definition cannot be ruined by fools in government because it is not ruled by them. That is what the free market means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam - do a search for heavy siltation.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1997E/y1997e1c.htm - we get our oxygen (fresh air) from trees
http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered/ - a list
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
...rather over exaggerated and overly general statement such as "destroying the earth?"
I hate to break this all up but if we are to discuss US policy here lets at least try to connect it to energy and the earth or something. The war (along with nearly everything) is a touchy subject and now a road we need to go down in this thread. If you want you can start a new one about it.
quick note- a lot of oxygen comes from plankton as well :)
Gore's film isn't based upon junk science.
But, have you seen it? He uses facts and he doesn't lie about the facts.
As far as what we're contributing to the atmosphere, I'm certain cars aren't as bad as those smoke stacks I see blowing up shit every day or how about the nuclear testing - what does that do to our atmosphere? Are you kidding me that we can just blow up little miniature explosions like on the sun (sun spots) and it doesn't affect the Earth's thin atmosphere?
Air / water pollution and nuclear explosions are exact examples of man destroying the Earth. Does this mean that there won't be an Earth left? No, I don't believe so. Does it mean that human life and well being will be a rare commodity on the Earth, if we don't pull our heads out of our fairy tales? I believe it does.
Semantics shouldn't enter into this argument. A simple question of "Are we destroying the Earth by polluting it and blowing it up?" is enough. We could be spending our time and energy on something valuable rather than ruining what we touch. But, who really cares?
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
Gore's film (among other things) is covered in junk science and shady connections – which is what I said in my first post. Even scientists who agree with his basic thesis (global warming is manmade) disagree with his evidence.
LOL - thank goodness for plankton.
I've been discussing this with a guy at work as well as an old acquaintance almost since Bush started in office. That's one of the blessings of living where freedom of speech is in the constitution. Does it really bother you, Will? How come?
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 04:04:03 PM
I hate to break this all up but if we are to discuss US policy here lets at least try to connect it to energy and the earth or something. The war (along with nearly everything) is a touchy subject and now a road we need to go down in this thread. If you want you can start a new one about it.
quick note- a lot of oxygen comes from plankton as well :)
Because...Because.....because I'm a dictator! There I said it damn it! You can yell at me all you want but I'll never change! ;)
No its just the fact that I like things to stay on topic, the way things are going are fine but back there it was a bit of a stretch. In my mind I fancy myself the mini-mod for the Open discussion page, I am, you could say territorial. Oh and you are getting dangerously cloud to my post count and I just can't have that :P (just kidding)
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 03:34:51 PM
I was replying to calico, sorry was that directed at me? I'm so confused at the moment... ???
No it wasn't. ;)
ah wonderful. Now your discussion can recommence.
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:54:08 PM
The only reason we went there was because of the nukes. I was there. This was Bush's reason for going over there, since he couldn't pull the "Al Queda" card.
That is not true. Nukes where not the only reason. The reasons were the inteligence pointing toward his pursuit of WMDs, including nukes, his ties to terrorism, and his refusal to obey UN sanctions. Saddam was not at war with Al Queda. Al Queda memebers had met with Iraqi officails several times, there is evidence that suggest Iraq was supplying jihadist groups with training manuals and other supplies and there had been discussions between Iraqi officials and Al Queda members about opening a training camp in Iraq, possibily in Bagdad.
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:58:07 PM
Any government can be screwed and a democracy can be screwed as easily as any other form of government. There is no "free market" in the U.S. It's nearly (almost all) monopolized by a handful of wealthy, including the media. That doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. is evil, but with businessmen in the White House they aren't looking out for anyone but themselves.
That is not my point. Yes, governments can be screwed – that is what environmentalist are trying to do to ours. What environmentalist want to do is "screw-up" our government by implementing communism. To screw up capitalism the only real option is to change it to something else. You can't screw up communism; it's already a mess. My point is that one is naturally better than the other and so the comparison of each is not moot because they are not equal.
opopopop keep it with in the confounds of the topic, please edit your post to add something referring to global waring or a midrid of other topics previously stated. Thank and please come again :).
Edit: "Guest 05:11:39 PM Nothing, or nothing you can see" ow But now I'm curious. :(
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 04:03:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam - do a search for heavy siltation.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1997E/y1997e1c.htm - we get our oxygen (fresh air) from trees
http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered/ - a list
After all of the "raping" of forest have we started to lose oxygen? Really, have oxygen levels actually decreased at even a measurable level? Are people starting to die or even getting close to dieing? No.
None of that constitutes destroying the earth. Changing? Yes. Destroying? No. Besides, the things you mention are contained. That is, they are not global shifts.
Note: I'm not against stewardship (endangered species for example). I also do not deny that man has the ability to alter the environment in localized areas, sometimes in drastic ways. But then again, that's not what I started talking about, which was
global climate change.
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 05:15:36 PM
opopopop keep it with in the confounds of the topic, please edit your post to add something referring to global waring or a midrid of other topics previously stated. Thank and please come again :).
Edit: "Guest 05:11:39 PM Nothing, or nothing you can see" ow But now I'm curious. :(
When I first mentioned it (communism vs. capitalism), it was within the context of global climate change (see first post), however, it has apperently become slightly detached. An important thing to answer nontheless though.
well frankly there is that entire thing with the CFC and that hole in the Ozone but apparently that is slowly recovering which is good. I think there are global changes but Al Gore did stretch the true in some areas of his movie and told the straight truth about some things too. This is just my opinion but from what I've seen just happening around my area there are major global effects, whether completely causes by us or not at all is what is debatable. For example last year it was two warm for bears to hibernate (up here in New Hampshire) thats pretty bad, the thing about localized change is true but since most of our pollution comes from the west there is an effect over very large regions of the globe.
Thanks for explaining the communism thing though (takes off dictator hat)
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 05:39:57 PM
well frankly there is that entire thing with the CFC and that hole in the Ozone but apparently that is slowly recovering which is good. I think there are global changes but Al Gore did stretch the true in some areas of his movie and told the straight truth about some things too. This is just my opinion but from what I've seen just happening around my area there are major global effects, whether completely causes by us or not at all is what is debatable. For example last year it was two warm for bears to hibernate (up here in New Hampshire) thats pretty bad, the thing about localized change is true but since most of our pollution comes from the west there is an effect over very large regions of the globe.
Thanks for explaining the communism thing though (takes off dictator hat)
Can you provide a scientific link between the temperature in New Hampshire and western civilization? Or are you rather assuming a connection?
Scientific maybe give me a little bit I'll find the report again I think its somewhere on the NH.gov website archive, hold on I'll look.
Edit: my god we need to make a new site....
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 04:11:50 PM
Gore's film isn't based upon junk science.
But, have you seen it? He uses facts and he doesn't lie about the facts.
As far as what we're contributing to the atmosphere, I'm certain cars aren't as bad as those smoke stacks I see blowing up shit every day or how about the nuclear testing - what does that do to our atmosphere? Are you kidding me that we can just blow up little miniature explosions like on the sun (sun spots) and it doesn't affect the Earth's thin atmosphere?
Air / water pollution and nuclear explosions are exact examples of man destroying the Earth. Does this mean that there won't be an Earth left? No, I don't believe so. Does it mean that human life and well being will be a rare commodity on the Earth, if we don't pull our heads out of our fairy tales? I believe it does.
Semantics shouldn't enter into this argument. A simple question of "Are we destroying the Earth by polluting it and blowing it up?" is enough. We could be spending our time and energy on something valuable rather than ruining what we touch. But, who really cares?
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
Gore's film (among other things) is covered in junk science and shady connections – which is what I said in my first post. Even scientists who agree with his basic thesis (global warming is manmade) disagree with his evidence.
Some of his facts are correct, not all. Read the article I posted in my first post. His conclusions are wrong. I have already addressed this. Al Gore is not a climate scientist.
How many nuclear explosions have there been around the world and when was the last time there was one? Smoke stacks are localized. Though the spread out they do not change the global climate. If
anything, there would cause a localized fluctation that the climate would fix naturally. The climate is not a living organism, you cannot poison it with pollution.
Semantics is important. Buzz words are difficult, confusing little things that destroy reasonable thought. Definition is a part of argument. It makes sure we are both talking about the same thing.
Some good articles.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/01/24/minority_view
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/heresy.html
Oh I read it, it has a lot of really good point many of which I agreed with. But here is what my quick search turned up, I followed a link in the archive and it took me a a summery about an article in the local newspaper, not as creditable as I originally thought (though, to its credit its a pretty conservative newspaper and any coverage about the topic is pretty amazing). I did dig up a NOAA newsletter though taking about the abnormally warm winter: here http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm . Yea so basically my information for the bears is apparently just an assumption but I do know that we to get pollution from the west, which means Chicago and the like though not California or anything that far away.
Edit: el nino interesting...
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:03:01 PM
Oh I read it, it has a lot of really good point many of which I agreed with. But here is what my quick search turned up, I followed a link in the archive and it took me a a summery about an article in the local newspaper, not as creditable as I originally thought (though, to its credit its a pretty conservative newspaper and any coverage about the topic is pretty amazing). I did dig up a NOAA newsletter though taking about the abnormally warm winter: here http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm . Yea so basically my information for the bears is apparently just an assumption but I do know that we to get pollution from the west, which means Chicago and the like though not California or anything that far away.
Edit: el nino interesting...
Sorry, I was asking Calico if he read it. :) However, you bring up an interesting point which I touched on in my first post. The abnormally warm winter. Global Warming alarmist grab onto these type of reports and wave them around screaming the end of the world while usually never going much deeper into just how abnormal. There are many issues with these types of responses. Abnormal,for example, does not mean "never happened before." There have been warm periods and cold periods throughout all earth history. Abnormal is a relative term. So the question is abnormal for what? The past 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? Moreover, what if the next winter is normal again? If global warming was to blame shouldn't the next winter be warmer? Also, this past year there were record lows all across the western United States. Did the global warming alarmist address these? No. In fact, I think they blamed global warming.
Well they showed us a chart in Biology class that showed that we are a lot higher then any other time in history (that they have been able to see) I think we have surpassed the other points in time with abnormal highs. This is not to say it necessarily our fault but there is something defiantly different about the time we are in. At any rate I know the ski industry didn't do too well last year (my uncle is a salesman)
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:22:22 PM
Well they showed us a chart in Biology class that showed that we are a lot higher then any other time in history (that they have been able to see) I think we have surpassed the other points in time with abnormal highs. This is not to say it necessarily our fault but there is something defiantly different about the time we are in. At any rate I know the ski industry didn't do too well last year (my uncle is a salesman)
Do you go to public school?
yea, also this is really off topic but are you or were you a navy seal ( I might have asked this before)?
Ahh, that's what I thought. I would encourage you to watch the The Global Warming Swindle. You can find it on Youtube I think. Though it was first broadcast in England by the BBC.
And no, I'm not a Navy SEAL. Not yet anyway, but hopefully someday after college. :)
oh I was just wondering, anyway I thinks its safe to say there is global warming and that is higher then normal but that could just mean that in like a thousand years or something we have an incredibly bitter ice age, which could be cool kind of like in that the future is wild special on animal planet.
I'm pro global cooling! because penguins rock.
I'm not saying that the global temperatures have not risen. I'm sayng that it's not man's fault, we aren't going to die, and communism is bad. That's all.
I know, as for the communism is not evil so much as a complete failure up to this point, like a puppy that got kicked a lot and is now bitter and mean. It was a good idea on paper (at least at the time) it gave the people what they apparently wanted and those who led the revolution gained power and abused that (this is at least what I got from the Russian people while I was there). That being said I think that fact that all people have natural rights and if anyone else tries to take them away then they have the complete right to figh back.
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:46:25 PM
I know, as for the communism is not evil so much as a complete failure up to this point, like a puppy that got kicked a lot and is now bitter and mean. It was a good idea on paper (at least at the time) it gave the people what they apparently wanted and those who led the revolution gained power and abused that (this is at least what I got from the Russian people while I was there). That being said I think that fact that all people have natural rights and if anyone else tries to take them away then they have the complete right to figh back.
Let's not be to quick to seperate the end from the means. The stuff that looks good on paper is the supposed end of communism; that is the part that sounds good. The means one the other hand can be called wrong -- evil -- quite easily. Communism involves stealing the rights and property of an individual and giving them to someone else who has not earned them and that's wrong. Communism did not work in the USSR because communism does not work, not because of bad leaders. The end and means of communism are two sides of the same coin.
Well, I have not been around for a few days and things are starting to become funny here ,-)
Think of the following. Al Gore says first came the CO2 then the warming.
The movie "The great global warming swindle" says first comes the warming and thus the CO2 is released from the oceans.
Either way ... here might be another cause. Cell phone technology.
It is based on pulsating microwaves - the same microwaves some people use to cook their meals.
The same technology is used by H.A.A.R.P. for warming up certain atmospheric areas so they act like a mirror (basically plain explained).
The same technology like H.A.A.R.P. can be used when connecting several cell-phone towers in an intelligent way or just simple warming up the air by letting them run.
Funny point is that the soviet union and the US - in their very state of bold leadership - used the same technology for mind and mass controls.
If you have a Zap-checker you might notice that about 30 to 50% of the cell-phone towers are active. So why would somebody need every 50 to 100 yards those things in a city when they are turned off? And they were turned off even during the FIFA World soccer championships last year in Germany.
Why should somebody need every few miles such a thingy in the Namibian desert?
Coincidence?
A technology that does both, mind and weather control?
That would be bold!
so far we have been able to connect cellphones, mind control, weather control, US policy making, Communism, Al gore, and Co2 together in one topic. Am I missing anything? :P
Quote from: Volker Harun on July 10, 2007, 07:12:59 AM
Well, I have not been around for a few days and things are starting to become funny here ,-)
Think of the following. Al Gore says first came the CO2 then the warming.
The movie "The great global warming swindle" says first comes the warming and thus the CO2 is released from the oceans.
Either way ... here might be another cause. Cell phone technology.
It is based on pulsating microwaves - the same microwaves some people use to cook their meals.
The same technology is used by H.A.A.R.P. for warming up certain atmospheric areas so they act like a mirror (basically plain explained).
The same technology like H.A.A.R.P. can be used when connecting several cell-phone towers in an intelligent way or just simple warming up the air by letting them run.
Funny point is that the soviet union and the US - in their very state of bold leadership - used the same technology for mind and mass controls.
If you have a Zap-checker you might notice that about 30 to 50% of the cell-phone towers are active. So why would somebody need every 50 to 100 yards those things in a city when they are turned off? And they were turned off even during the FIFA World soccer championships last year in Germany.
Why should somebody need every few miles such a thingy in the Namibian desert?
Coincidence?
A technology that does both, mind and weather control?
That would be bold!
That's funny. ;D
Quote from: Will on July 10, 2007, 08:22:54 AM
so far we have been able to connect cellphones, mind control, weather control, US policy making, Communism, Al gore, and Co2 together in one topic. Am I missing anything? :P
The possible uses of nuclear power in the forced abortion of gay unborn whales. (I think that includes just about everything, now.)
;D
I'm afraid you forgot allll about the alien masterminds! ;D
- Oshyan
Damn. (Must be the mind control.)
;D
Paris Hilton, ok theres everything.
Oshyan ... you were not supposed to tell ,-)
he is a betrayer!!! brothers the hive calls for his execution! mooohahahahahaaa
:-[ ummm that wasn't me.
Nobody could have convinced the U.S. citizens to go over there and lay our lives down like we are now because Sadaam didn't keep UN sanctions. Most of us don't give a rat's ass about UN sanctions. Plain and simple. The playing card was the WMDs and his possible use of nukes. I'm old enough to remember what the press put out there and what Bush pointed to as a reason.
Does
anyone remember Colin Powell's embarrassment in the UN? He was a patsy for right-wing nutjobs.
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:54:08 PM
The only reason we went there was because of the nukes. I was there. This was Bush's reason for going over there, since he couldn't pull the "Al Queda" card.
That is not true. Nukes where not the only reason. The reasons were the inteligence pointing toward his pursuit of WMDs, including nukes, his ties to terrorism, and his refusal to obey UN sanctions. Saddam was not at war with Al Queda. Al Queda memebers had met with Iraqi officails several times, there is evidence that suggest Iraq was supplying jihadist groups with training manuals and other supplies and there had been discussions between Iraqi officials and Al Queda members about opening a training camp in Iraq, possibily in Bagdad.
The choice isn't between extreme left and extreme right, but common sense. This is otherwise known as balance...something our political system has drifted ashore from.
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 05:11:39 PM
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:58:07 PM
Any government can be screwed and a democracy can be screwed as easily as any other form of government. There is no "free market" in the U.S. It's nearly (almost all) monopolized by a handful of wealthy, including the media. That doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. is evil, but with businessmen in the White House they aren't looking out for anyone but themselves.
That is not my point. Yes, governments can be screwed – that is what environmentalist are trying to do to ours. What environmentalist want to do is "screw-up" our government by implementing communism. To screw up capitalism the only real option is to change it to something else. You can't screw up communism; it's already a mess. My point is that one is naturally better than the other and so the comparison of each is not moot because they are not equal.
Okay. We'll leave the discussion for Global Climate change, which Gore admits is cyclical and shows evidence that we're taking it farther out of the loop than has been done
by our own mistreatment of the Earth.
Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 05:32:17 PM
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 04:03:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam - do a search for heavy siltation.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1997E/y1997e1c.htm - we get our oxygen (fresh air) from trees
http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered/ - a list
After all of the "raping" of forest have we started to lose oxygen? Really, have oxygen levels actually decreased at even a measurable level? Are people starting to die or even getting close to dieing? No.
None of that constitutes destroying the earth. Changing? Yes. Destroying? No. Besides, the things you mention are contained. That is, they are not global shifts.
Note: I'm not against stewardship (endangered species for example). I also do not deny that man has the ability to alter the environment in localized areas, sometimes in drastic ways. But then again, that's not what I started talking about, which was global climate change.
This is an interesting observation. Scientists have been able to track climate cycles dating back many years by sampling the ice in the Antarctica.
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:22:22 PM
Well they showed us a chart in Biology class that showed that we are a lot higher then any other time in history (that they have been able to see) I think we have surpassed the other points in time with abnormal highs. This is not to say it necessarily our fault but there is something defiantly different about the time we are in. At any rate I know the ski industry didn't do too well last year (my uncle is a salesman)
"The climate is not a living organism, you cannot poison it with pollution." - nvseal
The climate is part of the living organism, the Earth. Without it, we would perish and it is affected by things like trees. It can be destroyed and to assume it doesn't matter what we do to it is irresponsible and deserves punishment.
I agree with that, ecosystems are hardy but can fall apart as soon as one cog is taken out of the system.
Well, the climate is not living - but it has a delicate balance.
We surely do not know by empiric data, how a nuke or a large coal plant do affect the atmosphere as a single factor.
But the data surely shows that there is an imbalance in its total.
The least imbalance is that they show on TV the catastrophees in the US and in Europe instead of i.e. Bangladesh like 20 years ago.
<trollmode on>
Maybe nvseal is just being pedantic... "climate" is after all what we experience as a result of changes in the "atmosphere"...so no .. you can't poison climate.. but you sure as heck can poison the atmosphere... ;)
Rgds
Chris
<trollmode off>
What? I couldn't hear you over the mind control. :o
Quote from: Volker Harun on July 10, 2007, 07:12:59 AM
Well, I have not been around for a few days and things are starting to become funny here ,-)
Think of the following. Al Gore says first came the CO2 then the warming.
The movie "The great global warming swindle" says first comes the warming and thus the CO2 is released from the oceans.
Either way ... here might be another cause. Cell phone technology.
It is based on pulsating microwaves - the same microwaves some people use to cook their meals.
The same technology is used by H.A.A.R.P. for warming up certain atmospheric areas so they act like a mirror (basically plain explained).
The same technology like H.A.A.R.P. can be used when connecting several cell-phone towers in an intelligent way or just simple warming up the air by letting them run.
Funny point is that the soviet union and the US - in their very state of bold leadership - used the same technology for mind and mass controls.
If you have a Zap-checker you might notice that about 30 to 50% of the cell-phone towers are active. So why would somebody need every 50 to 100 yards those things in a city when they are turned off? And they were turned off even during the FIFA World soccer championships last year in Germany.
Why should somebody need every few miles such a thingy in the Namibian desert?
Coincidence?
A technology that does both, mind and weather control?
That would be bold!
I believe the technical term is "eh?" this is usually followed by "what was that sonny?"
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:14:11 AM
Nobody could have convinced the U.S. citizens to go over there and lay our lives down like we are now because Sadaam didn't keep UN sanctions. Most of us don't give a rat's ass about UN sanctions. Plain and simple. The playing card was the WMDs and his possible use of nukes. I'm old enough to remember what the press put out there and what Bush pointed to as a reason.
Does anyone remember Colin Powell's embarrassment in the UN? He was a patsy for right-wing nutjobs.
No one did try to convince U.S. citizens to go over there ONLY because of UN sanctions. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the UN. It is a pointless organization and we should have never waisted our time with it.
You keep acting like Bush was alone on the issue of WMDs. He wasn't. Republicans and Democrats (Hillary Clinton for example, who said she saw the evidence for her self and made her own decision about the war, yet back peddled later when it was politically benificial). Nations in the UN, using their own intel, also agreed that Saddam was trying to get WMDs. Bush was not the creator of the intel and he did not lie.
Right-wing nutjobs? Oh boy.
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:15:22 AM
The choice isn't between extreme left and extreme right, but common sense. This is otherwise known as balance...something our political system has drifted ashore from.
What does that have to do with what I said? Capitalism is common sense.
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:17:11 AM
Okay. We'll leave the discussion for Global Climate change, which Gore admits is cyclical and shows evidence that we're taking it farther out of the loop than has been done by our own mistreatment of the Earth.
Again, manmade global warming is not a fact. It is a hypothesis which is being sold to the public because of a "consensus" between some scientist -- not all. If it was a fact there would be no question to it. Al Gore, however, acts as though manmade global warming is a fact. Al Gore -- who is not a scientist -- calls scientist who don't agree with his hypothesis "global deniers."
I think its technically a theory which is much stronger then a hypothesis and has more research and "proof" behind it. I say "proof" because nothing can ever be proved as fact in science (nothing have be proved but everything can be disproved).
edit: spelling
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:26:18 AM
"The climate is not a living organism, you cannot poison it with pollution." - nvseal
The climate is part of the living organism, the Earth. Without it, we would perish and it is affected by things like trees. It can be destroyed and to assume it doesn't matter what we do to it is irresponsible and deserves punishment.
What we do can affect the environment to a point. But to say that mankind and modern, western civilization has shifted the
global environment and is now moving toward the end of mankind unless Liberals start restricting the free market is utterly absurd. Volcanoes, for example, have put out more pollutants than the automobile has since it was invented. That doesn't matter to the global warming crowd though; it's our fault; Al Gore said so.
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:01:09 PM
I think its technically a theory which is much stronger then a hypothesis and has more research and "proof" behind it. I say "proof" because nothing can ever be proved as fact in science (nothing have be proved but everything can be disproved).
edit: spelling
It is not a theory. A theory would mean that it was a hypothesis which has been tested again and again and proved correct over others. Global warming has not. As I have said before, global warming climate models based on the manmade hypothesis have been proven wrong several times. At the same time, non-manmade global warming models have been correct.
the data from ice cores seems to indicate that we are in the warmed time in five and a half million years by a small amount but an amount large enough to not correspond with the rest.
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:23:47 PM
the data from ice cores seems to indicate that we are in the warmed time in five and a half million years by a small amount but an amount large enough to not correspond with the rest.
1) I don't believe the earth is five and a half million years old. 2) Are you saying that there was once a time that the earth was at the currect temperature without mankind to screw it up? And 3) Even if that is what ice cores suggest the question is is mankind to blame and the ice cores don't tell us the answer to that question.
Just to hop into this a little....
I do believe in global warming, but I try to keep an open mind. All of the scientific data that I have seen points to it. I agree that it's not a fact - everything about it is based off of statistical analysis. However, the numbers do seem to be showing a significant increase in worldwide temperature, as well as an increase in greenhouse gasses, which would seem to imply that global warming is reality. However, if you have/have seen some data that challenges this analysis, I would definitely like to see it and would give it serious consideration.
First, well then how old do you think it is? Second no the earth does go though cycles of heating and warms and there are variations in these (ice ages, really warm periods, etc) But ours is continuing to climb much higher than the rest. From what I've seen is seems that the rate of warming really started to increase around the time of the industrial revolution. By the amount of oil we burn its really not that surprising that we would have at least a noticeable effect. That being said we have became much more efficient as of late and what we are feeling could be that of fifty years ago.
edit: I'm along with O_B on this one so far I have looked at everything you have shown and given it thought.
The question is not, does global warming exist (it does, but it is not as drastic as the hype would have you believe)? The question is, is man to blame. I would say the answer is no. There are other explanations (for example, see the global warming swindle). The sun, for example -- the giant ball of gas, many times larger than earth from which we get all energy -- is to me a much better explanation for global warming than something as small as industry and automobiles.
well global warming does come from the sun but its more of a thing about how the earth lose heat. Green house gases are a wonderful thing, they allow life to exist and keep the earth form being an ice ball but too much of a good thing can be bad in our case it the build of of these gases that are trapping the heat from the sun and thats whats warming us up.
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 05:41:34 PM
First, well then how old do you think it is? Second no the earth does go though cycles of heating and warms and there are variations in these (ice ages, really warm periods, etc) But ours is continuing to climb much higher than the rest. From what I've seen is seems that the rate of warming really started to increase around the time of the industrial revolution. By the amount of oil we burn its really not that surprising that we would have at least a noticeable effect. That being said we have became much more efficient as of late and what we are feeling could be that of fifty years ago.
edit: I'm along with O_B on this one so far I have looked at everything you have shown and given it thought.
First, I think the earth is somewhere in the area of 10,000 years old. Second, an example. During the post World War 2 period, when carbon dioxide emissions (the supposed cause of global warming) rose dramatically during the following economic boom, the temperature decreased -- even though it had been increasing prior to 1940. If carbon emissions are in fact to blame for global warming as its advocates would have us believe, the tempearture should have increased.
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 06:03:38 PM
well global warming does come from the sun but its more of a thing about how the earth lose heat. Green house gases are a wonderful thing, they allow life to exist and keep the earth form being an ice ball but too much of a good thing can be bad in our case it the build of of these gases that are trapping the heat from the sun and thats whats warming us up.
Mankind's emission of green house gases is very small incomparison to other things such as volcanoes, animals, bacteria etc. Solar activity and global temperature shifts have also correlated very very closely over the past century -- much more closely than mankind's carbon emissions.
or it could be delayed I don't have proof of this but it could be true. frankly I don't care to much about how big our effect on it is I just think we should try to find more efficient forms of energy even for the fact that we wouldn't have to rely on such unstable areas as the middle east for it. Also if the earth was 10,000 years I don't think we would have so much oil though I could be wrong about that and its your own option.
P.s. yea and I'm not saying those don't have an effect but we could be the straw that break the camel's back.
P.S...S. for fun I made a Planetside Debate club logo.
Hey Will,
Scientists have two ways to judge earth's age.
By the sediments and by fossils.
The geologists judge the age of a sediment by the kind of fossils found.
The paleontologists (?) judge the age of fossils with help of the sediment.
But - after Mount St. Helens has its last eruption, they were able to find fossils of trees and they found oil. After 10 years.
I like that logo, by the way ,-)
I think we've talked about all of this as much as we can without driving it in the ground.
Quote from: nvseal on July 11, 2007, 04:46:51 PM
Quote from: calico on July 11, 2007, 09:15:22 AM
The choice isn't between extreme left and extreme right, but common sense. This is otherwise known as balance...something our political system has drifted ashore from.
What does that have to do with what I said? Capitalism is common sense.
Cooool. Fits right in. :D
Quote from: Will on July 11, 2007, 06:15:03 PM
P.S...S. for fun I made a Planetside Debate club logo.