| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
On July 05 2010 01:55 goldenkrnboi wrote: No, you're thinking of mandarins. Michael Mann is the quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts. Oh wait, or was it the New York Giants? No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under. | ||
|
dcberkeley
Canada844 Posts
On July 05 2010 01:57 Helios.Star wrote: No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under. No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 05 2010 01:58 dcberkeley wrote: No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango. No, you're thinking of Manny Calavera. Michael Mann is a comic book superhero. | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
did we have factories/cars/etc a long time ago? no. i'm seen al gore's stuff, read arguments against global warming and at this point im more worried about just shit going in our environment. | ||
|
De4ngus
United States6533 Posts
Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place! | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On July 05 2010 04:18 De4ngus wrote: Lol, what's the worst case scenario if global warming is false anyway? Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place! Because most high profile environmentalists are using it as a cover to spread their marxist philosophy. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 05 2010 04:34 Jerubaal wrote: Because most high profile environmentalists are using it as a cover to spread their marxist philosophy. And we'll succeed in spreading our Marxist principles! The Workers' Revolution is coming, Jerubaal. | ||
|
.zch
37 Posts
On July 04 2010 19:33 brain_ wrote: The thought that we can drive hybrids and thereby keep the Earth in stasis is a prime example of human arrogance. Wait, wait, wait, wait... and the thought that we can emit literally billions of tons of pollutants into the environment per year for decades and thereby not do any harm to the Earth is NOT a prime example of human arrogance? Whether they are contaminants like organophosphates or polychlorinated biphenyls, greenhouse gases like methane or carbon dioxide, or metallotoxics like mercury and lead far in excess of their natural quantities, these industrial and commercial effluents are very abundantly clearly negatively impacting different parts of the world, be it water quality or air quality or habitat quality. That's not "fear-mongering," that's common sense. Oh, and where does your uncle work? NOAH? Do you happen to mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA? Do you actually have any cognizance of the scientific community, beyond mere hear-say? Because just hearing your opinions from others instead of actually looking things up in, say, scientific literature and journals would explain why you thought your uncle worked at a place called "NOAH." | ||
|
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 05 2010 04:18 De4ngus wrote: Lol, what's the worst case scenario if global warming is false anyway? Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place! lol how about raising the fear of millions by creating a new satan out of CO2, and trying to dictate people's lifes just like an abused religion?  How about all those so called "scientists" who made a shitload of money spreading this bullshit and claiming that they are the only ones who know how to prevent the world from ending...just like the church around 14th century.. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On July 05 2010 07:24 sluggaslamoo wrote: The "so called scientists" are actually scientists. Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic. QFT, poster above this one is ignorant. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 05 2010 06:03 .zch wrote: Wait, wait, wait, wait... and the thought that we can emit literally billions of tons of pollutants into the environment per year for decades and thereby not do any harm to the Earth is NOT a prime example of human arrogance? Whether they are contaminants like organophosphates or polychlorinated biphenyls, greenhouse gases like methane or carbon dioxide, or metallotoxics like mercury and lead far in excess of their natural quantities, these industrial and commercial effluents are very abundantly clearly negatively impacting different parts of the world, be it water quality or air quality or habitat quality. That's not "fear-mongering," that's common sense. Oh, and where does your uncle work? NOAH? Do you happen to mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA? Do you actually have any cognizance of the scientific community, beyond mere hear-say? Because just hearing your opinions from others instead of actually looking things up in, say, scientific literature and journals would explain why you thought your uncle worked at a place called "NOAH." Mild greenhouse gasses like CO2 aren't "pollutants". They are a natural part of the environment. Hell, ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD. Volcanic eruptions can spew billions of tons into the atmosphere. All of this has been going on for millennia, loooooooong before humans were around. And what do you have to say about my other points? Like the fact that we are utterly powerless in the face of natural forces? The climate will swing back and forth- it is inevitable. Luckily people are skeptical enough that we won't pass onerous regulations (which, by the way, is just a gigantic scheme to empower the government and redistribute wealth). That way we won't all look like idiots in a few decades when the fad dies down and all of the hysteria and nonsense is disproved and discredited. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
I'm not sold on increased CO2 causing incredible climate change, but it's not a good thing to swing the balance in nature so rapidly. Of course some of the stuff proposed is foolish, but getting off fossil fuels as primary sources of energy necessary in the long run anyways. We just need a smooth and cost-effective transition out of them. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 05 2010 10:03 Myles wrote: LOL, a pollutant can be anything that causes problems. Pollutants in small quantities don't cause problems(most anyways) and a lot are actually required in nature - but they cause problems in the concentrations we put out. I'm not sold on increased CO2 causing incredible climate change, but it's not a good thing to swing the balance in nature so rapidly. Of course some of the stuff proposed is foolish, but getting off fossil fuels as primary sources of energy necessary in the long run anyways. We just need a smooth and cost-effective transition out of them. I agree completely. Fossil fuels won't be around forever, anyway, so we need to plan ahead. But AGW advocates aren't advocating a "smooth and cost-effective transition", they're advocating government repression and economic suicide for little-to-no gain. Another funny part of the entire proposal... Does anyone really believe China is going to go along with this? Lol. So the West is going to lock up its economies while China keeps spewing. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On July 05 2010 brain_ wrote: ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD. That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs. Turn off your capslock, btw. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
On July 05 2010 10:23 Tadzio wrote: That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs. Turn off your capslock, btw. Worldwide, not just in the US. Worldwide there are ~1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals. America's car-to-person ratio is probably the highest in the world, though I'm just guessing. And if you consider them a "human cause"... Does that mean we can't eat meat? And what about the billions of herd animals that would exist if human populations were much smaller? Think about the buffalo - at least 50 million existed before humans wiped them out. The same story repeats all over the world. Should we cut down the human population and then slaughter wild grazing animals to keep emissions at a minimum? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Hack into email accounts to find evidence of conspiracy. Claim to find evidence, except I just have poor reading comprehension and it isn't really a conspiracy. Still claim it is a global scam done up by 97% of the active climate scientists to take money from rich people. Cows fart. Deny all existence of experiments which show an increase in temperature when CO2 rises in a controlled environment consistent with the rate at which the Earth is warming. Spout drivel on forum. Back to  ing. Keep the show going! | ||
|
dcberkeley
Canada844 Posts
On July 05 2010 10:30 brain_ wrote: Worldwide, not just in the US. Worldwide there are ~1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals. America's car-to-person ratio is probably the highest in the world, though I'm just guessing. And if you consider them a "human cause"... Does that mean we can't eat meat? And what about the billions of herd animals that would exist if human populations were much smaller? Think about the buffalo - at least 50 million existed before humans wiped them out. The same story repeats all over the world. Should we cut down the human population and then slaughter wild grazing animals to keep emissions at a minimum? That's a terrible argument. Nobody talked about killing them off. Things like reducing vehicle emissions and banning CFCs is something everyone can get behind. Not eating meat is too drastic in a world with so much poverty. But just because that suggestion that you made up is ridiculous doesn't mean that all other forms of reducing emissions are. | ||
|
dcberkeley
Canada844 Posts
Mild greenhouse gasses like CO2 aren't "pollutants". They are a natural part of the environment. Hell, ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD. Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the environment. Greenhouse gases are also unnatural, coming from things like CFCs and absorb infrared light between 8 to 13um which is the window where infrared light can escape, allowing our planet to cool. Since the year zero, temperatures have done nothing but decrease annually until the Industrial Revolution. In the span of a century, there has been an abrupt change from decrease in annual temperature to increase in annual temperature. Nature is in relative equilibrium and it's unlikely it's the cause of this sudden change. The onset of burning coal and using fossil fuels is. Volcanic eruptions can spew billions of tons into the atmosphere. All of this has been going on for millennia, loooooooong before humans were around. And temperatures have remained constant throughout the millennia, with so many volcanic eruptions, until recently. And what do you have to say about my other points? Like the fact that we are utterly powerless in the face of natural forces? The climate will swing back and forth- it is inevitable. The fluctuations of the past 2000 years has suddenly changed within the span of 100 years, coinciding with industrialization. It seems that nature is utterly powerless against us except until we burn a big enough hole that we all get fried to death. Luckily people are skeptical enough that we won't pass onerous regulations (which, by the way, is just a gigantic scheme to empower the government and redistribute wealth). That way we won't all look like idiots in a few decades when the fad dies down and all of the hysteria and nonsense is disproved and discredited. What is more likely? A major government conspiracy to centralize authority and pass environmental regulations so they can one day rule the world or people who would rather not spend money on something that will not affect them, just their children? | ||
|
.zch
37 Posts
As for your quote, "But AGW advocates aren't advocating a "smooth and cost-effective transition", they're advocating government repression and economic suicide for little-to-no gain," I'm sure even you know this is ridiculous. Nobody has the stance that they are "pro-government repression." Nobody feels as though we should commit "economic suicide." If you truly believe that, which I hope you don't, then that's just pathetic. The whole point of ameliorating climate change is to help humanity, not hurt it. Considering volcanoes, you have an interesting point. Unfortunately, it is a point that is very, very easily disproved. Observe any of the many international carbon dioxide historical measurement data from the past century. Take your pick--not all of the world's governments can be in on your conspiracy. If volcanic eruptions are as considerable as you say, then you should see a spike in the measurement data for every major eruption in the past 100 years. Check your own facts--the data trend is smooth and regular. Anyway, natural cycles will always occur. It depends on whether or not you choose to believe that it is unusual that these cycles, which usually are completed over the course of millenia, are being exceeded in the course of literally two centuries. If you don't find that strange, well, I don't really have much more to say. Regarding your China point--just because China does something, doesn't mean we should do it. That's extremely childish thinking. An extreme analogy would be: well, if a few other people in the world are murderers or thieves, then it should be okay for me to be a murderer and a thief. Obviously poor logic. Your buffalo/not eating meat argument is both absurd and hilarious and isn't worth commenting on. I think we can both recognize that this is a poor point in the overall scheme of things. You seem like a fairly logical person. Hopefully, you'll begin to do your own research and be true to yourself and realize that there isn't some sort of weird, world-wide conspiracy to "redistribute wealth." I mean, seriously. How crazy does that sound when said by somebody else? | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
