| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
icystorage
Jollibee19346 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:25 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future. human nature D: | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:25 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future. Space is expensive. Very expensive. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote: You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make. Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries. Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity? If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion. Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period. Isn't technology splendid? though I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I still believe you are seriously in err in some of your points. first off, you are making it seem as if the coast guard is an oceanic sciences team. But let's focus on the facts and ignore that no matter how cocky we are, neither your background nor mine functions as any sort of qualification to comment on the topic beyond allowing us to find facts done by people far more qualified than we are. So here is some evidence that I'd like to bring into the conversation. this is for our (hopefully continuing to be) thoughtful discussion, and also for the benefit of tl netters who will be reading this and unfortunately but most likely, allowing their opinion on an important topic to be determined by an online forum. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108149 large meta-study observing global trends in line with local trends, that oceans collapse by 2050, collapse being defined as 90% depletion. keep in mind that the ocean is a large fucking place. when most of the species are gone, most of he larger lifeforms will become extinct due to starvation. your mention of EEZ is hilarious. do you think that by patrolling one area of the ocean, you are saving the fish? fish do swim right? The ocean isn't like a pasture that you fence off. I don't know why you are getting the idea that you can protect fish by protecting one area. Are you also tying up all the fish in that area with rope so they don't swim beyond 100 miles from your designated EEZ? not only are you wrong in your assumption that fish farming can completely replace natural fishing, it is even more fucking damning that you are assuming that a lack of food is the main problem of depleting the oceans. forests, coal, and other fossil fuels are still the main source of energy for creating electricity. sure, we have some manufactured forests, but do you really believe that we are growing manufactured forests to completely replace the forests we are cutting down? and why are you even asking me why trees are important? First you say that the Earth should have 5x as many people because we can, then you assume that the main problem with depletion of the oceans is food scarcity, and then you ask me why we need trees. What is this, mucho money map? before i thoroughly rape you on your conviction that global warming doesn't exist, please confirm to me that you indeed believe it doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that you are considering the 99.9% consensus of the scientific community to be hogwash. You do know that in addition to global consensus among any climatgologist worth his salt, the UN has also conducted an exhaustive study inviting the top scientists of each country to study the subject without influence from any one country's politics or business interests. Anyways, please let me know that you want to really argue against global warming. because when i read that part, i started thinking this might actually be a waste of my time. but I do have to agree with you on one point, being that nuclear fussion would be the ideal source of energy in the future. the only countries making reasonable strides towards it, last time i heard, was the EU, China and Japan. A Japanese scientist just a few years ago, making good progress with making fussion more efficient and possible at lower temperatures. China investing huge amounts of money in the creation of a functional prototype fussion reactor. the EU doing something similar. Back to the point. do you really think the earth needs 5x the population it has right now? let me know also if you mean that all 30 billion people would live at the standard of the average american right now. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:22 XoXiDe wrote: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html if you have a lot of time to spare http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf and if you have a LOT more time on your hands. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html For those of you who are going to read these, please read this first. http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/30/cei-files-epa’s-own-suppressed-report-demands-epa-global-warming-proceeding- by Christine Hall June 30, 2009 CEI Files EPA’s Own Suppressed Report, Demands EPA Global Warming Proceeding Be Reopened Public Should Have Right to Review, Comment on Gov’t Report Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today is demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency allow public comment on an internal global warming report that the agency itself suppressed. CEI is submitting the report to the EPA and formally requesting that EPA re-open the comment period on its so-called “endangerment proceeding,” so the public can comment on both the report and on EPA’s conduct. EPA’s official comment period ended June 23. Today’s actions follow CEI’s release of internal EPA emails a week ago that demonstrated the agency cover-up, followed by a draft version of the report released last Thursday. A day later, the author of the report was given permission by the agency to release the final report but only on his own website. “EPA sits on this report for over three months, and then only allows it to be made public on the author’s personal website,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “The fact that we have to formally re-file it with the agency indicates how unreal this situation is.” The report criticizes the agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It concludes that EPA is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature. It finds that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations. VIEW THE FINAL EPA INTERNAL REPORT VIEW THE DRAFT REPORT VISIT THE AUTHOR’S WEBSITE VIEW CEI’S REQUEST TO EPA READ CEI’S JUNE 18 PUBLIC COMMENT TO EPA ON ENDANGERMENT FINDING You can draw your own conclusions from these various sources. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:28 Aegraen wrote: I'm sorry, but if this is the general feeling of a large group of people I'm truly scared for the future. Science has no sides. Once you pick a side in Science it no longer is science and is, but yet another skewed practice. You might as well be practicing Alchemy because that has as much basis as science does when you have made up your mind irregardless of evidence. If you ask the leading scientists and politicians promoting Global Warming (To which they changed the moniker to Climate Change, wonder why?), if you believe that the Earth is in dire straits why are you still using modern luxuries that contribute to the problem? I'm sure more people would take it a lot more seriously if they didn't see Al Gore with a huge mansion, flying around in private jets, and owning multiple cars. When you get down to it, its politicized because they realize fear-mongering can centralize power. It's rather ignorant to say that real science has no sides. Science isn't practiced by robots -- it's practiced by humans. Although science is based on fact, there are no facts which are concrete. If there were then what reason would scientists have to disagree? It's already clear that the US has taken a different stance on science than many other countries in the world. You seem to have misinterpreted by statement -- possibly due to your opinions being so strongly for the doing away of humanity as the cause of global warming. In the fact of insufficient facts, a state which we are almost perpetually in, there will be differing opinions. Science does not know everything. I fear for a future where science acts only on the known and takes no sides. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote: Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" Forests are not going anywhere. :/ How sad. | ||
|
p4ge
Canada160 Posts
On August 06 2009 15:44 Aegraen wrote: So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact. i never said i believed anything, don't assume so much. i made a simple point. i think you have a pattern that you enjoy enacting too much, we have name for this pattern and it's called scepticism. also, global warming isn't being proved either, in fact the video argues the contrary since he says that it's natural for the world to go through changes in heat--which implies that we have nothing to do with it. so i'm not sure what your going on about in your initial post. did you even watch the video? i can't really take you seriously because you seem so certain of everything. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10696 Posts
Really nice post there... | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
It's only expensive because we haven't invested as much time and effort on a global scale into space as I think we should have. Now, I completely understand that we need to take care of business here on earth as well, with things such as starvation, over crowding, etc etc, but at the same time it isn't our responsibility to take care of the entire world (I'm referring to America for that). There are even things that should be done better in America... Just kind of wish we lived in a world that got along so all our efforts to focus on the stars. I've been watching videos and doing slight research on the universe and there is just so much awesome stuff out there. If only I knew what 2000 years from now held for our future... MIND = BLOWN | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10696 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously... Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided. | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
1- why the oceans are nowhere near depletion 2- how your little EEZ protection runs prevent fish from swimming in and out of your EEZ 3- why ocean depletion is ok 4- why Earth doesn't need trees, nor other such pesky things like coal or oil. 5- why we should even consider 30 billion population regarding your pathetic attempt to quote the CEI, a simple google search reveals that the CEI being a not for profit organization, receive funding mainly from ExxonMobil. Connect the dots idiot. 1- your attempts to argue points 1-5, which I'm awaiting responses on more for amusement than out of serious consideration, 2- Your inability to pose even one serious point of data. the only you can come up with being seriously flawed. demonstrating that you have no ability whatsoever for quality data collection. are you completely incompetent? not only are you ignorant, you are also stupid. no offense. 3- trying to flaunt your role on the coast guard as if it somehow qualified your opinion about environment or climatology. coast guards are a branch of the military stupid. your mention of the EEZ shows that you don't even know the background reasoning behind what you are being ordered by your superiors to do. Could you tell me, as I am curious to learn, what are the prerequisites for joining the coast guard? All that I can dig up is that you are required to have a 1000 SAT, and a 2.5 GPA. but perhaps i am missing something, perhaps you are also secretly touting a post doc in oceanography or any related field, or even anything related to objective analysis? or maybe you were one of the thousands of international experts who have committed their life to studying the topic, selected by the UN from every major country to participate in the international discussion on the topic, who have reached an unanimous consensus... but of course your little complaint went unheard, so you are voicing it on an internet forum instead? cheers | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Colonization, Resources from other planets, Asteroids.... Not to mention the development in new technologies that space exploration has already provided. i'm waiting for Velr to respond to this post. the teleportation devices that space research will usher would likely be useful in the intergalactic transporation of resources back to the Earth. right? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:12 Polyphasic wrote: i'm waiting for Velr to respond to this post. the teleportation devices that space research will usher would likely be useful in the intergalactic transporation of resources back to the Earth. right? More like medical, and engineering but whatever I enjoy Star Trek as much as the next person. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:04 Velr wrote: There is not that much point to put all our efforts into space exploration while we haven't even solved some very basic problems on earth... Seriously... I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it. No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out. Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:16 HuskyTheHusky wrote: I can say that America is doing fairly well for itself and are are striving towards things to help the environment. Other than that we can only do so much. If we wait until we fix every issue on Earth then... well that will never happen. Obviously impoverished countries need to focus on that, but the future is space no matter how you look at it. No matter what form the threat of extinction takes, space is the only way out. Edit: And yeah, Nasa has invented crazy amounts of stuff. The future can be our own planet if we take care of it. | ||
|
Polyphasic
United States841 Posts
On August 06 2009 17:20 keV. wrote: The future can be our own planet if we take care of it. i think what husky is referring to is what if we mined out our main mineral node on Earth, then our natural and 3rd also ran out of minerals. WHAT THEN!? obviously space is the answer. it's so simple! just tell Japan to tech up while Russia builds the rockets. the US will build cannons of course. Why is everyone else so stupid that husky is the only person who can think of such a plan? | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community. There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies: "The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. "This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies." Link to main page: Royal Society Direct link to PDF: PDF File | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
|
|
|
EPT
