Didn't you read liberal-slayer's post? The laws of physics can disprove the theorem of global warming!Robbie77 wrote:
so tell me, you believe that the tons of co2 emissions that is pumped into the sky on a daily basis as absolutely no affect or makes no difference in our environment or our lives for that matter?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?
You infer that as i never said that.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Didn't you read liberal-slayer's post? The laws of physics can disprove the theorem of global warming!Robbie77 wrote:
so tell me, you believe that the tons of co2 emissions that is pumped into the sky on a daily basis as absolutely no affect or makes no difference in our environment or our lives for that matter?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?
And you sound a lot like one of those pull-string dolls that can only spit out a few different phrases before it runs out of material. Like I said earlier, I wish people like Al Gore and Ted Danson would stay the hell out of this and leave it to the scientists so the lot of you "Raarrrgh, Algore tedkennedy billclinton" types would have nothing to do but sit there with a ribbon of drool trailing out of the slack corners of your mouths. Pay attention now: I don't give a rusty fuck what Al Gore says. Al Gore is a political opportunist first and foremost. However his presence in the debate does not invalidate scientific findings just by his mere presence. Dishonest people use him to deflect from actual scientific research by shifting the focus away from science and towards stories about how much electricity he uses and how often he takes a jet to his destinations. Name-dropping hypocrite celebrities does not negate scientific research. Pointing out the actions of one individual involved in this issue does not negate the findings of thousands of people actually qualified in this area of scientific research.ReDevilJR wrote:
Now you sound like Al Gore with his whole deal about saving a frog before it heats up and dies... [An Inconvenient Truth]
It's really sad that some folks are willing to let this issue be decided by media talking heads rather than the people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.
Trees grow faster with more CO2
More news at 11.
More news at 11.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
You infer that as i never said that.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Didn't you read liberal-slayer's post? The laws of physics can disprove the theorem of global warming!Robbie77 wrote:
so tell me, you believe that the tons of co2 emissions that is pumped into the sky on a daily basis as absolutely no affect or makes no difference in our environment or our lives for that matter?
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences, cause well that would mean the tons of co2 emissions that pumped into our atmosphere is well, an exception to physics?
Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
I see... you think im on the side of a political agenda. You are sadly mistaken. Using the laws of physics which have been unanimously agreed to by the scientific community you can disprove the theorem of global warming from the evidence that is presented to you.
What does this mean then?
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-03-01 17:46:59)
Should be: Every Action Has An Opposite And Equal Reaction.Robbie77 wrote:
every action has a reaction
That is a theorem on Inertia, nothing at all to do with Environmental impact or in a way, 'karma'. It holds no ground here.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
You should haved used Ron instead.King_County_Downy wrote:
Trees grow faster with more CO2
More news at 11.
http://xs113.xs.to/xs113/07095/ric.jpg
Stay classy San Diego.
Not entirely disprove the theroem only with THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. as i have stated before you can prove me and all the "non-believers" wrong with sufficient evidence.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
You infer that as i never said that.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Didn't you read liberal-slayer's post? The laws of physics can disprove the theorem of global warming!Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
I see... you think im on the side of a political agenda. You are sadly mistaken. Using the laws of physics which have been unanimously agreed to by the scientific community you can disprove the theorem of global warming from the evidence that is presented to you.
What does this mean then?
Yeah so much snow... im hoping for a snow day tmrw
kk, leave it up to the scientists, your opinions aren't valid because you can only theorize off of how you think the world works. In reality, your model and how our planet actually works are probably fairly far off.
But here's a scientific fact for you. I'm sure everyone knows about catalysts (if you don't basically they're a substance that lowers the activation energy of a reaction which lets the reaction occur more rapidly). Catalysts speed up the rate of a reaction, such as, oh lets say the reaction that breaks down ozone (O3), which results in the giant hole over the arctic. Well, some of the gases that we are producing (chlorine gas for example), speed up that reaction by a factor of about 52x.
You'd have to be mighty ignorant (or know nothing about science) to not see that we are effecting the environment in a huge way.
But here's a scientific fact for you. I'm sure everyone knows about catalysts (if you don't basically they're a substance that lowers the activation energy of a reaction which lets the reaction occur more rapidly). Catalysts speed up the rate of a reaction, such as, oh lets say the reaction that breaks down ozone (O3), which results in the giant hole over the arctic. Well, some of the gases that we are producing (chlorine gas for example), speed up that reaction by a factor of about 52x.
You'd have to be mighty ignorant (or know nothing about science) to not see that we are effecting the environment in a huge way.
lol. pull string dolls. Tell me when in the Earth's entire history it has EVER been the same...? Hmph, NEVER. Cycles change, temperatures change, Co2 levels change, solar output changes, Tectonic plates CONSTANTLY move, Volcanoes erupt, Earthquakes (Tectonic plates colliding), EVERYTHING CHANGES... You're the liberal, you should like the change.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
And you sound a lot like one of those pull-string dolls that can only spit out a few different phrases before it runs out of material. Like I said earlier, I wish people like Al Gore and Ted Danson would stay the hell out of this and leave it to the scientists so the lot of you "Raarrrgh, Algore tedkennedy billclinton" types would have nothing to do but sit there with a ribbon of drool trailing out of the slack corners of your mouths. Pay attention now: I don't give a rusty fuck what Al Gore says. Al Gore is a political opportunist first and foremost. However his presence in the debate does not invalidate scientific findings just by his mere presence. Dishonest people use him to deflect from actual scientific research by shifting the focus away from science and towards stories about how much electricity he uses and how often he takes a jet to his destinations. Name-dropping hypocrite celebrities does not negate scientific research. Pointing out the actions of one individual involved in this issue does not negate the findings of thousands of people actually qualified in this area of scientific research.ReDevilJR wrote:
Now you sound like Al Gore with his whole deal about saving a frog before it heats up and dies... [An Inconvenient Truth]
It's really sad that some folks are willing to let this issue be decided by media talking heads rather than the people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.
Last edited by ReDevilJR (2007-03-01 18:20:22)
You're the conservative, you should be worried when change is happening so quickly. Gradual, natural change is fine. Species adapt, sometimes they die off but when you've got a window of a hundred thousand years or so to work with it's easy to get used to change. When the planet's climate is altered in the space of a hundred years very little can adapt, you get massive die-off, food chain disruptions as large predators can no longer rely on their normal prey items due to either diminished numbers or habitat disruption. Even if the ridiculous assertions of this being a natural change were true, do you really think "business as usual" is the best way to deal with it?ReDevilJR wrote:
lol. pull string dolls. Tell me when in the Earth's entire history it has EVER been the same...? Hmph, NEVER. Cycles change, temperatures change, Co2 levels change, solar output changes, EVERYTHING CHANGES. You're the liberal, you should like the change.
You think you can just use simplistic responses like "Climate changes, it doesn't stay the same", but you ignore the fact that past changes in climate (barring the mass extinction event that led to the fall of the dinosaurs) have been gradual, over thousands of years, not over such a short period of time that people can observe it in their lifetimes. Sure, climate changes on its own. Catalysts, as Commie Chipmunk mentioned, speed up existing processes. Climate change, in and of itself, is natural. The rate at which it is currently taking place is not. It is being artificially accelerated by human industry, to a point where WE as a species will begin to suffer the effects of it in greater numbers. The answer to this problem is not to ignore it, not to claim that it's a sinister plot of America-hating European socialists, it's to face it head-on and do something about it instead of stalling until it's someone else's problem or it's too late to do anything about it because some shill working for the coal industry says we don't have all the facts.
Then lead the way. But don't tell me how we should live (without oil, coal industry, etc...) when you don't do it yourself. Doing so is more beneficial than saying so. However, I'm not budging when I know it's not caused by us (humans)... I'm done. [Closed]HunterOfSkulls wrote:
You're the conservative, you should be worried when change is happening so quickly. Gradual, natural change is fine. Species adapt, sometimes they die off but when you've got a window of a hundred thousand years or so to work with it's easy to get used to change. When the planet's climate is altered in the space of a hundred years very little can adapt, you get massive die-off, food chain disruptions as large predators can no longer rely on their normal prey items due to either diminished numbers or habitat disruption. Even if the ridiculous assertions of this being a natural change were true, do you really think "business as usual" is the best way to deal with it?ReDevilJR wrote:
lol. pull string dolls. Tell me when in the Earth's entire history it has EVER been the same...? Hmph, NEVER. Cycles change, temperatures change, Co2 levels change, solar output changes, EVERYTHING CHANGES. You're the liberal, you should like the change.
You think you can just use simplistic responses like "Climate changes, it doesn't stay the same", but you ignore the fact that past changes in climate (barring the mass extinction event that led to the fall of the dinosaurs) have been gradual, over thousands of years, not over such a short period of time that people can observe it in their lifetimes. Sure, climate changes on its own. Catalysts, as Commie Chipmunk mentioned, speed up existing processes. Climate change, in and of itself, is natural. The rate at which it is currently taking place is not. It is being artificially accelerated by human industry, to a point where WE as a species will begin to suffer the effects of it in greater numbers. The answer to this problem is not to ignore it, not to claim that it's a sinister plot of America-hating European socialists, it's to face it head-on and do something about it instead of stalling until it's someone else's problem or it's too late to do anything about it because some shill working for the coal industry says we don't have all the facts.
Here's a question, if pollution isn't causing global warming, does that mean we should pollute more?
Red lights should go off whenever someone engages in a debate and says I'm not budging.ReDevilJR wrote:
Then lead the way. But don't tell me how we should live (without oil, coal industry, etc...) when you don't do it yourself. Doing so is more beneficial than saying so. However, I'm not budging when I know it's not caused by us (humans)... I'm done. [Closed]
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-02 01:18:24)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I love these scientific debates where a whole bunch of people decide that decades of intense scientific research based on vast amounts of data accumulation and analysis, vast and complicated theoretical modeling and years of work is probably wrong because maybe nobody in that entire period thought to check if the sun was getting hotter.
These scientists know vastly more on the subject than you or anyone you know could possibly hope to understand in their lifetimes. The results they publish are based on huge amounts of well researched data and theories. Sorry to spoil any of these stupid misconceptions that people have, but on the whole scientists don't just decide to make their results fit with the viewpoints of their funders, largely because for the most part they won't know or care what that viewpoint is. The other argument I love that seems to come from people with no idea is that scientists just pump out conclusions so that they agree with everyone else. This couldn't be further from the truth. How do you make a name for yourself in science? Find out something interesting, that goes against the prevailing theories, but most importantly TURNS OUT TO BE CORRECT. What's the first thing that will happen if you do that? Loads of people will check to see if you are correct. Repeating experiments you've done and doing further investigation based on your conclusions to see if your theories work outside the system they were based on
As far as the liberal media goes, the only thing they are doing a good job of making up is the same thing they make up about creationism, the idea that there even is any serious debate over it. There isn't. The overwhelming majority of the science community have already decided, based on the massive amount of proof that global warming is real and a problem. It's not going to end the world in a hell storm of fire and brimstone, but it is going to cause increases in extreme weather including hotter summers and (wait for it) INCREASED COLDER WINTERS IN MANY PARTS!!!!! Yes global warming can cause localised cooling, shock horror. A fine example of this is the very real potential that melting ice from the north pole will lower the density of the water at the north end of the Atlantic gulf stream enough to stop the water from sinking and therefore stopping the conveyor belt of warm water from getting from the gulf of Mexico to the west coast of Africa and Europe. Result = colder Europe due to the increase in global temperature.
These scientists know vastly more on the subject than you or anyone you know could possibly hope to understand in their lifetimes. The results they publish are based on huge amounts of well researched data and theories. Sorry to spoil any of these stupid misconceptions that people have, but on the whole scientists don't just decide to make their results fit with the viewpoints of their funders, largely because for the most part they won't know or care what that viewpoint is. The other argument I love that seems to come from people with no idea is that scientists just pump out conclusions so that they agree with everyone else. This couldn't be further from the truth. How do you make a name for yourself in science? Find out something interesting, that goes against the prevailing theories, but most importantly TURNS OUT TO BE CORRECT. What's the first thing that will happen if you do that? Loads of people will check to see if you are correct. Repeating experiments you've done and doing further investigation based on your conclusions to see if your theories work outside the system they were based on
As far as the liberal media goes, the only thing they are doing a good job of making up is the same thing they make up about creationism, the idea that there even is any serious debate over it. There isn't. The overwhelming majority of the science community have already decided, based on the massive amount of proof that global warming is real and a problem. It's not going to end the world in a hell storm of fire and brimstone, but it is going to cause increases in extreme weather including hotter summers and (wait for it) INCREASED COLDER WINTERS IN MANY PARTS!!!!! Yes global warming can cause localised cooling, shock horror. A fine example of this is the very real potential that melting ice from the north pole will lower the density of the water at the north end of the Atlantic gulf stream enough to stop the water from sinking and therefore stopping the conveyor belt of warm water from getting from the gulf of Mexico to the west coast of Africa and Europe. Result = colder Europe due to the increase in global temperature.
Just as a side note, without side effects and consequences, our atmosphere would stagnate and be incapable of supporting life.Robbie77 wrote:
let me bring you back to grade 5
every action has a reaction
its stupid to think that the emissions that is being pumped into our environment as no side effects or consequences
Not only that but check out page 3.Kmarion wrote:
Red lights should go off whenever someone engages in a debate and says I'm not budging.ReDevilJR wrote:
Then lead the way. But don't tell me how we should live (without oil, coal industry, etc...) when you don't do it yourself. Doing so is more beneficial than saying so. However, I'm not budging when I know it's not caused by us (humans)... I'm done. [Closed]
On it Liberal-Sl@yer: says find Global Warming in these graphs (implying none exists).
Then supplies another graph - showing Global Warming (the possible Sun-power-output scenario).
Then they ignore the political...
And, they ignore the other impact(s) on the environment.
Ah but tis one senario in which sun output is directly correlated to tempurature. There are many different scenario taht correlate to global warming in exsitance or non- exsitance. The data must be checked and verified for submit to the entire community as to not cause panic among those whom are illiterate in science.topal63 wrote:
Not only that but check out page 3.Kmarion wrote:
Red lights should go off whenever someone engages in a debate and says I'm not budging.ReDevilJR wrote:
Then lead the way. But don't tell me how we should live (without oil, coal industry, etc...) when you don't do it yourself. Doing so is more beneficial than saying so. However, I'm not budging when I know it's not caused by us (humans)... I'm done. [Closed]
On it Liberal-Sl@yer: says find Global Warming in these graphs (implying none exists).
Then supplies another graph - showing Global Warming (the possible Sun-power-output scenario).
Then they ignore the political...
And, they ignore the other impact(s) on the environment.
OK 1 thing is certain, Global Warming is ~real~ its not just a hoax made up to frighten people. Look at the big Ozone hole tats over the Arctic its all cause by Co2 and pollution. One thing is Certain.....If the Polar ice caps melt your looking at another 50,000 year ice age, because the melting of the ice caps disturbs the ocean currents that bring warm water to states such as florida. If the Ice caps melt it displaces the balance of Salt Water and Fresh water which stops the ocean current that travels all over the globe, and the cooling of warm water which travels to the ice caps to be cooled. Scientist do say that the earth has gone trough a ice age every 50000 to 70000 year cycle but that was due to the instability of the planet and all of its volcanic activities. Right now were way past overdue on a ice age like 80,000 years mainly do to global warming...but one way or the other we are going to have one . And the 2nd thing is Co2 emissions causes holes to form in the Ozone layer that protects us Weak humans from the suns radiation and the radiation in space. U take away this layer and ur pretty much going to get burned if not cooked by the sun, and u would be able to get serious burns and skin disease by just walking to the 7eleven down ur street. But the funny thing will be in the next 10 20 years when earth runs out of fossil fuel and has no other alternatives because people never took it seriously ... but were making progress
You referenced rush Limbaugh. This proves one thing - you know nothing about science.ReDevilJR wrote:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/coolingworld.pdf
Directly from 1975, unedited, showing global cooling charts. Now, how has the global temperature supposedly increasing? (Over the course of decades?)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html
Possible Increases? THE SUN IS HUGE, the slightest sunspot sends massive amounts of energy RIGHT towards Earth. I betcha that would affect our climate more than anything else.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016896.php
The Estimated Ice Age Area because of "Global Cooling."
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/02/27/al- … -than-you/
Talk about being hypocritical.
IT'S ALL NATURAL. EVERYTHING THAT'S OCCURRING.
He has no degree in science (to my knowledge) and I've heard ACTUAL scientists speak about what a bunch of crap his rants are, I listened to one today in fact.
Right now, I have a paper in front of me by Andrew R. Blaustein from Oregon State University. It talks about the effects of climate change on amphibians worldwide. Amphibians are a good indicator for environmental hazards because they have permeable skin, that absorbs nutrients from the frogs surroundings. Frogs and amphibians like them have been around for millions of years. So when they start dying on a ridiculously large scale, you know something up.
See, "Global warming" isn't the only effect we are having on this planet. In fact, the depletion of the ozone layer is a huge problem. For those who don't know, the ozone shields us from harmful UV radiation let off by the sun, some of which can kill us instantly. The ozone layer is disappearing at an alarming rate - which is by no means natural, this is scientific fact. Prof. Blaustein has been working in my area (the pacific northwest) for quite a while and he, and many other scientists see that frog populations all around the world dying and many going extinct. Through many experiments they have determined that one of the causes (there are several of them) is the UV-B radiation, making it through the ozone.
What causes the depletion of ozone? Chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs for short). They are emitted by humans through solvents, military industrial use, refrigerants and used to be used in spray cans-- though they have been banned in all states except for Arizona if I'm not mistaken.
So a bunch of frogs are dying, why does that matter to us? Well like I said earlier, they are a good indicator on how the environment is doing. Apparently, that's not terribly well. Also, the whole food chain is disrupted, frogs die and insects flourish. You can only appreciate mosquitoes to a certain extent.
Now this is just one of the many issues facing us today. Global climate change is not something that you can be ignorant about because it is a very serious topic. We get our news from agencies who's best interests may not always be our own. Prof. Blaustein and many other scientists like him are feeling the pressure from large corporations (BP and Exxon mobile to name a few) and the government. Now if this isn't a serious issue, why would these people be trying to shut good scientists up? It's all money. Burning these fossil fuels at the rate that we are is in no way good for the environment. We are putting stuff in the air that is not supposed to be there (at least not in those large quantities).
I also heard someone mention the "liberal media". Well I'm going to have to cut this short because I'm going to listen to someone speak about the media and it's effects on peoples perception of global warming. Apparently, roughly 95% if scientists worldwide know that we've done something wrong to our planet, but it's the 5% who don't who are getting all the news attention. Why is that? Why is it that the government has banned its scientists from saying anything about global climate change? The scientists know that there is something wrong, but it's the higher ups who are making laws against speaking out.
To wrap it up, I know that many of you are going to be just as ignorant as you were before you read this. I know that many of you probably didn't even read much of it. But there is a serious problem here that has the possibility to effect your life, my life, and our children's lives.. hell, the future of the planet. Don't be a tool and listen to everything that "Rush Limbaugh" and all of these other big name morons want to say. They have diarrhea of the mouth and much of what is coming out is not scientifically true or significantly biased with respect to large corporations/companies and the government.
gg
We > Selfish gene > extinction.
Only time is the factor live your life and enjoy it while you can, seems egoistic ? well take statistics and find out how many people actually do something to stop global warming you can probably compare this to Microsoft windows vs Linux choice analogy.
Only time is the factor live your life and enjoy it while you can, seems egoistic ? well take statistics and find out how many people actually do something to stop global warming you can probably compare this to Microsoft windows vs Linux choice analogy.