Has anyone thought about what will happen as the globe warms and insects that can only live in tropical climates of the current equator spread north bringing diseases like malaria and yellow fever. People would be dropping like flies. Come on people get it together save the planet for the next generation .
Narupug wrote:
Has anyone thought about what will happen as the globe warms and insects that can only live in tropical climates of the current equator spread north bringing diseases like malaria and yellow fever. People would be dropping like flies. Come on people get it together save the planet for the next generation .
fermatx wrote:
and it's climate change, geez. Some areas are cooling down due to it.
Never mind that most of the shit cools the atmosphere, but go on...Mitch wrote:
While global warming may be real, it is certainly not manmade. Volcano's emit a million times more shit into the air than we ever have in our human history.
Man made global warming is a tool used by controlling government to tax you on emissions and further regulate your lives.
Discuss.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes I know, there's mulitple scenerios, some have us going into an Ice Age. I was just stateing one of many scenerios.usmarine wrote:
Narupug wrote:
Has anyone thought about what will happen as the globe warms and insects that can only live in tropical climates of the current equator spread north bringing diseases like malaria and yellow fever. People would be dropping like flies. Come on people get it together save the planet for the next generation .fermatx wrote:
and it's climate change, geez. Some areas are cooling down due to it.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu … 17111.htmlPochsy wrote:
So go off and find us a credible source. This really is not the kind of thing you sit around and debate like rhetoric.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ … ef=science
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid … 20255&
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle … 9127145558
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-We … tical-tool
http://www.kdbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9848906
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … d53cd3d320
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/09011218 … q7esu.html
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009010732 … oling.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Y … 13834c.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 430362.ece
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.asp … bbe163233e
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/1 … ng-period/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 … ing_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp … unning-out
http://mainstreamiowan.blogspot.com/200 … icize.html
http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf … amp;coll=2
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … 2a2126c3b1
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? … 3df032e569
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … do1610.xml
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpo … 26496.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 … st_do.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+Hist … e12823.htm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 83,00.html
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/22291 … sponse-act
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ … tition.htm
btw, I'm not denying warming (long term).. just saying that one approach to probably the least causing issue will be catastrophic if that is the case. Still, the alarmist tend to look one way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
so we dont have control....Spark wrote:
Never mind that most of the shit cools the atmosphere, but go on...
No. Global warming is a classic example of a lack of control when you place external factors in a chaotic system. I bet you, the vast majority of the changes will be natural cycles amplifying the small changes we have made which would have otherwise not have taken place.usmarine wrote:
so we dont have control....Spark wrote:
Never mind that most of the shit cools the atmosphere, but go on...
That doesn't mean we aren't doing anything.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Kmarion, please remove the link from "The Australian" as a credible source. It was far from credible. I dont have time to check out all the other links you have posted.
That article was written by David Evans, who claims to be an expert on the topic, but that is false, in fact the guy is basically a fraud.
source
That article was written by David Evans, who claims to be an expert on the topic, but that is false, in fact the guy is basically a fraud.
source
Desmoblog wrote:
This title grabbed our attention: Top Rocket Scientist: No evidence C02 causes global warming. And it should. It is a pretty bold statement and the implications would be pretty big news.
So we decided to compile a backgrounder on 'The Top Rocket Scientist."
Here's the research database entry on David Evans:
No peer-reviewed articles on climate change
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.
Man... at least present an argument that links to scientific data of some sort. Are we just supposed to take your word on it?Mitch wrote:
While global warming may be real, it is certainly not manmade. Volcano's emit a million times more shit into the air than we ever have in our human history.
Man made global warming is a tool used by controlling government to tax you on emissions and further regulate your lives.
Discuss.
And yet you post one from the Daily Mail..lolMitch wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … perts.htmlPochsy wrote:
So go off and find us a credible source. This really is not the kind of thing you sit around and debate like rhetoric.
I could literally post 20 links
why? so you people can cry and moan about the links? ya great. and if you need a link to what has been discussed at nauseam, then you are just looking to bash the link, not discuss the OP. i dont blame him for not posting a link. shit i dont think anyone should do it anymore.Braddock wrote:
Man... at least present an argument that links to scientific data of some sort. Are we just supposed to take your word on it?
Italy and France have to redraw their boarders because the existing line running along a massive glacier no longer exists.
Fact.
/thread
Fact.
/thread
Agreedusmarine wrote:
why? so you people can cry and moan about the links? ya great. and if you need a link to what has been discussed at nauseam, then you are just looking to bash the link, not discuss the OP. i dont blame him for not posting a link. shit i dont think anyone should do it anymore.Braddock wrote:
Man... at least present an argument that links to scientific data of some sort. Are we just supposed to take your word on it?
These "scientific" reports have real credibility issues given the amount of money at state. The US govt is set to reap $6.7 trillion from carbon credits. Other govts are going to do the same. Millions have been spent to create a gravy train of grant money for "scientific" reports supporting the govts position on global warming in order to bolster their arguments to tax the $hit out of us and to create a new false market for their friends to profiteer.
So I would reject this notion that the links on one side of the argument are false and misleading while the other sides arguments are beyond reproach.
But of you want a challenge.... Try posting a link to research showing that global warming is real that has not been funded by the govt, or govt proxies like the UN. I doubt you can find any because the govt money has been so pervasive in this area of so called academic research.
+
/stupid
/ignorant
/childish
/lacks scientific backing
/stinks of being a conspiracy theory
/ignores it's being confirmed daily
/doesn't understand the physics, modeling or feedback mechanisms
/rather than read the dailymail, what tripe
/should try this site www.realclimate.org instead
/arguing with ignorant people is a bore
But hey it's the Internet, tis serious stuff this denialist perspective and conspiracy theory makes sense! Not!
/stupid
/ignorant
/childish
/lacks scientific backing
/stinks of being a conspiracy theory
/ignores it's being confirmed daily
/doesn't understand the physics, modeling or feedback mechanisms
/rather than read the dailymail, what tripe
/should try this site www.realclimate.org instead
/arguing with ignorant people is a bore
But hey it's the Internet, tis serious stuff this denialist perspective and conspiracy theory makes sense! Not!
Last edited by topal63 (2009-04-01 08:31:38)
You should be barred from the Debate and Serious Talk section... either that or they should just create a "Baseless Opinion" section for you and Mitch. If you do not construct a proper argument with reference to relevant facts in support of your argument then you are just running your mouth off. Yes, people will question your sources... that's what debate and serious talk is all about and it's this that sometimes, just sometimes, leads to people actually learning something.usmarine wrote:
why? so you people can cry and moan about the links? ya great. and if you need a link to what has been discussed at nauseam, then you are just looking to bash the link, not discuss the OP. i dont blame him for not posting a link. shit i dont think anyone should do it anymore.Braddock wrote:
Man... at least present an argument that links to scientific data of some sort. Are we just supposed to take your word on it?
And by the way, the term is 'ad nauseam', it's Latin.
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-04-01 08:30:50)
This is the internet. Journal articles and other various texts can be accessed instantly and linked to. Simply speaking your mouth off isn't going to be much of a debate.usmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
We need more ad hoc discussion.
its better than fucking link a thon and massive quote blocks.AussieReaper wrote:
Simply speaking your mouth off isn't going to be much of a debate.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/adnauseum.htmlusmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
... or here's some other nausea inducing mistakes, fallacies, etc.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm
Links provided as requested.
Last edited by topal63 (2009-04-01 08:35:03)
usmarine wrote:
no u
i said i hit the wrong key...and wasnt talking to you. thanks though.topal63 wrote:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/adnauseum.htmlusmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
... or here's some other nausea inducing mistakes, fallacies, etc.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm
Links provided as requested.
I never said you weren't arguing... you're not debating. Dickheads usually argue, more intelligent creatures tend to put forward an argument and then actually debate that argument. If you want to put ignorance up on a pedestal then be my guest just don't expect me to ever take you seriously. If someone wants to tell me their opinion I can simply tell them to shut up and fuck off but if they want to present an actual study or report it's a little bit harder to deny or ignore.usmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
and i think you are wrong. Diesel_dyk made a good post with no links. you dont need links for everything here. my god. something obscure yes. but global/climate/poop warming is not one of them.Braddock wrote:
I never said you weren't arguing... you're not debating. Dickheads usually argue, more intelligent creatures tend to put forward an argument and then actually debate that argument. If you want to put ignorance up on a pedestal then be my guest just don't expect me to ever take you seriously. If someone wants to tell me their opinion I can simply tell them to shut up and fuck off but if they want to present an actual study or report it's a little bit harder to deny or ignore.usmarine wrote:
read above...people agree. maybe you should be banned
and since when does an argument need to have a link? do you walk around with newspapers and books in case you argue with someone? or do you speak your mind?
p.s oh wow i hit the wrong key. thanks brad. btw, do you have a link proving your latin thingy? if not you should be banned from this section.
No it's not.usmarine wrote:
its better than fucking link a thon and massive quote blocks.AussieReaper wrote:
Simply speaking your mouth off isn't going to be much of a debate.
sure it is. id rather hear what YOU have to say. not what douchenozzle reporter / scientist has to.Braddock wrote:
No it's not.usmarine wrote:
its better than fucking link a thon and massive quote blocks.AussieReaper wrote:
Simply speaking your mouth off isn't going to be much of a debate.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-04-01 08:42:05)