Chilly Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789 Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789 Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true. 246572[/snapback] I like your sig line. Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I like your sig line. Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse. 246599[/snapback] Come on, Darin...he's "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others". You know....like the "idiots" who dont agree with his POV on the Greenhouse Effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 I like your sig line. Though I'm still waiting for the Democrats to come up with a "new" idea that doesn't involve the government taking something over and screwing it up worse. 246599[/snapback] I aint no stinkin Democrat, and I aint no stinkin neo-con either. This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it. 246695[/snapback] I suggest that you read: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;j...85&pageNumber=1 The article that you posted has to do with continual cycles over millions and millions of years, not the dramatic increases that we've seen and now can prove has happened and can't account for. The cycle which was described in that article is going to happen dramatically in the future - and its going to start growing expentially, not nearly like what we are seeing right now and not enough to account for the current changes, if I understand it correctly. Come on, Darin...he's "tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others". You know....like the "idiots" who dont agree with his POV on the Greenhouse Effect. 246706[/snapback] I didn't know that the definition was applying to obsolete ideas to which we have scientific proof to show wrong. In fact, you know what, I'll be tolerant of everyone's obsolete ideas from now on! I'll think that if someone tries to build a car using square wheels instead of round, that I'll think they're not an idiot but quite a smart guy, as its a different idea then right now! Or what about a guy that tries to treat his high blood pressure with sodium! Maybe the guy that is lactose intollerant who thinks that if he drinks enough milk he'll become lactose tollerant! These guys are all smart, and I would welcome them into the world with open arms and not think they are dumb! Thanks for showing me the light! (Yeah !@#$ing right) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 This link doesn't come out and say that humans are blameless but the multi million year cycles seem to imply it. 246695[/snapback] He fails to mention whether the global warming 470 to 550 million years ago could have been prevented by the Kyoto Treaty provisions. I wonder if he's an 'idiot', too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789 Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true. 246572[/snapback] Unfortunately, a "correllation" is never "unequivocal proof". It's a correllation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 And we'll all be around to know the truth Chicken wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789 Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true. 246572[/snapback] Why do we have to refer to the hard working well intentioned people who work in our government as "idiots" They are not so different then us. Perhaps we should try walking a day in thier shoes before we throw around these types of shots. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Greenhouse Gases DO cause Global Warming, Now we have proof wait, so if a bunch of scientists say something that means it is true? Good, cause there are a lot of scientists who will argue against this data. A must read article for people on both sides To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd. Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam? Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 wait, so if a bunch of scientists say something that means it is true? Good, cause there are a lot of scientists who will argue against this data. A must read article for people on both sides 247042[/snapback] And conversely, that's pretty stupid !@#$ing logic for justifying polluting the planet. Regardless of whether or not global warming due to pollutive emissions is real or not, polluting the planet is still a pretty stupid thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Global Warming = Manipulated data that scientists use to get big money grants and research funding from international bodies and governments. Earth goes through cycles.... It Gets Warm, It Gets Cold, It Gets Really Warm, The Then It Gets Really Cold. Billions of years, it's always been the same way. Michael Crichton just wrote a book about it called State of Fear. The story is fictional but the data and information on this very topic is factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Global Warmings = Manipulated data that scientists use to get big money grants and research funding from international bodies and governments. Earth goes through cycles.... It Gets Warm, It Gets Cold, It Gets Really Warm, The Then It Gets Really Cold. Billions of years, it's always been the same way. Michael Crichton just wrote a book about it called State of Fear. The story is fictional but the data and information on this very topic is factual. 247066[/snapback] Right. Crichton's a great source. And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic. "Hard" science is actually much more about "massaging data" to prove your desired result than most people would think...and I'm absolutely damned sure that Crichton's sources are just as guilty of it as anyone else involved in the "global warming" debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Right. Crichton's a great source. And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic. "Hard" science is actually much more about "massaging data" to prove your desired result than most people would think...and I'm absolutely damned sure that Crichton's sources are just as guilty of it as anyone else involved in the "global warming" debate. 247068[/snapback] I don't disagree with you one bit, but if I had to pick one side of the fence to stay on, it would be the side that says global warming is just cyclic process. If we can't accurately predict weather next week, why should we trust these people to predict weather 100 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I don't disagree with you one bit, but if I had to pick one side of the fence to stay on, it would be the side that says global warming is just cyclic process. If we can't accurately predict weather next week, why should we trust these people to predict weather 100 years from now. 247083[/snapback] It doesn't change the fact that continuing to poison the air and water is not a good for humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 And conversely, that's pretty stupid !@#$ing logic for justifying polluting the planet. Regardless of whether or not global warming due to pollutive emissions is real or not, polluting the planet is still a pretty stupid thing to do. 247058[/snapback] why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 It doesn't change the fact that continuing to poison the air and water is not a good for humanity. 247097[/snapback] And we agree on something. I personally don't believe all the hype on "global warming" but I do know the pollutants can't be good for day to day living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 The article that you posted has to do with continual cycles over millions and millions of years, not the dramatic increases that we've seen and now can prove has happened and can't account for. The cycle which was described in that article is going to happen dramatically in the future - and its going to start growing expentially, not nearly like what we are seeing right now and not enough to account for the current changes, if I understand it correctly. 246837[/snapback] You don't understand it. But then again, you probably don't want to understand it. It says that when the warming comes, it will come quickly. It also says there is no known way to predict when. It could be now, or millions of years from now, but if the planet's cylces continue, it is coming. Your article, OTOH, blames it all on humans (despite the fact that these warmings and coolings pre-date humans). It more specifically balmes capitalism (even if subtly). Funny that capitalism is also to blame for poverty, starvation, disease, racism, and every other world problem. At least all of the people come to the same conclusion: get rid of capitalism and the world becomes shangri-la. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Your article, OTOH, blames it all on humans (despite the fact that these warmings and coolings pre-date humans). It more specifically balmes capitalism (even if subtly). Funny that capitalism is also to blame for poverty, starvation, disease, racism, and every other world problem. At least all of the people come to the same conclusion: get rid of capitalism and the world becomes shangri-la. 247257[/snapback] It is to laugh. The BIGGEST polluters of all time were the Soviets and the Eastern European COMMUNIST countries. China is a big polluter too, but for some reason they always seem to get a pass from the enviro crusaders. Seems a country with a tyrannical legislative system doesn't care all that much how much it pollutes. Funny though that in a capitalist system technologies to clean up some of the effects of pollution are developed all the time. How much come from the communist/socialist systems? Not much I'd wager, but instead they just all get together in some 3rd world country (flying there in polluting airliners and driving there in polluting limos, all that energy used to house and put on their symposeums, eating tons of luxury food that takes resources to acquire, and generating tons of trash) and B word how those evil capitalist countries are destroying the planet... And yes, I'm with AD and others in that we are still stewards of our environment and steps to curb pollution should be taken, but because of common sense NOT from some global cabal of pinheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&c...01822177C295789 Hopefully this will convince the idiots in our government who don't think its true. 246572[/snapback] where's the "proof" i see no link to established journals documenting this all i see is a newspaper out of south africa and the way alot of this science can be manipulated in anyway way for political means...two people with two different points of view will interpret data two different ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts