Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Like it or not, the society we've created is already messing with procreation, and in ways which tend to select for the absence of intelligence. 821503[/snapback] Because those damn women work now a days, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Like it or not, the society we've created is already messing with procreation, and in ways which tend to select for the absence of intelligence. 821503[/snapback] Well then we are all screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I'm actually getting a little tired of this whole flame war, so I'll merely focus on the portion of your post that deals with the environment. Scientists agree that carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have dramatically risen over the last 100 years. The debate to which you're referring is about whether the increase in carbon dioxide has produced global warming, and if so to what extent. Measuring carbon dioxide levels is simple: you go out and take a bunch of air samples from various places around the planet. That tells you what the carbon dioxide level is like today. Because people have been doing this for a few decades, you can get a pretty specific idea what these levels were like a while back. And by taking core samples from glaciers, it's possible to see what CO2 levels have been like for hundreds or thousands of years. Based on such research, scientists have concluded the Earth's atmosphere is getting more carbon dioxide. This conclusion is not controversial, and is pretty much what you'd expect from burning a lot of coal and oil and other fossil fuels. But measuring global warming is very hard. Weather varies a lot from year to year, it varies by location. Also, the data are incomplete--you may not know what the temperature of Mt. McKinley was on Oct 5, 1895. Adding to the confusion is the fact that cities represent localized heat sources. All those cars in Los Angeles represent a significant local source of heat. If you noticed the ten year moving average temperature of Los Angeles was 4 degrees warmer now than it was in 1895, is it a sign of global warming, or is it just a local effect from all those cars and asphalt and other urban junk? This is an area where very smart scientists debate other scientists of equal intelligence. My own feeling is that we should be messing with the environment as little as possible, because we don't understand the long-term effects of the changes we're creating. 821492[/snapback] Except the earth has always done a good job of producing carbon dioxide on her own, and have to be looked at in the big picture and stop trying to focus everything on people especially Americans bad. Forest fires, volcanoes, other natural occurrances. What is the ratio of such today compared to 100 years ago, 10000 years ago. If you don't know all your controls how can you make sound hypothesis of the cause and affects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except the earth has always done a good job of producing carbon dioxide on her own, and have to be looked at in the big picture and stop trying to focus everything on people especially Americans bad. Forest fires, volcanoes, other natural occurrances. What is the ratio of such today compared to 100 years ago, 10000 years ago. If you don't know all your controls how can you make sound hypothesis of the cause and affects. 821517[/snapback] Yes but weren't there more forests then to take care of this problem naturally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except the earth has always done a good job of producing carbon dioxide on her own, and have to be looked at in the big picture and stop trying to focus everything on people especially Americans bad. Forest fires, volcanoes, other natural occurrances. What is the ratio of such today compared to 100 years ago, 10000 years ago. If you don't know all your controls how can you make sound hypothesis of the cause and affects. 821517[/snapback] You sure you want to get into this with him? Its not a fair fight, dude. Please, dude, walk away!! OK, whatever......... Statistically speaking of course. What are the odds Va is going to kick HA in a debate? Anyone? Darin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You sure you want to get into this with him? Its not a fair fight, dude. Please, dude, walk away!! OK, whatever......... Statistically speaking of course. What are the odds Va is going to kick HA in a debate? Anyone? Darin? 821522[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except the earth has always done a good job of producing carbon dioxide on her own, and have to be looked at in the big picture and stop trying to focus everything on people especially Americans bad. Forest fires, volcanoes, other natural occurrances. What is the ratio of such today compared to 100 years ago, 10000 years ago. If you don't know all your controls how can you make sound hypothesis of the cause and affects. 821517[/snapback] Didn't I mention how termite mounds in Africa could be adding to it also... This is no sh*t... No pun intended... ...Termites also release methane through similar processes. Land-use change in the tropics, due to deforestation, ranching, and farming, may be causing termite numbers to expand. If this assumption is correct, the contribution from these insects may be important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Yes but weren't there more forests then to take care of this problem naturally? 821520[/snapback] I don't know. I'm old, but not that old. Seriously the earth has always cleared and replenished. Hell not that long ago the middle east was lush farmland especially in the Tigris, Euphrates river. Overtime it disminished and is not wonderful hot desert. Again, change occurs in the world. Years ago where the rockies are, again not that long ago, that was flat and there were massive forests. Again man had nothing to do with those forests going away. Years ago the plans also were forest but with the mountains it changed weather patterns, and now more grassy plains then forests. Has man changed things, yeah, but but what amount. I don't know, and I am not nearly smart enough to be able to figure it out. I do know that people with agendas like to extrapolate on information and come to some conclusions that are not always based on facts or only a limited subset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Didn't I mention how termite mounds in Africa could be adding to it also... This is no sh*t... No pun intended... ...Termites also release methane through similar processes. Land-use change in the tropics, due to deforestation, ranching, and farming, may be causing termite numbers to expand. If this assumption is correct, the contribution from these insects may be important... 821525[/snapback] Thanks. That's my point. There is so much that needs to be factored into the controls, but all you get from the Gore crowd is the temp is up 1 degree over the last 100 years and the only change is man. Well that's bull sh--. Lots has changed, some by man, and plenty by natural causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Except the earth has always done a good job of producing carbon dioxide on her own, and have to be looked at in the big picture and stop trying to focus everything on people especially Americans bad. Forest fires, volcanoes, other natural occurrances. What is the ratio of such today compared to 100 years ago, 10000 years ago. If you don't know all your controls how can you make sound hypothesis of the cause and affects. 821517[/snapback] You bring up a valid point in saying that for some people, the subtext of the environmental message is that the U.S. or Western Civilization is to blame for the world's problems. I feel hatred neither for the U.S. nor Western Civilization, and my environmentalism is motivated by the same impulse that motivated conservative Republican Teddy Roosevelt to be a strong proponent of environmentalism. You bring up an additional valid point in saying that volcanoes and other natural sources can create dramatic variation in the world's carbon dioxide levels. In fact, the Earth's past contains examples of such natural forces such as volcano eruptions creating major changes in the Earth's climate. However, the carbon dioxide increases we've been seeing since the Industrial Revolution are generally seen primarily as the result of human industrial activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 However, the carbon dioxide increases we've been seeing since the Industrial Revolution are generally seen primarily as the result of human industrial activity. 821532[/snapback] How would you know unless it happened before. What are the controls? What is the basis for that conclusion other than an Al Gore movie. Seriously how many volcanos occured 100 years ago. What about earth shift, or rotation around the sun? There are billions of factors. Unless we have some "basis" for that statement in fact and based on some previous happening, then it's complete garbage and may or may not be true, but there is no reason to believe one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Now you just get from that crowd: "The you are small, I am bigger... I am strong, you are weak" only arguments... It is still the same dysfunctional place. I will leave it at that because I could really offend some around here... I'm sorry, but you've deeply offended me. My experience here on the PPP board has been an entirely a positive one. When people disagree, they consistently express their disagreement in a mild, civil tone. They always made sure to give careful thought to whichever points the opposing side happens to raise. Because people worked so hard to maintain a mature and reasonable tone, the discussions I've witnessed or participated in have always been constructive and informative. I've never seen any namecalling, and I've never seen a poster express disagreement without providing a thoroughly thought-out and well-defended reason. The only persuasive tools I've ever seen anyone use are information and logic. Partisanship and deliberate deception are utter strangers on the PPP boards. Argumentum ad hominum is never seen here; and a dishonest argumentum ad hominum is utterly unthinkable. The pristine atmosphere I've described is largely a credit to the moderators. Should a thread ever become slightly heated, the moderators will be quick to urge both sides to caution and moderation. In the unlikely event that these tactics should ever fail, the moderators will certainly close the offending thread, lest it become a flame war. I cannot understand your reasons for thinking so poorly of the PPP boards. My only hope is that additional interaction with them shall ultimately overcome your cynicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 How would you know unless it happened before. What are the controls? What is the basis for that conclusion other than an Al Gore movie. Seriously how many volcanos occured 100 years ago. What about earth shift, or rotation around the sun? There are billions of factors. Unless we have some "basis" for that statement in fact and based on some previous happening, then it's complete garbage and may or may not be true, but there is no reason to believe one or the other. 821537[/snapback] I am not an environmental scientist, so I can't answer your questions with perhaps the thoroughness that you'd like. But even those scientists who don't think global warming is taking place still agree that human industrial activity is almost certainly the primary cause for the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I will leave it at that because I could really offend some around here... 821494[/snapback] You mean because they hold your opinion in such regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I can't believe you're even trying to debate this. The level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has dramatically risen due to human activity. The consequences of this are unknown, but probably not something we should be messing around with any more than we have to. Therefore, carbon emissions should be reduced inasmuch as is practical. 821462[/snapback] You are such a !@#$ing idiot. You said "Good environmental decisions require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources." I disagree. The reason I disagree is because I can make a good environmental decision that does not require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources. For example: I replaced the thermostat in the house, and took the old mercury-filled one to the proper disposal center rather than a landfill. Good environmental decision. Did nothing for carbon emissions. And once again, you are a complete fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I don't know. I'm old, but not that old. Seriously the earth has always cleared and replenished. Hell not that long ago the middle east was lush farmland especially in the Tigris, Euphrates river. Overtime it disminished and is not wonderful hot desert. Again, change occurs in the world. 821529[/snapback] Of course, the main reason said farmland degraded was poor farming and grazing practices. Basically, goats ate Mesopotamia. I kid you not. It takes quite a bit of prolonged human activity to wreck an ecosystem...but it doesn't have to be sophisticated activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I'm sorry, but you've deeply offended me. My experience here on the PPP board has been an entirely a positive one. When people disagree, they consistently express their disagreement in a mild, civil tone. They always made sure to give careful thought to whichever points the opposing side happens to raise. Because people worked so hard to maintain a mature and reasonable tone, the discussions I've witnessed or participated in have always been constructive and informative. I've never seen any namecalling, and I've never seen a poster express disagreement without providing a thoroughly thought-out and well-defended reason. The only persuasive tools I've ever seen anyone use are information and logic. Partisanship and deliberate deception are utter strangers on the PPP boards. Argumentum ad hominum is never seen here; and a dishonest argumentum ad hominum is utterly unthinkable. The pristine atmosphere I've described is largely a credit to the moderators. Should a thread ever become slightly heated, the moderators will be quick to urge both sides to caution and moderation. In the unlikely event that these tactics should ever fail, the moderators will certainly close the offending thread, lest it become a flame war. I cannot understand your reasons for thinking so poorly of the PPP boards. My only hope is that additional interaction with them shall ultimately overcome your cynicism. 821544[/snapback] Is this sarcasm, or are you high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Is this sarcasm, or are you high? 821678[/snapback] If you actually have to ask whether I was being sarcastic, I'd say your cord was too long by at least 5 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You mean because they hold your opinion in such regard? 821570[/snapback] No. It isn't about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 If you actually have to ask whether I was being sarcastic, I'd say your cord was too long by at least 5 feet. 821689[/snapback] You should look at it from everyone else's point of view. It's no less unrealistic and baseless as damn near everything else you post. Really, "high" explains so much more than "sarcastic". I think I'll just assume from now on that you're on opiates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts