Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Hmmm. Do you think that a 60' bungee cord would be worse than 51' bungee cord? Seems to me that it's one of those things that a little too long is the same as a lot too long. 821431[/snapback] Not necessarily. The cord slows you down gradually, and elongates in the process. So the 51' cord (fully stretched) probably started to apply tension when it was 30' or 40' long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 A. Good environmental decisions require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources. 821401[/snapback] Uhhh...no, they don't. Look, we found another subject HA knows exactly jack sh-- about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Uhhh...no, they don't. Look, we found another subject HA knows exactly jack sh-- about! 821448[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills 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] And you know this how? Scientists can't even agree, and some poor jew hating statistician somehow knows that humans has had a dramatic effort. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't believe any of your bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 And you know this how? Scientists can't even agree, and some poor jew hating statistician somehow knows that humans has had a dramatic effort. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't believe any of your bull sh--. 821465[/snapback] Not to defend HA but Jew Hater ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Not to defend HA but Jew Hater ? 821473[/snapback] Have you actually read some of his threads. You it's funny to harrass about, he actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Have you actually read some of his threads. You it's funny to harrass about, he actually is. 821479[/snapback] I think I read most of them. Maybe I missed it, I know he mentioned eugenics but I did not read any negative comments on Jews. Anyways PPP has really gone down since I first joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Anyways PPP has really gone down since I first joined. 821482[/snapback] Coincidence I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Coincidence I think not. 821484[/snapback] I doubt I am the reason since I rarely post here. I think it has gone down since a certain poster has left us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I doubt I am the reason since I rarely post here. I think it has gone down since a certain poster has left us. 821487[/snapback] Tennyboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I doubt I am the reason since I rarely post here. I think it has gone down since a certain poster has left us. 821487[/snapback] Who got removed this time? I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Tennyboy? 821488[/snapback] Bib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Bib. 821490[/snapback] You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 And you know this how? Scientists can't even agree, and some poor jew hating statistician somehow knows that humans has had a dramatic effort. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't believe any of your bull sh--. 821465[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You're an idiot. 821491[/snapback] Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I doubt I am the reason since I rarely post here. I think it has gone down since a certain poster has left us. 821487[/snapback] Believe me... You should have been here in early 2003 when the drums of war were beating... It is still the same phucked up place... Just now... People are getting tired of spewing the same old bullsh*t they did in the past... 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 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] And the same thing goes for procreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 Maybe I missed it, I know he mentioned eugenics but I did not read any negative comments on Jews. That's because I haven't made any negative comments about Jews. But I think that a few of my more contentious opponents have reached the point where they no longer care about what's true and what's false. (I may be going out on a limb in assuming that they cared about these things in the first place.) But there is a natural human tendency to put one's ideological agenda ahead of objective truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 And the same thing goes for procreation. 821495[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T 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] But yet like Good 'ol Charlie Brown, you keep coming back to try to kick the football. Except you haven't realized that it's actually a golf ball and the reason you keep missing it isn't because Lucy pulls it away, it's because your kick is like a roundhouse at a non-existant homerun pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts