AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming - Page 4

Poll Results: Are humans the primary cause of global warming?

 
  • 67% (25)
    Yes
  • 24% (9)
    No
  • 8% (3)
    Other (Please Elaborate)
37 Total Votes  
post #121 of 291
4/27/09 at 10:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Humans will not destroy the planet, we'll destroy the environment and ecosystem that allows us to live on this rock. The planet will still be here long after we are gone.

I disagree. We're smarter than that. We'll figure things out in spite of the government.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 291
4/27/09 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You don't have a clue. Sorry, sad, but true.

Thanks for commenting on the poster. However since all us "laypersons" are the people who vote, simply telling someone they aren't an expert and that someone else is isn't very compelling. Especially since we have seen so many plans carried out by so many experts fail so miserably.

Quote:
Yup. No content. No comment.

A dismissal by any other name is still an argument just as weak.

Quote:
My personal professional opinion or the facts of the matter?

I am not, nor have I ever been, a flatlander (a unique Vermont idiom).

The fact of the matter, is that all along our barrier island system (Atlantic and Gulf coasts) there are literally millions of homes and commercial buildings. That all of these are eligible for national flood insurance. That all of them are built on sand.

Funny that?

Actually I'm pretty sure if we looked into the history of why the flood insurance is national it will be because city, state and local governments couldn't enforce the fact that corporations didn't want to provide it.

Funny that?

Quote:
Again, being a SME, I can state categorically, that you don't have an effin clue. \

No problem. Again telling everyone that isn't an SME that they don't have a clue is not a very compelling means of influencing their opinions and votes. So honestly, I hope it is a method you keep employing.

Quote:
See previous comment.

The rest of your rant is total gibberish. No comment.

Enjoy!

A dismissal by any other name is still an argument just as weak.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #123 of 291
4/27/09 at 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Humans will not destroy the planet, we'll destroy the environment and ecosystem that allows us to live on this rock. The planet will still be here long after we are gone.

It's possible to change the environment and/or ecosystem, granted, but it's extremely difficult to do so to any significant degree, and by significant I mean to the degree where life would prove untenable. After our entire history of attempts, thousands of years with absolutely no effort at regulation, mankind wasn't able to affect more than just a small fraction of less than one percent of the species on the face of the earth. And, since regulation has been instantiated in the last 50-100 years and continues to gain traction, I'd argue that the chances to change the environment/ecosystem have been significantly reduced.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Thanks for commenting on the poster. However since all us "laypersons" are the people who vote, simply telling someone they aren't an expert and that someone else is isn't very compelling. Especially since we have seen so many plans carried out by so many experts fail so miserably.



A dismissal by any other name is still an argument just as weak.



Actually I'm pretty sure if we looked into the history of why the flood insurance is national it will be because city, state and local governments couldn't enforce the fact that corporations didn't want to provide it.

Funny that?



No problem. Again telling everyone that isn't an SME that they don't have a clue is not a very compelling means of influencing their opinions and votes. So honestly, I hope it is a method you keep employing.



Enjoy!

A dismissal by any other name is still an argument just as weak.

No content. No comment.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #125 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It's possible to change the environment and/or ecosystem, granted, but it's extremely difficult to do so to any significant degree, and by significant I mean to the degree where life would prove untenable. After our entire history of attempts, thousands of years with absolutely no effort at regulation, mankind wasn't able to affect more than just a small fraction of less than one percent of the species on the face of the earth. And, since regulation has been instantiated in the last 50-100 years and continues to gain traction, I'd argue that the chances to change the environment/ecosystem have been significantly reduced.

ROTFLMFAO!

What a pack of utterly effin ... gibberish.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #126 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:28am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It's possible to change the environment and/or ecosystem, granted, but it's extremely difficult to do so to any significant degree, and by significant I mean to the degree where life would prove untenable. After our entire history of attempts, thousands of years with absolutely no effort at regulation, mankind wasn't able to affect more than just a small fraction of less than one percent of the species on the face of the earth. And, since regulation has been instantiated in the last 50-100 years and continues to gain traction, I'd argue that the chances to change the environment/ecosystem have been significantly reduced.

Excellent points.

Trees are actually growing faster, these days.

It's obvious that the author of the article buys into the whole "man-made catastrophic global warming" tripe, and frames the article in that context.

But at least they're starting to report some of the positive effects of climate change.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #127 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

It's possible to change the environment and/or ecosystem, granted, but it's extremely difficult to do so to any significant degree, and by significant I mean to the degree where life would prove untenable. After our entire history of attempts, thousands of years with absolutely no effort at regulation, mankind wasn't able to affect more than just a small fraction of less than one percent of the species on the face of the earth. And, since regulation has been instantiated in the last 50-100 years and continues to gain traction, I'd argue that the chances to change the environment/ecosystem have been significantly reduced.

Yes, but the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment with it's reports, carried out by 1360 experts worldwide, say that 10 to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species are currently threatened with extinction. Granted there are a supposed 30 million species, so as yet the damage is relatively small as a percentage of the total. But, it's none the less already at a level 1000 times higher than natures past extinction rate and it's rapidly accelerating. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index.aspx

Their reports on the damage to eco-systems, reveals disastrous conditions already exist and are getting much worse rapidly.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #128 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Excellent points.

Trees are actually growing faster, these days.

It's obvious that the author of the article buys into the whole "man-made catastrophic global warming" tripe, and frames the article in that context.

But at least they're starting to report some of the positive effects of climate change.

Positive effects of AGW are all you've got left.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #129 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Positive effects of AGW are all you've got left.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #130 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Excellent points.

Trees are actually growing faster, these days.

It's obvious that the author of the article buys into the whole "man-made catastrophic global warming" tripe, and frames the article in that context.

But at least they're starting to report some of the positive effects of climate change.

Wrongo bucko!

Quote:
The problem is that humans are releasing so much that plants can remove only a fraction of it," he said.

I could discuss CO2 data, actual CO2 budgets, etceteras, but that would way, Way WAY, above your paygrade, technically speaking of course. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #131 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Wrongo bucko!



I could discuss CO2 data, actual CO2 budgets, etceteras, but that would way, Way WAY, above your paygrade, technically speaking of course. \

You amuse me. Keep up the good work.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #132 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yes, but the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment with it's reports, carried out by 1360 experts worldwide, say that 10 to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species are currently threatened with extinction. Granted there are a supposed 30 million species, so as yet the damage is relatively small as a percentage of the total. But, it's none the less already at a level 1000 times higher than natures past extinction rate and it's rapidly accelerating. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index.aspx

Their reports on the damage to eco-systems, reveals disastrous conditions already exist and are getting much worse rapidly.

I generally agree with all that, the specific position I was arguing against was "we'll destroy the environment and ecosystem that allows us to live on this rock".

There is no threat of extinction to "all of mankind" as of this moment, no matter what some alarmist would like to believe.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Excellent points.

Trees are actually growing faster, these days.

It's obvious that the author of the article buys into the whole "man-made catastrophic global warming" tripe, and frames the article in that context.

But at least they're starting to report some of the positive effects of climate change.

Getting past the headlines, there is a but,
Quote:
However, scientists have warned against drawing false comfort from such findings. They point out that although levels will boost plant growth, other factors associated with climate change, such as rising temperatures and drought, are likely to have a negative effect.

Fred Pearce, environment consultant for New Scientist, said: "We know that trees do absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and about half is taken up from nature and half of that is by forests. But it doesn't change the story greenhouse gases are accumulating more than 2 per cent a year.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

ROTFLMFAO!

What a pack of utterly effin ... gibberish.

Then refute my position with facts, don't stoop to personal attack.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:47am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Getting past the headlines, there is a but,

Right, and I said:

Quote:
It's obvious that the author of the article buys into the whole "man-made catastrophic global warming" tripe, and frames the article in that context.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #136 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You amuse me. Keep up the good work.

So if I make more than someone here does that mean they are wrong?

I would be above their paygrade right?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #137 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Getting past the headlines, there is a but,

Exactly! I was going to edit my previous post and add the above, but you beat me to it.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #138 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So if I make more than someone here does that mean they are wrong?

I would be above their paygrade right?

I suppose so.

So far I've heard:
  • I'm older than you, so that makes me right.
  • I have better "credentials" than you, so that makes me right.
  • I've done more research on the subject than you, so that makes me right.
Have I missed anything?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #139 of 291
4/27/09 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Then refute my position with facts, don't stoop to personal attack.

In 105 words (or less) as you did covering the entire subject of CC/GW/AGW?

OK! That's way too easy.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

But I know it's way above your paygrade, technically speaking, of course.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #140 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I suppose so.



So far I've heard:
  • I'm older than you, so that makes me right.
  • I have better "credentials" than you, so that makes me right.
  • I've done more research on the subject than you, so that makes me right.
Have I missed anything?

Elvis has left the building? Oh and tripe.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #141 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Elvis has left the building? Oh and tripe.

I'm smarter than you, so that makes me right. That's the one.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #142 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:04pm
On a lighter note,
I just watched a bull, cow, chasing customers down the aisles of what looks like a grocery store.
CNN.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm smarter than you, so that makes me right. That's the one.

You name the test, time, and place, and I'll quite simply kick your ... ... tires.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #144 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

On a lighter note,
I just watched a bull, cow, chasing customers down the aisles of what looks like a grocery store.
CNN.

I wonder how much CO2 was released into the atmosphere as a result of this incident. Perhaps more government regulation is in order.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #145 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You name the test, time, and place, and I'll quite simply kick your ...

Music theory? You're on.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #146 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Music theory? You're on.

Make sure you bring your tires.

Oh and water wave theory is way more complex than music "theory" could ever hope to be.

I'd rather discuss the N-S equations, the nonlinear Schrödinger equation (e.g. rogue waves), and RANS modelling.

You know Hydrodynamics.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #147 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I wonder how much CO2 was released into the atmosphere as a result of this incident. Perhaps more government regulation is in order.

Calm down.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Calm down.

You're right, of course. Getting upset causes me to breathe more rapidly, thus expelling more CO2 into the atmosphere and hastening the impending destruction of the planet. I'll write a letter to my senior senator (McCain). He'll save me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #149 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You're right, of course. Getting upset causes me to breathe more rapidly, thus expelling more CO2 into the atmosphere and hastening the impending destruction of the planet. I'll write a letter to my senior senator (McCain). He'll save me.

If you don't already have them, get some house plants.
If you're areally really excitable type, get more.

I believe has McCain has spent most of his political capital, house plants are a better bet.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You're right, of course. Getting upset causes me to breathe more rapidly, thus expelling more CO2 into the atmosphere and hastening the impending destruction of the planet. I'll write a letter to my senior senator (McCain). He'll save me.

Quit the laughing whilst you at it

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #151 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

If you don't already have them, get some house plants.
If you're areally really excitable type, get more.

I believe has McCain has spent most of his political capital, house plants are a better bet.

Come to think of it, a house plant would probably have been a better president than McCain, too.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #152 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quit the laughing whilst you at it

Quit posting such off-the-wall stuff that makes me laugh.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #153 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I generally agree with all that, the specific position I was arguing against was "we'll destroy the environment and ecosystem that allows us to live on this rock".

There is no threat of extinction to "all of mankind" as of this moment, no matter what some alarmist would like to believe.

Um. Swine Flu anyone??

How do you know we won't screw up our environment enough to make it inhabitable for humans? Our actions could easily trigger something that we knew nothing about and have no control over. Or a meteor could slam into the planet and wipe out most everything (think Dinosaurs). Saying there is no threat of extinction for humans is naive at best, whether the cause is Human or Nature.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quit posting such off-the-wall stuff that makes me laugh.

Care to explain the damaging effects of increasing CO2 levels?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #155 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Um. Swine Flu anyone??

How do you know we won't screw up our environment enough to make it inhabitable for humans? Our actions could easily trigger something that we knew nothing about and have no control over. Or a meteor could slam into the planet and wipe out most everything (think Dinosaurs). Saying there is no threat of extinction for humans is naive at best, whether the cause is Human or Nature.

The population of the world is trending higher, at just over 1% per year and it's well over 6 billion. Before someone can successfully argue that the end could conceivably occur because of us "triggering something", you'd need to consider - in the last 200,000 or so years we've not done so yet. The post I replied to was concerning the self inflicted total destruction of mankind, not meteors or whatnot.

There is no threat at this time to the existence of mankind. The WORST pandemic in history was the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919, and it killed only 5% of the human race. During the Late Pleistocene, the human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs – no more than 10,000, and possibly as few as 1,000. We'd have a ways to go to reduce the population to that extent. There are about 250,000 babies born in the world each day, to put it in perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 291
4/27/09 at 12:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Care to explain the damaging effects of increasing CO2 levels?

Not really. You and others seem to be doing an excellent job of that.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past than they are now.

Do you consider CO2 to be a pollutant?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #157 of 291
4/27/09 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not really. You and others seem to be doing an excellent job of that.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past than they are now.

Do you consider CO2 to be a pollutant?

Yes you are correct. CO2 is a GHG. The solution to pollution is not dilution.

But then again those higher levels did not coincide with the ice ages, like the one we are in right about now! And please don't confuse an ice age with an interglacial period, such as the one we are in right about now!

EDIT: Also the ice cores from Antarctica over the past 800,000+ years have never shown the rate of change in CO2 that has occurred over the past century or so, and specifically the past 50 years of instrumental records. Where the rate of the rate of change is concave up (2nd derivative is positive).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #158 of 291
4/27/09 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

There is no threat at this time to the existence of mankind.

Not today no, ignoring a threat until it's to late, possibly.
Geez, kinda sounds like the march to war bit.

Anyway, how about genetically altered seeds, crops, food additives etc.

I bought some tomatoes that lasted for four weeks without going bad.
That ain't natural and makes me wonder what the hell is causing this.

Then I remembered Artman going on about a company called Monsanto and I understood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Gotta admit, being a bit narcissistic, my whole life has been about hotdogs, everyday, Hotdogs, especially the ones with lots of preservatives.

I'm 57 and have been told I don't look any older than 45 tops.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 291
4/27/09 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Not really. You and others seem to be doing an excellent job of that.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past than they are now.

Do you consider CO2 to be a pollutant?

It's amazing that those like you, gain converts by asking that question and when it's explained to them that CO2 plays an integral part in life on this planet, they see the light and declare climate change a hoax. So of course CO2 is not a pollutant, just as mercury or oxygen are not pollutants.

The planet has been through numerous cycles over millions of years. Again it's amazing how your side argues, that because the climate has been through such cycles, over millions of years, it in any way diminishes the problems of what's happening today. So long as you make people believe you with weak arguments, designed to state the obvious and ridicule serious scientific evidence your converts will be as short-lived as your diabolical cause.

I personally believe that many will carry on wanting to believe CC is no more than a hoax, simply because they believe it will help to further their own political ideologies by attacking those who do or seem to threaten them. Suffice is to say however, the problems are indeed severe enough that the majority will put their politics aside to help prevent a human and environmental catastrophe, confident enough that the core of their beliefs will not be at mortal risk.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #160 of 291
4/27/09 at 2:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's amazing that those like you, gain converts by asking that question and when it's explained to them that CO2 plays an integral part in life on this planet, they see the light and declare climate change a hoax. So of course CO2 is not a pollutant, just as mercury or oxygen are not pollutants.

The planet has been through numerous cycles over millions of years. Again it's amazing how your side argues, that because the climate has been through such cycles, over millions of years, it in any way diminishes the problems of what's happening today. So long as you make people believe you with weak arguments, designed to state the obvious and ridicule serious scientific evidence your converts will be as short-lived as your diabolical cause.

I personally believe that many will carry on wanting to believe CC is no more than a hoax, simply because they believe it will help to further their own political ideologies by attacking those who do or seem to threaten them. Suffice is to say however, the problems are indeed severe enough that the majority will put their politics aside to help prevent a human and environmental catastrophe, confident enough that the core of their beliefs will not be at mortal risk.

"Diabolical cause"?

Okay. Go on believing that.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming