There is no evidence that the world is supposed to be getting "colder" instead of warmer.
I never said or implied that it was.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You are talking out your butt.
No, you're creating a straw man argument.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If anything they might be able to argue that the world is warming on a faster trend than it should be, however others in these forums have presented evidence about an increase in the energy received from the sun.
You likely would be arguing that the increase has been .5 percent but our temp has gone up .6 and the difference is attributable to man's actions.
Yes, and that difference (whatever random number it may be) is important. It could be less than that. My concern is 1) air pollution and 2) the impact we have on the planet. If it's noticable, we'll cause changes in areas we can't control.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Leave it to liberals to micromanage not only our lives, but the entire planet as well.
Micromanage? Pollution is micromanaging? YOU'RE talking out of my butt. I mean your butt.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Have you talked to the cows yet to insure their "emission" levels are within compliance? Am I breathing to rapidly today and producing to much CO2 for you?
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
How will you deal with that problem huh? KILL the cows or what?
Cows do not make CO2 Thay make Methane wich is more pontent a greenhouse gas than CO2
BS cows make CO2 like every living animal. Only plants produce O2 via photosynthesis, but make CO2 either. This CO2 production is the result of the Krebs's Cycle.
BS cows make CO2 like every living animal. Only plants produce O2 via photosynthesis, but make CO2 either. This CO2 production is the result of the Krebs's Cycle.
BTW they also made Methane.
And no matter what the cows make, we're responsible for making too many cows.
The issue isn't cows or people making CO2 and methane. The question is how much impact human beings realistically have on the environment on a global scale. Obviously we can have a large impact on a local scale: London when coal burning was at its height; desertification, especially in the Middle East and Africa; pollution (and clean up) of the Great Lakes.
However, I don't believe that Global Warming is honest science. It carries too much political weight with it; it is a way of manipulating people and countries with fear, much in the same way as overpopulation. (Obviously I don't believe the world is overpopulated; I have four children.)
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
EEP! EEP! EEP! EEP!
Just because it's Easter it doesn't mean you can disregard (vaguely) testable and (generally) quantifiable theories and evidence for the sake of something completely untestable and impossible to prove by definition. What the bally hell does the New Testament have to do with the role of C02 emissions in climate change? Your personal philosophy, no matter how deeply felt, has bugger all to do with the weather.
Any way you look at it the world is getting warmer. Whether that's our fault or it's a natural-type cyclical dealie is one thing, but no amount of prayer is going to stop it.
Just because it's Easter it doesn't mean you can disregard (vaguely) testable and (generally) quantifiable theories and evidence for the sake of something completely untestable and by it's very definition impossible to prove.
The world is getting warmer. Whether that's our fault or it's a natural-type cyclical dealie is one thing, but no amount of prayer is going to stop it.
Why not? I've heard of bigger things happening.
The point is, you are operating on faith when you accept Global Warming as anything resembling fact because it too, at heart, is based on equally untestable/impossible to prove assumptions: that all you see and measure is all that exists.
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
Goshdarnit, sorry to come over all Richard Dawkins here, but I could neck a significant dose of acid and half a gram of chrystal meth and convince myself that up was down for a month, but I'd still fall off my bike if I tried to ride it owing to the planet's greater mass.
Also...a search of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson websites may reveal some clues too.. .If 9-11, Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge Earthquake (and other disasters) were caused by God's wrath against gays and lesbians...why not global warming too?
The point is, you are operating on faith when you accept Global Warming as anything resembling fact because it too, at heart, is based on equally untestable/impossible to prove assumptions: that all you see and measure is all that exists.
I know. Cleaner Air? Who wants cleaner air? It's just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why, the research shows that 87.2 percent of all Americans support dirtier air! Who do these goddammmn liberals think they are?
If Dirty Air and an unnamed Liberal ran for President, why, Dirty Air would win in a landslide!
You're right Shawn, when the definition of "cleaner air" necessitates my not breathing and cows not passing gas, they I don't support it.
I support your right not to breath however. Please feel free to suspend your breathing indefinately any time you care to.
I spoke directly about micromanaging. You were the one throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Yes, and that difference (whatever random number it may be) is important. It could be less than that. My concern is 1) air pollution and 2) the impact we have on the planet. If it's noticable, we'll cause changes in areas we can't control.
Micromanage? Pollution is micromanaging? YOU'RE talking out of my butt. I mean your butt.
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
No I'm talking about your butt... it's producing to much gas and the pollution is definately something to be concerned about.
I do like how "concern" for pollution gives you the right to question everyone elses motives and beliefs. I suppose my "concern" isn't as good as your "concern."
Yours was a throwaway liberal jab and you know it.
Take your ball and go cry to mommy or grow up.
You can't get to the heart of the matter and that is with questionable science you and others want us to commit to policies that destroy the economy and ruin the quality of life for many people.
Meanwhile we "uncaring" types have endorsed middle ground policies that improve the quality of our life and also our planet while still allowing us to get to work in the morning (You know work, that place grown ups go to) and feed the kids.
Again if there are to many people, then YOU don't reproduce. If there is to much CO2 then you stop breathing. Become a vegan and stop annoying the rest of us.
However until you have a moral high ground take your uppity attitude and "concern" and stuff it. I'm not attacking you personally, just telling you to stay out of my life.
Can you tell me with certainty how many asteroids there are in our own solar system? How about how many moons Jupiter has? (they just added 6 more you know)
How about the weather a month from now?
Yeah, certainty is what you have about your concern but not about what is happening on this planet in the past and in the future. Until we have more than theories take you finger and point it elsewhere.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
Here's a link with some stats.
http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/sustainability/gccmain.htm
Page 6 (amongst others) looks like a smoking gun.
Sorry. He looks too much like Michael Moore. Can´t trust fat people (unless they have guns).
Originally posted by trumptman
There is no evidence that the world is supposed to be getting "colder" instead of warmer.
I never said or implied that it was.
Originally posted by trumptman
You are talking out your butt.
No, you're creating a straw man argument.
Originally posted by trumptman
If anything they might be able to argue that the world is warming on a faster trend than it should be, however others in these forums have presented evidence about an increase in the energy received from the sun.
You likely would be arguing that the increase has been .5 percent but our temp has gone up .6 and the difference is attributable to man's actions.
Yes, and that difference (whatever random number it may be) is important. It could be less than that. My concern is 1) air pollution and 2) the impact we have on the planet. If it's noticable, we'll cause changes in areas we can't control.
Originally posted by trumptman
Leave it to liberals to micromanage not only our lives, but the entire planet as well.
Micromanage? Pollution is micromanaging? YOU'RE talking out of my butt. I mean your butt.
Originally posted by trumptman
Have you talked to the cows yet to insure their "emission" levels are within compliance? Am I breathing to rapidly today and producing to much CO2 for you?
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
How will you deal with that problem huh? KILL the cows or what?
Originally posted by Alpha Mac
Cows do not make CO2 Thay make Methane wich is more pontent a greenhouse gas than CO2
BS cows make CO2 like every living animal. Only plants produce O2 via photosynthesis, but make CO2 either. This CO2 production is the result of the Krebs's Cycle.
BTW they also made Methane.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
BS cows make CO2 like every living animal. Only plants produce O2 via photosynthesis, but make CO2 either. This CO2 production is the result of the Krebs's Cycle.
BTW they also made Methane.
And no matter what the cows make, we're responsible for making too many cows.
However, I don't believe that Global Warming is honest science. It carries too much political weight with it; it is a way of manipulating people and countries with fear, much in the same way as overpopulation. (Obviously I don't believe the world is overpopulated; I have four children.)
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
EEP! EEP! EEP! EEP!
Just because it's Easter it doesn't mean you can disregard (vaguely) testable and (generally) quantifiable theories and evidence for the sake of something completely untestable and impossible to prove by definition. What the bally hell does the New Testament have to do with the role of C02 emissions in climate change? Your personal philosophy, no matter how deeply felt, has bugger all to do with the weather.
Any way you look at it the world is getting warmer. Whether that's our fault or it's a natural-type cyclical dealie is one thing, but no amount of prayer is going to stop it.
NOW. ALREADY. TODAY.
(In case you weren't joking, as I sincerely hope you were.)
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
EEP! EEP! EEP! EEP!
Just because it's Easter it doesn't mean you can disregard (vaguely) testable and (generally) quantifiable theories and evidence for the sake of something completely untestable and by it's very definition impossible to prove.
The world is getting warmer. Whether that's our fault or it's a natural-type cyclical dealie is one thing, but no amount of prayer is going to stop it.
Why not? I've heard of bigger things happening.
The point is, you are operating on faith when you accept Global Warming as anything resembling fact because it too, at heart, is based on equally untestable/impossible to prove assumptions: that all you see and measure is all that exists.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
Goshdarnit, sorry to come over all Richard Dawkins here, but I could neck a significant dose of acid and half a gram of chrystal meth and convince myself that up was down for a month, but I'd still fall off my bike if I tried to ride it owing to the planet's greater mass.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ontent/stack_h
Also...a search of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson websites may reveal some clues too.. .If 9-11, Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge Earthquake (and other disasters) were caused by God's wrath against gays and lesbians...why not global warming too?
Originally posted by Fangorn
The point is, you are operating on faith when you accept Global Warming as anything resembling fact because it too, at heart, is based on equally untestable/impossible to prove assumptions: that all you see and measure is all that exists.
Absolutely, fundamentally, completely, totally, profoundly wrong.
We can come to hypotheses about climate change by:
- examining ice cores for dust and atmospheric gases
- finding correlations using dendochronology (tree ring 'clocks')
- comparing the earth's atmosphere and temperature with those of our planetary neighbours
- cross-referencing temperatures with volcanic emissions and stuff
- lots of other testable science-type things I don't know having just thought of these off the top of my head and not being a weather scientist.
Are there other factors at play we haven't thought of yet? Undoubtedly.We can test for the influence of the Christian God on the weather by:
- oh
- um
- right.
- OK, we can't.
- I give up.
Come to think of it, we can test for the very existence of God by:Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I know. Cleaner Air? Who wants cleaner air? It's just a bunch of liberal nonsense. Why, the research shows that 87.2 percent of all Americans support dirtier air! Who do these goddammmn liberals think they are?
If Dirty Air and an unnamed Liberal ran for President, why, Dirty Air would win in a landslide!
You're right Shawn, when the definition of "cleaner air" necessitates my not breathing and cows not passing gas, they I don't support it.
I support your right not to breath however. Please feel free to suspend your breathing indefinately any time you care to.
I spoke directly about micromanaging. You were the one throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Absolutely, fundamentally, completely, totally, profoundly wrong.
Come to think of it, we can test for the very existence of God by:
More flaming.
Oh boy.
The passive/agressive schtick has really gotten old.
....but then again if "All is permitted/Nothing forbidden" what else can we expect?
Originally posted by bunge
I never said or implied that it was.
No, you're creating a straw man argument.
Yes, and that difference (whatever random number it may be) is important. It could be less than that. My concern is 1) air pollution and 2) the impact we have on the planet. If it's noticable, we'll cause changes in areas we can't control.
Micromanage? Pollution is micromanaging? YOU'RE talking out of my butt. I mean your butt.
Yeah, blame the cows. If they are creating too much CO2, who is at fault? Gee, all the damn humans breeding them for food. I'd think you could come up with a more solid (pun intended) argument than that.
No I'm talking about your butt... it's producing to much gas and the pollution is definately something to be concerned about.
I do like how "concern" for pollution gives you the right to question everyone elses motives and beliefs. I suppose my "concern" isn't as good as your "concern."
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
And no matter what the cows make, we're responsible for making too many cows.
Deciding there are too many cows on the planet again Bunge? What did I say about trying to control the planet?
Now go play nice and leave all the other mammals alone. You don't get to be the sole arbiture of whether they live or die today.
Smells like.... micromanagement to me....
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You're right Shawn, when the definition of "cleaner air" necessitates my not breathing and cows not passing gas, they I don't support it.
I support your right not to breath however. Please feel free to suspend your breathing indefinately any time you care to.
I spoke directly about micromanaging. You were the one throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Nick
Yours was a throwaway liberal jab and you know it.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Yours was a throwaway liberal jab and you know it.
Take your ball and go cry to mommy or grow up.
You can't get to the heart of the matter and that is with questionable science you and others want us to commit to policies that destroy the economy and ruin the quality of life for many people.
Meanwhile we "uncaring" types have endorsed middle ground policies that improve the quality of our life and also our planet while still allowing us to get to work in the morning (You know work, that place grown ups go to) and feed the kids.
Again if there are to many people, then YOU don't reproduce. If there is to much CO2 then you stop breathing. Become a vegan and stop annoying the rest of us.
However until you have a moral high ground take your uppity attitude and "concern" and stuff it. I'm not attacking you personally, just telling you to stay out of my life.
Can you tell me with certainty how many asteroids there are in our own solar system? How about how many moons Jupiter has? (they just added 6 more you know)
How about the weather a month from now?
Yeah, certainty is what you have about your concern but not about what is happening on this planet in the past and in the future. Until we have more than theories take you finger and point it elsewhere.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Take your ball and go cry to mommy or grow up.
I'm not attacking you personally, just telling you to stay out of my life.
This thread got ugly for sure...