·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sceptics conclude Earth has warmed
Sceptics conclude Earth has warmedFollow
Smash should post more.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Smash should post more.
Peimei wrote:
How long until some right wing nut claims that Jesus is coming back soon so what we do to the earth now doesn't matter.
I'm pretty sure if I spent 2 minutes on google I could find several people making that exact claim
/checks time: 5:00 pm PST/
Quote:
As much as environmentalists try to save the earth, their efforts will ultimately end in total failure. The Bible predicts that during the tribulation hour, the world will come to near complete ruin. The destruction will be so wide scale, the prophet Isaiah warned, that men would become as rare as fine gold.
By only addressing the symptoms of man's misdeeds, environmentalists are doing nothing to correct the root problem: sin. Without the transforming power of Jesus Christ, the environment will be resigned to its determined fate.
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-environmental.html
By only addressing the symptoms of man's misdeeds, environmentalists are doing nothing to correct the root problem: sin. Without the transforming power of Jesus Christ, the environment will be resigned to its determined fate.
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-environmental.html
took about 3 minutes. But only cause I got interested in something distracting. I admit it isn't RIGHT on but it is pretty close to the same kind of non-logic
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 5:05pm by Olorinus
Fuck Jesus, the Mayan calendar predicts that alignment with the galactic core will result in ripping the planet to shreds next year. So...full steam ahead and all that, eh?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I thought the mayan calendar predicted next year will bring a galactic resonance tone which will cause a mass evolution in human consciousness
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 6:05pm by Olorinus
Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 6:05pm by Olorinus
Olorinus wrote:
I thought the mayan calendar predicted next year will bring a galactic resonance tone which will cause a mass evolution in human consciousness
JOHN CUSACK WOULDN'T LIE!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
I honestly don't understand the opposition to global warming. Even if it isn't true or accurate, everyone still knows that pollution is bad... I don't understand people who are fine polluting to save a buck or two. Makes no sense to me.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I honestly don't understand the opposition to global warming. Even if it isn't true or accurate, everyone still knows that pollution is bad... I don't understand people who are fine polluting to save a buck or two. Makes no sense to me.
Well, while rejecting science doesn't make sense, the very basic idea that pollution can be bad and still not matter is highly valid.
How is whether or not the warming is human-caused even a legitimate one? We know that warming happened. We know why it happened. If you know both of those things, you have to deliberately compartmentalize the answers to two parts of your brain that never cross to avoid the logical conclusion.
Allegory wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I honestly don't understand the opposition to global warming. Even if it isn't true or accurate, everyone still knows that pollution is bad... I don't understand people who are fine polluting to save a buck or two. Makes no sense to me.
Well, while rejecting science doesn't make sense, the very basic idea that pollution can be bad and still not matter is highly valid.
Not buying into global warming is not a rejection of science. What is being rejected is just how much the human impact has been. Has the temperature increased. Yes. Is it because of human influence. Possibly. Is there anyway we can prove it one way or the other. Not really.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
And if we can't prove it absolutely, regardless of how much evidence there is, it is just bunk. AMIRITE?
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
And if we can't prove it absolutely, regardless of how much evidence there is, it is just bunk. AMIRITE?
WMD in Iraq?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Olorinus wrote:
whoZzat?
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 9:38am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
rdmcandie wrote:
Not buying into global warming is not a rejection of science. What is being rejected is just how much the human impact has been. Has the temperature increased. Yes. Is it because of human influence. Possibly. Is there anyway we can prove it one way or the other. Not really.
Yeah, we really can. While we can't know exactly how much each process of our solar system, our earth system, or our galactic system contributes to the over-all global temperature. We know the rates of change, we know the cycles of change.
But mostly we know that we've put measurable concentrations of CO2 into our atmosphere. We've changed the recipe. How can we not get different results?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Olorinus wrote:
whoZzat?
Joan's brother.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
And if we can't prove it absolutely, regardless of how much evidence there is, it is just bunk. AMIRITE?
WMD in Iraq?
rdmcandie wrote:
Is there anyway we can prove it one way or the other. Not really.
We can't "prove" it since we don't have a supply of planets to run experiments on. We can make an overwhelmingly convincing argument for it using the available data. Which is what we do with every other macro-level theory so it's nothing new or controversial about it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
@lolgaxe. I'm pretty sure that Gbaji actually posted about that petition way before the thread you're referring to.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Is there anyway we can prove it one way or the other. Not really.
We can't "prove" it since we don't have a supply of planets to run experiments on. We can make an overwhelmingly convincing argument for it using the available data. Which is what we do with every other macro-level theory so it's nothing new or controversial about it.
We can't even run an experiment on our own planet to proove one way or another that we have caused the planet to change. I asked earlier if anyone had any sources of information that detailed the climate changes from other periods of history. We have hard data support of a few hundred years. That is it. We don't even have data for the entire lifetime of our species.
That is what makes it naive, assuming we have had such a major impact on the ecology of our planet without documented support is naive.
Like I said earlier we have no idea if it is us, or just a typical planetary cycle.
and yes I get that its about our species not just about the planet, but I also accept the fact that species die off, and if we die off because the earth warmed up then that is how we go down, **** your body heats up and cools down to kill bacteria it doesn't want in it, why should the earth be any different.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
rdmcandie wrote:
That is what makes it naive, assuming we have had such a major impact on the ecology of our planet without documented support is naive.
So, what's gonna convince you?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
rdmcandie wrote:
We can't "prove" it since we don't have a supply of planets to run experiments on. We can make an overwhelmingly convincing argument for it using the available data. Which is what we do with every other macro-level theory so it's nothing new or controversial about it.
Yeah, as I said, this is the case with every macro-theory. We also can't replicate tectonic plate shifts or observe an organism for a hundred million years. But we can use the wealth of available evidence to create credible and accepted theories for geological changes and evolution. Likewise for everything we know about astronomy. I'm not sure why you're expecting (or demanding) this macro-theory to be different.
Quote:
I asked earlier if anyone had any sources of information that detailed the climate changes from other periods of history. We have hard data support of a few hundred years.
Sure. Go look it up. Geological records, ice cores, arboreal data, etc.
Quote:
That is what makes it naive, assuming we have had such a major impact on the ecology of our planet without documented support is naive.
I'd suggest that the "We widdle things couldn't possibly have affected the big ole earth!" is considerably more naive.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Guess we will just have to suffer from a difference of opinion. There has been no conclusive evidence or study brought forth that credits mankind to this increase in temeperature. Then again there has been no conclusive evidence or study to the contrary either. At best the change as been a fraction of a degree since the last warming period of the current cycle (prior to the mini ice age in the mid centuries).
I personally do not feel that our society has had any impact on the climate of this planet. However I do think we need to curb emissions for health reasons, and other environmental issues such as acidic rain, polluted waterways, "salted" earth and so on. As for the climate, its part of a cycle.
Then again if you have loads of this evidence, and it is so easy to find, then hit up with a link because everything I have read on it. (including this with charted samples of random historical sources http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html ) has no conclusive evidence that we have really changed anything. But if you have such solid proof that we have that makes the climate issue so glaringly a Human problem. By all means provide your source(s).
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 1:31pm by rdmcandie
I personally do not feel that our society has had any impact on the climate of this planet. However I do think we need to curb emissions for health reasons, and other environmental issues such as acidic rain, polluted waterways, "salted" earth and so on. As for the climate, its part of a cycle.
Then again if you have loads of this evidence, and it is so easy to find, then hit up with a link because everything I have read on it. (including this with charted samples of random historical sources http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html ) has no conclusive evidence that we have really changed anything. But if you have such solid proof that we have that makes the climate issue so glaringly a Human problem. By all means provide your source(s).
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 1:31pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Do a forum search for the obvious terms and read some of the bajillion links and studies I've cited in the past.
Whine if you want that I'm not repeating them all again but I've come to realize it's a pretty fruitless endeavor among those hostile to the concept and playing the game of "Oh, THAT doesn't count because...". There's no real gain in it for me if you agree with it or not.
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 12:46pm by Jophiel
Whine if you want that I'm not repeating them all again but I've come to realize it's a pretty fruitless endeavor among those hostile to the concept and playing the game of "Oh, THAT doesn't count because...". There's no real gain in it for me if you agree with it or not.
Edited, Oct 24th 2011 12:46pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 614
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (614)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sceptics conclude Earth has warmed
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC