Face it, the existance of these exceptions that evolutionary science needs to explain away shows that evolution is obviously flawed and untenable science regardless of how many scientists believe in it.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Global warming is a crock
Global warming is a crockFollow
Oh, sure.. that works for the fossils, Bhodi. But what about the caveman footprints along side dinosaurs ones, huh? Or the fact that some species of proto-equine in the evolutionary tree are SMALLER than the ones who came before? Hrrmm??
Face it, the existance of these exceptions that evolutionary science needs to explain away shows that evolution is obviously flawed and untenable science regardless of how many scientists believe in it.
Face it, the existance of these exceptions that evolutionary science needs to explain away shows that evolution is obviously flawed and untenable science regardless of how many scientists believe in it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
That was all done by wizards, didn't you know?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Please see the video in this link for my basic opinion on global warming.
I pretty much think that it is no big deal. So, the average global temperature has risen 1 degree in 100 years right? Is that really enough to make such a rash assumption off of? So, this single degree is melting the ice caps and passing out skin cancer like candy, right? (Not the degree obviously, UV rays and all that junk). But is a 1 degree rise in average temperatures really enough to make such rash assumptions off of? I can see a problem if temps had gone up 5 degrees or so on average, but one degree doesn't seem all that significant to me. So we had a few hotter days in the past 100 years. Maybe in the upcoming 500 years we're going to set record lows day after day. Then what will people be saying? Global freezing? And what's going to cause that? Not getting enough energy in from the sun because of greenhouse gases? Then I wouldn't know who to believe, seeing as everyone just flipped their story. Then again, I could be totally wrong, but as long as (at least in my area) we continue to set records lows and highs at about an even pace, I'm going to continue to think it's just a global cycle we're bound to go through whether we try and stop it or not.
I pretty much think that it is no big deal. So, the average global temperature has risen 1 degree in 100 years right? Is that really enough to make such a rash assumption off of? So, this single degree is melting the ice caps and passing out skin cancer like candy, right? (Not the degree obviously, UV rays and all that junk). But is a 1 degree rise in average temperatures really enough to make such rash assumptions off of? I can see a problem if temps had gone up 5 degrees or so on average, but one degree doesn't seem all that significant to me. So we had a few hotter days in the past 100 years. Maybe in the upcoming 500 years we're going to set record lows day after day. Then what will people be saying? Global freezing? And what's going to cause that? Not getting enough energy in from the sun because of greenhouse gases? Then I wouldn't know who to believe, seeing as everyone just flipped their story. Then again, I could be totally wrong, but as long as (at least in my area) we continue to set records lows and highs at about an even pace, I'm going to continue to think it's just a global cycle we're bound to go through whether we try and stop it or not.
Codyy wrote:
Please see the video in this link for my basic opinion on global warming.
But is a 1 degree rise in average temperatures really enough to make such rash assumptions off of?
But is a 1 degree rise in average temperatures really enough to make such rash assumptions off of?
5 degree variance is all it took for the ice age. That happened much more gradually. The one degree difference is enough to cause the North West Passage to open during the summer. It is also effecting the range of certain diseases such as malaria. In Canada it has caused a general cooling trend in the middle of the country evening out winters and causing cool summers affecting agriculture.
Lots of effects that are pretty clear cut effects of Global Warming that aren't Hurricane Katrina like disasters that still effect economies and people lives.
Edited, Dec 3rd 2006 9:30pm by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
This use of the term "global warming" is a bit misleading itself. The planet does undergo periods of large-scale temperature variations, regardless of human activity.
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.
Rapidly melting (and in some cases completely gone) glaciers disagree with you Totem. These glaciers some of which have stood for thousands of years (even hundreds of thousands of years) up and decided to melt much more rapidly in the last 20 years than in the 100 years before that. What is your explanation for that?
What is your explanation for storms are significantly stronger in recent decades, and more frequent? How about the unprecedented hurricane that started in the South Atlantic hit Brazil in 2004?
The planet has a natural rollercoaster of CO2. The northern hemisphere where the majority of the worlds vegetation is located when during the summer months the atmospheric levels of CO2 decrease due to plants recycling it to oxygen. Then in the fall when the plants wither and atmospheric CO2 increases as "insulation" to trap heat during winter months.
Out of the billions of automobiles, factories, chemical plants, buses, ships, jet skis, RV's, Semi-trucks, and countless other things that dump CO2(among other things) into our atmosphere, do you honestly believe that has *no* significant effect on the planet? Or is it that you *can't* believe it does? I ask you these questions as you disbelieve current evidence. What is your conclusion?
What is your explanation for storms are significantly stronger in recent decades, and more frequent? How about the unprecedented hurricane that started in the South Atlantic hit Brazil in 2004?
The planet has a natural rollercoaster of CO2. The northern hemisphere where the majority of the worlds vegetation is located when during the summer months the atmospheric levels of CO2 decrease due to plants recycling it to oxygen. Then in the fall when the plants wither and atmospheric CO2 increases as "insulation" to trap heat during winter months.
Out of the billions of automobiles, factories, chemical plants, buses, ships, jet skis, RV's, Semi-trucks, and countless other things that dump CO2(among other things) into our atmosphere, do you honestly believe that has *no* significant effect on the planet? Or is it that you *can't* believe it does? I ask you these questions as you disbelieve current evidence. What is your conclusion?
Quote:
The planet does undergo periods of large-scale temperature variations, regardless of human activity
/nods vigorously
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
It may suprise you to learn this, but I bet that the scientists who study climate change are already aware that the planet has undergone temperature shifts before.
The fact that the global climate has changed in the past does not eliminate the possibility for human action being the catalyst this time around.
The fact that the global climate has changed in the past does not eliminate the possibility for human action being the catalyst this time around.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
11 posts
Quote:
In Canada it has caused a general cooling trend in the middle of the country evening out winters and causing cool summers affecting agriculture.
I say ***** saskachewan.( that place was f'd from the start and as far as alberta is concerned ( which is all that really matters anyway) this year was great for agriculture perfect weather.
P.s does do you consider manitoba central canada beacuse i alway considered them eastern. and the east can go to H E double hockeysticks.
I think everyone agrees more or less that the planet is heating up, at a very quick rate.
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (90% of scientists), let's call them "man-ists".
Others are saying that it's natural, that it's just a cycle, and that it will on its own go down again (10% of scientists), in time. Let's call them "naturalists".
So basically, the choice is either to do nothing and hope (naturalists), or to take some action to curb down the release of objectively harmful gases into the athmosphere (manists).
Once again, this is just a question of the cost/reward ratio:
If you "naturalists" are right, then doing nothing is a decent option. Not a "great" one, since we're still releasing harmful gases into the air (and the rivers, the forests, and pretty much everywhere), but at least mankind is not immediately threatened with extinction.
If the you are wrong, on the other hand, then we are pretty much fUcked. We will have to suffer not only disastrous consequences of this global warming, but we'll also have to change our way of life extremely drastically and rapidly, at huge economic and general welfare cost. Lots of lives will be destroyed, not just human, but everything that makes our planet what it is will be gone. And our lifestyle will have to change radically to try and alter this phenomenon.
If the "manists" are right, on the other hand, then we need to take action now. You guys might not have heard of the Stern Report, but it basically says that the cost of fighting global warming efficiently is tiny. Minuscule, roughly 1% of GDP. Doing this would ensure minimal effort for maximum protection, to take an advertising slogan. Not only that but, if we are still assuming the "manists" are right, it would save the planet, and our way of life.
Not bad, really.
If they are wrong, and we still do this, then we'll have spent 1% of GDP in order to make life a bit more pleasant. Cleaner air can't be bad. Not being so reliant on Oil from the ME can't be bad either. Finally realising that our planet is neither eternal nor immune to our actions, is cool too.
So there you have it. It's like Pascal's bet.
If you bet on GW being caused by Nature and therefore don't act, and you are right, you gain nothing. And, true, you don't lose anything either. If you're wrong, you've lost the planet and our way of life.
If you bet on GW being caused by Man and act, and you are right, you've saved the planet, and mankind, at minimal costs. If you're wrong, you've cut our dependency on Oil and the ME, and you've made the whole place cleaner, for quite a cheap price.
That's how I see it. I'm not a scientists expert on climate change, and neither are any of you. Honestly, none of us know for sure if it's man-made or not. But if you look at the cost/reward ratio, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be on the "nature-did-it" side. It only makes sense if you have a stake in the Oil industry. That's it.
So I'll go with 90% of the scientists, and the safe option to act now. If I'm wrong, the planet will still be cleaner, and at minimal costs. If I'm right, I'll have saved your ***.
If you go with the 10% and you're right, then nothing will have changed. But if you're wrong, we'll all be properly fUcked.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Edited, Dec 4th 2006 5:51am by RedPhoenixxxxxx
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (90% of scientists), let's call them "man-ists".
Others are saying that it's natural, that it's just a cycle, and that it will on its own go down again (10% of scientists), in time. Let's call them "naturalists".
So basically, the choice is either to do nothing and hope (naturalists), or to take some action to curb down the release of objectively harmful gases into the athmosphere (manists).
Once again, this is just a question of the cost/reward ratio:
If you "naturalists" are right, then doing nothing is a decent option. Not a "great" one, since we're still releasing harmful gases into the air (and the rivers, the forests, and pretty much everywhere), but at least mankind is not immediately threatened with extinction.
If the you are wrong, on the other hand, then we are pretty much fUcked. We will have to suffer not only disastrous consequences of this global warming, but we'll also have to change our way of life extremely drastically and rapidly, at huge economic and general welfare cost. Lots of lives will be destroyed, not just human, but everything that makes our planet what it is will be gone. And our lifestyle will have to change radically to try and alter this phenomenon.
If the "manists" are right, on the other hand, then we need to take action now. You guys might not have heard of the Stern Report, but it basically says that the cost of fighting global warming efficiently is tiny. Minuscule, roughly 1% of GDP. Doing this would ensure minimal effort for maximum protection, to take an advertising slogan. Not only that but, if we are still assuming the "manists" are right, it would save the planet, and our way of life.
Not bad, really.
If they are wrong, and we still do this, then we'll have spent 1% of GDP in order to make life a bit more pleasant. Cleaner air can't be bad. Not being so reliant on Oil from the ME can't be bad either. Finally realising that our planet is neither eternal nor immune to our actions, is cool too.
So there you have it. It's like Pascal's bet.
If you bet on GW being caused by Nature and therefore don't act, and you are right, you gain nothing. And, true, you don't lose anything either. If you're wrong, you've lost the planet and our way of life.
If you bet on GW being caused by Man and act, and you are right, you've saved the planet, and mankind, at minimal costs. If you're wrong, you've cut our dependency on Oil and the ME, and you've made the whole place cleaner, for quite a cheap price.
That's how I see it. I'm not a scientists expert on climate change, and neither are any of you. Honestly, none of us know for sure if it's man-made or not. But if you look at the cost/reward ratio, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be on the "nature-did-it" side. It only makes sense if you have a stake in the Oil industry. That's it.
So I'll go with 90% of the scientists, and the safe option to act now. If I'm wrong, the planet will still be cleaner, and at minimal costs. If I'm right, I'll have saved your ***.
If you go with the 10% and you're right, then nothing will have changed. But if you're wrong, we'll all be properly fUcked.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Edited, Dec 4th 2006 5:51am by RedPhoenixxxxxx
Awwww, for Chrissakes.....
I had this whole grand epiphany typed out and ready to go and here someone comes along and summarizes it so succinctly...
I had this whole grand epiphany typed out and ready to go and here someone comes along and summarizes it so succinctly...
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
I think everyone agrees more or less that the planet is heating up, at a very quick rate.
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (90% of scientists), let's call them "man-ists".
Others are saying that it's natural, that it's just a cycle, and that it will on its own go down again (10% of scientists), in time. Let's call them "naturalists".
So basically, the choice is either to do nothing and hope (naturalists), or to take some action to curb down the release of objectively harmful gases into the athmosphere (manists).
Once again, this is just a question of the cost/reward ratio:
If you "naturalists" are right, then doing nothing is a decent option. Not a "great" one, since we're still releasing harmful gases into the air (and the rivers, the forests, and pretty much everywhere), but at least mankind is not immediately threatened with extinction.
If the you are wrong, on the other hand, then we are pretty much ******* We will have to suffer not only disastrous consequences of this global warming, but we'll also have to change our way of life extremely drastically and rapidly, at huge economic and general welfare cost. Lots of lives will be destroyed, not just human, but everything that makes our planet what it is will be gone. And our lifestyle will have to change radically to try and alter this phenomenon.
If the "manists" are right, on the other hand, then we need to take action now. You guys might not have heard of the Stern Report, but it basically says that the cost of fighting global warming efficiently is tiny. Minuscule, roughly 1% of GDP. Doing this would ensure minimal effort for maximum protection, to take an advertising slogan. Not only that but, if we are still assuming the "manists" are right, it would save the planet, and our way of life.
Not bad, really.
If they are wrong, and we still do this, then we'll have spent 1% of GDP in order to make life a bit more pleasant. Cleaner air can't be bad. Not being so reliant on Oil from the ME can't be bad either. Finally realising that our planet is neither eternal nor immune to our actions, is cool too.
So there you have it. It's like Pascal's bet.
If you bet on GW being caused by Nature and therefore don't act, and you are right, you gain nothing. And, true, you don't lose anything either. If you're wrong, you've lost the planet and our way of life.
If you bet on GW being caused by Man and act, and you are right, you've saved the planet, and mankind, at minimal costs. If you're wrong, you've cut our dependency on Oil and the ME, and you've made the whole place cleaner, for quite a cheap price.
That's how I see it. I'm not a scientists expert on climate change, and neither are any of you. Honestly, none of us know for sure if it's man-made or not. But if you look at the cost/reward ratio, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be on the "nature-did-it" side. It only makes sense if you have a stake in the Oil industry. That's it.
So I'll go with 90% of the scientists, and the safe option to act now. If I'm wrong, the planet will still be cleaner, and at minimal costs. If I'm right, I'll have saved your ***.
If you go with the 10% and you're right, then nothing will have changed. But if you're wrong, we'll all be properly *******
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (90% of scientists), let's call them "man-ists".
Others are saying that it's natural, that it's just a cycle, and that it will on its own go down again (10% of scientists), in time. Let's call them "naturalists".
So basically, the choice is either to do nothing and hope (naturalists), or to take some action to curb down the release of objectively harmful gases into the athmosphere (manists).
Once again, this is just a question of the cost/reward ratio:
If you "naturalists" are right, then doing nothing is a decent option. Not a "great" one, since we're still releasing harmful gases into the air (and the rivers, the forests, and pretty much everywhere), but at least mankind is not immediately threatened with extinction.
If the you are wrong, on the other hand, then we are pretty much ******* We will have to suffer not only disastrous consequences of this global warming, but we'll also have to change our way of life extremely drastically and rapidly, at huge economic and general welfare cost. Lots of lives will be destroyed, not just human, but everything that makes our planet what it is will be gone. And our lifestyle will have to change radically to try and alter this phenomenon.
If the "manists" are right, on the other hand, then we need to take action now. You guys might not have heard of the Stern Report, but it basically says that the cost of fighting global warming efficiently is tiny. Minuscule, roughly 1% of GDP. Doing this would ensure minimal effort for maximum protection, to take an advertising slogan. Not only that but, if we are still assuming the "manists" are right, it would save the planet, and our way of life.
Not bad, really.
If they are wrong, and we still do this, then we'll have spent 1% of GDP in order to make life a bit more pleasant. Cleaner air can't be bad. Not being so reliant on Oil from the ME can't be bad either. Finally realising that our planet is neither eternal nor immune to our actions, is cool too.
So there you have it. It's like Pascal's bet.
If you bet on GW being caused by Nature and therefore don't act, and you are right, you gain nothing. And, true, you don't lose anything either. If you're wrong, you've lost the planet and our way of life.
If you bet on GW being caused by Man and act, and you are right, you've saved the planet, and mankind, at minimal costs. If you're wrong, you've cut our dependency on Oil and the ME, and you've made the whole place cleaner, for quite a cheap price.
That's how I see it. I'm not a scientists expert on climate change, and neither are any of you. Honestly, none of us know for sure if it's man-made or not. But if you look at the cost/reward ratio, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be on the "nature-did-it" side. It only makes sense if you have a stake in the Oil industry. That's it.
So I'll go with 90% of the scientists, and the safe option to act now. If I'm wrong, the planet will still be cleaner, and at minimal costs. If I'm right, I'll have saved your ***.
If you go with the 10% and you're right, then nothing will have changed. But if you're wrong, we'll all be properly *******
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Debalic wrote:
This use of the term "global warming" is a bit misleading itself. The planet does undergo periods of large-scale temperature variations, regardless of human activity.
True, it is quite clear this time that it is not a gradual natural change but a more rapid onset chiefly being contributed to by human causes.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Jophiel wrote:
It may suprise you to learn this, but I bet that the scientists who study climate change are already aware that the planet has undergone temperature shifts before.
The fact that the global climate has changed in the past does not eliminate the possibility for human action being the catalyst this time around.
The fact that the global climate has changed in the past does not eliminate the possibility for human action being the catalyst this time around.
And the fact that we've seen climate shifts over a few hundred years does not indicate that we're responsible for turning the Earth into a desolate, uninhabitable rock, like Venus or Mars.
Ok, ok, I'm not saying that we *aren't* contributing anything to changes in the climates, but that once we do throw it totally out of whack and kill off our own species, the planet will recover and continue to thrive and flourish until the Sun expands and eats it up. I'm just looking at a broader, non-human-centric view.
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.
Debalic wrote:
And the fact that we've seen climate shifts over a few hundred years does not indicate that we're responsible for turning the Earth into a desolate, uninhabitable rock
I've had fevers before and they've gone away and it's part of the natural course of living. But if I suddenly get a nasty fever I can't shake or if there's something else unusual about it, it'd be foolish to say "People just get fevers" while I die of some disease. Likewise, a great many scientists see the rate and timing of this warming as indicative of something greater than the typical natural cycles and think it'd be foolish to brush it off as business as usual.
Quote:
I'm just looking at a broader, non-human-centric view.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
There is a bigger, permanent climate alteration that in my oppinion is much more responsable for urban climate change: Mass paving. Asphalt and to a lesser extent concrete acts as a heat battery, storeing the energy of the sun during the day, and radiating it during the night. As teh ratio of paved surface area to plant covered area decreases near densly populated areas, the average temperature in the area becomes less subject to fluctuations since weather changes are offset by the temperature buffer of the pavement. This has a tendancy to minimize wind currents, which let smog build up, raising the temperature. If you look at climate data for at least Washington state, overall temperatures have increased by a degree or two near Seattle, vancouver, spokane, but they have tended to decrease overall at the monitoring stations in the national forest reserves. Conclusive? of course not. but it is intriguing to me.
I don't disagree that co2 and other emissions are badmmmkay, but I really think this is a very overlooked source of " global warming". It may just be my perception, but the summers these days seem a lot hotter, it doesn't seem to cool off so much as it used to during the night. The "heat battery" seems a more plausible explanation for this than pollution, but then I've never seen a smog cloud before, that would probably change my opinion.
Asphalt and paving do have a notable affect on their surroundings (in the horticultural business we call them "micro-climates") but I don't think they have the same global impact as emissions.
That's not to say that they've gone unnoticed. The law in Chicago now is that all new buildings, and I'd assume rennovations of existing buildings over a certain percentage cost, must have a green-roof installed. Which is basically a vegetative covering of some form for the roof instead of the traditional asphalt/tar. Part of the intent is to mitigate the climatic effects of square block after square block of concrete & asphalt.
That's not to say that they've gone unnoticed. The law in Chicago now is that all new buildings, and I'd assume rennovations of existing buildings over a certain percentage cost, must have a green-roof installed. Which is basically a vegetative covering of some form for the roof instead of the traditional asphalt/tar. Part of the intent is to mitigate the climatic effects of square block after square block of concrete & asphalt.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
achileez wrote:
Quote:
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (90% of scientists), let's call them "man-ists".
Fixed;
Quote:
The only difference being that some are saying that it's man-made (10% of scientists)
Varus
****-brain,
Why do you even post here? Please explain it to me, since I cannot understand why a guy would be wasting his time discussing things with a bunch of people that blatantly think he's a moronic ********* And if you are the wonderful super-human, super-rich, super-cool dude that you say you are, then what the freaking fUck are you doing on an MMO forum?!
Second, what you wrote is a lie, and you know it. The vast majority of scietists agree that global warming is man-made. Note, not just the "majority", the "vast majority". It's barely a talking point anymore except amongst missing links like you.
Just for the fun, here is an article from one of the Scientists that was quoted in Crichton's book, and Coulter's one, as one of those "naturalist".
Jophiel wrote:
The law in Chicago now is that all new buildings, and I'd assume rennovations of existing buildings over a certain percentage cost, must have a green-roof installed. Which is basically a vegetative covering of some form for the roof instead of the traditional asphalt/tar.
While I recognize this is a positive and forward-thinking change, I have to admit that the first thing that popped into my head upon reading about it was, "THATCHED ROOF SKYSCRAPERS!"
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel wrote:
Which is basically a vegetative covering of some form for the roof instead of the traditional asphalt/tar. Part of the intent is to mitigate the climatic effects of square block after square block of concrete & asphalt.
14 posts
I think I know the answer to our collective problem. I've cobbled it together out of a couple previous posts in this thread, and here is my conclusion:
Nobody plays Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Second Edition, anymore.
Look people, druids can only be HUMANS and Half-Elves. They can't be ANY combination of neutral alignments, that's crazy! All druids are True Neutral. They wouldn't lift a finger to interfere in the "global warming" tussle because they know that, should the planet grow too warm, all they have to do is cast a few powerful spells to make every volcano on the planet erupt simultaneously.
Geezus, it's like you people don't pay attention.
True eco-pagans FTW.
Nobody plays Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Second Edition, anymore.
Look people, druids can only be HUMANS and Half-Elves. They can't be ANY combination of neutral alignments, that's crazy! All druids are True Neutral. They wouldn't lift a finger to interfere in the "global warming" tussle because they know that, should the planet grow too warm, all they have to do is cast a few powerful spells to make every volcano on the planet erupt simultaneously.
Geezus, it's like you people don't pay attention.
True eco-pagans FTW.
Elderon wrote:
Somehow, this reminds me of the old SimCity 2000. The denizens are happy when you make sure to put in more parkland to breakup the conrete jungle.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 265
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (265)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Global warming is a crock
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC