Future Environmental Disasters

[unilad13]

Global warming will see ocean levels rise suddenly[SIZE=14][COLOR=red]! This is because the planet, like the human body, has 'buffer systems' that retain or absorb environmental punishment UNTIL certain irreversible thresholds are breached. There is a great deal of information now available to back these contentions up.

My purpose in life now is to have a very intelligent view of the future. This includes planning for this major event. Coastal property values will plummet to nothing when the sea level starts to markedly rise. Interior land prices will skyrocket once the coast is deemed to be worthless.

I am going to move up into the mountains and set up a much more natural lifestyle there. An independent lifestyle is the only sensible backup to have against the world economy dropping through the floor when the major coastal centers of commerce are flooded out. Imagine the havoc!

If you're stuck in the city (especially one near or on the coast), then you need to move!

Murray

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

I don&#39;t think the water level and the submerging of coastal property will occur rapidly enough to set off a massive supply & demand change in the real estate markets. It will take at least thirty years for a significant percentage of coastal property to be lost.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by unilad13@2 January 2004 - 23:35


I am going to move up into the mountains and set up a much more natural lifestyle there. An independent lifestyle is the only sensible backup to have against the world economy dropping through the floor when the major coastal centers of commerce are flooded out. Imagine the havoc&#33;

If you&#39;re stuck in the city (especially one near or on the coast), then you need to move&#33;

i wouldnt be suprised to find dick cheney living up there with the llamas.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Cows fart more methane then all the cars put out....seriously....

This is some crap right hurr

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

http://www.brokenbowlake.com/assets/houseboat.jpg

[j2k4]

Global warming is a load of crap, and you&#39;ve all been taken in. ;)

[bigdawgfoxx]

not me lol

[j2k4]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@3 January 2004 - 02:03
not me lol
Good.

That makes, um....let&#39;s see.............two of us, now. ;)

[bigdawgfoxx]

My dads a geologist...count him in too...

thats 3 ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@3 January 2004 - 02:15
My dads a geologist...count him in too...

thats 3 ;)
Are we officially a movement, then?

Or are we merely another fringe group?

I hate fringe. :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@3 January 2004 - 02:15
My dads a geologist...count him in too...

thats 3 ;)
BTW-

Is your Dad an internationally recognized "authority", or is he just a real, actual working geologist, possessed of real knowledge and having no agenda?

The latter, I hope. ;)

[bigdawgfoxx]

Lol no, he is just a real goelogist. He has nothing to do with an autority. He used to work for texaco and some other big company...he knows tons bout everything in that field. He retired at like 46 if that tells you anything haha. But he doesnt believe all of the global warming talk really.

[j2k4]

So glad to hear this.

Perhaps he would consent to "chair" our burgeoning extremist movement? :lol:

[kAb]

sorry j2k4, i have to say this

global warming is a serious threat.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by kAb@3 January 2004 - 02:39
sorry j2k4, i have to say this

global warming is a serious threat.
No it isn&#39;t. ;)

Take it to the bank-would I lie to you? :)

[bigdawgfoxx]

I duno what that means haha I&#39;m only 15...but I understand the world alright. My dad said something like the earth got a little hotter now but has done it in the past and then cooled back off...or something like that im not really sure...just i dont think global warming is a big deal.

Also enviornmentalist are weird. They go to a convention, driving none other then an excursion. Cows fart more methane gas then cars produce.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@3 January 2004 - 02:56
I duno what that means haha I&#39;m only 15...but I understand the world alright. My dad said something like the earth got a little hotter now but has done it in the past and then cooled back off...or something like that im not really sure...just i dont think global warming is a big deal.

Also enviornmentalist are weird. They go to a convention, driving none other then an excursion. Cows fart more methane gas then cars produce.
If your understanding of the subject goes no further you will be fine. :)

[Billy_Dean]

O, good&#33; That&#39;s cleared up the world&#39;s problems then. It must be true cos an ageing conservative and a 15 year old kid say so. :helpsmile:


:)

[bigdawgfoxx]

Haha aight man..I like the way you think ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 January 2004 - 00:13

If your understanding of the subject goes no further you will be fine. :)
Ignorance breeds good followers, eh j2?

Bigdawg,
Ignore the man behind the curtain&#33;

[bigdawgfoxx]

Clocker, may I ask who the man behind the curtain is? :unsure:

[Monkster]

Originally posted by j2k4+3 January 2004 - 06:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 3 January 2004 - 06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigdawgfoxx@3 January 2004 - 02:15
My dads a geologist...count him in too...

thats 3 ;)
Are we officially a movement, then?

Or are we merely another fringe group?

I hate fringe. :) [/b][/quote]
make that 4...i think we&#39;ve been upgraded to &#39;movement&#39; status. :)

Global Warmings a load of shit...it was actually warmer in the middle ages&#33; :rolleyes:

[MagicNakor]

I think you&#39;re confused. It was colder in the Middle Ages. It was warmer before the last Ice Age came.

:ninja:

[100%]

http://hdgc.epp.cmu.edu/images/Image_12.jpg

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

The scientific minds thought the earth was flat once.

[Jems]

The scientific minds thought the earth was flat once.

No, they didn&#39;t. That is an assumption, not a scientifically tested idea, is it? Its a really poor argument for debunking anything scientific.
Global Warming is happening, but it doesn&#39;t really matter that much. The global temperature varies all the time, it won&#39;t kill off civilisation.

[3rd gen noob]

imho, global warming is pish

you can post pics of co2 levels and temp rises all you want, but it&#39;s a well-known fact that the c02 conc. in the atmosphere and the atmospheric temps have varied widely throughout history :)

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by Jems@3 January 2004 - 20:09

The scientific minds thought the earth was flat once.

No, they didn&#39;t. That is an assumption, not a scientifically tested idea, is it? Its a really poor argument for debunking anything scientific.
Global Warming is happening, but it doesn&#39;t really matter that much. The global temperature varies all the time, it won&#39;t kill off civilisation.


http://www.greatriver.com/houseboat.jpg

[Jems]

Many scientists had thought the Earth was flat, but Aristotle, a Greek scientist
who lived in the 4th century BC

You are making stuff up...Pythagoras in 500 B.C. first used the evidence of observations about the way the altitudes of stars varied at different places on Earth and how ships appeared on the horizon. As a ship returned to port, first its mast tops, then the sails, and finally its hull gradually came into view. Aristotle thought the earth was round too. He added that the shadow cast on the moon by the earth was round, and stayed in that shape as the position of the moon in the sky changed. The Greeks also calculated the general size and shape of the earth from the different lengths of shadows at different places on the earth&#39;s surface, and created latitude and longitude.

[j2k4]

Greeks were smarter then than now.

Their intelligence ebbs and flows, much like the earth&#39;s temperature. :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@3 January 2004 - 03:18
O, good&#33; That&#39;s cleared up the world&#39;s problems then.&nbsp; It must be true cos an ageing conservative and a 15 year old kid say so.&nbsp; &nbsp; :helpsmile:


:)
No, Billy-

We also have a decorated geologist (the 15-year-old&#39;s 46-year-old father) and a certain "Monkster" (of uncertain/undeclared age on board.

We are currently in debate over whether to allow anyone into our club who has entered his/her 6th decade.

We will make exceptions for credentialed people who agree with us. :)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by <TROUBLE^MAKER>@3 January 2004 - 19:05
The scientific minds thought the earth was flat once.
No, people ASSUMED that the Earth was flat as implied in the Bible. No scientist ever stepped forward to offer proof that the Earth was flat. It was just accepted without any effort at confirmation.

Even today we have the Flat Earth Society:


When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible.

Religion has been hanging around the neck of science like an albatross, no, more like a millstone/ a plumbing stone by God, for thousands of years. Unless you are shackled by the literal word of the Bible, you should realize that the true goal of science is to improve life and satisfy our inherent gnawing curiosity.

People should have learned that the Bible is just a metaphor from Genesis.


1:31 God saw all that he had made-and it was very good&#33; There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day

Shouldn&#39;t it has been "PERFECT", or at least "EXCELLENT"?

[billyfridge]

To get back to global warming, couldn&#39;t we go back to the air pollution we had in the fifties that will shield us from the sun and cool us down a bit :blink: :huh:

[MagicNakor]

You try making the world in six days, and see how much of a perfectionist you are. ;)

:ninja:

[vidcc]

i say warm up earth...we could all do with some sunshine in our lives :lol:

[MagicNakor]

I wouldn&#39;t mind it right now...it&#39;s -23C here without the windchill... ;)

:ninja:

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@4 January 2004 - 09:11
I wouldn&#39;t mind it right now...it&#39;s -23C here without the windchill... ;)

:ninja:
I don&#39;t believe that -23 below i don&#39;t think so :rolleyes:

[MagicNakor]

Didn&#39;t you know Canada&#39;s cold? ;)

:ninja:

[billyfridge]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@5 January 2004 - 03:16
Didn&#39;t you know Canada&#39;s cold? ;)

:ninja:
Not that cold surely. <_< I&#39;m a refrigeration engineer. :rolleyes:

[clocker]

Originally posted by billyfridge+4 January 2004 - 20:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (billyfridge @ 4 January 2004 - 20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@5 January 2004 - 03:16
Didn&#39;t you know Canada&#39;s cold? ;)

:ninja:
Not that cold surely. <_< I&#39;m a refrigeration engineer. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Just wait till REAL winter starts.

Nakor&#39;s just finishing up with Fall.

[MagicNakor]

:lol: Kind of. "Winter" is more late December through to late March/early April.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Same here, as to the season-winter temps began (in earnest) about three days ago.

0 degrees F. right now.

(Happy New Year, MN&#33;)

[clocker]

10F here in sunny Colorado currently.
Might warm all the way up to 20 today.

T-shirt weather.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@5 January 2004 - 11:34
10F here in sunny Colorado currently.
Might warm all the way up to 20 today.

T-shirt weather.
Are you like me that way?

I gots me a pretty good furnace. :)

[Monkster]

we just got out of a cold spell (Arctic front) were we plunged down to -15 for a couple days and got a half a foot of snow...but now its warmed up to a confortable 10 degrees (Celsuis that is...not sure whats that in Farenhiet), and im in Vancouver :D

btw, check out this article (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Monkster@10 January 2004 - 01:00
we just got out of a cold spell (Arctic front) were we plunged down to -15 for a couple days and got a half a foot of snow...but now its warmed up to a confortable 10 degrees (Celsuis that is...not sure whats that in Farenhiet), and im in Vancouver :D

btw, check out this article (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)
I think I used that same one a while back, Monkster. :)

Prepare yourself for a shitstorm of contrariness. ;)

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by kAb@3 January 2004 - 06:39
sorry j2k4, i have to say this

global warming is a serious threat.
I agree....only the reason for global warming has very little to do with mankind; more to do with the sun radiating more energy. Our sun is a variable star, some time in the future, it will cool down again....

[leftism]

Here is a nice rebuttal to that article :)

OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING (http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html)

This reminds me of the tobacco issue. For years we had most of the scientific community telling us it was harmful while &#39;scientists&#39; employed by the Tobacco firms assured us it wasnt. Guess who turned out to be right :rolleyes:

When most of the independent scientists start saying global warming isnt happening I&#39;ll begin to take it seriously. But while that argument is limited to employees of oil firms and scientists who&#39;s findings are mocked by the majority of their peers I&#39;ll keep my big pinch of salt handy :).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism@10 January 2004 - 17:46
Here is a nice rebuttal to that article :)

OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING (http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html)

This reminds me of the tobacco issue. For years we had most of the scientific community telling us it was harmful while &#39;scientists&#39; employed by the Tobacco firms assured us it wasnt. Guess who turned out to be right&nbsp; :rolleyes:

When most of the independent scientists start saying global warming isnt happening I&#39;ll begin to take it seriously. But while that argument is limited to employees of oil firms and scientists who&#39;s findings are mocked by the majority of their peers I&#39;ll keep my big pinch of salt handy :).
So which of the two do we believe?

Leftism-

You seem to want to give the nod to those you call "independent".

I think, in the instances I&#39;ve chased down or been shown documentation, that these should not be termed independent, as their research must be funded by some entity; they do not work for free.

I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.

You would no doubt counter my belief by insisting that studies concluding global warming is a natural (not caused by humans) or non-event are funded by those (industry) with a vested interest in that conclusion.

The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?

I don&#39;t ever recall hearing of an industry-funded study aimed at countering an "anticipated, but incomplete" private effort.

I see and ascribe different motivations to the respective sides.

:)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.[/b]

This is probably the most important issue here. We know that the studies produced by the oil companies have an obvious agenda. &#036;&#036;&#036;&#39;s

What agendas do you suspect these independents of having? Specifically, what do they stand to gain from arguing that global warming is a man made reality? Couldnt they make an easier and larger profit by working for the oil companies instead?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?[/quote]

I&#39;m not sure if I&#39;m understanding your reasoning correctly here.

Your saying the industry funded scientists are more likely to be honest because there are many independent studies trying to prove them wrong? Couldnt you also argue that in the opposite direction? That there are well funded industry driven scientists ready to jump on any lies or fudged figures as evidence of the independents wrongdoings and the non-existance of man-made global warming?

From a laymans point of view I&#39;m always sceptical of industry driven studies. The tobacco firms being one of the more obvious examples. And when I look at a factory belching out thick black smoke, it seems hard to imagine that it is having little or no effect or, as that study you provided claims, is actually helping the environment by encouraging tree growth.

I suppose it really comes back to &#39;how independent are the independents&#39; and why are they not supporting the industry view. Could you describe these agendas-driven interests the independents are funded by?

[hobbes]

People don&#39;t kill people, icebergs kill people.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4)
I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.

This is probably the most important issue here. We know that the studies produced by the oil companies have an obvious agenda. &#036;&#036;&#036;&#39;s

And, as I said, the independents operate under the constraints of their benefactors, who themselves have an agenda.

These studies are not underwritten by groups who suffer all-encompassing altruism.

What agendas do you suspect these independents of having? Specifically, what do they stand to gain from arguing that global warming is a man made reality? Couldnt they make an easier and larger profit by working for the oil companies instead?

By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".

QUOTE (j2k4)
The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?



I&#39;m not sure if I&#39;m understanding your reasoning correctly here.

Your saying the industry funded scientists are more likely to be honest because there are many independent studies trying to prove them wrong?

What I&#39;m saying is that industry studies are often rejected out-of-hand, as they are most often presented in defense of a perceived wrong, and are inarguably also presented in defense of industry.

"Evil Industry" is often not allowed to defend itself except in a court of law, as the court of public opinion is the exclusive province of their opponents.

Couldnt you also argue that in the opposite direction?

Certainly. I am merely expressing an opinion based on my perceptions.

That there are well funded industry driven scientists ready to jump on any lies or fudged figures as evidence of the independents wrongdoings and the non-existance of man-made global warming?

Yes, but I find any attempt at rebuttal is usually given short-shrift by the media, and rejected on it&#39;s face or ignored by the "agenda-driven interest".


From a laymans point of view I&#39;m always sceptical of industry driven studies. The tobacco firms being one of the more obvious examples.

I grant your point as to the tobacco companies; they knew from the start of the dangers of their product, and moved to counter the fact by insinuating themselves into the monetary fabric of the U.S. by meekly allowing the government to tax tobacco products to the point tobacco "addiction" achieved a whole new meaning.

And when I look at a factory belching out thick black smoke, it seems hard to imagine that it is having little or no effect or, as that study you provided claims, is actually helping the environment by encouraging tree growth.

"Thick black smoke" is becoming rarer by the day, at least in the U.S. The legitimate environmental concerns are having an effect, and I&#39;m sure any actual benefit to the environment such as indicated by the study I noted is likely to be accidental, rather than intentional.

I suppose it really comes back to &#39;how independent are the independents&#39; and why are they not supporting the industry view. Could you describe these agendas-driven interests the independents are funded by?

No, I won&#39;t take the time, because I haven&#39;t got enough. Suffice it to say they exist in great number.

Okay, just one: Greenpeace.

They shuffle money around and fund all sorts of "activities", and they brag about doing it.

And no, I won&#39;t google it for you.

BTW-If we are going to continue this thread in the way others have gone, can we agree to forego the "mass" copy and paste tactic?

It is incredibly tiresome to respond to, and to expect others to read them is in itself oppressive.

I&#39;m fucked enough for time as it is.

:)

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".

This seems extremely far fetched to me and could be considered a classic conspiracy theory :)

If you genuinely believe that then you have to come to one of these conclusions.

1. The independent scientists being funded by these groups are unaware of this anti-(insert your list here) agenda. (which will be referred to from this point as either an "ultra radical ideology" or "the conspiracy" because thats a big list to type :) ) yet they are producing evidence that supports it.

2. The independent scientists are aware of this ultra radical ideology that motivates the groups that fund their work and they fully support it.

If its conclusion 1, I dont think scientists, of all people, are that stupid to be used as pawns in this conspiracy and I dont understand how they could be unaware of it, yet examine evidence independently and end up wrongly supporting it. So logically it must be conclusion 2.

If it is conclusion 2, I think its verging on a pure conspiracy theory that all the independent scientists have this ultra radical political agenda. Its not like they&#39;re crackpots on the fringes of their profession. Many of these people are well established and a reasonable amount probably own shares in corporations i.e. they both support and gain from the capitalist system.

Even if this agenda is what you say it is, and I dont think it is, what do these groups have to gain from pursuing it? They spend an awful lot of money on these campaigns so it seems logical to assume that these gains are, at the very least, equally as large.

Isn&#39;t it far more realistic to assume that these groups genuinely care about the environment?

That doesnt automatically make them correct in their assertions mind you, but I think that explaining their movement in terms of this ultra radical ideology you describe is leaning towards science fiction and is, if I may say this without causing offence, an easy and opportunistic way to discredit their findings.

btw, I&#39;m more than happy to look at any evidence you can show me to illustrate that these groups are really motivated by this radical ideology and not a genuine concern for the environment. You have alluded to such details but not provided them.

I sincerely hope you do provide such evidence because, imho, this is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed before we can &#39;progress&#39; in this debate :)

PS

I hope quoting one sentence doesnt constitute a mass copy n paste tactic :)

edit: numerous grammatical errors, my bad&#33; :D

[j2k4]

I don&#39;t think there is progress to be made, nor a proper debate to be had, as we are much too far separated in our beliefs and though processes to even agree on format, lefty.

In other words, I do not believe you are open to being convinced you might be wrong, no matter your words to the contrary.

If I offer proof, and you deny it&#39;s validity, asking for more, better, real proof, studies, etc., then there is no help for it.

Your policy of deny, deny, deny is unbeatable, and I won&#39;t try.

Personally, I prefer to rely on my own reasonings and common sense, while you cry for "proof", in the form of a googled, cut and paste mish-mash of whatever you can dig up, instead of relying on your own brainpower.

Mine tells me that no matter how I try, I cannot imagine what motivates scientists with Luddite philosophies; oxymorons engaged in oxymoronic behaviors-the use of high-tech to destroy high-tech.

Orwell or Rand would have a ball writing about them.

I suppose it will end up as one of the great mysteries of our time. :)

[leftism]

j2k4,

What is the point in discussing a topic if you&#39;re not willing to provide any evidence or even any logic to back up your assertions? I think a quote from Biggles put this across quite nicely in another thread.


Originally posted by Biggles
The purpose of reasoned debate is to highlight where there is a breakdown of logical reasoning. Simply saying someone is arguing in ignorance proves nothing. You must pose questions which the person you arguing with either counters or concedes a point. Through slow and reasoned debate one or the other will demonstrate the worth of their argument

Everyone could say "well have a great logical argument and plenty of evidence but you wouldnt believe it so Im not going to tell you", but it would make for a rather farcical debating forum would it not?

Your idea of common sense may be that organisations such as Greenpeace are "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great", but I&#39;d be very surprised if it made sense to anyone else.

Requesting an explanation of this assertion, which most people would find quite absurd, is hardly unreasonable. It&#39;s not like I&#39;m asking you to explain something obvious that the majority of people know via common sense.

[alpha]

j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-&#39;everything that made America great&#39;." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in. :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by alpha@13 January 2004 - 07:44
j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-&#39;everything that made America great&#39;." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in. :(
I do not, in fact, believe that.

It is a wonder, however, that otherwise sane people lose all semblance of reason when discussing the U.S.

It&#39;s the same premise that, in the event of, say, a natural disaster somewhere in the world (Iran?) would prompt some form of aid from the U.S., which is then met by a singularly counter-intuitive refusal of same (Iran?).

We here seem to be a special case. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+13 January 2004 - 06:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 13 January 2004 - 06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4,

What is the point in discussing a topic if you&#39;re not willing to provide any evidence or even any logic to back up your assertions? I think a quote from Biggles put this across quite nicely in another thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
The purpose of reasoned debate is to highlight where there is a breakdown of logical reasoning. Simply saying someone is arguing in ignorance proves nothing. You must pose questions which the person you arguing with either counters or concedes a point. Through slow and reasoned debate one or the other will demonstrate the worth of their argument

Everyone could say "well have a great logical argument and plenty of evidence but you wouldnt believe it so Im not going to tell you", but it would make for a rather farcical debating forum would it not?

Your idea of common sense may be that organisations such as Greenpeace are "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great", but I&#39;d be very surprised if it made sense to anyone else.

Requesting an explanation of this assertion, which most people would find quite absurd, is hardly unreasonable. It&#39;s not like I&#39;m asking you to explain something obvious that the majority of people know via common sense.[/b][/quote]
Let me try to make this very simple for you, lefty:

If I say it&#39;s a reason, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

If I say it is logical, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

Your natural deficit as to both reason and logic dictates you adopt this as a tactic, then scream for a debate, the rules of which are entirely yours to define.

I suggest, therefore, that you give up any pretense of terming what you attempt to do here as debate.

That&#39;s all there is to it. ;)

[alpha]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 January 2004 - 17:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 January 2004 - 17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-alpha@13 January 2004 - 07:44
j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-&#39;everything that made America great&#39;." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in. :(
I do not, in fact, believe that.

It is a wonder, however, that otherwise sane people lose all semblance of reason when discussing the U.S.

[/b][/quote]
This, if Im not mistaken, isnt a discussion about the U.S.
Or have I missed something :blink:

[vidcc]

you know as i read some of these posts i ask myself this....does it actually matter one little bit if global warming is caused by mans polution ?
The fact is that we polute the world far more than we need to and the main reason NOT to cut back is purely financial.
Shouldn&#39;t we go with the worst case scenario "just in case"?.
We have the tech. to produce cars that emit little polution (i believe saab did a good job on this). we have the tech. to filter poluting emmissions from industrial sources etc. etc. etc.
what we also have is a first world greed where profit comes before the enviroment and even before man. GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.
Denial of the possiblilty of mans polution harming the ozone because there is "no solid link" is like playing russian roulette.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don&#39;t want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America&#39;s lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 January 2004 - 18:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 January 2004 - 18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don&#39;t want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America&#39;s lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions. [/b][/quote]
what are you talking about? read the post for heavens sake. i said "as are other countries."
i have never said or even suggested or could even be misinterpreted as saying in any subject whatsoever that anyone "follows america&#39;s lead"

My post was indicative of the fact that MAN polutes too much and as GW Bush (the president of MY country) is probably the most famous leader to refuse to sign and also happens to be one of the worlds most prominent perveyers of the capitalist profits before people doctrine he was a just and appropriate example.

READ READ READ

or i&#39;ll set busyman on you :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+13 January 2004 - 15:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 13 January 2004 - 15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:53
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don&#39;t want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America&#39;s lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions.
what are you talking about? read the post for heavens sake. i said "as are other countries."
i have never said or even suggested or could even be misinterpreted as saying in any subject whatsoever that anyone "follows america&#39;s lead"

My post was indicative of the fact that MAN polutes too much and as GW Bush (the president of MY country) is probably the most famous leader to refuse to sign and also happens to be one of the worlds most prominent perveyers of the capitalist profits before people doctrine he was a just and appropriate example.

READ READ READ

or i&#39;ll set busyman on you :lol:[/b][/quote]
I apologize-

We had just recently gone &#39;round about Kyoto; I thought I remembered you being there for it.

There was an attempt to create the notion any non-participants in Kyoto (including Russia and Japan) were merely the minions of the U.S.

I thought you were re-hashing-again, sorry. :)

[vidcc]

accepted... :lol:

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let me try to make this very simple for you, lefty:

If I say it&#39;s a reason, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

If I say it is logical, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.[/b]

Yes there is a debate, I would have to provide a logical reason as to why your reasoning is not logical. Making blanket statements without providing any evidence or reasoning seems to be your area of expertise.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Your natural deficit as to both reason and logic dictates you adopt this as a tactic, then scream for a debate, the rules of which are entirely yours to define.

I suggest, therefore, that you give up any pretense of terming what you attempt to do here as debate.

That&#39;s all there is to it. [/quote]

Excellent. :) I&#39;m glad to see you&#39;ve abandoned the topic and resorted to your favourite tactic of spitting insults at those who disagree with you.

Its very obvious to all but the most biased of readers that you quickly stooped to this level when I asked a couple of pertinent questions about your conspiracy theory.

Your actions do more damage to your position on this topic than any of my &#39;inconvenient&#39; questions ever could. I should probably be thanking you :)

[Biggles]

Providing one doesn&#39;t think the Earth is 6000 years old and is going to end next Tuesday, my view is the following.

Looking back over the history of the Earth it does not take much to discern that climate fluctuates wildly. We have have been living in a warmer inter-glacial period. During these perids, which geologoically are quite short, the temperature can rise quickly and, in previous inter-glacials, higher temperatures than we have now were reached (usually prior to turning very nippy indeed).

So what does it mean for us? Well carbon emissions could speed up what is a natual process and we certainly have emitted a lot of carbons into the atmosphere. So controlling our pollution could slow things down

On the other hand we could just be going into a natural phase and there is damn all we can do about it.

Sea levels between full ice age and the warmest periods vary by hundreds of feet. There was not much of a North Sea during the last ice age and no Mediteranean or Black Sea. As temperatures rise further sea levels will rise but bear in mind most of the rising has already occurred. However, if you live by the sea, as I do, this is little comfort; 30 feet and I will be growing sea weed not shrubs.

It will not end civilisation and it is not entirely clear who will be winners and who will be losers if things do get warmer. Records suggest that a warmer world is good news for the UK, back in the 11th century we had vineyards as far north as York. Far worse than a warm world, would be a return to an ice age which would not be good news for the developed world. A cooler world would be ok for North africa and the ME which no doubt would go back to being the cradle of civilisation.

I believe the evidence is there to say we are entering a warm phase. Time will tell if this is a temporary fluctuation or one of Earth&#39;s longer transitional phases - if it is the latter we may never know to what extent we caused it, but those who predicted it will get the kudos anyway :)

Skimming through the posts above I saw a comment that cows emit more methane than cars - I should hope so too. If cows start emitting carbon monoxide from their rears the world will have come to a pretty pass. :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 January 2004 - 18:18
Providing one doesn&#39;t think the Earth is 6000 years old and is going to end next Tuesday, my view is the following.

Looking back over the history of the Earth it does not take much to discern that climate fluctuates wildly. We have have been living in a warmer inter-glacial period. During these perids, which geologoically are quite short, the temperature can rise quickly and, in previous inter-glacials, higher temperatures than we have now were reached (usually prior to turning very nippy indeed).

So what does it mean for us? Well carbon emissions could speed up what is a natual process and we certainly have emitted a lot of carbons into the atmosphere. So controlling our pollution could slow things down

On the other hand we could just be going into a natural phase and there is damn all we can do about it.

Sea levels between full ice age and the warmest periods vary by hundreds of feet. There was not much of a North Sea during the last ice age and no Mediteranean or Black Sea. As temperatures rise further sea levels will rise but bear in mind most of the rising has already occurred. However, if you live by the sea, as I do, this is little comfort; 30 feet and I will be growing sea weed not shrubs.

It will not end civilisation and it is not entirely clear who will be winners and who will be losers if things do get warmer. Records suggest that a warmer world is good news for the UK, back in the 11th century we had vineyards as far north as York. Far worse than a warm world, would be a return to an ice age which would not be good news for the developed world. A cooler world would be ok for North africa and the ME which no doubt would go back to being the cradle of civilisation.

I believe the evidence is there to say we are entering a warm phase. Time will tell if this is a temporary fluctuation or one of Earth&#39;s longer transitional phases - if it is the latter we may never know to what extent we caused it, but those who predicted it will get the kudos anyway :)

Skimming through the posts above I saw a comment that cows emit more methane than cars - I should hope so too. If cows start emitting carbon monoxide from their rears the world will have come to a pretty pass. :blink:
AHA&#33;

And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such&#33;

Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

Huh? HUH??&#33;&#33;?

If you don&#39;t have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid&#33;&#33;&#33;

You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........



:P Sorry, buddy. I just wanted to see what that felt like.

Vandalous&#33;

I&#39;m with you all the way, Biggles&#33; :)

[kAb]

I will make the case.

Clearly in this graph, you can see that the world is the green, and the rest is the moon. Notice the difference?
http://www.eccm.uk.com/climafor/images/vegchangestudyarea.gif

-Moving On

This picture shows what the Earth will look like if we ignore carbon emissions.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/galaxies/ball_coronagraph_hires.jpg

-Moving On

This next graph shows a human heart beat in 50 years if we ignore global warming&#33;&#33;

http://www.finx.fi/automation/amlc-graph.gif

-Moving On

This is a depiction of what the c02 layer may look like in 50 years.

http://erc.msh.org/quality/graphics/triangle.gif

Thank you for your time :)

[j2k4]

I&#39;m afraid I don&#39;t......um.....could you repeat that? :huh:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 08:30
By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".
america wasn&#39;t great before the arrival of capitalism, industry, government, and technology? the definition of greatness would vary wildly, depending on whom you ask, no? the natives prolly thought it was plenty great, without all of those things-- they certainly had no use for things like, say, banks, railroads, mayors, or gatling guns.

on a different note, this thread has been sorely lacking in real, accurate info about the danger posed to our planet by trees.

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." --Ronald Reagan, 1980

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+14 January 2004 - 03:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 14 January 2004 - 03:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 January 2004 - 08:30
By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".
america wasn&#39;t great before the arrival of capitalism, industry, government, and technology? the definition of greatness would vary wildly, depending on whom you ask, no? the natives prolly thought it was plenty great, without all of those things-- they certainly had no use for things like, say, banks, railroads, mayors, or gatling guns.

on a different note, this thread has been sorely lacking in real, accurate info about the danger posed to our planet by trees.

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." --Ronald Reagan, 1980 [/b][/quote]
So true. :(

[kAb]

ololololol :lol:

yeah reagan was a genius :rolleyes:

[Biggles]

J2

I am glad you got that out of your system - it is bad to bottle these things up :D

I was sent by my senior managers on one of "those" courses intended to make me a more rounded person. I see they sent Kab too - Tom Peters has a lot to answer for.

As for Ronald, I suspect he may have mis-read his brief, coal fired power stations looks a bit like trees if you simply scan read. :unsure:

[3RA1N1AC]

that statement by reagan was fuel for much ridicule, for years. but lately people have re-evaluated that quote a little bit, since scientists have discovered that trees produce gases that are ingredients in air pollution when they mingle with machine-made emissions. but that&#39;s still a far cry from reagan&#39;s suggestion that the stuff that&#39;s produced by trees is pollution in & of itself.

so reagan wasn&#39;t completely incorrect when he made those claims. just almost completely. :lol:

[MagicNakor]

http://www.ybil.com/images/products/flowchart.jpg is how this thread (and board) works. ;)

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@14 January 2004 - 09:13
http://www.ybil.com/images/products/flowchart.jpg is how this thread (and board) works. ;)

:ninja:
Pin it&#33; :lol:

[MagicNakor]

No can do. But maybe it could become an oft-used picture like the bunny with a pancake. ;)

:ninja:

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>AHA&#33;

And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such&#33;

Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

Huh? HUH??&#33;&#33;?

If you don&#39;t have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid&#33;&#33;&#33;

You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........



Sorry, buddy. I just wanted to see what that felt like.

Vandalous&#33;

I&#39;m with you all the way, Biggles&#33; [/b]

All that because you refused to answer a few of my questions?

Just accept the fact that your ludicrous conspiracies are not logical and have no basis in fact. Having a tantrum about it is hardly going to help now is it? :rolleyes:

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Pin it&#33;[/quote]

I suggest you pin a mirror image of that diagram to your forehead so you can read it everytime you look in the mirror. :lol:

You have noticed it doesnt say "keep on repeating your own position and refuse to answer any questions" yes?

[j2k4]

Keep the noise down, lefty-I&#39;m busy. ;)