Global Warming

[Terry S]

Here's a nice little excerpt I found on junkscience.com:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17729019%255E7583,00.html

Ian Plimer: Global warming a damp squib

January 05, 2006
HEAT, bushfires. Just another Australian summer, some hotter, some wetter, some cooler, some drier. As per usual, the northern hemisphere freezes and the blame game is in overdrive. At the 2005 UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Greenpeace's Steven Guilbeault stated: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

It is that simple! If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold, it's global warming. Demonstrators in frigid temperatures in Montreal chanted: "It's hot in here! There's too much carbon in the atmosphere!" The same apocalyptic Guilbeault says: "Time is running out to deal with climate change. Ten years ago, we thought we had a lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time." Really.

In 1992, Greenpeace's Henry Kendall gave us the Chicken Little quote, "Time is running out"; in 1994, The Irish Times tried to frighten the leprechauns with "Time running out for action on global warming, Greenpeace claims"; and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on global warming.

:angel:

Terry S

[genrec]

The world is coming to an end! We are all gonna die! Seek Jesus!

[nothere]

when the explorers (in sailing ships) first discovered Glacier Bay it wasn't a bay, the glacier was solid to the ocean, within a very short time it had retreated a great deal.
Let's see, no diesel powered ships, no cars, no oil. How in the heck did we do it?
nevermind we must have been planning to burn oil.

[Terry S]

when the explorers (in sailing ships) first discovered Glacier Bay it wasn't a bay, the glacier was solid to the ocean, within a very short time it had retreated a great deal.
Let's see, no diesel powered ships, no cars, no oil. How in the heck did we do it?
nevermind we must have been planning to burn oil.


Oh silly me. I keep forgeting that the world is a static place that doesn't constantly change in a dynamic manner. My bad. I guess I'll go back to believing that pesticides are the devil and illicit drugs make the world a better place.* O0

Terry S

[BMan]

What we do to the earth does take a toll, but...
Gravity keeps our earth in an elipse, the way it works isn't perfect. The elipse will flatten, then round out, over and over. The climate will increasingly become more erratic, then more stable. Winters will become longer and colder, summers shorter and hotter. Then the reverse occurs
I'm more concerned with a good whack from an asteroid that will plunge us into another ice age, they figure with the growth of the elipse, we will be entering the asteroid belt abound 2012 or so.

[rammsteinmatt]

so let me get this straight:

its too hot - globall warming
its too cold - global warming

interesting.........aparently nobody at greenpeace has a dictionary that would allow them to use the word "warming" in a proper statement

[alex_alex]

most of the environmental arguments hinge on a very anthrocentric and ultimately selfish view of our world and nature. The same people that claim to be environmentalist insist on allowing animals to roam free and do what they will, and utilize resources to their advantage. Without any distinction between animals and human beings, the other side of their argument (that humans shouldn't do all the "damage" we're doing) necessarily needs to assume that we are, in some sense, different from these animals. otherwise, their position would be inconsistent . . .

[Bills Evo]

Eat, Drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

I would that thou wert either hot or cold
but because thou art lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Book of Revelation

Apparently it's OK for it to be too hot or too cold, it's that nice weather in between that God doesn't like. Darn!
Bill :knuppel2: :knuppel2:

[GOOSE_Ej]

i know where im going if i die soooo i aint worried :)

the world will come to an end eh.....

[Mulholland]

My bad. I guess I'll go back to believing that pesticides are the devil and illicit drugs make the world a better place.* O0

Terry S


I'll never forget the lefties demonization of DDT...The pesticide was saving millions from malaria and feeding millions more. The world-wide leftists got it banned and, again, malaria and hunger metastasized.

[genrec]

Make fun all you want to. YOU will all see sooner rather than later. If YOU are all that blind not to see the climatic changes/seasonal changes in the past decade alone.............WE all have another thing coming. ;)

[Mulholland]

Now I know how the dinosaurs felt...I blame Bush and Republicans for their extinction.

BTW...global warming creates more agricultural land...and it has nothing to do with fossil fuel burning.

Be happy, vote Republican.

[genrec]

This is not a republican or democratic issue............in my book.....just common sense and the future of the planet.

[EvoPwr]

This is not a republican or democratic issue............in my book.....just common sense and the future of the planet.


fuck the future of the planet...ill be dead shortly, i am going to enjoy my life when i can, just like everyone has done in history...looking out for themselves....selfish bastards ;)

[Terry S]

This is not a republican or democratic issue............in my book.....just common sense and the future of the planet.


Dude, we will run out of fossil fuels LONG before any of the hypothetical "global warming effects" from using them will manifest themselves. Not to mention that we are a LONG ways away from the day we run out of fossil fuels.

Claiming the sky is falling due to observations from a select handful of places in the last decade is just plain ignorant. Sorry.

Terry S

[genrec]

I agree, not in our lifetime, and shit all my cars have been poluters, im not a green peace activist by any means, even love me the spraypaint.....but dont deny evidence...........you are a man of science, i know this.......but FACT one day......the planet will be hurting.....and yes we will all be long and gone, and dead......










This is not a republican or democratic issue............in my book.....just common sense and the future of the planet.


Dude, we will run out of fossil fuels LONG before any of the hypothetical "global warming effects" from using them will manifest themselves. Not to mention that we are a LONG ways away from the day we run out of fossil fuels.

Claiming the sky is falling due to observations from a select handful of places in the last decade is just plain ignorant. Sorry.

Terry S

[Terry S]

I agree, not in our lifetime, and shit all my cars have been poluters, im not a green peace activist by any means, even love me the spraypaint.....but dont deny evidence...........you are a man of science, i know this.......but FACT one day......the planet will be hurting.....and yes we will all be long* and gone, and dead......


The "not in my lifetime" crap is irrelivant.

What evidence are you talking about? All of it is about as convincing as Intelligent Design.

The planet might be hurting one day in a very very very very distant future, yes, but it wont be because of us.

I care more about the future of the human species than I do about my own life. Driving a car today is not going to fry the children of the future. Period.

Terry S

[EvoPwr]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0

[alex_alex]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0


No, you're not.

But its irrational to think that ones own actions are even the slightest bit relevant to any significant long-term change. Just like voting.

Sure, it makes a difference when EVERYONE does one thing or another . . . but that isn't the issue. The point is that as an individual, putting time and effort into issues that are as remote and meaningless as global warming should pale in comparison to the importance people should place on improving oneself and taking care of one's immediate family and friends.

[EvoPwr]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0


No, you're not.

But its irrational to think that ones own actions are even the slightest bit relevant to any significant long-term change. Just like voting.

Sure, it makes a difference when EVERYONE does one thing or another . . . but that isn't the issue. The point is that as an individual, putting time and effort into issues that are as remote and meaningless as global warming should pale in comparison to the importance people should place on improving oneself and taking care of one's immediate family and friends.


Yes, you are. Does the gas expelling from your car just disappear? no, it doesn't. every person makes it that much worse, have you ever taken a chemistry class? probably not or you would know that every little thing makes a difference. look at the fact that the human race genetic make-up is basically that of a pig. one little slight difference can change thing majorly. so you sir, are wrong. thank you and nice try.

[alex_alex]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0


No, you're not.

But its irrational to think that ones own actions are even the slightest bit relevant to any significant long-term change. Just like voting.

Sure, it makes a difference when EVERYONE does one thing or another . . . but that isn't the issue. The point is that as an individual, putting time and effort into issues that are as remote and meaningless as global warming should pale in comparison to the importance people should place on improving oneself and taking care of one's immediate family and friends.


Yes, you are. Does the gas expelling from your car just disappear? no, it doesn't. every person makes it that much worse, have you ever taken a chemistry class? probably not or you would know that every little thing makes a difference. look at the fact that the human race genetic make-up is basically that of a pig. one little slight difference can change thing majorly. so you sir, are wrong. thank you and nice try.


No, it doesn't. The amount of pollution one individual causes is extremely insignificant, and does NOT indeed make it THAT much worse. There is plenty of literature on this topic, and it really is pretty interesting if you'd care to read it. Each little contribution is ONLY significant in the aggregate. It is irrational for an individual to "stop polluting" solely based on the premise that he is actually making even a slight push in the right direction. Furthermore, if driving a car is beneficial to the driver, which it almost always is, then to the extent that it is, it would be irrational once again to stop polluting particularly if you weigh the benefit an individual receives from participating in the behavior versus the contribution he would actually make if he quit. It creates a classic prisoner's dilemma because no one individual would rationally withdraw from this behavior unless there is some other extrensic value being weighed (in additional to the non-existent percieved contribution by not polluting), OR if the actual individual contribution to the "fight against pollution" is grossly inflated.

Take my voting analogy. One vote has NEVER made a difference in an election of the populus. NEVER. In the history of man. The voting behavior is therefore irrational, if we scrutinize it to the core. And yet people do it, but they do so for other reasons (e.g. being a good citizen, doing your civic duty, so on and so forth). And these reasons are just as valid. But people that participate in these kinds of behavior need to understand that their one vote, in actually, makes no difference at all to the outcome.

Your analogy to chemistry and genetic makeup is completely inapposite; you're using a very limited example to prove the super duper general statement that "every little thing makes a difference" and it just isn't true. It may be in chemistry, but it isn't when it comes to pollution or voting. Get it straight.

Furthermore, us humans forget that the end of the human race doesn't mean obliteration, even if it ever happens. Nature will find a way to go on. Finding ways to preserve NOT nature in general, but HUMANS, is an incredibly myopic and selfish approach to the global warming phenomena. If the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, it's very possible that us humans wouldn't be here today. Who knows what better species might arise if we destroy ourselves.

The point is: all this jibber jabber is very nice for self-righteous people, but is ultimately futile. If you believe in choas theory, you'd be a bit more humble and realize that you couldn't possibly account for the entireity of the factors that will ultimately play a role in the warming phenomena. Some scientists think that more heat in the stratosphere leads to a cooler troposphere, which may actually help the earth. And there are contradicting theories. All of this just isn't worth the effort, in my opinion, when compared to other, much more important things, like your immediate family, loved ones, and friends. And pets.

[nothere]

alex alex,
thanks for taking the time to respond. well said.

[Terry S]

Alex beat me to the punch. Well said. O0

Terry S

[EvoPwr]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0


No, you're not.

But its irrational to think that ones own actions are even the slightest bit relevant to any significant long-term change. Just like voting.

Sure, it makes a difference when EVERYONE does one thing or another . . . but that isn't the issue. The point is that as an individual, putting time and effort into issues that are as remote and meaningless as global warming should pale in comparison to the importance people should place on improving oneself and taking care of one's immediate family and friends.


Yes, you are. Does the gas expelling from your car just disappear? no, it doesn't. every person makes it that much worse, have you ever taken a chemistry class? probably not or you would know that every little thing makes a difference. look at the fact that the human race genetic make-up is basically that of a pig. one little slight difference can change thing majorly. so you sir, are wrong. thank you and nice try.


No, it doesn't. The amount of pollution one individual causes is extremely insignificant, and does NOT indeed make it THAT much worse. There is plenty of literature on this topic, and it really is pretty interesting if you'd care to read it. Each little contribution is ONLY significant in the aggregate. It is irrational for an individual to "stop polluting" solely based on the premise that he is actually making even a slight push in the right direction. Furthermore, if driving a car is beneficial to the driver, which it almost always is, then to the extent that it is, it would be irrational once again to stop polluting particularly if you weigh the benefit an individual receives from participating in the behavior versus the contribution he would actually make if he quit. It creates a classic prisoner's dilemma because no one individual would rationally withdraw from this behavior unless there is some other extrensic value being weighed (in additional to the non-existent percieved contribution by not polluting), OR if the actual individual contribution to the "fight against pollution" is grossly inflated.

Take my voting analogy. One vote has NEVER made a difference in an election of the populus. NEVER. In the history of man. The voting behavior is therefore irrational, if we scrutinize it to the core. And yet people do it, but they do so for other reasons (e.g. being a good citizen, doing your civic duty, so on and so forth). And these reasons are just as valid. But people that participate in these kinds of behavior need to understand that their one vote, in actually, makes no difference at all to the outcome.

Your analogy to chemistry and genetic makeup is completely inapposite; you're using a very limited example to prove the super duper general statement that "every little thing makes a difference" and it just isn't true. It may be in chemistry, but it isn't when it comes to pollution or voting. Get it straight.

Furthermore, us humans forget that the end of the human race doesn't mean obliteration, even if it ever happens. Nature will find a way to go on. Finding ways to preserve NOT nature in general, but HUMANS, is an incredibly myopic and selfish approach to the global warming phenomena. If the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, it's very possible that us humans wouldn't be here today. Who knows what better species might arise if we destroy ourselves.

The point is: all this jibber jabber is very nice for self-righteous people, but is ultimately futile. If you believe in choas theory, you'd be a bit more humble and realize that you couldn't possibly account for the entireity of the factors that will ultimately play a role in the warming phenomena. Some scientists think that more heat in the stratosphere leads to a cooler troposphere, which may actually help the earth. And there are contradicting theories. All of this just isn't worth the effort, in my opinion, when compared to other, much more important things, like your immediate family, loved ones, and friends. And pets.


one vote doesnt make a difference? take two people and have them vote, if the vote is a tie, add a third person and have him vote. therefore one vote makes a difference. take student presidents, guarantee there have been decisions within one vote.

i never said that one person stopping would stop global warming, i know that global warming will continue no matter what we do. i never said to stop the polluting we do, i could care less, i think of present time, not distant future.

i take it you have never heard of the snowball effect, butterfly effect or anything like that correct? or at least you do not believe in them. the smallest change can create a huge difference in the future.

i agree the amount of pollution that one person creates is very very minor compared to the entire earths population, but no matter what you say, that one persons pollution will have an effect. if it doesnt have an effect, then no one would have an effect, therefore the human population is not contributing to pollution. that is what you are saying.

[alex_alex]

^^^ i dont agree with that. that is just like saying your vote doesnt count. just because you are not the deciding vote doesnt mean you didnt contribute. therefore you are contributing to ozone depletion, even though you will only make up 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it, you are still doing it O0


No, you're not.

But its irrational to think that ones own actions are even the slightest bit relevant to any significant long-term change. Just like voting.

Sure, it makes a difference when EVERYONE does one thing or another . . . but that isn't the issue. The point is that as an individual, putting time and effort into issues that are as remote and meaningless as global warming should pale in comparison to the importance people should place on improving oneself and taking care of one's immediate family and friends.


Yes, you are. Does the gas expelling from your car just disappear? no, it doesn't. every person makes it that much worse, have you ever taken a chemistry class? probably not or you would know that every little thing makes a difference. look at the fact that the human race genetic make-up is basically that of a pig. one little slight difference can change thing majorly. so you sir, are wrong. thank you and nice try.


No, it doesn't. The amount of pollution one individual causes is extremely insignificant, and does NOT indeed make it THAT much worse. There is plenty of literature on this topic, and it really is pretty interesting if you'd care to read it. Each little contribution is ONLY significant in the aggregate. It is irrational for an individual to "stop polluting" solely based on the premise that he is actually making even a slight push in the right direction. Furthermore, if driving a car is beneficial to the driver, which it almost always is, then to the extent that it is, it would be irrational once again to stop polluting particularly if you weigh the benefit an individual receives from participating in the behavior versus the contribution he would actually make if he quit. It creates a classic prisoner's dilemma because no one individual would rationally withdraw from this behavior unless there is some other extrensic value being weighed (in additional to the non-existent percieved contribution by not polluting), OR if the actual individual contribution to the "fight against pollution" is grossly inflated.

Take my voting analogy. One vote has NEVER made a difference in an election of the populus. NEVER. In the history of man. The voting behavior is therefore irrational, if we scrutinize it to the core. And yet people do it, but they do so for other reasons (e.g. being a good citizen, doing your civic duty, so on and so forth). And these reasons are just as valid. But people that participate in these kinds of behavior need to understand that their one vote, in actually, makes no difference at all to the outcome.

Your analogy to chemistry and genetic makeup is completely inapposite; you're using a very limited example to prove the super duper general statement that "every little thing makes a difference" and it just isn't true. It may be in chemistry, but it isn't when it comes to pollution or voting. Get it straight.

Furthermore, us humans forget that the end of the human race doesn't mean obliteration, even if it ever happens. Nature will find a way to go on. Finding ways to preserve NOT nature in general, but HUMANS, is an incredibly myopic and selfish approach to the global warming phenomena. If the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, it's very possible that us humans wouldn't be here today. Who knows what better species might arise if we destroy ourselves.

The point is: all this jibber jabber is very nice for self-righteous people, but is ultimately futile. If you believe in choas theory, you'd be a bit more humble and realize that you couldn't possibly account for the entireity of the factors that will ultimately play a role in the warming phenomena. Some scientists think that more heat in the stratosphere leads to a cooler troposphere, which may actually help the earth. And there are contradicting theories. All of this just isn't worth the effort, in my opinion, when compared to other, much more important things, like your immediate family, loved ones, and friends. And pets.


one vote doesnt make a difference? take two people and have them vote, if the vote is a tie, add a third person and have him vote. therefore one vote makes a difference. take student presidents, guarantee there have been decisions within one vote.

i never said that one person stopping would stop global warming, i know that global warming will continue no matter what we do. i never said to stop the polluting we do, i could care less, i think of present time, not distant future.

i take it you have never heard of the snowball effect, butterfly effect or anything like that correct? or at least you do not believe in them. the smallest change can create a huge difference in the future.

i agree the amount of pollution that one person creates is very very minor compared to the entire earths population, but no matter what you say, that one persons pollution will have an effect. if it doesnt have an effect, then no one would have an effect, therefore the human population is not contributing to pollution. that is what you are saying.




1. I don't see the point of the completely irrelevant hypotheticals. Yes, one person's vote will make a difference in a 3 person election, but how DIFFERENT is that from what we're talking about, a phenomena that billions of people contribute to?

2. Like i said, you're overgeneralizing with that voting example, and unreasonably so.

3. The snowball effect? JESUS TITTY-F_CKING CHRIST. We aren't even on the same plane anymore. We're talking about polluting, an act that EVERYONE commits. Will ONE person's non-action STOP any snowball effect if EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL DOING THE SAME THING? I think this coversation is starting to make everyone reading the thread a little bit dumber.

[helli0n]

It was recently found out that plants and trees create a large amount of the CO2 pollution in our air. Freaky little factoid...just further proof that we still do not have full understanding of the Earth's ever evolving environment.

[Terry S]

It was recently found out that plants and trees create a large amount of the CO2 pollution in our air. Freaky little factoid...just further proof that we still do not have full understanding of the Earth's ever evolving environment.


They produce Methane not CO2. And yes, Methane is one of the top 3 gases that possibly effect the ozone.

Terry S

[Highrever]

Cow farts produce methane, let's kill em all and enjoy our hamburgers with soy milk

[chuckdashi]

alas another thread walks back from the grave hahahahahahahahaha

[drmosh]

Speaking of global warming, where the fuck is it? It's been cold as hell in SoCal... it was warmer in Virginia last week when I was out on biz!!

[Chris in SD]

Speaking of global warming, where the fuck is it?* It's been cold as hell in SoCal... it was warmer in Virginia last week when I was out on biz!!



Dino, you should have told me you were out here... I was actually in the country last week... ;)