Page 8 of 72
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:33 pm
by GORDON
Debate in this area is great.
Certainty, for now, is bullshit.
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:35 pm
by GORDON
Oops, our bad, 1998 WASN'T the warmest year on record.
In fact, 5 of the last 10 warmest years occurred before World War II.
- NASA
Obviously the Bush White House is just pressuring the scientists again, so it's prolly all fake and the truth will only come out with Hillary in the White House.
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:49 pm
by Leisher
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:55 pm
by Malcolm
First comment:
Posted by: greenbeen77
What a judas this guy turned out to be...but it was to be expected. Im sure he's not the first or last to be bought out by the interests of big oil...if judas betrayed Jesus crist just as easy why wouldn't these MIT dorks do the same?
Good goddamn. Elvis has left the building. Goodnight, everybody.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:20 pm
by GORDON
Told you it was a religion.
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:29 pm
by thibodeaux
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:25 am
by TPRJones
I am forced to comment on this news story about Al Gore- what fascinates me is not that there were purportedly special effects in “An Inconvenient Truth” (which I doubt), but that you cling to the concept that global climate change is not a reality.
More proof it's a religion.
Did he not watch the video, or does he think they are flat out lying? Or maybe The Day After Tomorrow stole the shot from Al Gore a few years before An Inconvenient Truth was made? That must be it.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:56 am
by TheCatt
So the flyover was fake. So?
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:22 am
by thibodeaux
TheCatt wrote:So the flyover was fake. So?
Good point: the whole movie is bullshit anyway.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:35 pm
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:So the flyover was fake. So?
I agree that that is irrelivant. I just like the irony in someone grumbling about how people are unable to look at the "facts" of global warming and see it for the clearly proven rational arguement that it (supposedly) is, yet at the same time see that vid and say "special effects in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (which I doubt)."
Pot kettle much?
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:24 pm
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:TheCatt wrote:So the flyover was fake. So?
I agree that that is irrelivant. I just like the irony in someone grumbling about how people are unable to look at the "facts" of global warming and see it for the clearly proven rational arguement that it (supposedly) is, yet at the same time see that vid and say "special effects in 'An Inconvenient Truth' (
which I doubt)."
Pot kettle much?
Well, that idiot is a whole different story.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:17 pm
by GORDON
Hurricane expert is skeptical about global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353023,00.html
Remember Al Gore's consensus? I wonder how much money he made last week selling carbon credits.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:13 pm
by TheCatt
So, consensus, what exactly does that mean?
1) An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:
2) General agreement or accord
#1 implies ALL scientists agree.
#2, to me, implies MOST agree.
Am I interpreting those correctly?
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:43 pm
by GORDON
If you ever find yourself agreeing with the majority of people, it's time to stop and have some quiet reflection about your life.
Gore specifically stated that anyone who disagrees with him is a nutjob. He has stated that all serious scientists agree with him. A lot of people who would otherwise be considered serious, non-nutjobs have spoken out against Gore's movement. Al Gore makes money off of his global warming movement, and does not personally live a "green" lifestyle if his so-called and dubious carbon opffsets are taken out of that equation. Far from it.
But, like with Obama, some people will believe anything if they want it to be true badly enough.
Or were you just being argumentative?
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:26 pm
by TheCatt
I was really just asking for clarification or other people's opinion on the latter definition as to what "general" meant.
General, like most, or general like "about most aspects, except some details"
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:56 am
by TPRJones
I think the conotation with the word consensus is that most (not all, but at least on the approximate order of 90%) agree with most (same stipulation) of the statement. A mere 51% is too weak for the word consensus, I would think.
The denotation, however, is not so specific. And it's clear that those using it about global warming are using it to mean all - or at least all those that agree with them, because the rest are clearly crazy and do not count.
Edited By TPRJones on 1209535058
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:28 am
by GORDON
He also said "Is there still an argument about this?"
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:25 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:He also said "Is there still an argument about this?"
People like believing doomsday prophecies. I'm damn near convinced most of us have a built-in inferiority complex.
David Koresh knew this. Nostradamus knew this. Marshall Applewhite knew this. Jim Jones knew this. Now, am I suggesting that everyone who believes in global warming is actively deceiving those who don't? Nah.
But c'mon, this is the same planet that's had species killed off en masse thruout its existence. In that light, it's not hard to believe that humankind could be killed by a catastrophe event of epic proportions. Of course, every critter that's gone extinct has done so as a result of natural phenomenon. The dinosaurs didn't kill themselves. The Permian extinction wasn't artificially made.
In short, most people don't take into account how incredibly old this sphere is & the scale of the punishment it's taken in its life. Our knowledge of how things really work is partial at best. Is it possible humans are affecting the climate of the entire globe? Eh, maybe. It's nigh impossible to answer with a definitive, "No." But the worst people could do to this place pales in comparison w\ what's already happened to it. All this being said, humans could certainly make themselves go extinct, which would be a damn fine case to nature never to create sentient, self-aware life again.
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:21 pm
by Leisher
Of course, every critter that's gone extinct has done so as a result of natural phenomenon.
That's not entirely accurate. Are the actions of another species considered "natural phenomenon"?
Man has been responsible both directly and indirectly for certain species' extinction or near extinction.
Man hunted buffaloes, wolves, bears, etc. to near extinction. Ditto for whales.
Man brought species with him around the globe resulting in the extinction of other species. Ask the dodo bird.
Not saying man is the ultimate evil, but we are the only species on the planet that has goals other than fucking and eating. We invent, travel, trade, build, etc. Even in those peaceful actions, we can kill and not even intentionally.
Hippies simply need to suck it up and realize that fact.
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:34 pm
by GORDON
First thing I thought of was "wooly mammoth."