The earth has not been this hot since 400 years ago[views:19982][posts:93]____________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 6:12pm - BornSoVile ""] Man_of_the_Century said: So maybe you can answer this for me... Is the problem too much gas or not enough? This reprot that Gore is spouting about says there's too much. If there's too much, there can't be holes. So which is it? Ufff! Check out the these sweet fallacies! Hasty Generalization, Limited Choice, Appealing to Emotion, Cicular Reasoning, Deiversion, and Straw Man all in one! The depleting O-Zone holes have actually been some what repaired or haulted in effect thankfully due to the hard work of the Vienna Convention as well as the Montreal Protocol, which subsequently froze the use of CFCs which largely have contributed to the expansion of the holes. So, now that that damage was down we now have increased levels of UV within our atmosphere which essentially aids the reproduction and advancement of Global Warming. Another reason why the Earth has warmed so rapidly within the past 50 years is simply due to over population. Over population I feel is the ultimate reason why we'll perish. |
| ____________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 6:17pm - BornSoVile ""] Morbid_Mike said: Global Warming =Bullshit how many Ice ages have we had now...don't ya think it's about time we are due for another one? Ultimately your ignorance speaks volumes about the inferiority of humankind. Global warming will cause an Ice Age. :shocked: |
| _______________________________ [Jun 25,2006 6:17pm - hoser ""] I would blame Bush. |
| ____________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 6:20pm - BornSoVile ""] It's too easy to blame Bush, people forget about Cheney. On an encouraging note, Texas is expected to maintain the largest Wind Power farm on Earth by the end of the year. Apparently they realized it's the wave of the future and will ultimately make them some good money. For once Texas is more progressive than Massachusetts. THE END IS NEAR!!! |
| ___________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 7:22pm - ShadowSD ""] Are wedding bells for Tex and Bubba far behind? |
| _____________________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 7:47pm - DrinkHardThrashHard ""] BornSoVile said:Man_of_the_Century said: So maybe you can answer this for me... Is the problem too much gas or not enough? This reprot that Gore is spouting about says there's too much. If there's too much, there can't be holes. So which is it? Ufff! Check out the these sweet fallacies! Hasty Generalization, Limited Choice, Appealing to Emotion, Cicular Reasoning, Deiversion, and Straw Man all in one! The depleting O-Zone holes have actually been some what repaired or haulted in effect thankfully due to the hard work of the Vienna Convention as well as the Montreal Protocol, which subsequently froze the use of CFCs which largely have contributed to the expansion of the holes. So, now that that damage was down we now have increased levels of UV within our atmosphere which essentially aids the reproduction and advancement of Global Warming. Another reason why the Earth has warmed so rapidly within the past 50 years is simply due to over population. Over population I feel is the ultimate reason why we'll perish. Mars looks pretty cool this time of millenia. Let's get it done. |
| ________________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 8:04pm - DomesticTerror ""] BornSoVile said:It's too easy to blame Bush, people forget about Cheney. On an encouraging note, Texas is expected to maintain the largest Wind Power farm on Earth by the end of the year. Apparently they realized it's the wave of the future and will ultimately make them some good money. For once Texas is more progressive than Massachusetts. THE END IS NEAR!!! go to Burning Man, hippie! |
| ____________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 8:17pm - BornSoVile ""] DrinkHardThrashHard said: Mars looks pretty cool this time of millenia. Let's get it done. I can't remember if I posted or if it was posted, but Steven Hawkin, at a Chinese conference last week annouced that this is a critical time for Earth's civilization to colonize the Moon and Mars. Another point of interest - through the speculation of several leading ufologists/astronomers, it is believed that the only way civilization can survive on Mars is by dwelling in caverns under the surface. This aids the theories that Mars oceans were essentially drained, which have been noted through the observations of several roamer and probe missions. What's interesting too is that how many missions have failed on Mars, in particuarly the American Observer as well as the Soviet Phobos II missions were both destroyed by meteorites when they orbited around the dark side of Mars. A team of remote viewers hired by NASA produced an astonishing report claiming the truth. |
| ________________________________________________ [Jun 25,2006 9:16pm - whiskey_weed_and_women ""] i wanna go to neveda and roast marshmellows while theyre testing the short range nuclear missles....i mean fuck global warming were taking ourselves down first before the earth can do it. |
| _____________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 12:48am - anonymous ""] BornSoVile said: Another point of interest - through the speculation of several leading ufologists/astronomers, it is believed that the only way civilization can survive on Mars is by dwelling in caverns under the surface. thats just what cohaagen wants you all to believe, getcha ass to mars!!! |
| ____________________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 8:35am - Man_of_the_Century ""] I guess my point got lost... Everyone screamed global warming when there was holes in the o-zone. Now that the holes are filling in, they still scream global warming. Its obvious that the earth is getting warmer (maybe not to the extent that the hippies are saying, but warmer none the less). There's just as good of a chance that it has nothing to do with us whatsoever. BTW, what I ment about "the gas" was o-zone. The problem used to be too little, now its too much. |
| ____________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 11:50am - Jugulator ""] I dont think New England has gotten this much damn rain in 400 years |
| _____________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 3:20pm - HailTheLeaf ""] Man_of_the_Century said:I guess my point got lost... Everyone screamed global warming when there was holes in the o-zone. Now that the holes are filling in, they still scream global warming. Its obvious that the earth is getting warmer (maybe not to the extent that the hippies are saying, but warmer none the less). There's just as good of a chance that it has nothing to do with us whatsoever. BTW, what I ment about "the gas" was o-zone. The problem used to be too little, now its too much. The hole in the ozone isn't filling in, it's expanding, ha, funny you mentioned it because global warming is actually preventing the ozone hole from healing itself. If I had any $ I'd sue the government and the coal companies for endangering the entire planet...I wonder what kind of sentence that carries? Murder times 6 billion... |
| ____________________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 5:21pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:>>The hole in the ozone isn't filling in, it's expanding, ha, funny you mentioned it because global warming is actually preventing the ozone hole from healing itself. If I had any $ I'd sue the government and the coal companies for endangering the entire planet...I wonder what kind of sentence that carries? Murder times 6 billion... >> Wrong again... Global warming is the observed increase in the tempature of the earth. Scientist have yet to find the exact cause of it, hence all the debate. The o-zone heals itself every year (not back to full, but it heals itself). How? o3 (o-zone) is prodused naturaly by the earth. The chemicals that break down the o-zone needs the sun to power the reaction. So take the hole over the Artic. During the spring and summer (when there's constant sunlight), the hole streaches out. In the fall and winter (when its in darkness), the o-zone is able to rebuild itself. Without the sun, the reaction that breaks down the 03 isn't there. The hole starts to heal itself. |
| _______________________________ [Jun 26,2006 6:05pm - Troll ""] gg allin |
| _______________________________ [Jun 26,2006 6:06pm - Troll ""] ....he caused global warming |
| _____________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 6:20pm - HailTheLeaf ""] Man_of_the_Century said:HailTheLeaf said:The hole in the ozone isn't filling in, it's expanding, ha, funny you mentioned it because global warming is actually preventing the ozone hole from healing itself. If I had any $ I'd sue the government and the coal companies for endangering the entire planet...I wonder what kind of sentence that carries? Murder times 6 billion... Wrong again... Global warming is the observed increase in the tempature of the earth. Scientist have yet to find the exact cause of it, hence all the debate. Scientists have known the cause of it for over 30 years now, what debate are you talking about? You've gotta be the only person who doesn't know the cause of global warming. |
| _______________________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 6:43pm - coldnorthernvengeance ""] Stupid fuck of the century |
| ___________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 7:06pm - ShadowSD ""] Why jump through hoops to justify the rationalizations of mass business? They'd tell you gravity is a theory if it meant they could get rich selling you space suits. Ask yourself a few questions. Is business more loyal to science or profit? Are scientists more loyal to science or profit? Which group is more likely to be loyal to which goal? |
| ___________________________________ [Jun 26,2006 7:22pm - ShadowSD ""] Man_of_the_Century said:The o-zone heals itself every year (not back to full, but it heals itself). Excellent, that means we can damage it as much as we want every year, because since every year it will heal partially, it's mathematically only a matter of time before it's back to 100%. Man_of_the_Century said:So take the hole over the Artic. During the spring and summer (when there's constant sunlight), the hole streaches out. In the fall and winter (when its in darkness), the o-zone is able to rebuild itself. Without the sun, the reaction that breaks down the 03 isn't there. The hole starts to heal itself. So all we need is to keep the rest of the Earth in darkness for six months a year. Not only will it be cheaper for mass industry than lowering emissions, but they'll make a killing powering all the lights twenty-four hours a day for half the year. I think we owe it to the free market to make the sacrifice. |
| ____________________________________________ [Jun 27,2006 8:27am - Man_of_the_Century ""] HailTheLeaf said:Scientists have known the cause of it for over 30 years now, what debate are you talking about? You've gotta be the only person who doesn't know the cause of global warming. Seeing how you only listen to web sites... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._change#Statements_by_organizations ShadowSD said:Why jump through hoops to justify the rationalizations of mass business? They'd tell you gravity is a theory if it meant they could get rich selling you space suits. Ask yourself a few questions. Is business more loyal to science or profit? Are scientists more loyal to science or profit? Which group is more likely to be loyal to which goal? I'm not trying to rationalize anything but we are slowly improving the enviorment. It takes time. We didn't destroy it over night and its not going to fix itself over night. Business is out for the profit. It always has been. But the thing that people forget is any good business man would not try to ruin the planet and its people. If that happens, who's going to purchase thier product. Thats not to saythat it never happens, it just doesn't always happen. Scientist should be loyal to fact. I say should, because they are human and can be convinced otherwise. Who is more loyal to which goal is a hard question. You have both groups filling out into both science and profit. Which is why any time I hear about something (like global warming) I lookat both sides first. Then I validate the facts on both sides using neutral forms of information. I then make a choice on my own, just like I did here. ShadowSD said:So all we need is to keep the rest of the Earth in darkness for six months a year. Not only will it be cheaper for mass industry than lowering emissions, but they'll make a killing powering all the lights twenty-four hours a day for half the year. I think we owe it to the free market to make the sacrifice. Nope, I was trying to say that the earth has the means to fix itself of the holes. CFCs take on average of 10-15 years to hit the o-zone layer. They were phased out of production in 1994. That means even though there are no more CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere, there still floating up there. Around 2009-2010 you should start seeing a reduction in the hole that stays. People just have to give it time. |
| __________________________________ [Jul 2,2006 2:54pm - ShadowSD ""] ManoftheCentury said:Business is out for the profit. It always has been. But the thing that people forget is any good business man would not try to ruin the planet and its people. If that happens, who's going to purchase thier product. Thats not to saythat it never happens, it just doesn't always happen. Scientist should be loyal to fact. I say should, because they are human and can be convinced otherwise. You said "no business man would" try to ruin the planet, but then said "scientists should be loyal to fact". Although you go on to mention exceptions to both rules, the business man's good intentions are espoused before they are brought into question, while the scientist's intentions are impliclity questioned from the get go. That suggests more of an implicit faith in the business side. Just an observation. The point is though that the money in big business makes people greedy, and greed makes people shortsighted. Science, on the other hand, is responsible for our very understanding of time and the ability to predict long term patterns. When deciding who to trust regarding a scientific phenomena that is happening over time, it's not an even split. ManoftheCentury said:You have both groups filling out into both science and profit. Which is why any time I hear about something (like global warming) I lookat both sides first. Then I validate the facts on both sides using neutral forms of information. I then make a choice on my own, just like I did here. Which is definitely the right way to go. ManoftheCentury said:Nope, I was trying to say that the earth has the means to fix itself of the holes. CFCs take on average of 10-15 years to hit the o-zone layer. They were phased out of production in 1994. That means even though there are no more CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere, there still floating up there. Around 2009-2010 you should start seeing a reduction in the hole that stays. People just have to give it time. Alright, but if my head catches fire in 2010, I'm holding you responsible. |
| _____________________________________ [Jul 2,2006 3:29pm - the_reverend ""] it's pretty damn hot today. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 8:38am - Man_of_the_Century ""] ShadowSD said:The point is though that the money in big business makes people greedy, and greed makes people shortsighted. Science, on the other hand, is responsible for our very understanding of time and the ability to predict long term patterns. When deciding who to trust regarding a scientific phenomena that is happening over time, it's not an even split. Ah, but there are many scientists that are incapable of being impartial, therefore not using science the way it should so they can get the results they want. Like these guys: http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers.htm They all have degrees, so they are educated, but they fail to follow real-world science in order to push thier crazy theories. Thats why I am critical of even scientists. They are in every field, including enviormental sciences. |
| _______________________________ [Jul 3,2006 11:23am - eddie ""] Man_of_the_Century said:ShadowSD said:The point is though that the money in big business makes people greedy, and greed makes people shortsighted. Science, on the other hand, is responsible for our very understanding of time and the ability to predict long term patterns. When deciding who to trust regarding a scientific phenomena that is happening over time, it's not an even split. Ah, but there are many scientists that are incapable of being impartial, therefore not using science the way it should so they can get the results they want. Like these guys: http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers.htm They all have degrees, so they are educated, but they fail to follow real-world science in order to push thier crazy theories. Thats why I am critical of even scientists. They are in every field, including enviormental sciences. scientists are smart, too smart to put themselves out of work by curing cancer, or solving global warming. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 11:53am - ShadowSD ""] Man_of_the_Century said: Ah, but there are many scientists that are incapable of being impartial, therefore not using science the way it should so they can get the results they want. I know, I've never doubted it. I'm just saying that those motivations will never reach the threshold of greed's influence, because history has taught us again and again that this is the nature of the human condition. Sure, question everything from either side, it's always the sane approach, but that doesn't automatically translate into both sides being equally credible and equally corruptable. With billions of dollars in financial interest intent on disproving global warming, the scales are tipped so much to that side that no group of scientist's desire to get certain results could compensate for it. Also, consider this: the majority of scientists, who believe in global warming, are the only scientists who won't get a cut of those billions. The ability to turn down money to stick to your principles is a sign of integrity, so to believe global warming a fallacy, you have to believe that each scientist who has proved their integrity in this matter has no integrity when it comes to science, and that only the scientists who doubt global warming and stand to gain from it monetarily are being loyal to science. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 1:11pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] ShadowSD said:I'm just saying that those motivations will never reach the threshold of greed's influence, because history has taught us again and again that this is the nature of the human condition. I think this is where we differ, I see those motivations go hand and hand with greed. Whether you are greedy for more money or more fame, its still greed. ShadowSD said:Also, consider this: the majority of scientists, who believe in global warming, are the only scientists who won't get a cut of those billions. The ability to turn down money to stick to your principles is a sign of integrity, so to believe global warming a fallacy, you have to believe that each scientist who has proved their integrity in this matter has no integrity when it comes to science, and that only the scientists who doubt global warming and stand to gain from it monetarily are being loyal to science. Remember, no scientist (except for a few idiots) says there is no global warming. The cause is the thing in question. I will not doubt that there are scientists that work for an oil company that says global warming is not caused by humans, and thier opinion is swayed by thier employers. But that still works for the other side. There are scientists that work for enviormental groups that can have thier opinion swayed as well. My arguement was that the cause is not yet known, so we shouldn't waste time finding a way to fix it until we know what to fix. |
| _________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 1:53pm - ShadowSD ""] Man_of_the_Century said:ShadowSD said:I'm just saying that those motivations will never reach the threshold of greed's influence, because history has taught us again and again that this is the nature of the human condition. I think this is where we differ, I see those motivations go hand and hand with greed. Whether you are greedy for more money or more fame, its still greed. I agree, but a scientist is more likely to become famous arguing global warming and it's man-made causes because that is the controversial viewpoint. Scientists who take the anti-industry view are a dime a dozen. Man_of_the_Century said:Remember, no scientist (except for a few idiots) says there is no global warming. The cause is the thing in question. I will not doubt that there are scientists that work for an oil company that says global warming is not caused by humans, and thier opinion is swayed by thier employers. But that still works for the other side. There are scientists that work for enviormental groups that can have thier opinion swayed as well. But the environmental groups are a bunch of paupers compared to the energy industry, yet the way you're presenting this is as an even match. It's not - in terms of money, industry has a huge edge. If the facts were on their side, they would have won easily long ago, yet they have many more detractors in the scientific community than supporters in the global warming debate. No reasonably believable degree of scientific corruption can explain it, the money gap here is just too big. It would require a ridiculously large Lex Luther type conspiracy. So to recap, money is on industry's side, because they have exponentially more than environmental groups. Fame is on their side, too, because the cable news media is more interesting in bringing on the controversial scientist; meanwhile, so many scientists believe in the man-made causes of global warming that sticking to that viewpoint will gain them no fame at all. So the industry side is full of alterior motives, and there is not one credible alterior motive for the other side. It just doesn't seem to be the evenly matched debate that you suggest. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 2:00pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] ShadowSD said:So to recap, money is on industry's side, because they have exponentially more than environmental groups. Fame is on their side, too, because the cable news media is more interesting in bringing on the controversial scientist; meanwhile, so many scientists believe in the man-made causes of global warming that sticking to that viewpoint will gain them no fame at all. So the industry side is full of alterior motives, and there is not one credible alterior motive for the other side. It just doesn't seem to be the evenly matched debate that you suggest. Other than a few minor details (like the eveness of the debate), I can agree to that. Good show. |
| _________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 2:22pm - ShadowSD ""] You too. You and Mike and Tony should come down one of these days and try out my new bong, I haven't seen you guys in a long time... |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 3,2006 2:26pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] I didn't even know you smoked (most of the nights at Tony and Mike's were a little hazy). I'll throw the idea at them and let you know. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 4,2006 4:01am - sacreligion ""] now that's just crazy talk! shadow you should have another birthday bash(it'll be a couple weeks late but who cares? haha) |
| __________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 10:52am - ShadowSD ""] Getting plastered and jamming outdoors rules, I'd definitely be down for us doing another one of those. Is there a Saturday coming up where you guys are available? |
| _________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 1:54pm - ShadowSD ""] bump |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 1:59pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] ShadowSD said:Getting plastered and jamming outdoors rules, I'd definitely be down for us doing another one of those. Is there a Saturday coming up where you guys are available? You'll have to check with Mike in case they have any shows, but I'm always free. We're also rebuilding the water jug hooka, we'll have to smuggle it down as well. |
| _____________________________ [Jul 6,2006 3:34pm - Yeti ""] ShadowSD said:Getting plastered and jamming outdoors rules, I'd definitely be down for us doing another one of those. Is there a Saturday coming up where you guys are available? if we dont have one, we'll make one. that last time was awesome. and by the way, happy belated birthday Shadow. your last bash was a fucking blast. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 4:05pm - anonymous ""] http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32207?issue=4227&special=1999 you fucks. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 4:15pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] That was so informative, you got me there. |
| ___________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 4:31pm - anonymous ""] who said anything about informative? you're fucking stupid if you don't like the onion. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 4:41pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] I love onions. All carmelized... on a burger.. or in a salad... onion soup... Now I'm hungry. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 4:43pm - Man_of_the_Century ""] Oh, never mind... I take it all back. The onion is indeed my new favorate news source. |
| ____________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 5:22pm - Scoracrasia ""] More bullshit to add to this thread, haha!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202417,00.html |
| _________________________________ [Jul 6,2006 6:03pm - ShadowSD ""] Yeti said:ShadowSD said:Getting plastered and jamming outdoors rules, I'd definitely be down for us doing another one of those. Is there a Saturday coming up where you guys are available? if we dont have one, we'll make one. that last time was awesome. and by the way, happy belated birthday Shadow. your last bash was a fucking blast. Thanks, man. That sounds great, you guys just let me know a date as soon as you can and we'll make it happen, our calendar is free at the moment. |
| ___________________________________________ [Jul 7,2006 9:22am - Man_of_the_Century ""] This ones for HTL... I hate to be right, but even Alternet agrees that alternate fuel sources (as they stand right now) cannot solve any of the worlds problems. http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/38540/ |