cj001f Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Kepler and Newton's concepts of motion and gravity are now known as LAWS. Are you proposing to give anthropogenic global warming the same stature? Why not? There's plenty of things known as laws describing anthropogenic processes most notably Godwins Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 I would think every big company out there leaves them on, updates usually run at night and computer has to be on. not necessarily. speaking of companies, is it really necessary to have office lights on all night in every building? Is it really necessary for cities to have all those street lights burning? what about a change in lifestyle more closely aligned to sunrise and sunset? sorry, that might force folks to abandon their night lives in bars, but the planet is at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I would think every big company out there leaves them on, updates usually run at night and computer has to be on. not necessarily. speaking of companies, is it really necessary to have office lights on all night in every building? Is it really necessary for cities to have all those street lights burning? what about a change in lifestyle more closely aligned to sunrise and sunset? sorry, that might force folks to abandon their night lives in bars, but the planet is at stake. Our lights are programmed after a certain time to turn off (6Pm), you have to call in to get them on and that only for 1/2 hour till next call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 If the Globe heats up enough and just burns up, will that be considered the end of Global Warming? Just a theory here. I want to be in the running for the Nobel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 If the Globe heats up enough and just burns up, will that be considered the end of Global Warming? Just a theory here. I want to be in the running for the Nobel. If it heats up enough do you think there will be a Gold rush in Antartica?? Got to be gold there somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) my glass is half-full. i'm looking forward to sippin' pina coladas under an umbrella while watchin' an elephant seal eat a penguin at the Ross Sea Resort & Casino Edited October 17, 2007 by ClimbingPanther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 my glass is half-full. i'm looking forward to sippin' pina coladas under an umbrella while watchin' an elephant seal eat a penguin at the Ross Sea Resort & Casino Note to Kevboner: that means he is an OPTIMIST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gertlush Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 If the Globe heats up enough and just burns up, will that be considered the end of Global Warming? Just a theory here. I want to be in the running for the Nobel. If it heats up enough do you think there will be a Gold rush in Antartica?? Got to be gold there somewhere. The Brits seem to think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 There also seems to be no comprehension of the fact that some "solutions" could generate more suffering and misery than the warming itself. Also that there may be ways to spend money that reduce aggregate human suffering more effectively and promptly than by curtailing planet-wide warming by a couple of degrees. Also duly noted that the matter of which discount rate to use when projecting costs associated with addressing global warming into the future has yet to even enter the discussion here. This is probably the single most important factor in determining which estimates to base responses on, how much things will cost, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I think its obvious that it would cause more suffering. For example, living w/o a wood stove sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) Yeah, keep changing the subject of REAL debate. Real Debate? That's the greatest delusion of all. Unskilled an unawares describes the cc.com conservative crew the real debate is what CAN we do about global warming (slow, stop or reverse it?) how much will it cost, how we will get everyone to participate, and just how much sacrifice people will actually make, you smug, condescending POS. This information has been posted on this forum before, but certain idiots were too busy straining their cement filled tire chains to remember: Greenhouse Gas Wedges These, of course, are the same morons who will defend a non-position argue through gritted, grinding teeth without ever bothering to click into NOAA's climate models to check the worst case/best case scenarios. Little hint, lil' fella: .05 degrees isn't one of them. Good doggie. The solutions are at hand, and no, we don't have to return to paleolithic times. And yes, even if the United States acted unilaterally, the world would benefit. After all, we produce a quarter of the world's human generated greenhouse gases. In the worst case, we'd wind up with a sustainable, relatively self sufficient society. Golly, that would just suck, wouldn't it? As for JayB's common assertion that action consisting of what we've needed to do for a long time anyway to create a sustainable civilization might produce more catastrophe than a 2 to 5 degree increase in global temps...oh, what utter bullshit, and he knows it. No amount of gradual regulation or technology transfer is going to even come close to the economic and human cost of just a handful of Katrinas. (Oh, and speaking of possible economic collapse, you all probably caught the article about the insurance companies abandoning their East Coast homeowners just in time for storm season). Essentially, his argument is a choice between sustainability, which some of believe is necessary regardless of climate change, and unsustainability, which means fucking your (or other people's) kids in the ass. He defends inaction based on the false notion that massive sacrifices and societal upheavels, rather than a re-orientation of existing priorities and resources (which would be MORE than enough to solve the problem), MAY be required. Yet the solutions outlined in the link clearly indicate that the investments required are doable without unraveling the global economy if the proper reprioritization (away from stupid fucking wars, for example) happens. Furthermore, this information, for anyone interested in the issue who is not in a coma, has been out there for several years now. But hey, let's all 'talk about it' for another decade, shall we? Edited October 17, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 i'd just like to hear one global warming alamist admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that gore et al could be distorting things as well. it doesn't mean you have to throw out what they are saying. but give a little constructive skeptism to what we hear. i'm not what you'd call an alarmist (duh) and i admit that those that deny the global warming can and do distort things (too)... You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I think its obvious that it would cause more suffering. For example, living w/o a wood stove sucks. It does. No more incinerating the dead bodys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Underworld, Your argument that we need to do every bit possible basically leads to the conclusion that we can't satisfy your demands until we all kill ourselves (and take as many with as possible). It would be a good idea to minimize our impact for global warming issues as well as lots of others (pollution, dependence, etc.), but I think you would agree that don't have to go as far as obliterating our methane producing bodies from the planet. There is some reasonable middle ground. From the data that's out there now (as I understand it) we are not at that middle ground (sustainability). Until we have a target for what we really need to do, it seems reasonable to preach conservation. It also seems reasonable to try to light a fire under leadership's ass in terms of agreeing there is a problem to work on and to allot resources towards working on it, instead of making shit up and distorting the issue. Americans WASTE. There are easy ways to make a difference with little personal change. For example, plan you excursions. If you have to drop the kids at a soccer game AND go for groceries, combine them into one trip minimizing distance travelled rather than doing two round-trips. Drive less? Unless half the Chinese kill themselves, that's TOTAL BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) my glass is half-full. i'm looking forward to sippin' pina coladas under an umbrella while watchin' an elephant seal eat a penguin at the Ross Sea Resort & Casino Are those boats taunphin powered? Edited October 17, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) For their next trick the conservatives on this board will now refute the silly ideas expressed by scientists about gravity. Furthermore Isaac Newton and Einstein those guys were full of shit too. Kepler and Newton's concepts of motion and gravity are now known as LAWS. Are you proposing to give anthropogenic global warming the same stature? And they're dated. No one actually knows what gravity is. We don't even know what the distance vs gravitational force relationship is below a distance of 1 mm. We do, however, know how much fossil fuel generated CO2 is in the air, and what it does to global average temperature, however. Our climate models, well tested retroactively, are quite accurate in that regard. Edited October 17, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 i'd just like to hear one global warming alamist admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that gore et al could be distorting things as well. it doesn't mean you have to throw out what they are saying. but give a little constructive skeptism to what we hear. i'm not what you'd call an alarmist (duh) and i admit that those that deny the global warming can and do distort things (too)... You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it. correction... gore presents SOME raw data i don't have to see the movie to realize that. text books, scientists, experts....each only present some data (of their choosing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 i'd just like to hear one global warming alamist admit that there is a POSSIBILITY that gore et al could be distorting things as well. it doesn't mean you have to throw out what they are saying. but give a little constructive skeptism to what we hear. i'm not what you'd call an alarmist (duh) and i admit that those that deny the global warming can and do distort things (too)... You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it. correction... gore presents SOME raw data i don't have to see the movie to realize that. text books, scientists, experts....each only present some data (of their choosing) Yup. I knew it. But Gore's still a real dickhead, right? Cuz, cuz...somebody else said he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Are those boats taunphin powered? No, silly, there's a bunch of fat welfare recipients below the deck on these: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Are those boats taunphin powered? No, silly, there's a bunch of fat welfare recipients below the deck on these: I'm hoping to be middle class one day. Then I can pay mexicans to peddle the bikes when I watch TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Are those boats taunphin powered? No, silly, there's a bunch of fat welfare recipients below the deck on these: "Latifa! Pass me dem Ho Hos so Whitey up deah kin git hissel sum soadfish o sum shit!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 get off my other computer and back on the bike, scum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 "Yessuh, Mistah Clahmin' Panthah, Suh!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brianmoore Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I do not understand where the “I hate Gore” camp is coming from. Would some nice poster here please give some valid reasons for this dislike? Is it because he made a movie about global warming and you personally do not believe in GW? Or maybe because you believe he does not practice what he preaches? Last time I looked Al Gore was not solely responsible for our current occupation that is killing innocent lives on a daily basis. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bush. If you are going to “hate”. Please direct it where it belongs. This of course, is my opinion. B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 You obviously haven't bothered to see the movie, nor has KKK et al, probably. "I wouldn't give that assclown one thin dime (but I'll argue against points I never actually saw firsthand till I'm blue in the face)!". Essentially, Gore presents the raw data. You decide whether or not you believe it. I've seen it - and if you call that "raw data" then you truly are just a Kool Aid drinking stooge who's mama spoon fed the peaches for just a few too many years. (Does she still bathe you too?) BTW: I'm still waiting for that for that graph you promised showing The Milankovitch Cycle producing a modern ice age! Do you have it? Or were you just making shit up? - again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.