Old Man G Funk said:
So your contribution to the solution is to 'talk' about it then?
Flaky Flick Suffers From 'truth' Decay
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
So your contribution to the solution is to 'talk' about it then?
I've already explained my contributions to you before. It's not my fault that you can't read.N8 said:So your contribution to the solution is to 'talk' about it then?
N8, if you support the Iraq war so much, why aren't you over there fighting it?N8 said:So your contribution to the solution is to 'talk' about it then?
(And, yes I know this is a red herring, but I'm making a point.)
Old Man G Funk said:
Doing my part to put 'bombs on target'...
Doing what? Are you in Iraq? Why not? Shouldn't you have your boots on the ground? Shouldn't you be dodging IEDs and shooting terrorists? How about it N8? Gonna put up?N8 said:Doing my part to put 'bombs on target'...
Shouldn't you be apologizing for America's oil consumption or something?
Shouldn't you be answering the question?N8 said:Shouldn't you be apologizing for America's oil consumption or something?
Old Man G Funk said:
!!!
So, let me get this straight.N8 said:
You're trying to play the hypocrite card, by charging that I don't do anything to help the environment. Yet, you already know all the steps that I take. You also know that I have said that it wouldn't do dick for me to take these actions alone and that real change will only come from comprehensive actions and policies that affect the whole country and other countries. But, you are still willing to try and pull out the hypocrite card. Meanwhile, you refuse to go to Iraq to support the war there, even though you going there would do more than I could do for the environment by completely reducing my footprint on the global climate.
And, even with those ideas in mind, I never played the hypocrite card against you in the Iraq debate until now, and I even pointed out that it was to prove a point and that it was a red herring. Now, do you still think that you have a valid line of reasoning?
Yeah, I'm sorry for my country. I'm sorry that a bunch of asshats like you are all too common here. I'm sorry that a bunch of idiots like you are making the policy. I'm sorry that most of the people here would rather bury their heads in the sand than face the facts. I'm sorry that instead of making meaningful change and policies that pursue renewable energy sources, we have asshats like you that follow the party line. Your lack of thought is appalling to me. Your inability to use reason is appalling to me. Wake up and pull your head out of you a$$.
I work for the military industrial complex so I am doing my part daily for the War.Old Man G Funk said:
As for 'saving the planet,' I've already posted how many tens of billions of BTU's I've conserved... yet u 'talk' about it.
Oh... u r the asshat... or asspony, which ever you perfer.
wow, not to interupt here, but i kinda figured i should try and throw my knowledge in here. i'm neither republican or democratic (registered independant), neither conservative nor liberal...i consider myself realistic. in concerns to global warming, i have to honestly say that i don't really know. i've studied the subject in depth (specifics, generals, you name it), have written a few papers based on previous climatic modeling research, have worked with multiple theories for past climat shifts (i.e. the mid-pleistocene transition due to milankovich cycle forcing/locking and regolith erosion patterns), so i like to think i have a bit of knowledge on the subject. as of now, i can comfortably say that the earth is experiencing a relative warming trend. generally speaking, increasing the level of radiation-absorbing gasses does yield a hotter climate (and thus the whole global warming thing) but we also have to keep in mind that there have been significant climate shifts in the last two million years (some as recently as 1000 years ago). for example, in the middle ages, the earth (especially europe) experienced a "mini ice age". roughly two million years ago, glacial patterns drastically shifted from 40k year cycles to 100k year cycles... theories abound for both of these, but can't really quantify either event.
my point here is that there's a lot of the information out there can be twisted and turned to back just about any argument, but much of it does point to the fact that a substancial climate shift has happened and is possible. in my personal opinion, it's still too early to tell whether or not current climate shifting is a result of human input or a human-independant anomoly...either way, i don't believe that pumping radiation-absorbing gasses into our atmosphere can be beneficial to our (and the rest of the planet's) well-being.
for the record, any of the aforementioned topics/theories (the mini iceage, the Mid Pleistocene Transition, etc.) have been thoroughly explored by the world's most reknowned climatologists and paleogeologists...you can find plenty of papers written by them on google.
just my thoughts here...
my point here is that there's a lot of the information out there can be twisted and turned to back just about any argument, but much of it does point to the fact that a substancial climate shift has happened and is possible. in my personal opinion, it's still too early to tell whether or not current climate shifting is a result of human input or a human-independant anomoly...either way, i don't believe that pumping radiation-absorbing gasses into our atmosphere can be beneficial to our (and the rest of the planet's) well-being.
for the record, any of the aforementioned topics/theories (the mini iceage, the Mid Pleistocene Transition, etc.) have been thoroughly explored by the world's most reknowned climatologists and paleogeologists...you can find plenty of papers written by them on google.
just my thoughts here...
Just on a side note, something I'm curious about........gsweet said:
Dose one have to be regestered to a "polictial affiliation" like that to be on the electoral role in your country?
you know, i'm not exactly sure. my guess would be no; someone does not have to have a particular party affiliation (as far as regestration goes) in order to run for an office, but i doubt that any party/state would elect/nominate an individual who was not affiliated with and representing them.
Yeah, doing what? C'mon, put up already. What do you do for the military industrial complex? Are you out there shooting terrorists? Did you even understand the whole point of me asking this? Of course not. You're too dense to get it.N8 said:I work for the military industrial complex so I am doing my part daily for the War.
As for 'saving the planet,' I've already posted how many tens of billions of BTU's I've conserved... yet u 'talk' about it.
Oh... u r the asshat... or asspony, which ever you perfer.
How many BTUs you've conserved? Give me a break. And, I do more that "talk" you self-righteous little prick. You'd know that if you actually read my responses to your ignorant little posts on this subject, but you don't. You don't read. You make snap judgements then act as if they are the truth. Up yours.
No. One does not need to be registered to be part of the electoral process.DaveW said:Just on a side note, something I'm curious about........
Dose one have to be regestered to a "polictial affiliation" like that to be on the electoral role in your country?
In the Republican Primaries in Utah, you have to be a registered Republican to vote in them. For the Democratic Primaries, no.Old Man G Funk said:
I really don't understand how anyone could debate the corellation between our filling of the atmosphere with Co2 and temperature increase...
Go watch the movie, N8. God.
Well, there is truth to the fact that at one of the earth's coldest points in history, there was something like 40 or 50 times the CO2 in the atmosphere as now...blue said:
So what you're saying is.... all we have to do to fix the problem is to continue to be gluttonous pigs and pour vast quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere and the problem will fix itself?BurlyShirley said:
Fellas, I think the problem is solved! I'm going to go outside right now and just leave my truck running.
Where did you get that misinformation from?BurlyShirley said:
BurlyShirley said:
Eh?
I really think you have to see the motivation behind the argument against pollution control/decreasing global warming (hell, behind 75% of the American government...) It's not hard, kids.
Im not arguing anything. I simply stated a fact. It may contradict you guys' conspiracy theories, but it doesnt mean Im taking the side of polluters and big money.blue said:
Eh?
I really think you have to see the motivation behind the argument against pollution control/decreasing global warming (hell, behind 75% of the American government...) It's not hard, kids.
Um...source pls?
no thanks.blue said:
It's not a fact. Wherever you got that from is wrong.BurlyShirley said:Im not arguing anything. I simply stated a fact. It may contradict you guys' conspiracy theories, but it doesnt mean Im taking the side of polluters and big money.
Old Man G Funk said:
No it isnt.
BurlyShirley said:
If you can't give a source to verify it I'll just have to asume your making it up.... or got it from the flat earth society.
That's fine.DaveW said:If you can't give a source to verify it I'll just have to asume your making it up.... or got it from the flat earth society.
Mister Beer Demon sir..... Can we please change burlygirlys title toBeerDemon said:
"Flat earth society foundation member"
That's a bit long. If you do some digging, you can find this info for yourself. Of course, I wouldnt expect you to. You've shown a complete willingness to buy into whatever the media/corporate alternative media feeds you. So go with that. You seem content that way.DaveW said:Mister Beer Demon sir..... Can we please change burlygirlys title to
"Flat earth society foundation member"
Also, I wouldnt mind a new custom title, but that's a bit wordy.
I see you belong to the N8 school of debating. You do, however, lose style points for not including "BurlyShirley said:
" in your post.
Hey, in case you didint notice, I just invented a form of media in my last post. That counts for something.valve bouncer said:I see you belong to the N8 school of debating. You do, however, lose style points for not including "
Flake media?? 
alright, i'm kinda interested in that CO2 content info. i'd love to read about it, but so far google has turned up $h!t. shirly, if you don't want to post your source on this thread, then pm me the source. i can't find it out there. it's certainly possible, seeing that greenhouse gas content is only one of many factors regarding global temp trends.
Im not "really" a liar.gsweet said:
Ehhh...
Backed by these people:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/
http://www.envirotruth.org/patterson_bio.cfm
Backed by these people:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/
http://www.envirotruth.org/patterson_bio.cfm
What exactly is your point? Are scientists which have opposite views not supported by environmentalist groups? Its the same **** people. Of course they're going to back him because his finding support their view, but that doesnt make it untrue AT ALL.blue said:
And on the board of directors for the National Center for Public Policy Research...
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/hcooper/bio.shtml
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/edmundhaislmaier.cfm
http://cy2kr.tacticom.com/AdvisoryCouncil.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Ridenour
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=704
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/101560.htm
This is why those sources aren't credible, and why 99% of the scientific community disagrees with them on the subject.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/hcooper/bio.shtml
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/edmundhaislmaier.cfm
http://cy2kr.tacticom.com/AdvisoryCouncil.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Ridenour
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=704
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/101560.htm
This is why those sources aren't credible, and why 99% of the scientific community disagrees with them on the subject.
I wouldn't exactly call his site some unbiased scientist's webpage...BurlyShirley said:
http://www.envirotruth.org/index.cfm
blue said:
You're missing my point entirely here. If you can find me info. that disputes this guy's claim about CO2 being much more prevalent in earth's colder times, Id like to see it, if not, you're just N8ing this thread all to hell. Of course you can find more links to enviro stupid ****. There's more of them out there. That doesnt make them correct.
Unless you have evidence refuting a specific claim, you're not even making an argument.
alright, he's refering to a theory. the "snowball earth" theory, which states that the world experienced a global scale ice age (even in the "tropics")...there's even a fairly popular book out about it. my question is how the hell does he know the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? ice cores range back to about 800k to 2million years ago, so it couldn't be those.
well anyways, without reading his paper (which i will hopefully find soon), i can tell you that increased levels of greenhouse gasses can result in initial warming, then significant cooling in high latitudes. it's already happening, actually. perfect example: the hail/snow in italy last year which destroyed crops.
most of you have probably heard about this theory (let me emphasize that word; THEORY)
--> increased greenhouse gasses initially warm the planet and melt polar caps. this leads to a flooding of the oceans with fresh water, which happens to be less dense than saline water. the result is stratification of the water column in the ocean: fresh water on top. depending on how thick the fresh water layer is, it can effectively "drown out" the warm water currents which circulate within the saline level, thus isolating weather patterns from the warming affect that the ocean currents produce. this leads to much, much colder weather.
and again, there are a rediculous amount of published papers on this theory.
well anyways, without reading his paper (which i will hopefully find soon), i can tell you that increased levels of greenhouse gasses can result in initial warming, then significant cooling in high latitudes. it's already happening, actually. perfect example: the hail/snow in italy last year which destroyed crops.
most of you have probably heard about this theory (let me emphasize that word; THEORY)
--> increased greenhouse gasses initially warm the planet and melt polar caps. this leads to a flooding of the oceans with fresh water, which happens to be less dense than saline water. the result is stratification of the water column in the ocean: fresh water on top. depending on how thick the fresh water layer is, it can effectively "drown out" the warm water currents which circulate within the saline level, thus isolating weather patterns from the warming affect that the ocean currents produce. this leads to much, much colder weather.
and again, there are a rediculous amount of published papers on this theory.