| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
outside of the absolute absurdity that this is growing into, two lines really make me wonder: "Also banned were computer discs, movies, satellite TV dishes, pig fat products and anything made of human hair." - human??....hair??? "..seize the banned items and hand them over to the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which acts as the Taliban's religious police." - or in NewSpeak, that's MiniVirt. That is too fucking close. is this there defense against foreign aid? make their human rights restrictions so absurd that no one can believe they actually did it? ban pork rinds? |
damn. |
|
Sounds familiar. They can't play music? At all? criminy. In another story: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20010706/wl/imdf06072001071448a.html And people wonder why I'm not too impressed with the United States. |
e.g. Kyoto Son of Starwars .......... |
simple. 1)business interest (i.e. fossil fuel industry: "I will not sign any global warming treaty that would compromise the American economy") 2) World domination. |
you know, he swore to do what's best for the nation. he did the right thing with kyoto. |
If the problem is not addressed, there won't be any economy. |
The world will make him, and us, tow the line. Cold fusion is "scientifically bullshit." Global warming is not. I guess you think a vast majority of scientists are wrong. They think global warming is not bullshit. You think it's bullshit? Show your credentials and give your arguments or shut the fuck up. |
there is a lot of pseudoscience out there. don't get caught up in the religion. there is no evidence that human existance is contributing to global warming. there is evidence that atmospheric temperature conditions can change rapidly (and have long before man walked the earth.) there is obvious evidence of natural global temperature shifts. the vast majority of scientists (in applicable fields -- i'm a fucking scientist, and i have all the credentials of a lot of the so-called scientists who run the studies that the media picks up.) do not agree that there is human generated global warming. |
-Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. |
"The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect." evidence of the problems with the media and the religion of science: "in the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century. Reviewers suggested that his results were dangerous to humanity. In the spring of 1989 I was an invited participant at a global warming symposium at Tufts University. I was the only scientist among a panel of environmentalists. There were strident calls for immediate action and ample expressions of impatience with science. Claudine Schneider, then a congressman from Rhode Island, acknowledged that "scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying.'' It seemed clear to me that a very dangerous situation was arising, and the danger was not of "global warming'' itself." "At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly admonished "skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he associated the "true believers'' in warming with Galileo. He also referred, in another article, to the summer of 1988 as the Kristallnacht before the warming holocaust. " |
|
The arguments against global warming are purely political. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "Imagine melting polar icecaps and rising sea levels, threatening beloved and highly developed coastal areas such as Cape Cod [in Massachusetts] with erosion and storm surges. Imagine extreme weather causing billion dollar calamities. Imagine a warmer and wetter world in which infectious diseases such as malaria and yellow fever spread more easily," said Annan, describing many of the potential effects that climate scientists have warned could result from global warming. "This is not some distant, worst case scenario. It is tomorrow's forecast," Annan added. "Nor is this science fiction. It is sober prediction, based on the best available science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of the world's leading climatologists and others - including many from the United States - has carefully sifted the evidence and concluded that climate change is occurring, that human activities are among the main contributing factors, and that we cannot wait any longer to take action." |
The arguments against global warming are purely political. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "Imagine melting polar icecaps and rising sea levels, threatening beloved and highly developed coastal areas such as Cape Cod [in Massachusetts] with erosion and storm surges. Imagine extreme weather causing billion dollar calamities. Imagine a warmer and wetter world in which infectious diseases such as malaria and yellow fever spread more easily," said Annan, describing many of the potential effects that climate scientists have warned could result from global warming. "This is not some distant, worst case scenario. It is tomorrow's forecast," Annan added. "Nor is this science fiction. It is sober prediction, based on the best available science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of the world's leading climatologists and others - including many from the United States - has carefully sifted the evidence and concluded that climate change is occurring, that human activities are among the main contributing factors, and that we cannot wait any longer to take action." |
|
i say, imagine giant intelligent reptiles firing nuclear warheads at earth from their pastel pink moonbase! this is not some science fiction, or some distant future, this is going to happen in 2005! this is why we need the missle shield. you going to believe me? "Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased. Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate." Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. |
I haven't fallen for anything. You don't know what my opinion of global warming is, so don't assume that you do. "you're asking me to prove the negative? " No, I'm asking you to back up your statements with at least a little argument. Just a little. A teensy bit. As with any of my opinions about things I'm not sufficiently qualified to address (i.e. most of the universe) I'm not going to claim to be 100% confident that global warming is 1) actually happening, and 2) is caused by humans if it is happening. However, I am confident enough about it to say that it is not bullshit. It's well within the range of possibility and none of your quotes so far have discounted that. Your quotes boil down to "It might not be happening, we can handle it if it does, and a few intractible yahoos believe in it." Not a very compelling argument. Besides which, your quote source, Lindzen, gets funding from the oil and coal industries. (See 4th paragraph here.) He may not be that objective. Now, I know you love to point out segments of society that you think are being oppressed by liberals or the government or whatnot, but consider that this might blind you to the truth. Just because the establishment backs an idea doesn't make it automatically wrong. And, just because I say global warming is "not bullshit" doesn't mean I've "fallen for it." Whatever "it" is. Do you want my actual opinion, or shall I shut up? |
"when it IS clear that toxins from fossil fuels and autos are not good FOR HUMANS" the power generating industry is the #1 generator of your toxins. an easy and cost effective way to combat this is to move from fossil fuel burning plants to nuclear plants. would you support nuclear power plants, patty? |
|
"Cato's natural resource studies department was established to challenge the "market failure" critique of free markets with regards to the energy industry and the environmental commons. The Institute strives to promote policies that would help protect the environment without sacrificing economic liberty...In sum, Cato scholars argue that central planning is no more capable of providing for environmental protection than it is of ensuring economic growth. It is not "market failure" that leads to pollution, but government failure to recognize property rights and to hold polluters fully liable for their activities that leads to environmental degradation. Likewise, energy is no different from other goods produced in the marketplace and is not infected with market failures that justify government intervention." Wake up and smell the polar caps melting. |
Yes, global warming is indeed taking place. No, we humans are not quite powerfull enough to cause it. Remember a study about the time of the dinosaurs? The entire planet was tropical. Much warmer then it is today. Then, according to currently accepted theories, an astroid blocked out the sun and froze the world over, killing the dinosaurs. If one was to beleive the bible, the earth was, after it was created but before the flood, enveloped by a "canvas" or "canopy" of clouds. It never rained. It "misted" because of the humidity. It was a tropical climate all around the planet. No ice caps. The earth is on a thermo cycle. Tropical Age Ice Age Tropical Age Ice Age. Yes, the polar caps are melting. Because they are still receeding from the last ice age. |
|
Here's the data on global warming at the poles. there is no evidence of the polar ice caps melting. Antartica: Vostok: Annual Mean Temps trending down. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?id=700896060000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 Admundson-Scot: Annual Mean Temps trending even. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?id=700890090000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 North Pole: Ostrov Vize: Annual Mean Temps trending even. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?id=222200690003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 |
Well, Nate, I may be a big pussy, but I'm a big hungry pussy who's at work with nothing to eat, so I'm going to make this quick. My opinion of global warming is this: There's enough evidence to warrant action, and the scales are tipped towards action anyway (almost to the point of global warming being irrelevant) because there are fringe benefits to developing non fossil fuel combustion related energy technologies. These benefits include 1) having a more renewable energy source, 2) having more effecient energy production, (both in cost effeciency and in the thermodynamic sense) 3) having less energy related pollution, (or more easily managed pollution) 4) reducing or eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, and 5) having more decentralized and autonomous energy generation for the general population. Personally I prefer fuel cells and nuclear power as alternatives, in that order, as alternatives to fossil fuel combustion. Fuel cells have all five benefits. Nuclear has everything but #5. And, after writing all that, I realize that I don't give a shit about global warming. The benefits of alternatives to fossil fuel combustion are enough. I'm going to go have a chicken sandwich and lift weights now. And, no it ain't no free range chicken, either! Fucko. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
He did say that thousands of years ago, a glacial lake in Canada spilled out over its banks, sending billions of gallons of fresh water into the Atlantic, and that's what precipitated the last Ice Age. (I hope I'm getting this right.) Within a generation, the temperature had plummeted. Scientists from the EU are presently devising ways of preventing this from happening again. Audio transcript can be found here. |
It's not my fault he's such a sore loser and keeps coming back for more punishment. |
"By Cat on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:47 pm: Bye Bye ice caps" so, cat, you do understand that the poles are not found in africa and south america? and you also understand that glaciers have been receding for a lot longer than 200 years? the 50's and 60's were cold decades. in the 70's people thought we were heading for an ice age. kind of odd when industrial polution, the release of so called greenhouse gasses into the atomosphere, has been increasing over the last century and a half. you'd think it would be getting hotter and hotter as the greenhouse effect increased and increased? can you explain the cold snap of the 50's and 60's? i haven't lost yet, antigone. |
|
|
though the scientific evidence is that reducing fossil fuel combustion wouldn't have much effect. in fact, now that i think about it, the greenhouse gas that is 98% of the problem, if the problem exists, is the exhaust of your happy fuelcells. and a byproduct of nuclear fission. hmm? let's mangle science for everyone. |
as funny as if you took a leak all over nate's stash. what's to argue about? |
But don't worry about believing people who've dedicated their lives to studying the planet and analysing environmental data. You believe whatever the right wing business bully boys put out there. Global warming is happening now. Better teach your grandchildren to swim*. (*cute line for effect only, not to be used as a rebuttal point) |
Besides, water vapor can be easily contained in....water! duh. You're reaching just to pick fight. Fucko. But I've got to take off for the weekend now anyway. I've got a 'Nawlins date with a certain cute archaeologist. |
|
|
environmentalist organizations are huge distributers of misinformation. are you saying the nasa thermo readings are falsified by big business? the polar caps are not melting in a way inconsistant with polar cap melt 500 years ago. glaciers have been receding since the last ice age. you can't explain the global cooling that occurred during the 50's and 60's. if industrialization is really increasing the global temperature, a 20 year period of global cooling in the last 50 years doesn't make sense. -- of course i'm reaching to pick a fight. what is anyone doing? |
Nasa prostitutes itself to raise funds. The page you linked to was operated by a research company which appears to be funded by another company called SGT Inc. "From 1995 through 1999, SGT achieved growth of 2,028%." Impressive. Your figures regarding cooling in the 50's and 60's are bogus, according to figures from the US National Climatic Data Center: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html According to your Environmental Protection Agency: "Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased." I rest my case. |
the first graph of your cited page clearly shows a downward (cooling) trend from the late 40's to the mid 60's. the issue of earth heading towards another ice age was certainly raised, and while the movement wasn't as large as the current global warming movement, it was signifigant. considering the enivornmental movement really started in the 70's, there is no telling how our current media would blow a similar cooling trend out of proportion. the epa is bunk. http://www.junkscience.com/jan99/skewed.htm |
I'm resting. Peel me a grape, big boy. |
But i think the one fact that has come out of all this is that W is a complete pile of wank Sorry to offend anyone here but heck, thats just the way it is! |
he did manage to get himself elected. |
|
|
|
-sigh- somewhere |
|
|
|
|
is that the canceling out activity? welcome the fuck out of, fuck the welcome out of.. hm confused. easily. brainplaysminorroleinthismovie. |
|
what the fuck? |
We aren't in an ice age Spunky. The development of civilization occurred after the last advance of ice (known in the US as the Wisconsonian) began receding about 13,000 years ago. What will bring back another ice age will be if/when the Gulf Stream shuts down again. |
|
|
LICE AGE! MICE AGE! NICE AGE! |
Its been one of THOSE days today... |
In my mind there are mountains between us. The light of hope shines in your eyes. Dementia has gone, purged from inside. You blocked up my ears. You plucked out my eyes. You cut out my tongue. You fed me with lies. Oh Lord. On thy grave I lie. |
|
|
|
Does no one appreciate art? |
http://spine.cx/subway/ |
Cold Cut Trio on White anymore! Hell no, now there are 4 different types of white, and two types of wheat. FUCKO's |
Well, no that's not the point. Fuck the bread, they just sprinkle some shit on top of normal white or wheat, they don't fool me no no I used to be a Sandwich "Artist" you know. Still, it's way better than eating at McDonald's. |
Still I have made note of this error, and it may, or may not happen again. Who could say? |
|
spiritchaser |
you eat shit for breakfast? |