Originality Rating for this thread: 4.3/5 (7 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.1/5 (7 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast) |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #20771
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
   
    
|
Posted: Mon 2006-03-27 22:35
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Global Anecdotalism |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
http://p197.ezboard.com/ffreedomofspeechfrm17.showMessage?topicID=1040.topic
| Quote: |
| Over the past couple of years I have backed off a bit on my anti-global warming stance. |
How surprised should we be if you back off some more over the next 5 years? That graph you showed from 1998 showed a minimum increase of only 1.5 degrees C by 2100. It can hardly be accused of being wrong yet.
psikey |
1.5°?
If looks like they were predicting an increase of 5.5° to me...
But you are right -- We can't prove that their 100-year predictions are wrong for another 100 years. But what we can do is look at the various 10-year predictions they have made over the past few decades. The predictions they made back in 1988 were exaggerated by about 400%, and most of their predictions since then have been similarly flawed. And if their 10-year predictions are flawed, how much faith can we have in their 100-year conjectures?
Compare the period of time between 1915-1935 to the period between 1980-2000. They look quite similar. In both cases, the temperature rose by about 1°C over a period of 20 years. Also, compare the temperature spike in the mid 30's to the spike in the late 90's.
But look what happened in the period between 1940-1980. Temperatures, in general, declined. (In the 1970's, "scientists" were predicting a new ice age.)
So, here's my question -- what caused the 1° rise between 1915-1935?.. What caused this rise to stop and reverse?... and what happened in 1980 to cause temperatures to start rising again?
And what has caused even larger changes all throughout history?
So here's the point... what makes people so sure that the modest warming trend which has taken place since 1980 will continue for the next 100 years (and even accelerate)?
If you think this trend will continue, why didn't the cooling trend between ~1940-1980 lead us into a new ice age? And why didn't the similar warming trend in the 1920's and 30's result in the same type of catastrophic warming which is predicted for our future?
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
| [size=15]This entire business reminds me of the cigarette industry. In the 50s there were statistics linking smoking with diseases and early death. There was no scientific explanation for the statistics. We now know the cigarette industry was discovering those scientific explanations in the 60s but they weren't spreading the news very fast. |
True. But don't forget that there have been many, many, MANY other scientific hypothesis that have never panned out. Most new scientific hypothesis are initially met with skepticism. But in time, further research is conducted which either validates or invalidates the initial conjecture.
Right now, the theory of global warming centers on the hypothesis that all (or very nearly most) of the rise in global temperatures has been caused by the increase in environmental CO² brought on by mankind. But I’m not sure if this theory is entirely correct.
| From envirotruth.org |
To read newspapers or listen to TV and radio, you would think it was all very straightforward -- CO2 levels have risen and so has the global temperature. But this simple story is clearly false.
While it is true that atmospheric CO2 has risen steadily for the last 100 years or so, temperature has not. In fact, as best we can determine, global temperatures fell during the middle half of the last century, while CO2 climbed steadily. Even worse, some parts of the Earth have cooled over the entire last century. So the simple theory -- CO2 up, temperature up -- is unsubstantiated.
|
Earlier in this thread I used a few over-simplified techniques of my own, and figured that about 28% of the recent increase in temperature was a result of environmental CO² -- the rest of the increase being caused by other natural factors. And although I am in no way claiming that my little "back of the envelope" calculation is precise, I have yet to see anything to make me believe that it is entirely wrong (i.e. that recent climate change has been almost entirely caused mankind’s release of CO².)
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Macanudo
Junior Spy
Post #20777
Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 64
Total Words: 3,558
Average words per post: 55.59
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 00:57
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This Week's time article is going to deal with Global Warming.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html
| Quote: |
| The photograph taken in 1928, above, shows how the Upsala Glacier, part of the South American Andes in Argentina, used to look. The ice on the Upsala Glacier today, shown in 2004 below, is retreating at least 180 ft. per year |
_________________
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face forever" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #20829
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 16:19
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Anecdotal Evidence |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Macanudo wrote: |
This Week's time article is going to deal with Global Warming.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html
| Quote: |
| The photograph taken in 1928, above, shows how the Upsala Glacier, part of the South American Andes in Argentina, used to look. The ice on the Upsala Glacier today, shown in 2004 below, is retreating at least 180 ft. per year |
|
| From Wikipedia: Franz Josef Glacier |
The Franz Josef is a glacier located in Westland National Park on the West Coast of New Zealand's South Island.
[...]
The glacier is currently 12 kilometres long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. The glacier exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the neve. Having retreated several kilometres between the 1940s and 1980s, the glacier entered an advancing phase in 1984 and at times has advanced at the phenomenal (by glacial standards) rate of 70 cm a day. The flow rate is about 10 times that of typical glaciers. Over the longer term, the glacier has retreated since the last ice age, and it is believed that it extended into the sea some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
This cyclic behaviour is well illustrated by a postage stamp issued in 1946, depicting the view from St James Anglican Church. The church was built in 1931, with a panoramic altar window to take advantage of its location. By 1954, the glacier had disappeared from view from the church, but it reappeared in 1997.
|
| From Wikipedia: Hubbard Glacier |
From its source on Mount Logan in the Yukon territory, the Hubbard Glacier stretches 122 km (76 mi) to the sea at Yakutat Bay and Disenchantment Bay. It is the longest tidewater glacier in Alaska with an open calving face over ten kilometres (six miles) wide. Before it reaches the sea, Hubbard is joined by the Valerie Glacier to the west, which, through forward surges of its own ice, has contributed to the advance of the ice flow that experts believe will eventually dam the Russell Fiord from Disenchantment Bay waters.
The Hubbard Glacier ice margin has continued to advance for about a century. In May 1986, the Hubbard Glacier surged forward, blocking the outlet of Russell Fiord and creating "Russell Lake." All that summer the new lake filled with runoff; its water level rose 25 metres, and the decrease in salinity threatened its sea life.
Around midnight on October 8th the dam began to give way. In the next 24 hours an estimated 5.3 km³ of water gushed through the gap, and the fiord was reconnected to the ocean at its previous level.
In spring 2002, the glacier again approached Gilbert Point. It pushed a terminal moraine ahead of its face and closed the opening again in July. On August 14, the terminal moraine was washed away after rains had raised the water level behind the dam it formed to 18 m (61 ft) above sea level. The fiord could become dammed again, and perhaps permanently. If this happens, the fiord could overflow its southern banks and drain through the Situk River instead, threatening trout habitat and a local airport.
|
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golgo 13
Junior Spy
Post #21236
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 50
Total Words: 15,770
Average words per post: 315.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-04-02 06:45
|
|
|
|
|
| Sky is Falling |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Time Magazine says the sky is falling:
Be worried, be very worried
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame
CNN summary
Full feature
They claim it's the feedback loops, which is unsuprising given how many of them there are.
Basically it goes like this. Ice reflects 90% of the sun's energy that falls on it back into space. The oceans do the opposite, absorbing the energy. As the arctic ice melts it makes more water and there's less ice reflecting back into space, causing a feedback loop.
If that wasn't bad enough, remember the clauthrates that were discussed earlier? Ice holding those gas pockets is not only no longer around to reflect light back into space and turning to water which retains the solar energy, but it's releasing signifigant quantities of greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere.
If this is indeed accurate, it looks like an absolute recipe for disaster.
_________________
"I've never made bets because of what I have to gain.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is."
- Akagi Shigeru
"To even maintain a 1% chance of survival, you must have instincts that transcend human comprehension.
You must have senses that overpower all.
You must have godly talent, and you must be insane!
Your sense of reason must be gone!
You must be damaged as a human being!
No matter what the situation may be, you cannot fear it!
Do you have that insanity within you?!"
- Washizu Iwao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #21306
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-04-03 06:43
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Sky is Falling |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Golgo 13 wrote: |
Time Magazine says the sky is falling:
Be worried, be very worried
The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame
CNN summary
|
Interesting. The gist of the article seems to be that glaciers are receding, and this will have a snowball effect (no pun intended) which will only lead to more global warming, which will melt the glaciers even more, which will in turn cause more warming -- a cycle which will end with the Earth becoming a blazing inferno similar to that of Venus.
But, I have a question. Glacier levels have changed dramatically over Earth's history. And in fact, glaciers have retreated far more in the past than they appear to be doing currently. During the Medieval Warm Period (during which temperatures may have been 1°C warmer than they are today) Vikings were able to colonize Greenland, only to starve to death when temperatures went back down to normal. So the question is, if the Medieval Warm Period did not spell the doom of mankind (and was not caused by mankind), why should we freak out over the news of a few glaciers retreating a few hundred feet?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golgo 13
Junior Spy
Post #21320
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 50
Total Words: 15,770
Average words per post: 315.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-04-03 15:33
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So the question is, if the Medieval Warm Period did not spell the doom of mankind (and was not caused by mankind), why should we freak out over the news of a few glaciers retreating a few hundred feet? |
If it's a temporary thing, then it's no humongous deal. I wouldn't advise living by the coastline or below sea level when the hurricane season comes around, but it doesn't have the potential to end civilization and spawn a new era of wars over basic resources like the 2% of water on earth that is drinkable.
If it becomes a trend that goes all energizer bunny on us and keeps going and going and going, then we're looking at a serious problem, to say the least.
The basic idea behind the feedback loop is the cumulative effect of ice melting and the planet getting warmer, perpetuating the cycle. Unless some factor comes along to stop or reverse the ice melting, then it stands to reason that it will keep going; which is exactly what happened during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago where the clauthrates caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, throwing the climate out of wack for a good hundred thousand years. The largest instance of this happening roughly 251 million years ago, which nearly wiped all life off the face of the earth.
It has also been shown that human practices have a hand in contributing to climate change. Something that was never possible on this scale in the past.
So even if this is for the most part an entirely natural trend, it doesn't help to tip the scales in favor of the runaway warming/mass extinction outcome. Although if it is a runaway trend then it's too late to do take any preventative measures since the damage has already been done and even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow and forever, it wouldn't change a thing at that point.
As a rule though, I don't place too much stock on past performances as predictions of future outcomes. Like those people that go "Oh, we had an energy crisis back in the 70's - 80's and we got through that one, why should this one be any different?".
_________________
"I've never made bets because of what I have to gain.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is."
- Akagi Shigeru
"To even maintain a 1% chance of survival, you must have instincts that transcend human comprehension.
You must have senses that overpower all.
You must have godly talent, and you must be insane!
Your sense of reason must be gone!
You must be damaged as a human being!
No matter what the situation may be, you cannot fear it!
Do you have that insanity within you?!"
- Washizu Iwao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #28039
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
    
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 07:25
|
|
| Politics: Satanist |
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell |
|
| Al Gore makes a movie |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair." |
I'd definitely like to see this documentary when it's available.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #28044
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
 
  
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 07:44
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
And how do you reckon that global warming occurs? I would believe that it's linked to excessive use of aeroplanes and huge fuel tankers, which guzzle up the petroleum distillates with their gigantic engines. I hate the way that the environmentalists automatically go for the jugulars of the motorists. (I know it wasn't mentioned here, but I'm pre-empting.)
| Quote: |
| While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming |
An imperative part of changing the environment does demand a change in habit; stop importing as much stuff from abroad, stop taking the aeroplane everywhere. I know that it isn't in the spirit of multiculturalism and the global market, but people have a choice: the environment or multiculturalism.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Post #28051
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 08:06
|
|
| Politics: Zionist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Here's a little picture that plots the growth of the ozone layer hole over the past two decades:
Contrary to what you may believe, Al Gore is super-serial.
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #28053
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golgo 13
Junior Spy
Post #30620
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 50
Total Words: 15,770
Average words per post: 315.4
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-07-31 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Here's an interesting find:
Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming
| Quote: |
Ever wonder why so many people still seem confused about global warming?
The answer appears to be that confusion leads to profit — especially if you're in some parts of the energy business.
One Colorado electric cooperative has openly admitted that it has paid $100,000 to a university academic who prides himself on being a global warming skeptic.
Intermountain Rural Electric Association is heavily invested in power plants that burn coal, one of the chief sources of greenhouse gasses that scientists agree is quickly pushing earth's average temperature to dangerous levels.
Scientists and consumer advocates say the co-op is trying to confuse its clients about the virtually total scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. |
More on this shit:
Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?
| Quote: |
A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."
|
| Quote: |
The industry's influence even extends into the White House — where up until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisers, editing scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.
|
_________________
"I've never made bets because of what I have to gain.
Simply having people die meaningless deaths over the outcome of a gamble... It's better that way.
That gets closer to the meaningless death that is the essence of gambling.
I'll get closer to it's depths.
That's where the real pleasure in gambling is."
- Akagi Shigeru
"To even maintain a 1% chance of survival, you must have instincts that transcend human comprehension.
You must have senses that overpower all.
You must have godly talent, and you must be insane!
Your sense of reason must be gone!
You must be damaged as a human being!
No matter what the situation may be, you cannot fear it!
Do you have that insanity within you?!"
- Washizu Iwao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30780
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-04 15:57
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=550050310260683365&q=global+warming
Stop bitching about "extreme weather."
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #30787
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-08-05 02:09
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| If looks like they were predicting an increase of 5.5° to me... |
It looked like a range, spread from 1.5 to 5.5 to me.
So it would have to be below 1.5 to above 5.5 to be wrong, but if it is over 5.5 it should still qualify as warming. 
psikey
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #30847
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-08-07 07:38
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
It looks like they were predicting an increase of 5.5° to me...
|
It looked like a range, spread from 1.5 to 5.5 to me.
So it would have to be below 1.5 to above 5.5 to be wrong, but if it is over 5.5 it should still qualify as warming.
psikey |
Flaws with that graph:
- It is based on Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph of earth temperature over the past 1,000. It portrays the Earth as having relatively no climate change up until the 1900's, a claim which is refuted by the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
- The projection was based on the assumption that the abnormally high rise of temperatures in 1998 would continue for the next 100 years. It hasn't.
If you look back at the first graph (made 8 years ago) and compare it to the above graph made last month, you'll see that they don't really jive. Temperatures are about 0.2°C higher than they were a few decades ago, but they are still 0.2°C lower than 1998. Therefore, the projection based on 1998's high temperatures are wrong.
Nobody is claiming that the Earth climate doesn't change. It certainly does, and has been continuously changing throughout Earth's history. (What do you think the ice ages were all about?) But the point that needs to be made is that it is wrong to draw trend lines on oscillating systems. To put it in mathematical terms, it is wrong to draw a tangent line on a sine wave and then claim the this line (drawn either upwards or downwards into infinity) is representative of the sine's future values.
"Scientific" Predictions based on oscillating systems
If modern climatologist had been around during the Medieval Warm Period, they would have predicted that by our present the world would have turned into a barren dessert, and would be disappointed not to see palm trees growing past the artic circle. Likewise, if they had practiced their science during the Little Ice Age, they would have expected that by the year 2000, snow skiing would have become the a regular form of sport in the Caribbean.
The reason that these medieval predictions would have been wrong is that global temperature change is largely driven by Solar variation, which is an oscillating phenomenon. And if you examine the history of solar activity over the past few centuries, you can see why temperatures rose during the 1900's.
In short, the prediction of a global temperature rise of 1.5°-5.5°C over the next 100 years is based on several false assumptions, and should not be taken seriously.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #30856
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2006-08-07 16:28
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you look back at the first graph (made 8 years ago) and compare it to the above graph made last month, you'll see that they don't really jive. Temperatures are about 0.2°C higher than they were a few decades ago, but they are still 0.2°C lower than 1998. Therefore, the projection based on 1998's high temperatures are wrong. |
What really jumps out at me looking at that graph is a lot less blue below the zero line after 1997. Yes 1998 was a peak year but it looks like there has been a reduction in cool years. And what will the side effects of that be?
psikey
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #30968
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3003
Total Words: 1,168,808
Average words per post: 389.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-08-10 09:32
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If you look back at the first graph (made 8 years ago) and compare it to the above graph made last month, you'll see that they don't really jive. Temperatures are about 0.2°C higher than they were a few decades ago, but they are still 0.2°C lower than 1998. Therefore, the projection based on 1998's high temperatures are wrong. |
What really jumps out at me looking at that graph is a lot less blue below the zero line after 1997. Yes 1998 was a peak year but it looks like there has been a reduction in cool years. And what will the side effects of that be?
psikey |
The important thing is not the colors, it's those little numbers on the left hand side. Notice that each line on the graph represents only two tenths of a degree.
Those big red bumps can look scary, but that is only because the differences in temperature have been exaggerated just a bit so you can see them. If the graph showed a rage of 10 or 20 degrees, the average temperature would almost appear as a straight line.
So what you learn from looking at this graph is that the temperature has shifted by about 0.2°C in the past 30 years. If you think that is a big deal, look at these three graphs (and check out the values on the left)....
Just in the last 500 years, the temperature has varied by almost a full degree, with little ill-effect.
The only scary thing would be if the temperature hadn't changed in past 30 years. That would truly be a first. Because for all of Earth's history, the temperature has never remained static. And that is the whole point. If the temperature had happened to fall by 0.2°C instead of rising by 0.2°C, this whole thread would be comprised of people panicking over the dawning of the impending new ice age. (Just like they did back in the 1970's). But the alarm isn't necessary. Even if the temperature rose by 1 or 2 full degrees, it still wouldn't be that big of a deal -- and we are still a long way away from that point -- And there is a good possibility that we may never get to that point.
The thing that fools most people is the fact that most published graphs start at the year 1900, and show a steady rise since then. Therefore, most people get the false impression that temperatures were static before this time, and that "industrialization" is the cause of this rise. But that isn't the case at all. The temperature has been rising since the friggin' 1700's, and has risen by nearly a full degree since that time.
Solar activity is higher right now than it has been for most of the past 500 years. And if the sun was to simmer down a bit over the next few decades, that could easily result in a drop of 0.5°C and all these fears of global warming would quickly disappear. (And would, of course, be replaced with the fear of a new ice age.)
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #30972
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-08-10 12:59
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
The funny thing is when I visited glaciers, they go off about [human caused] global warming. If you ask them when the thing started to recede, they usually say, "Well, we first recorded it in 1870, but it was probably receding since the 1700s if not before."
Talk about doublethink.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #30987
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-08-10 19:20
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Women and minorities are gonna be hit the hardest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #31055
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-11 01:36
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The important thing is not the colors, it's those little numbers on the left hand side. Notice that each line on the graph represents only two tenths of a degree. |
I noticed that and the point is when you are talking about all of the land, air and water on the surface of a planet 8000 miles in diameter, THAT IS A HELL OF A LOT OF HEAT ENERGY. Going just by that graph it looks like about 0.1 degree increase every 10 years. But those are planetary averages and the effects aren't uniform around the planet. I have already read about some beetle being out of control in Alaska destroying square miles of forests.
I was in hi-fi for years before I switched to computers and thorough reviews of equipment have lots of graphs of various types. You must always check what the axes mean. People can play games with statistics on graphs too. But understanding the subject is still important to have some idea what the graph doesn't tell. I would have no idea of the importance of lower troposphere temperatures in relation to ocean temperature for instance.
Anecdotally speaking there was a news item about the ocean temp around Los Angeles being the warmest since 1997 but there was an El Ninyo then and there isn't one now. So this seems rather unusual. So I see no reason to alter my basic opinion. Risking messing with the climate of a planet when there is no spare is really STUPID.
psikey
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #31094
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-11 16:51
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Risking messing with the climate of a planet when there is no spare is really STUPID. |
How is it a risk if there is no evidence. We have a one out of 30 million chance of being hit by an earth destroying meterorite this year. Should we pump all of our resources into making systems to blow it away?
There are bigger environmental problems that we can prevent that are for more likely than problems with CO2. Are you willing to turn off your computer, heat, stop driving, and grow your own food? Then how can you pretend to be serious about the "dangers" of CO2?
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Post #31096
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-11 17:56
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
| I have already read about some beetle being out of control in Alaska destroying square miles of forests. |
Bark Beetle they're destroying the san bernardino national forest because of drought conditions.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Post #31102
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-11 19:05
|
|
| Politics: Zionist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Risking messing with the climate of a planet when there is no spare is really STUPID. |
How is it a risk if there is no evidence. We have a one out of 30 million chance of being hit by an earth destroying meterorite this year. Should we pump all of our resources into making systems to blow it away?
There are bigger environmental problems that we can prevent that are for more likely than problems with CO2. Are you willing to turn off your computer, heat, stop driving, and grow your own food? Then how can you pretend to be serious about the "dangers" of CO2? |
I don't think there is a problem with CO2. There are so many photosynthetic organisms in the ocean, that I don't think that's much of a problem.
Man, I got to improve my grammar.
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #31112
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-08-11 23:07
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: |
| I don't think there is a problem with CO2. There are so many photosynthetic organisms in the ocean, that I don't think that's much of a problem. |
I buy into the science of rising CO2 levels, but conclusions that say it's a problem seem very hasty. According to the ice cores, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has moved up from 300 ppm (parts per million) to 370 ppm "quickly," as in over the course of 30 years. Even so, 370 ppm is a very tiny amount of CO2. Oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor exist in thousands-fold-greater quantities than carbon dioxide, and scientists say that water vapor is chiefly responsible for the greenhouse effect on Earth.
Mankind's contribution seems to be:Carbon Dioxide: 70 parts-per-million
Chloroflourocarbons (CFCs): 900 parts-per-trillion
CFC is the most powerful greenhouse gas but doesn't matter. There's not enough of it to even consider its effect on an instrument of temperature.
I think that more important than its role in the greenhouse effect, changing carbon dioxide levels could impact flora on the earth's surface. In the long run, we'll probably see changes in plant life and ecosystems as mother nature favors the plants that take advantage of the additional breathable CO2 gas. But I don't think this issue is so much a problem as it is a change, and nature lives and adapts to change. It's really the essence of change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #31131
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2006-08-12 18:07
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
We have a one out of 30 million chance of being hit by an earth destroying meterorite this year. Should we pump all of our resources into making systems to blow it away?
There are bigger environmental problems that we can prevent that are for more likely than problems with CO2. Are you willing to turn off your computer, heat, stop driving, and grow your own food? Then how can you pretend to be serious about the "dangers" of CO2? |
I thought having our cities designed so we have this rush hour traffic business was really stupid as far back as the 70's. Northern cities could have been doing things to encourage the construction of solar buildings since the 70's.
We are stuck with the intertia of the STUPID! And the government should have been financing the search for near Eatrh asteroids long ago. How difficult it is to change the orbit of an asteroid sufficiently will depend on how much lead time we have. We haven't done it before but since we only developed space capability in the last 50 years it is something we should be looking into. Our politicians and most of the public is composed of morons. So what else is new? I'm using a 1.8 GHZ computer now even though I have a 2.66. It is cooler and less noisy. I built the 2.66 to learn about SATA RAID. The motherboard can handle 3.4 GHz but I saw no reason to waste money on unnecessary speed and HEAT.
Part of this problem is we really don't know what the probabilities are. It's dummies that pretend they know more than they can possibly know that really piss me off. The problem is global warming can be catastrophic if it gets out of control. It is not like we can shift a couple of billion people around on the planet easily.
psik
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #33420
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-09-28 14:13
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
If the probability is unknown, it is a non-issue. What's the probability a gorilla will punch you in the face today? Is there any way to even assess that? So, to argue we have to do something because the probability cannot be assessed, so it might possibly be high is foolish.
There is no such thing as "erring on the side of caution." For all you know, we are erring on the side of caution by making global warming happen before a catastrophic ice age. Why does no one care about that side of caution? Because it is ridiculous? You tell me then how the other side sounds--just as ridiculous.
We have to act because we know for sure we are having an effect that is bad enough to care about. For example, our polluting of the ocean in conjunction with women pissing their birth control residue are making adrogynous (sp?) wildlife. For fish, this hurts their reproduction and hurts our food supply. This is a real and provable problem. Why should not we do something about it? Oh yeah, it is inconvenient to get women pregnant and none of us want to stop fucking anyway.
So, until we get the real problems dealt with, I do not want to even hear about the imaginary.
On a side note, here's an interesting article on the continuing debate on the issue:
http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894
| Quote: |
Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
Views ‘out of step’ with others are good for science, academic says
By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald
Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.
“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”
Gray’s view has been challenged, however.
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.
“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”
“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”
At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.
But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.
“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”
But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.
“There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.” |
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #33449
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-09-29 18:21
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I believe that there are only a few viable ways to solve the "problem" (I disagree with the idea of global warming, believing the idea of man-made global warming to be scientific bunk) of global warming. I also believe that the methods being experimented with are mechanically flawed. I have previously criticised electric and hydrogen cars for being sluggish, electric cars for being useless for long-distance travelling, hydrogen cars for being explosive and now I have another reason to criticise modern practices with automotive design.
The fact remains that emissions of nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, which are actually poisonous, decrease with the more power produced from a fixed size of engine. This is because nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons are all byproducts of inefficient combustion. Thus, using fuels with a higher octane level, which interestingly, include bioethanol, allows people to use a higher compression ratio, meaning more power and more complete combustion, leading to cleaner emissions. The fact also remains that based on figures printed in car magazines from official governmental agencies show that the levels of carbon dioxide stay the same when there is more power produced from a fixed size of engine. Thus, it would make more sense if car manufacturers squeezed as much power from an engine that they could without decreasing reliability too much.
But one route would seem to be better than any other that I have heard of for solving this "problem": Nuclear power.
| From Wikipedia - Nuclear Power |
| Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. (Pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone [73].) It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which contribute to global warming). |
As well as not actively producing carbon dioxide, to construct, it takes less carbon dioxide to build and run a nuclear plant than it does a set of wind turbines producing the same power.
One other thing as I finish: methane is supposed to be more "harmful" to the environment than carbon dioxide. You don't see people putting butt-plugs into cows, do you?
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mao Zedong
Committee Leader
Post #34034
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
Total Words: 67,197
Average words per post: 101.2
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-10-20 04:27
|
|
| Politics: Meritocratism |
Country: Roman Empire |
|
| A dangerous pollutant |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| From Dihydrogen Monoxide |
What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.
A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.
Why haven't I heard about Dihydrogen Monoxide before?
Good question. Historically, the dangers of DHMO, for the most part, have been considered minor and manageable. While the more significant dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are currently addressed by a number of agencies including FDA, FEMA and CDC, public awareness of the real and daily dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide is lower than some think it should be. Critics of government often cite the fact that many politicians and others in public office do not consider Dihydrogen Monoxide to be a "politically beneficial" cause to get behind, and so the public suffers from a lack of reliable information on just what DHMO is and why they should be concerned. Part of the blame lies with the public and society at large. Many do not take the time to understand Dihydrogen Monoxide, and what it means to their lives and the lives of their families.
Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are: Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants,
by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
by elite athletes to improve performance,
in the production of Styrofoam,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
in cult rituals,
by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software SDKs,
in animal research laboratories, and
in pesticide production and distribution.
What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are: as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
in spray-on oven cleaners,
in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.
One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.
What is the link between Dihydrogen Monoxide and school violence?
A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways.
How does Dihydrogen Monoxide toxicity affect kidney dialysis patients?
Unfortunately, DHMO overdose is not unheard of in patients undergoing dialysis treatments for kidney failure. Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose in these patients can result in congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema and hypertension. In spite of the danger of accidental overdose and the inherent toxicity of DHMO in large quantities for this group, there is a portion of the dialysis treated population that continues to use DHMO on a regular basis.
Are there groups that oppose a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide?
In spite of overwhelming evidence, there is one group in California that opposes a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. The Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is a group that believes that the dangers of DHMO have been exaggerated. Members claim that Dihydrogen Monoxide, or the less emotionally charged and more chemically accurate term they advocate for it, "Hydrogen Hydroxide," is beneficial, environmentally safe, benign and naturally occurring. They argue that efforts to ban DHMO are misguided.
Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide is supported by the Scorched Earth Party, a radical and loosely-organized California-based group. Sources close to the Scorched Earth Party deny any outside funding from government, industry or pro-industry PACs.
Has the press ignored this web site and the Dihydrogen Monoxide problem?
For the most part, the press has not reported on the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide as much as some would like. Although many private individuals have put up web sites in a major grassroots effort to spread the word, major publications have not.
Recently, attention has been paid to the subject thanks to an incident in Aliso Viejo, California. This so-called Aliso Viejo Incident was widely reported in the media, although the director of DHMO.org, Dr. Tom Way, was called a "prankster." Once the Associated Press started circulating the story, it became fact, and the valuable information being provided by the DHMO.org website was deemed to be "rubbish" rather than an honest and unbiased recounting of facts about a dangerous, life-endangering chemical compound.
If you are a member of the press, you may access our online Press Kit. See the main page for access information. This resource is for members of the press only.
Is it true that using DHMO improves athletic performance?
Absolutely! With the numerous allegations of amateur and professional athletes using anabolic steroids and/or blood doping to enhance performance, virtually no attention has been paid to the performance enhancing properties of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is perhaps the sporting world's dirtiest of dirty little secrets that athletes regularly ingest large quantities of DHMO in an effort to gain a competitive edge over an opponent.
One technique commonly used by endurance athletes in sports such as distance running and cycling is to take a large amount of DHMO immediately prior to a race. This is known within racing circles to dramatically improve performance.
Sports-medicine physicians warn that ingesting too much Dihydrogen Monoxide can lead to complications and unwanted side-effects, but do acknowledge the link to improved performance. DHMO is not currently considered a banned substance, so post-race urine tests do not detect elevated or abnormal levels of DHMO.
Can using DHMO improve my marriage?
This is a popular myth, but one which is also actually supported by a number of scientific facts. Dihydrogen Monoxide plays an instrumental role in the centers of the brain associated with feelings of emotional attachment and love. Married couples have found that regular ingestion of DHMO can improve their marriage-related activities, while couples that never ingest DHMO often find that their marriage suffers as well.
What are the symptoms of accidental Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose?
You may not always recognize that you have been a victim of accidental DHMO overdose, so here are some signs and symptoms to look for. If you suspect Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose, or if you exhibit any of these symptoms, you should consult with your physician or medical practitioner. The data presented here is provided for informational purposes only, and should in no way be construed as medical advice of any sort. Watch for these symptoms:
Excessive sweating
Excessive urination
Bloated feeling
Nausea
Vomiting
Electrolyte imbalance
Hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity)
Dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood
Degeneration of sodium homeostasis
A recently noted medical phenomenon involves small amounts of DHMO leaking or oozing from the corners of the eyes as a direct result of causes such as foreign particulate irritation, allergic reactions including anaphylactic shock, and sometimes severe chemical depression.
What is a chemical analysis of Dihydrogen Monoxide
Recently, German analytical chemist Christoph von Bueltzingsloewen at the Universitaet Regensburg identified what may be key reasons why the dangers of DHMO are ever present. According to von Bueltzingsloewen, the chemical separation of dihydrogenoxide from the hazardous oxygendihydride is extremely difficult. The two similar compounds curiously occur in nearly equimolar distribution wherever they are found. It is not clear how the two contribute directly to the dangers inherent in Dihydrogen Monoxide, although von Bueltzingsloewen believes that a synergetic mechanism, catalyzed by traces of hydrogenhydroxide, plays a major role.
What can I do to minimize the risks?
Fortunately, there is much you can do to minimize your dangers due to Dihydrogen Monoxide exposure. First, use common sense. Whenever you are dealing with any product or food that you feel may be contaminated with DHMO, evaluate the relative danger to you and your family, and act accordingly. Keep in mind that in many instances, low-levels of Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination are not dangerous, and in fact, are virtually unavoidable. Remember, the responsibility for your safety and the safety of your family lies with you.
Second, exercise caution when there is the potential for accidental inhalation or ingestion of DHMO. If you feel uncomfortable, remove yourself from a dangerous situation. Better safe than sorry.
Third, don't panic. Although the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are very real, by exercising caution and common sense, you can rest assured knowing that you are doing everything possible to keep you and your family safe.
How can I find out more about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
We would be happy to tell you more about DHMO! Send us email, and we'll gladly attempt to keep you up-to-date on current developments in the study of Dihydrogen Monoxide, its uses and misuses.
There are a number of sites on the world wide web that contain more information on DHMO and related topics. It should be noted that we do not endorse these sites, nor do we control their content or political bias.
|
_________________
We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Post #34035
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-10-20 04:37
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Socialist |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| Hardy har har |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| From Wikipedia: Dihydrogen monoxide hoax |
Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is an obscure name for water, used in hoaxes that illustrate how ignorance of science and one-sided analysis can lead to misplaced fears.
The hoax involves listing strictly negative effects of water, such as erosion or death by drowning, attributing them to "dihydrogen monoxide", and then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance. It was apparently created by Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman, housemates while attending UC Santa Cruz in 1989, revised by Craig Jackson in 1994, and was brought to widespread public attention in 1997, when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?"[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Original Web appearance
2 Other Alleged Dangers
3 Terminology
4 Public efforts 'against' DHMO
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit]
Original Web appearance
The first Web posting by Craig Jackson read as follows:
The dangers of dihydrogen monoxide include:
Also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is a major component of acid rain;
Contributes to soil erosion;
Contributes to the greenhouse effect;
Accelerates corrosion and breakdown of electrical equipment;
Excessive ingestion may cause various unpleasant effects;
Prolonged contact with its solid form results in severe tissue damage;
Inhalation, even in small quantities, may cause death;
Its gaseous form may cause severe burns;
It has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients;
Withdrawal by those addicted to the substance causes certain death within 168 hours;
Nevertheless, governments and corporations continue using it widely, heedless of its grave dangers.
[edit]
Other Alleged Dangers
In addition to the dangers contained in the original note, other notices have contained other warnings:
Used in many forms of cruel animal research;
The US Navy has a secret distribution network for DHMO;
Lakes and rivers all over the world are contaminated with DHMO;
In the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical;
As an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products;
Known to be a component of a number of cancer-causing agents
Terminology
The water molecule has the chemical formula H2O, meaning each molecule of water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
The prefix "di" in "dihydrogen" means two and the prefix "mono" in "monoxide" means one. Oxide means that there is one or more oxygen atoms in the compound. Literally, the term "dihydrogen monoxide" means "two hydrogen, one oxygen", consistent with its molecular formula. However, in actual chemical terms, such numeric prefixes are only used for certain compounds, and water would not be one of them. For instance, H2S is simply called hydrogen sulfide, and Li2O is lithium oxide. In practice, of course, water is simply called water in actual scientific contexts in English.
Still, "dihydrogen monoxide", although essentially a made-up chemical term, can only make sense as a label for water, but sounds dangerous to those who don't get the connection. The term "monoxide", despite its systematic origin, has negative connotations due to its association with the highly toxic carbon monoxide.
Water can also be seen as an aqueous solution of hydroxide (OH−), H2O, and hydronium (H3O+), due to the hydrogen atoms constantly changing their bonds. This makes water both an acid and a base and thus an excellent solvent.
Water has a regular scientific or systematic name of hydrogen oxide, as well as an alkali name of hydrogen hydroxide and several acid names such as hydroxic acid, hydroxylic acid, and hydroxilic acid. Incidentally, the term "hydroxyl acid" used in the original hoax is slightly incorrect, as it does not follow convention.
Water is not a chemical name under any recognized nomenclature, nor is it international. Under the 2005 revisions of IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry, there is no single correct name for every compound, and water is a tolerated name for this compound. Additional names of μ-oxido dihydrogen and oxidane have been developed for this compound.
[edit]
Public efforts 'against' DHMO
In 1989, Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman circulated a Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination warning on the UC Santa Cruz Campus via photocopied fliers [2]. The concept originated one afternoon when Matthew recalled a similar warning about "Hydrogen Hydroxide" that had been published in his mother's hometown paper, the Durand (Michagan) Express, and the three then worked to coin a term that "sounded more dangerous". Eric typed up the original warning flier on Matthew's computer, and a trip to the local photocopying center followed that night.
In 1994, Craig Jackson created a web page for the Coalition to Ban DHMO. The page spread widely on the net and off, including publication as an "ad" in a 1995 issue of Analog Magazine.
The Friends of Hydrogen Hydroxide was created partly as a foil on the Coalition page, to provide evidence of 'misguided' supporters of dihydrogen monoxide. This form of collaborative connivance is a classic tool of internet spoofers.
In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old, junior high student at Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey [1].
In 1997, drawing inspiration from Jackon's web page and Zohner's research, Tom Way created the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division web site as a fun and educational resource for teaching about critical thinking and information literacy.
Kate Dalgleish and Mikael Sydor, high school students from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, circulated a petition in April 2004 to ban the chemical as part of the Western Canada High School film festival. Several high school chemistry teachers and university science students signed the petition, which asked the municipal government to ban the 'dangerous chemical' under a fictitious Hazardous Chemical Act. Their film won the film festival.
The idea was used for an episode of the Penn & Teller show Bullshit!, in which they had self-proclaimed environmentalists sign a petition to ban DHMO.
In March 2004, Aliso Viejo, California almost considered banning the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because dihydrogen monoxide is part of their production. The issue was put on the agenda of the City Council after a paralegal found mention of DHMO online and did not realize it was a joke. The item was pulled from the agenda before it could come to a vote, but not before the city received a raft of bad publicity[1][3].
Teams in a 2005 version of The Game circulated a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, California—while dressed in superhero costumes.
In 2005 at "Tent State University", a weeklong anti-war event at Rutgers University, members of the conservative publication The Rutgers Centurion gathered signatures from the protestors on a petition calling for a ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. The petition's purpose was to prove not so much how gullible people are, as much as to condemn the notion that, "It's for the environment, so it must be good".
In 2006, in Louisville, Kentucky, David Karem, executive director of the Waterfront Development Corporation, a public body that operates Waterfront Park, which features a large, accessible public fountain, wished to deter bathers from using the fountain. "Counting on a lack of understanding about water's chemical makeup," he arranged for signs reading:
DANGER
WATER CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF HYDROGEN
KEEP OUT
to be posted on the fountain at public expense. [4]
|
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #35747
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evilsupergenius
Prole
Post #35953
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 17
Total Words: 3,453
Average words per post: 203.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-12-12 06:59
|
|
|
Country: Earth |
|
| Gloabl Warming = BLOODY HUGE PROFITS |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Okay, the data is varied and numerous. The points are sharp and made with steel like determination, resolve and logic. One point keeps coming up in spades. The people going after "environmental protection" seem to be making a killing looking at the bank statements.
Case in point Freon...freon gets the double tap to the back of the canister because the PATENT expired and the Original Manufacturer can no longer make money on it. Sad. Someone explain to me how freon (and its components molecules/atoms) react with anything on the surface of the planet that casues it to become a greenhouse gas. (Freon is heavier than air, and unless heat is supplied it is a fairly stable compound.)
Also (and yes I have to go back through 17 years of files to pull the hard data) there is a study that showed a 1 degree decrease in temperature worldwide since 1900. Though I think BB referenced this as the ICE AGE IS COMING cult of the 70s/80s.
Next, IF the ice caps melt fast enough and far enough the Pacific and Altantic currents will slow as the currents are based on the differences in water temperature and salinity (how much salt is in the water). IF the currents slow and slow sufficently, weather will be effected. Effected though in a negative temperature change. Causing global cooling. An ice age. See BB's post about the Norsemen in Greenland and their fate when this occured. (BTW: Viking is a verb meaning: to go adventuring)
Would everyone agree that LARGE MASSES of water effect climate? Start there. As the Earth's surface is made of (last time I checked) 70+% water, it has a bit to do with climate and climate control.
It appears that there are far to many IFs in the theories to make any long term solution. and until hard data can be found it is far to easy to manipulate the subsequent data to fit whatever model you want. And it becomes a case of making the data fit the theory. Which, if we sit back and think about it, is what our 4th grade teachers told us NOT to do.
Personally, I will be a good steward for my bit of Earth wilst I am on the planet, and try to train my children to be the same. This is only sensible as the land provides what we need to live. Grow corn, wheat or soy in the same field too many seasons and the land becomes unusable. Crop rotation stated because of this. It was a simple solution to a complex problem that could only be implemented locally.
In Summary: Global Warming is a bunch of BS with a side of crap. If you truly are concerned about this issue. Act in your local environment (start with your own house). Stop repeating bad science you see on TV and Movie screens.
Let the flamings begin....
_________________
Imperialism - the other democracy
People should not fear their governments.
www.evilsupergenius.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #35964
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-12-12 17:30
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
On the political side of the issue, the UN is coming out with a new report downplaying Man's effect on the phenomenon of global warming. Quite a change of tune. Maybe this year's calm hurricane season convinced them that we're all okay after all.
| From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml |
UN downgrades man's impact on the climate
Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 11/12/2006
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.
The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.
Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: "The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future."
The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.
It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.
Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.
Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
Large amounts of heat have been absorbed by the oceans, masking the warming effect.
Prof Rick Battarbee, the director of the Environmental Change Research Centre at University College London, warned these masking effects had helped to delay global warming but would lead to larger changes in the future.
He said: "The oceans have been acting like giant storage heaters by trapping heat and carbon dioxide. They might be bit of a time-bomb as they have been masking the real effects of the carbon dioxide we have been releasing into the atmosphere.
"People are very worried about what will happen in 2030 to 2050, as we think that at that point the oceans will no longer be able to absorb the carbon dioxide being emitted. It will be a tipping point and that is why it is now critical to act to counter any acceleration that will occur when this happens."
The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels.
The report states that snow cover in mountainous regions will contract and permafrost in polar regions will decline.
However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said. |
I know that these are scientists and they must know best, but take a look at one of my highlighted parts: "...unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun." WTF. Aerosol sprays are cooling the planet off? Not only have I been hearing the opposite my whole life (that sprays are destroying the ozone and thus heating up the planet), but also these are just tiny little spray cans. I can't imagine the quantities of emissions caused by these sprays en masse could ever have a measurable effect on the planet. It's a hard tidbit to accept in this big puzzle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Post #36053
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 838
Total Words: 106,525
Average words per post: 127.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-12-14 03:36
|
|
| Politics: Friggin Wacko! |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I just watched the Global Dimming video.
Global Dimming
Call me weird if you want. A worthwhile benefit to 9/11.  
psik
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #36065
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2006-12-14 21:49
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Tristan wrote: |
On the political side of the issue, the UN is coming out with a new report downplaying Man's effect on the phenomenon of global warming. Quite a change of tune. Maybe this year's calm hurricane season convinced them that we're all okay after all.
|
Because hurricanes are infamously caused by global warming.
Or, rather, by CRAB PEOPLE!
Polytheistic societies blame weather phenomena on angry gods. Christians point to them as a sign of the Second Coming of Christ. Now, in perfect symmetry with the prior beliefs, humanists (well, secularists really) blame weather phenomena on humans.
"This room is flooded!"
"You're right; and the water level has been rising ever since we entered the room! WE are causing the flooding!"
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoon
Minister of Truth
Post #36067
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 01:39
|
|
| Politics: Crusader |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Polytheistic societies blame weather phenomena on angry gods. Christians point to them as a sign of the Second Coming of Christ. Now, in perfect symmetry with the prior beliefs, humanists (well, secularists really) blame weather phenomena on humans. |
I've never thought of it that way before but it makes a lot of sense. I like to think that I've contributed to global warming.... "Look at what I have done, look at my power..." really tells you something about the human ego.
_________________
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evilsupergenius
Prole
Post #36068
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 17
Total Words: 3,453
Average words per post: 203.12
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 01:49
|
|
|
Country: Earth |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Zoon wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Polytheistic societies blame weather phenomena on angry gods. Christians point to them as a sign of the Second Coming of Christ. Now, in perfect symmetry with the prior beliefs, humanists (well, secularists really) blame weather phenomena on humans. |
I've never thought of it that way before but it makes a lot of sense. I like to think that I've contributed to global warming.... "Look at what I have done, look at my power..." really tells you something about the human ego. |
Damn it. Zoon beat me to the punch.
All I can say now is: I concur.
_________________
Imperialism - the other democracy
People should not fear their governments.
www.evilsupergenius.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #36081
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 19:04
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I like to think that I've contributed to global warming.... "Look at what I have done, look at my power..." really tells you something about the human ego. |
[Breathes deeply and takes a fart]
Oh, yeah, that feels GOOD! 
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoon
Minister of Truth
Post #36082
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 19:15
|
|
| Politics: Crusader |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, yeah, that feels GOOD! |
Just don't tell me it SMELLS good. That's the first step to buying a prius.
_________________
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #36083
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 19:24
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Just don't tell me it SMELLS good. |
Oh, of course not. I pride myself on the noxiousness of my arse exertions.
| Quote: |
| That's the first step to buying a prius. |
Incidentally, according to a very in-depth study on the issue of cars and global warming, a Prius is 25% more polluting during its lifetime than a Range Rover Sport, considering production, development, driving and disposal, and thus contributes more to global warming than many SUVs. It's nothing more than a cynically-planted attempt to try to get environmentalists to buy their products.
Then again, I don't believe that cars actually contribute that much to carbon dioxide emissions - as a matter of fact, I think that a lot of the pollution issues would be eliminated with a move towards higher fuel economy, which we need anyway.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoon
Minister of Truth
Post #36085
Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 2659
Total Words: 306,608
Average words per post: 115.31
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 19:30
|
|
| Politics: Crusader |
Country: Russia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RAK wrote: |
| Oh, of course not. I pride myself on the noxiousness of my arse exertions. |
Good man, good man.
| Quote: |
| Then again, I don't believe that cars actually contribute that much to carbon dioxide emissions - as a matter of fact, I think that a lot of the pollution issues would be eliminated with a move towards higher fuel economy, which we need anyway. |
How so?
_________________
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood.
George Santayana |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #36087
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2006-12-15 19:42
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Then again, I don't believe that cars actually contribute that much to carbon dioxide emissions - as a matter of fact, I think that a lot of the pollution issues would be eliminated with a move towards higher fuel economy, which we need anyway. |
How so? |
Most of the automotive systems which increase fuel economy (or at least decrease petroleum usage) also appear to have the side effect that they produce less carbon dioxide (and sulphur oxides, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, etc.) Take hydrogen, for example (although I'm not convinced that fuel cells are the way forward at all); the only emissions appear to be water vapour, which has a lesser global warming effect per particle than carbon dioxide. Bioethanol, even though it doesn't increase fuel economy, appears to be a less polluting fuel by merit of the carbon dioxide returning to the cycle through the photosynthesis of crops which would be used to make the bioethanol.
To go off on a tangent, I can't understand why nobody puts solar panels on their cars to prevent the battery from discharging as frequently, which would lead to a lot less requirement for jumpstarts, which take a significant amount of time, and another car to boot.
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
