Warner & Gore go to bat for the Planet/Future
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: Warner & Gore go to bat for the Planet/Future

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    887
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 492 Times in 226 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Warner & Gore go to bat for the Planet/Future

    I know it can get distracting, what with everything else that's going on, but there is some very important legislation being debated in congress right now.

    American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

    http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.as...aId=HP-R-17836

    I thought Warner stepped up big time today - calling on his colleagues to "establish a beachhead" on this issue, to fight for our children's future like we did in WW2, and things of that sort. Hopefully team Obama can get the ball rolling, so we’ll have something for the summit in Copenhagen this December.
    Gingrich had a lot to say as well, but since I don't agree with any of it, I don't feel a strong need to link that segment.


    Anyway, if you have an interest, (and you should), now might be a good time to write your local representatives.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Jasonwclark; April 24th, 2009 at 10:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Next to Black Pyramid
    Posts
    865
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 84 Times in 46 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    carbon based global warming has not been proven. Its a religion. It a great way to create some new taxes for our children though. With little benefit to anyone.

    Looks like he is establishing a beachhead on fantasy island.

    Last edited by Blahm; April 24th, 2009 at 11:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blahm For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    887
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 492 Times in 226 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I can't see any point in arguing the science. Clearly there are many people who would dispute it. Fortunately for the rest of us, being ordained a PhD in Physics or Biology, is a little more involved than the exit exams required by some other priesthoods.

    I guess you can make of it what you will, but I thought some people around here might find the story encouraging.



    Name:  Tattoo-Fantasy-Island_l.jpg
Views: 459
Size:  51.6 KB
    "Sign me up!"

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    For what it's worth, here's the IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. Apparently there was some controversy surrounding the validity of it. Edit: A quick search yields this petition thing. Edit, I'm playing link wars with myself, so here's a counter counter. When will it end? Can I decide on the issue when I run out of counters?

    Last edited by Prometheus|ANJ; April 25th, 2009 at 01:33 AM.
    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Prometheus|ANJ For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sesh Planet
    Posts
    2,586
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I agree with Blahm on this one. Carbon created global warming is not proven. Quite simply it is not. Period. There are far too many factors involved in climate change to pin-point the result, of such an event, to one particular thing. Please, consider the other possibilities, namely the two I am about to go through.

    1.) Volcanism. Earth has been around for 4.4 billion years and in that time period the Earth has been exploding and shooting heavily condensed toxic gases in mass multitudes into our atmosphere. There were also trillions of tons of ash jettisoned into the stratosphere. Now, eventually all of the ash will build up if there are consecutive eruptions over at least several decades. The increase in the percent of ash in the atmosphere will cover enough room in the air to block out sun light, thus warm; thus the Earth will cool down. How is volcanism relevant then? Well, think about it.... How much ash did it take to cool down the Earth? A lot right? Yeah. Okay, so, how long did it take for the ash to accumulate so much that it finally began to produce noticeable cooling on Earth? Could of taken a few decades or less. Wow! So it would seem that over a course of several decades WE TOO could cause the Earth's climate to change!... But wait, we're forgetting something; the ash shot into the atmosphere was done very instantaneously and very abruptly in incriminates surpassing the amount of carbon dioxide we could shoot into the air in the same amount of time. And let's not forget about all of the toxic gases it releases into the atmosphere. The amount of time a chain of volcanoes can shoot their waste into the air exceeds our capabilities in doing the same - polluting.

    2.) Solar Activity. With all of the technological advances of today we have managed to over come many problems and solve many questions that the human race has faced, yet there are still many things that we do not have answers for. Hell, most things we do not have answers for. But to tackle things that we have no way of answering and provide that evidence as a fact, with out the capabilities to prove it, is no way to make a claim. For millenniums, we as human race have been curious of the flame giant in the sky. It has for billions of years radiated light and warmth unto our planet and as well as other heavenly giants in the nighttime sky. Our ancestors have developed methods of determining how to chart the nighttime skies, the number of planets that are in our solar system and their moons which has led us to the advances in modern astronomy and cosmology. However, with all of our intelligence of our universe we fail at understanding how the universe, and all of its intricate works parts, work. Knowing that we do not thoroughly understand how gravity works (though there are theories), how the beginning of the universe began or how sun spots come to be. Point being, we understand hardly anything about why things that involve our universe, which affect us directly, even works. Yet we insist on making weather predictions by shooting into the dark, blind sighted. There are so many factors at play that it is impossible at this point in time to determine what exactly is going on. However, evidence showing a correlation for the past 150 YEARS shows us that the number of sun spots affects the temperature of the Earth: the fewer the spots, the cooler the Earth and vis versa. How long have we been polluting? How long have we kept record or pollution levels? How credible are the records? To blame such an event, climate change, on the baselessness of it being caused by pollution, when no hard supportive evidence is to be found, why is the possibility of solar activity not mentioned, rather, ignored?

    There will be an answer to this question someday, but until then, the speculation of a man-made global warming is all hot air, no pun intended, until sufficient evidence is found. I leave my decision to be determined by the hands of progressive science.

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wiggles For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonwclark View Post
    I can't see any point in arguing the science. Clearly there are many people who would dispute it. Fortunately for the rest of us, being ordained a PhD in Physics or Biology, is a little more involved than the exit exams required by some other priesthoods.

    I guess you can make of it what you will, but I thought some people around here might find the story encouraging.

    Care to address the science behind man induced global warming? I would like to see what evidence you have to support your claim.

    I think with my previous comment I opened the door even more to the world of a debate. So in the good spirit of things, if a debate is carried out it's all played out for good sport.

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well, here's another Wikipedia link.

    Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Edit: There have been a couple of surveys. The problem with the Oregon Petition is that it's not much of a survey since it it only asks for people with a specific opinion and ignores the rest.

    Last edited by Prometheus|ANJ; April 28th, 2009 at 10:27 PM.
    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus|ANJ View Post
    Well, here's another Wikipedia link.

    Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Edit: There has been a couple of surveys. The problem with the Oregon Petition is that it's not much of a survey since it it only asks for people with a specific opinion. So, it's not very useful for determining a 'consensus'.
    Mmm... anything that is not a public forum? Wikipedia is not very reliable in the sense that the public can openly edit it if they so wish. Any organizations or programs you could point me to with the evidence that supports your claim? I mean, it is your evidence, I only wish to see it coming from the source itself.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 90 Times in 33 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Isn't there an island of trash in the Pacific that's bigger than Texas? That sounds like a problem; why don't we hear about that?

    I've read that one major volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than all human activity in the history of our species. Microorganisms in the ocean is another source that dwarfs human output. Even if CO2 is warming the planet, I don't see how buying carbon credits is going to help. Plus, it's been proven that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are today, and the world didn't end in a balmy tropical apocalypse.

    Btw, doesn't Gore own a major stake in GIM, which is invested in carbon trading? That sounds fishy to me.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    395
    Thanks
    758
    Thanked 342 Times in 136 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


    ₪ "Yes, Gamera is powered by farts." -Roger Ebert ₪

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Zweit For This Useful Post:


  16. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,164
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 123 Times in 64 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    isn't scientific opinion an oxymoron? science is science specifically to prove measurable fact... when opinion enters into it all hell breaks loose. backing mere opinion with the weight and authority of science creates a dogmatic belief system... which in itself exists and propagates on the basis of the belief and not the measurable fact. This is essentially scientific religion, and it is bunk.

    If you can't support all of what you are saying... "the planet is warming to a catastrophic degree and it is chiefly caused by the activity of humans"... then you need to go back and run some more experiments. and while you're doing that you can leave me, my incandescent lightbulbs, and my tax dollars and guilt-mongering "carbon footprint" out of the equation.

    Last edited by Chingwa; April 28th, 2009 at 10:49 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Chingwa For This Useful Post:


  18. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggles View Post
    Mmm... anything that is not a public forum? Wikipedia is not very reliable in the sense that the public can openly edit it if they so wish.
    People seriously under-estimate Wiki's quality control team. It's not like any one can write anything and it stays up. If you look at the end of most lines on Wiki, there will be a little blue number in brackets that will take you down to the "sources" section of the page. There you will find a list of the sources that Wikipedia user's have used. So, for example, if there was a source from "thisgoesagainstmyopinionsoitmustbewrong.com" then it would tell you. If there is a claim with no source it will usually say "Citation needed" instead of a link to the source.

    If there is no source, then it's fine to question but you can't just write off things with viable sources because it's Wikipedia. Well, you can, but it would be silly.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  20. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I've found Wikipedia do be somewhat unreliable when it comes to obscure topics, such as old games. Vandalism also tends to stick around longer in low traffic articles. However the articles which receive more traffic are generally of much better quality.

    Anyways, there is a References section at the bottom of the article. You'll find offsite links there.

    As for my own opinion, well, it's just that. I can't present any new and dazzling scientific data. I'm not going to make any boolean claims.

    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Chingwa View Post
    isn't scientific opinion an oxymoron?
    Are you refering to the discussion page? At any rate it is just what Wikipedia has named that article. It doesn't mean that the scientists referred to by the article are just sitting around having opinions. I'm sure that if you check the references you may find some formulas and stuff. Edit: Actually, most of the stuff in the references seem to be 'statements', but if you go to the respective sites you may find scientific papers.

    Last edited by Prometheus|ANJ; April 28th, 2009 at 11:29 PM.
    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Chingwa View Post
    isn't scientific opinion an oxymoron? science is science specifically to prove measurable fact... when opinion enters into it all hell breaks loose. backing mere opinion with the weight and authority of science creates a dogmatic belief system... which in itself exists and propagates on the basis of the belief and not the measurable fact. This is essentially scientific religion, and it is bunk.
    I trust the 'scientific opinion' of people who actually hold appropriate degrees, are doing active research in climatology, and who regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals, a lot more than I trust the 'scientific opinion' of Republican pundits, conspiracy theorists, TV weathermen, and retired engineers. But you can believe anyone you want.

    If you can't support all of what you are saying... "the planet is warming to a catastrophic degree and it is chiefly caused by the activity of humans"... then you need to go back and run some more experiments. and while you're doing that you can leave me, my incandescent lightbulbs, and my tax dollars and guilt-mongering "carbon footprint" out of the equation.
    What a fabulous attitude.

    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to bluefooted For This Useful Post:


  24. #17
    LORD M's Avatar
    LORD M is offline That guy from the cheer me up thread Level 13 Gladiator: Retiarius
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,626
    Thanks
    3,340
    Thanked 5,790 Times in 1,165 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    About those who don't believ in global warming, have you ever had a thought on how our carbon consumption and polution effect the environment? Wouldn't it be good to reduce our oil-dependence and use alternative, more environment friendly energy sources? And it would help ourself from inhaling the gases, I mean just look at Hollywood - you can hardly see the sign for all the smog! Reducing our carbon consuption leads to better life-standard for ourself as for the animals and plants in our environment. I think that it should be common sense that all this shit we pump out should be reduced and reglated.

    "I wish to paint in such a manner as if I were photographing dreams" - Zdzislaw Beksinski
    My Happy Little Sketchbook, please check it out and help me get better!

    My TUMBLR!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to LORD M For This Useful Post:

    Nrx

  26. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,963
    Thanks
    1,345
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This clip is taken from the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Rep. John Shimkus represtative of Illinois's 19th congressional district, chimes in on the subject.

    Edit: Hmm. yt tags don't seem to work.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E



    Last edited by N D Hill; April 29th, 2009 at 09:25 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Wouldn't it be good to reduce our oil-dependence and use alternative, more environment friendly energy sources?
    Well, since you mentioned oil, the only things that use oil to a large extent are automobiles. Now, off the top of my head, the sources of alternative energy for cars are batteries and grain. Batteries have highly toxic materials that end up in landfills at some point, and using food as a fuel is just plain stupid, imo. You don't get something for nothing.

    I trust the 'scientific opinion' of people who actually hold appropriate degrees, are doing active research in climatology, and who regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals, a lot more than I trust the 'scientific opinion' of Republican pundits, conspiracy theorists, TV weathermen, and retired engineers.
    And Al Gore, who clearly falls into the latter categories? That hasn't stopped the public yet. Carbon based global warming isn't hard to understand theoretically, but the fact is, the data isn't there to support it yet.

    Regardless, we're headed for a 'greener' future whether global warming is true or not, because oil is a finite resource and it ain't getting any cheaper.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    And Al Gore, who clearly falls into the latter categories? That hasn't stopped the public yet. Carbon based global warming isn't hard to understand theoretically, but the fact is, the data isn't there to support it yet.
    Did I mention Al Gore? Is he a practicing climatologist. He's one guy. There are hundreds of qualified scientists doing research that indicates human activities are responsible for global warming. I've read the papers, the data is there.

    Why doesn't anyone on the 'conspiracy' side question their own sources?

    eta: Here's a fun graph on 'scientific opinions'

    The question was: 'Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?'

    Name:  DoranAndZimmerman2009.png
Views: 311
Size:  14.1 KB

    Link to source article: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    Last edited by bluefooted; April 29th, 2009 at 09:22 AM.
    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bluefooted For This Useful Post:


  30. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    442
    Thanked 355 Times in 187 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bluefooted View Post
    Why doesn't anyone on the 'conspiracy' side question their own sources?
    because unfortunately, as someone said in another thread, the convenient thing about conspiracies is that any info that defies their theory can be attributed to more people "conspiring to hide the truth"...

    honestly, it would be nice if we based our opinions more on facts (which science was originally build upon. observing facts.) and not on what the party you root for wants you to believe. Hate Al gore all you want, he's just on the forefront cause he put himself there, but don't discredit the research and hard work of scientists who are just reporting research results.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I've read the papers, the data is there.
    No, it isn't. Global warming theory posits that the average temperature of the earth will rise a varying number of degrees by 2050(or some time in the future) etc due to man made carbon emissions. It's called a theory for a reason.

    And you haven't read all the papers. There's literally thousands of them, pro and con.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Elam For This Useful Post:


  33. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 41 Times in 31 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    There are many qualified people on both sides of the issue with enough "debunking" stories going back and forth to make your head spin.

    What bothers me is when one side says things like "the debate is over" because it's pretty obvious that there are still plenty of people that don't agree. When someone in a debate says "you just need to hush because you're wrong" they lose credibility in my mind.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to jhofferle For This Useful Post:


  35. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,164
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 123 Times in 64 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Terms:
    For the sake of this web post global warming is defined as the catastrophic warming of the earth because of human activity which will ultimately lead to an inhospitable planet.

    ----

    There seems to be a willingness to make an issue that is all shades of grey into black and white.

    First of all there is not a scientific professional consensus that Man is drastically/catastrophically affecting the temperature of the planet... there is a political consensus. and that is a completely different thing. As such I can choose not to believe the global warming hysteria/religion while simultaneously not having to listen to all the people bluefooted listed as not being worthy of listening to.

    Second, just because I think global warming is crap doesn't mean I don't think man does terrible stuff to our environment. There's a pool of plastic the size of Texas floating in the northern pacific ocean. You can't eat a fish anymore without worrying about lead or mercury contamination. Man has, through Industry and Capitalism, raped the planet's resources and much of it's beauty for the exchange of little green pieces of worthless paper. WTF.

    Third, as mentioned above, there are experts out there with the proper credentials that have scientific opinion which differs from the current politically accepted scientific opinion. That's why scientific opinion is a worthless thing to base statutory law on. the more I hear about people having to reduce their carbon footprint the more I get angry. Why are ordinary people in effect being blamed and regulated for the sins of giant money worshiping industry? It's an overstep by government and an abuse of authority to punish people by giving them a carbon quota to live, or to say what kind of light bulbs are acceptable or not.

    Fourth, and talking about light bulbs, these new "energy efficient" light bulbs are environmental killers anyway. Imagine these things filling up a landfill when their usefulness is over... leaching toxic mercury into the ground... into the water which YOU drink, and ultimately into the rivers and oceans through runoff to poison even more fish and sealife we depend on. All this just to save a little generating of electricity up front. Noone says you can't produce energy through other means, or even produce less of it (shock/horror!) except they would never say you are only able to produce X amount of electricity, or you can produce electricity through these specific means... no, instead we all must start buying more expensive killer light bulbs made in China instead. This is madness... and just goes to show how much bullshit spews forth from the TV set.

    Fifth, Global Warming hysteria is now a mantra. to deny it now carries a special stigma from society... one of stubborness, even simple mindedness or idiocy. and government and media search for all means to force this mantra onto people whether it makes sense or not. This is mind control, and behavior manipulation at it's most pervasive. Everyone should at least recognize that this media barrage IS targeted at affecting the way they think and behave. and when that motivation is based on politics and not science then I have a serious issue with that.

    Sixth, science is being spun to support the mantra. Have you seen the news reports that state that the earth is actually cooling, and then the same article goes on to blame this global cooling on global warming? insanity. Simply stated there is no science being conducted now that get's reported to the public that is not inline with the mantra... and THAT I have a serious issue with.

    I am actually living what many would consider a green lifestyle, or at least a greener lifestyle than most Americans. I use re-useable bags at the grocery store, I turn the lights off when I'm not using them, I walk on average 3 miles a day, I never litter, I take public transportation most of the time, I own a small gas efficient car when public transport doesn't take me where I need to go.

    One can STILL love this planet and it's natural world and want to protect it from the pollution of man while simultaneously not buying into the Global Warming hysteria. The issue simply isn't that black and white.

    Last edited by Chingwa; April 29th, 2009 at 09:39 AM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chingwa For This Useful Post:


  37. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,963
    Thanks
    1,345
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    No, it isn't. Global warming theory posits that the average temperature of the earth will rise a varying number of degrees by 2050(or some time in the future) etc due to man made carbon emissions. It's called a theory for a reason.

    And you haven't read all the papers. There's literally thousands of them, pro and con.
    Yet another layman attempting to explain to someone trained in a scientific discipline what the word "theory" means.

    Hilarious results in 3...2...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Gainesville
    Posts
    1,150
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 941 Times in 222 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    No, it isn't. Global warming theory posits that the average temperature of the earth will rise a varying number of degrees by 2050(or some time in the future) etc due to man made carbon emissions. It's called a theory for a reason.
    It is a prediction that arises from the theory. They aren't the same thing. Don't get me started on what a scientific theory is again...

    And you haven't read all the papers. There's literally thousands of them, pro and con.
    It's a figure of speech, but I'm willing to bet that I've read a lot more than you have. By the way: there are way more 'pro' (whatever the fuck that means) than 'con'.

    First of all there is not a scientific professional consensus that Man is drastically/catastrophically affecting the temperature of the planet... there is a political consensus.
    Oh yeah, you're right. There are those 2 guys who don't agree Take a look at the graph I posted - maybe read the article.

    blue's sketchbook
    Someone gave me this custom title and I will never, ever change it!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  39. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to bluefooted For This Useful Post:


  40. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  41. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Since we're throwing around definitions here.

    Scientific Theory


    "A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  42. #29
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,907
    Thanks
    816
    Thanked 2,275 Times in 625 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    so.... the opposite of 'progress' would be 'congress', and 'prostitute' is the opposite of 'constitute'.

    science be damned, we need to fix english.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  43. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Grief For This Useful Post:


  44. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    843
    Thanks
    709
    Thanked 900 Times in 284 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You: –pronoun
    1. the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case:

    Are: –verb
    1. pres. indic. pl. and 2nd person singular of be.

    Wrong: –adjective
    1. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
    2. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error

    Get over it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  45. The Following User Says Thank You to Mock For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •