View Full Version : nobel peace prize winners that werent deserved
Hooahguy
10-05-2008, 03:47
list the top person who didnt deserve it:
Al Gore (2007)
reason:
what? al gore for peace? he preached global warming!
to quote the nobel peace prize site,
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
good for him, but how did that work for the peace of mankind?
at least arafat, who may have been a huge terrorist, did more for peace than al gore did that i know of....:shrug:
he should have gotten it for science of something- not peace...
CountArach
10-05-2008, 07:25
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39927
Just saying...
It took a long time before people realised the earth is round, hopefully it won't take such a long time to realise that men can't change climate. Booing into submission at least terrorists exist.
Strike For The South
10-05-2008, 07:32
Any one given to any American /drunk
Koga No Goshi
10-05-2008, 07:34
It took a long time before people realised the earth is round, hopefully it won't take such a long time to realise that men can't change climate. Booing into submission at least terrorists exist.
Fragony, in seriousness are you like.... the most right-wing person in the whole Netherlands? :) You put even some of the most ideologically right-wing Americans I know to shame for perfectly lockstepping with every talking point. ;) Every other forum I've been on, it's always a clique of Americans arguing with the "mindlessly America-bashing Europeans", on this one I find you're walking almost every single good American neocon line. It's rather strange.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-05-2008, 07:35
Fragony, in seriousness are you like.... the most right-wing person in the whole Netherlands? :) You put even some of the most ideologically right-wing Americans I know to shame for perfectly lockstepping with every talking point. ;) Every other forum I've been on, it's always a clique of Americans arguing with the "mindlessly America-bashing Europeans", on this one I find you're walking almost every single good American neocon line. It's rather strange.
You missed that thread, I see?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106830
Anyways, global warming is always a fun debate.
Fragony, in seriousness are you like.... the most right-wing person in the whole Netherlands? :) You put even some of the most ideologically right-wing Americans I know to shame for perfectly lockstepping with every talking point. ;) Every other forum I've been on, it's always a clique of Americans arguing with the "mindlessly America-bashing Europeans", on this one I find you're walking almost every single good American neocon line. It's rather strange.
Just the village idiot ~;)
Gregoshi
10-05-2008, 08:14
Just the village idiot ~;)
The election was rigged. I should have won. :disappointed:
HoreTore
10-05-2008, 09:01
good for him, but how did that work for the peace of mankind?
Read the rest of their commentary, and you might just understand why they gave it to him ~;)
It's really the same reasoning they had when they gave it to Mother Theresa. They give the peace prize to two kinds of people; those who sign the peace deals themselves, and those who work with the underlying causes of war, like poverty, injustice and, in al gore's case, scarce resources.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2008, 11:10
Does anyone still put any stock in the Nobel Peace Prize? When I win, I'll put it on the mantle next to my Emmy... ~:rolleyes:
men can't change climate.
Believing that the man made CO2 increase is not the cause of the recent global warming is one thing; but that is just ridiculous. :laugh4:
Let me put it this way: when you put on your oven in the winter, you heat your local climate, which in this case is indoors. QED.
Let me put it this way, studies have shown that in some places the ocean is actually warming up, for exmaple, at the northpole, do you know how much energy it costs to make 1 liter of water rise 1 degree celsius in temperature? Now take an ocean, yeah the air must have done it :juggle2:
Let me put it this way, studies have shown that in some places the ocean is actually warming up, for exmaple, at the northpole, do you know how much energy it costs to make 1 liter of water rise 1 degree celsius in temperature? Now take an ocean, yeah the air must have done it :juggle2:
Hmm, now then, where does the energy ultimately come from that CO2 can reflect back to Earth? Either way, my comment was not related to GW. Hf.
Koga No Goshi
10-05-2008, 12:11
Let me put it this way, studies have shown that in some places the ocean is actually warming up, for exmaple, at the northpole, do you know how much energy it costs to make 1 liter of water rise 1 degree celsius in temperature? Now take an ocean, yeah the air must have done it :juggle2:
Men can change climate, though, Fragony. Detonate 100 or so nuclear weapons in the world and you will see it happen right away. The carbon released into the atmosphere is doing the job much more gradually, but nevertheless, it's foolish to say we are incapable of affecting the climate.
Ok good because earth isn't warming. ty. Will do.
@Kago No Goshi, ok if you put it that way, ok. But as it is we are a pimple on earths butt that isn't even big enough for an itch.
Men can change climate, though, Fragony. Detonate 100 or so nuclear weapons in the world and you will see it happen right away. The carbon released into the atmosphere is doing the job much more gradually, but nevertheless, it's foolish to say we are incapable of affecting the climate.
A better example indeed. ~;)
Ok good because earth isn't warming. ty. Will do.
Will ya please skip changing topic all the time? :uneasy:
@Kago No Goshi, ok if you put it that way, ok. But as it is we are a pimple on earths butt that isn't even big enough for an itch.
And just what tells you that (see if you actually can come up with something)? Do you not believe in the ozon hoax either? Clearing of rain forests do not really occur? Certain important species of fish have not been near-exterminated? Animals do not die out because of humans? :juggle2:
Will ya please skip changing topic all the time? :uneasy:
Am I? It's about nobel prices that are bull and this is double bull because it's a bull price he got for bull. Right on track tuut tuut
Am I? It's about nobel prices that are bull and this is double bull because it's a bull price he got for bull. Right on track tuut tuut
Whenever I attempt to refute your stance, you change [sub] topic. And you just did it again. Congrats.
If the Earth is heating, I think time is the best way to tell. Ya know, the IPCC are rather aware of that the climate is not static, and that we thus should not expect a linear increase in the average global temperature as there are other factors in the working here than just CO2.
Whenever I attempt to refute your stance, you change [sub] topic. And you just did it again. Congrats.
If the Earth is heating, I think time is the best way to tell. Ya know, the IPCC are rather aware of that the climate is not static, and that we thus should not expect a linear increase in the average global temperature as there are other factors in the working here than just CO2.
How come I just like to add some flavour, I am rather clear about what I say, men isn't capable of changing climate unless we take Kago No Goshi rather draconian example, and I say that the earth is in fact not warming up at the moment which is a fact. Time already did tell that climate can change and that was before any hummer came of the assembly-line. I mean even Al Gore doesn't really believe it given his electricity bill or it is a classic example of do as I say not as I do, making the price even more rediculous.
How come I just like to add some flavour, I am rather clear about what I say, men isn't capable of changing climate unless we take Kago No Goshi rather draconian example
Yes, you are perfectly clear, but you do not meet criticism; you ignore it.
, and I say that the earth is in fact not warming up at the moment which is a fact.
In the larger picture, it doesn't matter. We'll see if the heating resumes.
Time already did tell that climate can change and that was before any hummer came of the assembly-line. I mean even Al Gore doesn't really believe it given his electricity bill or it is a classic example of do as I say not as I do, making the price even more rediculous.
Yep, but modern science indicates that man too is capable of affecting the climate on a grand scale. Yeah, you got a point that Al Gore do not really seem too keen to fix the problem, and that he so does not seem like the ultimate example of someone worthy of the prize.
Yes, you are perfectly clear, but you do not meet criticism; you ignore it.
If you mean this; Hmm, now then, where does the energy ultimately come from that CO2 can reflect back to Earth?
I have absolutily no idea
If you mean this; Hmm, now then, where does the energy ultimately come from that CO2 can reflect back to Earth?
I have absolutily no idea
I mean all of my attempts on refutation so far in this thread.
The energy comes from the sun, and the CO2 alters the energy balance here on Earth through radiating back the infrared radiaton that Earth's surface sends out. At daytime, most of this energy comes from solar radiation while at night it's only the surface in itself.
To show that the greenhouse effect actually works, let me quote this wiki text which I believe is fairly accurate:
Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[19] This makes Venus's surface much hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
Louis VI the Fat
10-05-2008, 13:53
al gore for peace? he preached global warming!
he should have gotten it for science of something- not peace...
Just to be a pest:
if you believe that Al Gore deserved a science nobel prize - that is, if he is right about his assertions - then he certainly deserved the peace prize.
If Gore's alarmist assertions are right, then it is but a small step to accept that climate change is one of the biggest threats to peace and stability.
@Frag
You are reversing the religious argument from the 'repent, sinners' crowd. They claim that mankind is punished for its sinful ways, and will be visited upon by multiple plagues: droughts, vulcanoes, earthquakes, heatwaves etc. It is neo-Christian eschatology. Only a return to a pre-modern, more moral time will save humanity anymore. This is but the latest installment of two-thousand year old fears to progress and change.
You, on the other hand, believe in another remnant of a (pre-?) Christian, maybe pagan, worldview: that of tiny man, powerless before the forces of nature. Forces we'll never understand, who function independently of us, poor creatures dwelling in an unforgiven world. Nothing we do will change anything, and we just have to pray for the continued blessing of our gods, animistic. The God of Thunder might be placated, but he can't be tamed.
Of course man influences climate. With every fart you make you've just changed the earth's climate. The earth's biosphere has created the earth's climate hundreds of millions of years before man. Bacteria and algae, and photosynthesising leaves, and termites, and methane farting dinosaurs - all have had a huge impact. Plant and animal life does not change climate, it is responsible for the earth's climate.
InsaneApache
10-05-2008, 14:00
I stopped farting for lent. :embarassed:
@viking
Let's take the whole thing into consideration, there are continents drifting, meaning energy-projecting back from different places, planetary allignments affecting oceanic flows, one busy place this little clay grown tall. Probably the biggest natural (edit:cough forgot thay big rock) disaster that ever happened was +/- 3000 BC near Greece, a major vulcano, tree-rings from that period show a 2 year ' slow', but tree rings from the same period found in America show no difference whatsoever, was a pretty local affair ultimatily. What I mean, there is way too much going on to make claim such as man-made global warming, when you consider the effects of the bigger picture it's like selling a cough downing a house made of bricks.
You, on the other hand, believe in another remnant of a (pre-?) Christian, maybe pagan, worldview: that of tiny man, powerless before the forces of nature. Forces we'll never understand, who function independently of us, poor creatures dwelling in an unforgiven world. Nothing we do will change anything, and we just have to pray for the continued blessing of our gods, animistic. The God of Thunder might be placated, but he can't be tamed.
Yep. And I sure as hell don't want to be taxed for it. Let's take the acid rain hoax, where is it now. The same problem apparently still exist yet it miraculously dissappeared from the radar, fatigue thing, they sucked every inch out of it and now we have the global warming hoax.
ps, been following the discussion on emmision rights? That 700 billion is peanuts compared to the amount of money that will circulate there, it's theft plain and simple.
@viking
Let's take the whole thing into consideration, there are continents drifting, meaning energy-projecting back from different places, planetary allignments affecting oceanic flows, one busy place this little clay grown tall. Probably the biggest natural (edit:cough forgot thay big rock) disaster that ever happened was +/- 3000 BC near Greece, a major vulcano, tree-rings from that period show a 2 year ' slow', but tree rings from the same period found in America show no difference whatsoever, was a pretty local affair ultimatily. What I mean, there is way too much going on to make claim such as man-made global warming, when you consider the effects of the bigger picture it's like selling a cough downing a house made of bricks.
The energy released from Earth's interior is compared to the energy that Earth receives from sunlight not really significant. Change in sea currents could have global effects, but we have yet to observe such changes.
There's a lot of stuff going on, but not everything is equally relevant.
Change in sea currents could have global effects, but we have yet to observe such changes.
Melting of the northpole is one for instance, pretty cold there even in the summer it isn't the temperature of the air that makes it melt or do you thing it does? Because that would bring is back at the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water with one degree celsius. Just the moon alone makes for temporary rise and fall of the sea-level each and every day and that is a lot of water, and the centrifugial powers of planetary allignment wouldn't have any effect? The earth doesn't make a perfect circle around the sun it is pulled and let go all the time.
Louis VI the Fat
10-05-2008, 16:11
Yep. And I sure as hell don't want to be taxed for it. Let's take the acid rain hoax, where is it now. The same problem apparently still exist yet it miraculously dissappeared from the radar, fatigue thing, they sucked every inch out of it and now we have the global warming hoax. Acid Rain pollution was mostly halted when businesses patented PCB replacements. Industry now had an incentive to halt further use of PCB's. Overnight, acid rain was mostly solved.
Similarly, one scientific breakthrough by big oil, and they'll turn overnight from anti-global warming propagandists, to pro-global warming alarmists. Just like industry and the US government did with Acid Rain. :wall:
This might work for those under the spell of the misinformation of corporate sponsored mis-information, and their lobbied-into-submission governments:
What was the state of the ecology of the former Communist states? Was communism responsible for an ecological disaster or not?
If it was, does that not show that human action can be responsible for grave ecological disaster? :smash:
//slaps Luigi, playful yet firmly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
That was fun, but acid rain was nothing more then a lack of groundwater.
Rhyfelwyr
10-05-2008, 18:51
Didn't Al Gore fly all around the world in fancy jumbo jets and stay in all the top hotels that I doubt were very 'green' when he was giving his global warming talks? His crusade against global warming must have ensured his carbon footprint is a giant crater in the ground.
lol I remember his video "An Inconvenient Truth". Here is an inconvenient truth for the man: you're an idiot!
Melting of the northpole is one for instance, pretty cold there even in the summer it isn't the temperature of the air that makes it melt or do you thing it does? Because that would bring is back at the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water with one degree celsius.
I've got really no idea what you're trying to say here.
Just the moon alone makes for temporary rise and fall of the sea-level each and every day and that is a lot of water, and the centrifugial powers of planetary allignment wouldn't have any effect? The earth doesn't make a perfect circle around the sun it is pulled and let go all the time.
Yes, the Earth's orbit changes periodically thanks to the pulling of other planets. These changes cause ice ages and have an impact on Earth seasons. However, these perturbations are not able to explain all changes in the climate that have been throughout Earth's history.
The funny thing here though is that you list a great deal of possible explanations that we have not observed, when there is a blatant observerd one right in front of you called a 38% increase of the atmospheric consentration of the greenhouse gas CO2.
If you really want the truth, denying for the sake of denying is taking you of the track.
I've got really no idea what you're trying to say here.
Well it is rather easy, a mountain of ice is more likely to cool air then the air is going to melt ice, if it melts anyway there has to be something else, like for example mucho water with a consistantly higher temperature then the ice, but you probably got that already because if it didn't it would also be ice.
38% increase wow, incredible, I tried an 30% increase of tomatoesause in my pasta and it pretty much tasted just as horrible as always, glad it isn't the only thing that is rather consistant. Like the temperature that hasn't been rising for example.
Well it is rather easy, a mountain of ice is more likely to cool air then the air is going to melt ice, if it melts anyway there has to be something else, like for example mucho water with a consistantly higher temperature then the ice, but you probably got that already because if it didn't it would also be ice.
That makes no sense; the whole globe is heating, not just the arctic. The arctic heats more because as the ice melts, the darker ocean below sucks up more solar energy and thus strengthens the heating.
That makes no sense; the whole globe is heating, not just the arctic.
Well no it isn't actually, global temperature hasn't been rising since 1998, must be the CO3.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 00:03
Ok good because earth isn't warming. ty. Will do.
@Kago No Goshi, ok if you put it that way, ok. But as it is we are a pimple on earths butt that isn't even big enough for an itch.
This was true when humanity existed in homeostatic sized groups like every other mammal. It changed with agriculture and settled civilization, and accelerated with industrialization and the exponential growth of our population. To say that our population can never possibly do anything against the magnificent vast greatness of nature is dubious considering that we exist in populations far larger than any other mammal in terms of balance of population:resources or population:landmass or populatoin:ecological footprint. There is a natural cycle of heating and cooling, yes, with higher and lower carbon contents in the atmosphere. The difference is, we are mass releasing all at once (in the big timeframe of things) carbon which has been removed from the atmosphere and condensed underground over the course of millenia. I do not see how anyone could think this would have absolutely zero effect given that we know carbon content is tied to temperature and climate.
Rhyfelwyr
10-06-2008, 00:06
I honestly have no idea who to believe when it comes to global warming.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 00:31
I honestly have no idea who to believe when it comes to global warming.
I am not sure why you should view it as "believing someone." I know a lot of people around here think it's very clever to refer to global warming as a "cult" or "religion." But just look at the basic science. Carbon content in the atmosphere is correlated with higher and lower temperatures. And our economies are releasing ever-increasing amounts of stored carbon in petroleum every year. I don't think the scientific community is engaging in hocus pocus stating this to be the case. I think people looking at this information and then saying "well I still just hold onto the belief that man can't do anything to change temperature or climate" is the more religious mindset out of the two camps.
Louis VI the Fat
10-06-2008, 01:00
global temperature hasn't been rising since 1998Ah, the famous '1998'.
Shall I call it 'lies, gross lies, and statistics'? 1998 was indeed the warmest year ever recorded. Take 1998 as a benchmark, and presto!, no global warming.
I'm just going to show the full statistic and let you work it out:
https://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9519/instrumentaltemperaturezx4.png
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-06-2008, 01:29
Carbon content in the atmosphere is correlated with higher and lower temperatures.
No, not really.
https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6439/globalwarminggraphwa8.png
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 02:10
No, not really.
https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6439/globalwarminggraphwa8.png
I didn't say it was the only contributing cause, but we're talking about denying that it's a related factor at all. Your chart does not dispute that. It just shows that other environmental factors can play in.
Ah, the famous '1998'
The famous 1984 if you ask me :yes:
bull bull bull
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 08:40
The famous 1984 if you ask me :yes:
bull bull bull
Wool eyecoverings come in very handy during nuclear blasts. :)
My fantasyland is protected by deflecting rainbows I am not worried. But really, one of the biggest omgoshes of the eco-nostra is the melting of the northpole and drowning fluffies but even a 12 year old in droolschool can understand that that is complete and utter bull because it takes a lot of energy to melt ice a slight rise in the temperature of the air wouldn't do that, it's the water, and to think that the air can warm an ocean is borderline insane. Bull bull bull.
Louis VI the Fat
10-06-2008, 10:48
My fantasyland is protected by deflecting rainbows I am not worried. But really, one of the biggest omgoshes of the eco-nostra is the melting of the northpole and drowning fluffies but even a 12 year old in droolschool can understand that that is complete and utter bull because it takes a lot of energy to melt ice a slight rise in the temperature of the air wouldn't do that, it's the water, and to think that the air can warm an ocean is borderline insane. Bull bull bull.I'm sorry Frags, but now you're sounding like one of those people who attack evolution with pseudo-science. Global Warming is a controversial subject, with no scientific consensus, but the above is just plain nonsense. ~:confused:
Polar ice melts and forms at an astonishing rate each year. The Antartic ice sheet doubles in six months time each year, an area nearly the size of Russia. Or, the size of Ireland each day. Day after day.
but the above is just plain nonsense. ~:confused:
:2thumbsup:
My fantasyland is protected by deflecting rainbows I am not worried. But really, one of the biggest omgoshes of the eco-nostra is the melting of the northpole and drowning fluffies but even a 12 year old in droolschool can understand that that is complete and utter bull because it takes a lot of energy to melt ice a slight rise in the temperature of the air wouldn't do that, it's the water, and to think that the air can warm an ocean is borderline insane. Bull bull bull.
Yes, and this energy comes from the sun. It is absorbed by the oceans, the atmosphere, the clouds and the land masses. The extra CO2 is able to reflect more infrared radiation back down to Earth and thus manipulates the energy balances. This extra energy reflected back heats the oceans, the atmosphere and the landmasses. It's pretty simple. :applause:
Air manipulates water temperature and vice versa. I think you need a basic science class. :smash:
I'm sorry Frags, but now you're sounding like one of those people who attack evolution with pseudo-science. Global Warming is a controversial subject, with no scientific consensus, but the above is just plain nonsense. ~:confused:
Polar ice melts and forms at an astonishing rate each year. The Antartic ice sheet doubles in six months time each year, an area nearly the size of Russia. Or, the size of Ireland each day. Day in, day out.
Ice age here, ice age there, Saudi Arabia had one. Completily natural nothing to do with men that is rediculous. Don't ask me why, ask serious scientists. Land warms up faster then water anyway, not comparable with the northpole, land absorbs warmth.
Ironside
10-06-2008, 15:56
Ice age here, ice age there, Saudi Arabia had one. Completily natural nothing to do with men that is rediculous. Don't ask me why, ask serious scientists. Land warms up faster then water anyway, not comparable with the northpole, land absorbs warmth.
Trolling again Frag? :juggle:
Anyway, land warms up faster than water just because it absobs less warmth.
And last ice-age that covered Saudi Arabia was pre-Pangea.
Productivity
10-06-2008, 16:03
Didn't Al Gore fly all around the world in fancy jumbo jets and stay in all the top hotels that I doubt were very 'green' when he was giving his global warming talks? His crusade against global warming must have ensured his carbon footprint is a giant crater in the ground.
lol I remember his video "An Inconvenient Truth". Here is an inconvenient truth for the man: you're an idiot!
This is a completely spurious argument - while in order to promote the awareness of global warming, Al Gore, the IPCC and various other bodies may generate a net increase in carbon emissions, by doing so they generate a long run decrease in carbon emissions. To look at it in only the short term is to completely miss the point of the exercise.
Most of those who advocate climate change control through control of CO2 emissions support a market solution whereby you pay to emit CO2. Hence depending on the pricing, excess emissions of CO2 becomes a luxury item - as ever with luxury items, those with wealth can buy them. I see no problem with someone who accepts that climate change is human influenced and needs to be controlled, but who is also sufficiently wealthy to be able to afford to emit excess CO2 doing so - an individuals contributions in such a system will be near irrelevant, as long as the pricing structure is sufficient that it brings net CO2 emissions worldwide down. Hence Al Gore and anybody else can emit all they like, as long as they pay for it.
Of course if you were to take a holistic view, then you couldn't go around making flippant one liners and calling people idiots. You might even have to use some serious backup to your statements :juggle2:.
Hooahguy
10-06-2008, 16:06
the key, my friends, is the word "peace."
nothing in that article told me that he worked to help for peace anywhere.
he should have gotten the prize for science, if anything.
Trolling again Frag? :juggle:
Anyway, land warms up faster than water just because it absobs less warmth.
And last ice-age that covered Saudi Arabia was pre-Pangea.
Everything is pre-something in Saudi Arabia. Northpole is a lump of ice Antartica is a landmass can't be compared, when ice melts for whatever reason, exposing land, the energy of these sunbeams will release that same energy as warmth. No such thing on the northpole. Dead serious, hoax.
bull bull bull
I think you need a basic science class.
All I need is know is where not to get one. Water gives energy back fast, when it is warm. Actually warming water up, that costs a lot.
Rhyfelwyr
10-06-2008, 17:23
Of course if you were to take a holistic view, then you couldn't go around making flippant one liners and calling people idiots. You might even have to use some serious backup to your statements :juggle2:.
As I said I don't know where I stand on this issue, but you've got to see the irony in it and if he wants to live in luxury then he should expect criticism for telling us to limit or toilet paper.
Hooahguy
10-06-2008, 17:29
speaking of limiting our luxuries, i think one of those millionaire actors said that the US should make a law saying we can only use 1 square of toilet paper per trip to the WC. what a nutcase.
seriously, who is going to enforce that? :laugh4:
As I said I don't know where I stand on this issue
When in doubt always trust the side that isn't after your money :yes:
Ser Clegane
10-06-2008, 17:30
All I need is know is where not to get one. Water gives energy back fast, when it is warm. Actually warming water up, that costs a lot.
I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say as you seem to switch back and forth between two statement that are not necessarily linked.
Are you
a) denying completely that there is a climate change, a rise in temperature in oceans etc. (which you are implying with the statement above).
or
b) acknowledging that there is a change but that it is natural and man is not influencing it in a significant way?
Hooahguy
10-06-2008, 17:32
i choose b
b, these things are much much slower then a lifetime. If it was us causing it, wouldn't the rise of new industrial powers have any effect? Temperatures rise and fall as they always have. It's complete and utter bull and frankly utterly insane to even consider that it has anything to do with us.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 18:10
My fantasyland is protected by deflecting rainbows I am not worried. But really, one of the biggest omgoshes of the eco-nostra is the melting of the northpole and drowning fluffies but even a 12 year old in droolschool can understand that that is complete and utter bull because it takes a lot of energy to melt ice a slight rise in the temperature of the air wouldn't do that, it's the water, and to think that the air can warm an ocean is borderline insane. Bull bull bull.
Tribes up in Alaska have had to evacuate off traditional grounds too because the permafrost is either turning into running water or at least sort of a sloshy snow cone that is no longer solid to build or walk on...
It's complete and utter bull and frankly utterly insane to even consider that it has anything to do with us.
Your post is truly utter nonsense and lacks elementary logical reasoning. The climate is a system; all nature is a system. When you poor water into a cup that is full, the water runs over. That's how the entire universe works; it's a sum of its parts. The day you listen to reason, I think hell freezes over. :yes:
Your post is truly utter nonsense and lacks elementary logical reasoning. The climate is a system; all nature is a system. When you poor water into a cup that is full, the water runs over. That's how the entire universe works; it's a sum of its parts. The day you listen to reason, I think hell freezes over. :yes:
wow that was good I hope temperature stayed stable when you put that down
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 18:21
wow that was good I hope temperature stayed stable when you put that down
Is there some.... reason? you believe as you do? Or is it just so because you say it is so? Hopefully there's some big explanation that wasn't put together by a group of "scientists" paid by Exxon that you base it off.
yesdachi
10-06-2008, 18:22
The day you listen to reason, I think hell freezes over. :yes:
Wow Frag, don’t “listen to reason” you may start some kind of reverse global warming in Hades. :dizzy2::laugh4:
wow that was good I hope temperature stayed stable when you put that down
Yeah, why; it's coherent with my prevous posts. But ok, let's stop the public waste transport and watch as nothing happens; as really, humans have no impact on their surroundings. :2thumbsup:
Is there some.... reason? you believe as you do? Or is it just so because you say it is so? Hopefully there's some big explanation that wasn't put together by a group of "scientists" paid by Exxon that you base it off.
Worship the golden calf all you want, some just can't do without, they need their petty apocalypse.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 18:45
Worship the golden calf all you want, some just can't do without, they need their petty apocalypse.
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. Whenever called out for this really extreme stances you make, like "humans absoultely have zero impact whatsoever on the environment", you fall back on just making really sarcastic, strange, seemingly drug-induced comments about people being lunatics around you or whatever.
I asked a really simple question, where's your basis or reasoning? I mean, just saying "I think it's not real", okay, thanks for sharing. But you blather on insulting people who do believe it, saying it's a religion or koolaid sipping hobby or whatever, what's your reason? All I asked was that you provide something other than an Exxon-sponsored science report, and you insult me. You don't even have to link me to anything. Just explain why you think we're religious lunatics for thinking you're wrong.
Worship the golden calf all you want, some just can't do without, they need their petty apocalypse.
We are not talking about global warming any longer, we're talking about the ability humans have to alter their surroundings. A change does not mean apocalypse in anyway. I've challenged your dogma earlier in this thread on several occasions; neither of them relevant to global warming; but you did not dare to face them. Truth is that humanity is able to alter every aspect of Earth, even if not in a controlled or desired way.
And with that; I think the monologue is over for now. :beam:
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously. Whenever called out for this really extreme stances you make, like "humans absoultely have zero impact whatsoever on the environment", you fall back on just making really sarcastic, strange, seemingly drug-induced comments about people being lunatics around you or whatever.
I asked a really simple question, where's your basis or reasoning? I mean, just saying "I think it's not real", okay, thanks for sharing. But you blather on insulting people who do believe it, saying it's a religion or koolaid sipping hobby or whatever, what's your reason? All I asked was that you provide something other than an Exxon-sponsored science report, and you insult me. You don't even have to link me to anything. Just explain why you think we're religious lunatics for thinking you're wrong.
Since when do I have to take believe into consideration for an argument, what you believe is yours, what is taxed from me because of bull is mine. Drug induced, no that's nice , smoke a peace-pipe on me or burry an axe whatever or dig it up also fine whatever keeps you busy howl to the moon if that's your thing.
I already explained why I think it is bull. In this very thread.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 19:17
Since when do I have to take believe into consideration for an argument, what you believe is yours, what is taxed from me because of bull is mine. Drug induced, no that's nice , smoke a peace-pipe on me or burry an axe whatever or dig it up also fine whatever keeps you busy howl to the moon if that's your thing.
I already explained why I think it is bull. In this very thread.
You're the one sneering at it as a ridiculous religious fancy, with no basis. And we've brought up multiple ways in which you are wrong. You claimed humans absolutely cannot change climate. I brought up nuclear winters. You claimed humans absolutely cannot change environment. We started talking abour carbon contents and what not. Point after point you make a really extreme claim that there is NO (blank), we prove it wrong, and you just make another equally extreme claim.
It's not hard, at all, to prove humans impact the environment. Where do you think all that mercury in seafood is coming from? Mother nature?
You're the one sneering at it as a ridiculous religious fancy, with no basis. And we've brought up multiple ways in which you are wrong. You claimed humans absolutely cannot change climate. I brought up nuclear winters. You claimed humans absolutely cannot change environment. We started talking abour carbon contents and what not. Point after point you make a really extreme claim that there is NO (blank), we prove it wrong, and you just make another equally extreme claim.
It's not hard, at all, to prove humans impact the environment. Where do you think all that mercury in seafood is coming from? Mother nature?
You haven't brought up anything you just said I am wrong. If that sponge wants to keep soaking it up I think it's better that you give me some proof instead of the general consensus that just happens the one eating my money. EMFM gave a nice chart that shows a very nice correlation between sun and the rise in temperature with the CO2 just being of little importance and you galantly admitted that there might be other factors but you seem to be mentally blocking that already, pavlov, woof.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 19:57
You haven't brought up anything you just said I am wrong. If that sponge wants to keep soaking it up I think it's better that you give me some proof instead of the general consensus that just happens the one eating my money. EMFM gave a nice chart that shows a very nice correlation between sun and the rise in temperature with the CO2 just being of little importance and you galantly admitted that there might be other factors but you seem to be mentally blocking that already, pavlov, woof.
Of course I admit there are other factors. That doesn't change the overall picture of what's happening with our environment.
And, stop calling me a sponge, or a "bitch goddess worshipper", or whatever other idiotic comment rolls off your lips. It's as irrelevant as me saying you're an intellectually challenged little whiner who has taxophobia.
Carlos Saavedra Lamas. Anyone could mediate the end of the Chaco War, he should have been more focused on Europe at the time. ~D
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, we were discussing global warming. Not 30 years ago we had "global cooling", which makes me very skeptical about what anybody says. Sometime in the next 10 years, either a large volcanic eruption or the pollution from China will be sufficient to block out the sun and cool us back to normal. Or we'll get that nuclear winter. :creep:
Of course I admit there are other factors. That doesn't change the overall picture of what's happening with our environment.
And, stop calling me a sponge, or a "bitch goddess worshipper", or whatever other idiotic comment rolls off your lips. It's as irrelevant as me saying you're an intellectually challenged little whiner who has taxophobia.
Actually that would be fun.
Koga No Goshi
10-06-2008, 20:11
Actually that would be fun.
It was quite fun, actually. Still, the point remains, that denying manmade influences on environment and insisting on his inability to change climate are both incorrect. You just seem hostile and bitter that any tax expenditures might go to alternative or clean energy or environmental regulation or something. Oh noes.
It was quite fun, actually. Still, the point remains, that denying manmade influences on environment and insisting on his inability to change climate are both incorrect. You just seem hostile and bitter that any tax expenditures might go to alternative or clean energy or environmental regulation or something. Oh noes.
Not bitter enough to stop me from having a great time right now, it's like kicking down a pillar of a Dorian temple, destructive yes. Hostile, nah you'll get used to me.
Has the thread ran it's course?
KukriKhan
10-06-2008, 22:08
Has the thread ran it's course?
Great minds think alike. Thanks, gentlemen for all contributions. :bow:
Closed. With Love.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.