This is fantastic stuff, truly epic.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
These things haven't changed in thousands of years (More, but let's keep it simple)...
Bingo! You just got caught out being ignorant. Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Forests leveled
Tunguska.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Natural fires.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
air pollution
Ditto,
Ian Shlasko wrote:
damaged ozone
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm fuck all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
oil spills.
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I could go on and on...
Please do, refuting your immature arguments is mildly ammusing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
We've been through these arguments before
And I proved all of them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I won't bother repeating myself.
And yet you do, without adding anything of substance to your debate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Disliked it's violence? Disliked it so much he calls for putting sterialents in the water supply and making people so dumb and domesticated that they obey any authority? That sounds incredibly violent to me.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Disliked it so much he calls for putting sterialents in the water supply and making people so dumb and domesticated that they obey any authority?
First, you post Russell as a great visionary, warning us of the dangers of authoritarian societies, the mental moulding of the young physiologically (e.g., fluorinated water) and psychologically. Then I completely change your view of him simply by posting a couple of quotes where he appears to be supporting an authoritarian world government with genocidal tendencies. And what is missing from these quotes? Context, you great lummox! You have never read the books from which the quotes were taken. Consequently, you are unaware of whether he is proscribing or prescribing these scenarios. I have manipulated you just as Uncle Al and his ilk do. See how easy it is? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Distind wrote:
CO2 traps heat
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Distind wrote:
I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either
So since the temperature has fallen in the last 10000 years by around 4 degrees while CO2 has increased do you not consider that as fairly convincing evidence that it isnt causing warming, or if it is, that any warming might be beneficial in preventing us form entering a new ice age? Any I refer you to Phil Jones who stated recently that the last warming period, ie 1980 to 1995 is stastically indiferent to the previous 3 (going back into the 19th century) He is a scientist, he was also head of CRU that prepard data for the IPCC. I might also refer you to Lindzen and Christy if you want to know what scientists think.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or are you just being a pedantic jack***?
-
Distind wrote:
CO2 traps heat
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Distind wrote:
I'd rather not find out by trial and error. I'd rather my kids didn't either
So since the temperature has fallen in the last 10000 years by around 4 degrees while CO2 has increased do you not consider that as fairly convincing evidence that it isnt causing warming, or if it is, that any warming might be beneficial in preventing us form entering a new ice age? Any I refer you to Phil Jones who stated recently that the last warming period, ie 1980 to 1995 is stastically indiferent to the previous 3 (going back into the 19th century) He is a scientist, he was also head of CRU that prepard data for the IPCC. I might also refer you to Lindzen and Christy if you want to know what scientists think.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." Wikipedia - Carbon dioxide next question, what's a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia - Greenhouse gas next question, what's the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect You can read more in each article that is very interesting that can support your theories, but for now, that will explain to you about CO2 and the greenhouse effect
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
Just won a bet! I knew you would respond with that! OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form. And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management. Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what? Man uses the earths natural materials for buildings. Principly houses, but all kinds of stuff. Why is it a big problem if man takes a load of rock thats lying around, or even breaks it free, and rearranges it into a house shaped object with the help of some trees, and some lime and sand? So an ant, termite, bird, ape, otter, beaver, and many other createures do the same, but to a lesser degree (and only becae they lack intemmigence). So mans only difference to nature is his increased intelligence. And yet you and many others like to make statements such as 'there is no square kilometer of ocean unaffected ny man'. Well there is almost no part of this earth unaffected by an animal in some form or another, why single out man for special attention. Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Rabbits were introduced to Australia a few centuries ago.
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
fat_boy wrote:
Tunguska.
Again with your binary logic... Farming and logging operations bulldoze forests on a regular basis, so you point to one of a small number of times in recorded history that it happened naturally.
fat_boy wrote:
Natural fires.
Again, a matter of degree. Just look at the differences in air quality between urban and rural areas.
fat_boy wrote:
And when we banned CFCs etc, the effect on the ozone hole was...? (Yepmm f*** all) So did we really damage it or is ti natural?
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
fat_boy wrote:
Los Anggeles tar pits. Totally natural oil spil.
Yet again... One of a few natural examples, when the human race does it on a frequent basis.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
OK, so we have stopped using CFCs for almost 20 years now, so please show us all how much smaller the hole in the ozone layer has become in that time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or are you just being a pedantic jack***?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Really? How? Go on, tell us how CO2 traps heat. What is it a mirror? An insulating blanket? Or is it a heat sink? How much heat can it hold? Whats its specific heat capacity?
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas." Wikipedia - Carbon dioxide next question, what's a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia - Greenhouse gas next question, what's the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect is a process by which radiative energy leaving a planetary surface is absorbed by some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect You can read more in each article that is very interesting that can support your theories, but for now, that will explain to you about CO2 and the greenhouse effect
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
There are extremists on both sides. At this point, it's just a numbers game... Lots of people are trying to model the trends, and the effects of all the greenhouse gases we're releasing into the atmosphere. No one has a definitive answer yet, and since the issue is becoming more and more political instead of purely scientific, we probably won't have a consensus until it's far too late to change anything. Personally, I don't see how the environment could possibly remain unchanged with all of this industrialization. To me, the question isn't whether things will change, but how and how much. Human extinction in 50 years looks like one hell of an exaggeration, but a global increase of a degree or two by then, coupled with climate shifts in individual regions (Some become warmer, some get cooler, some get wetter, some drier, etc)? Seems plausible, if the numbers hold.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
No, I am not. I want to know how much he really knows about this in order to make statements like 'CO2 traps heat'.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'd say go ask a real scientist, but you don't seem to give a shit what they have to say either. So here, from a source you might believe, with a surprisingly complete answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109182727AAvuPHC[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Really... And did they swim there, or did humans bring them over?
Just won a bet! I knew you would respond with that! OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form. And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management. Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what? Man uses the earths natural materials for buildings. Principly houses, but all kinds of stuff. Why is it a big problem if man takes a load of rock thats lying around, or even breaks it free, and rearranges it into a house shaped object with the help of some trees, and some lime and sand? So an ant, termite, bird, ape, otter, beaver, and many other createures do the same, but to a lesser degree (and only becae they lack intemmigence). So mans only difference to nature is his increased intelligence. And yet you and many others like to make statements such as 'there is no square kilometer of ocean unaffected ny man'. Well there is almost no part of this earth unaffected by an animal in some form or another, why single out man for special attention. Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form.
Yep, was waiting for the beavers argument, and that one is valid... But again, none of these change the environment as much as humans.
fat_boy wrote:
And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management.
They're humans too.
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what?
Ok, as long as you realize that... You seemed to be disputing that for a while.
fat_boy wrote:
Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Hey, we can do whatever the hell we want to this planet, but we have to think of the consequences. We're the only species that has the capability to render this planet inhabitable (At least for us). Don't forget that things that are beneficial for the ENVIRONMENT may not be beneficial to us. And I know you keep making the argument over and over that the human race can adapt to any change... It's true that our technology would be able to sustain us further than we would normally be able to, but there are limits. As I keep saying, we need actual numbers, so we know exactly what effect we're having. Until we have that, I'm in favor of some actions to limit our impact. Sure, cut down on pollution... Switch to renewable energy... These are good things regardless of the greenhouse effect.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The attribution of CFCs to ozone depletion isn't even a controversy... Are you just going to make this up as you go along?
OK, so we have stopped using CFCs for almost 20 years now, so please show us all how much smaller the hole in the ozone layer has become in that time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/16/2092527.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
There are extremists on both sides
And yet one of those mentioned is in charge of one of the worlds well used temperature data sets.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Which are you talking about? The IPCC guys? As far as I can tell, they've been sticking to the numbers, and acting like scientists aside from a little immature behavior that was never meant to be public.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'd say go ask a real scientist, but you don't seem to give a shit what they have to say either. So here, from a source you might believe, with a surprisingly complete answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080109182727AAvuPHC[^]
Distind wrote:
I'd say go ask a real scientist
I was asking you, since you stated CO2 traps heat. I wanted to know whether you had looked into this or were just regurgitating popular understanding. However, I see you did a quick search and came up with yahoo answers. Now, to ehance your understanding a little more, search for the excited state duratiohn of CO2 mollecules. Then have a think about it.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
OK, how about locust swarms? They strip the land bare all on their own without any help from man. Actually Beavers have quite a big impact on their environment by damming rivers. This has caused entirely different ecosystems to form.
Yep, was waiting for the beavers argument, and that one is valid... But again, none of these change the environment as much as humans.
fat_boy wrote:
And, byu the way, if you are a pro-native chap, then the north american native had a huge impact on the environment. Check out their forest and game management.
They're humans too.
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, this is about whether man has a bigger effect on the environment than other species. Of course he does. But so what?
Ok, as long as you realize that... You seemed to be disputing that for a while.
fat_boy wrote:
Why DONT we have the right to live on, and use, the planet for our own benefit? Of course we need to make sure we dont accidentally dammage it, but lets distinguish very carefully between what is and isnt damaging. And what is and isnt beneficial.
Hey, we can do whatever the hell we want to this planet, but we have to think of the consequences. We're the only species that has the capability to render this planet inhabitable (At least for us). Don't forget that things that are beneficial for the ENVIRONMENT may not be beneficial to us. And I know you keep making the argument over and over that the human race can adapt to any change... It's true that our technology would be able to sustain us further than we would normally be able to, but there are limits. As I keep saying, we need actual numbers, so we know exactly what effect we're having. Until we have that, I'm in favor of some actions to limit our impact. Sure, cut down on pollution... Switch to renewable energy... These are good things regardless of the greenhouse effect.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW. That much is basic science. That there might be an effect underneath all the natural variation is possible of course, but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Which are you talking about? The IPCC guys? As far as I can tell, they've been sticking to the numbers, and acting like scientists aside from a little immature behavior that was never meant to be public.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW. That much is basic science. That there might be an effect underneath all the natural variation is possible of course, but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW
False
fat_boy wrote:
but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Would say "verified" instead of "detected" The numbers do not DISPROVE the theory. They merely do not PROVE the theory. Right now, it's an unknown, and scientists are trying to correct it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I quoted Hanse, you stated well, there are extremists on both sides. I naturally thought you were refering to Hansen when you used the term extremist. Werent you?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
No, I generally don't refer to specific people. I refer to the research itself, not opinions.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/16/2092527.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, the numbers, if they can be determined, would be interesting, but just using past temperature records, and I mean raw data, not the adjusted stuff, disprove the theory of man made GW
False
fat_boy wrote:
but so far a man made effect has not been detected.
Would say "verified" instead of "detected" The numbers do not DISPROVE the theory. They merely do not PROVE the theory. Right now, it's an unknown, and scientists are trying to correct it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)