Jump to content


Let's Be Sensible Please


  • Please log in to reply
472 replies to this topic

#41 Muck, You Suckers!

Muck, You Suckers!

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Poker, Guitars, Hunting, Fishing

Posted 06 March 2007 - 09:01 PM

View PostBWToth, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 9:14 PM, said:

NO scientific study used Katrina as proof that global warming exists. It's has been claimed to be a RESULT of global warming, but that's a HUGE difference.
It's a good thing that "NO scientific study" used Katrina as proof of global warming. That would be as much BS as the scientific genius' that predicted the hurricane season of 2006 would be as bad as the 2005 season because of global warming. But, that didn't happen. The global warming crowd wanted so bad to use Katrina as an example (some still do) It's total BS. Katrina was no where near the costliest hurricane in lives and wind damage to ever hit the U.S. Nor did it push anywhere near the largest storm surge to ever hit the U.S. Katrina just happened to come in close enough to an ill prepared city that was counting on a broken down levee system to protect it from storm surge. That city has been flirting with disaster for years and years and their luck finally ran out. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 pushed a storm surge of 15 ft. Had a hurricane pushing that much water hit New Orleans there would have been tens of thousands killed. Or a hurricane with the winds of hurricane Andrew, again, tens of thousands would have died. They were unlucky that their shabby built levee system broke, but they were lucky that it wasn't far worse than it was. I was born and raised here on the Gulf Coast, and have weathered a few hurricanes and tropical storms. They will continue to come just as they always have. Some will be worse than others. Has nothing to do with global warming. Yet we know that there will never be a shortage of idiots who try to use natural disasters to further their political and social agendas.

#42 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 06 March 2007 - 09:52 PM

View PostBWToth, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 7:14 PM, said:

More Conservative traits bubbling to the surface. Nowhere did I claim that an IQ test was administered to every voter in the election. It was based on some other data that was already compiled over time prior to the election, I'll dig a little I'm sure I can find it.NO scientific study used Katrina as proof that global warming exists. It's has been claimed to be a RESULT of global warming, but that's a HUGE difference.
I'll give you that. But I was also listening to Rush, and while he may have made fun of the global warming threat during the record cold in NY, he didn't use that as his proof that global warming doesn't exist, just another thing to point at that doesn't jibe with the earth tempature is rising everywhere. His point was that a record cold can't be a RESULT of global warming.Now I can appreciate the tone of this argument, although you are quick to discount things with labels, but this is a reasonable approach, much better than name calling.Isn't there some BBc special coming on this weekend that is going to 'disprove' the global warming theory? That could spark some interesting debate.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#43 Atremis

Atremis

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Hold 'Em

Posted 06 March 2007 - 10:27 PM

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.

#44 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 07 March 2007 - 03:55 AM

Al Gore has been wrong about most every comment i have ever heard come out of his mouth. Ignore him and he will go away...hopefully forever.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#45 Zeatrix

Zeatrix

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 806 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE

Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:01 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 6:33 PM, said:

Does Co2 only reflect the sun's energy down? It doesn't reflect some of the energy away before it gets trapped in our atmosphere? So a rise in Co2 could actully reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'? Almost like the natural flow of things is working itself out.But if you want to believe that the entire world will reduce it's carbon belching internal combustion engines by a factor that is enough to heal the entire ecosystem that is so badly damaged that the entire planetary weather system is now destructive, well you go ahead and do the math. I guess if all cars were outlawed in the entire world it would be a start, but heal the whole planet? Probably too late.However if you were to take the let's clean up the air and water you would get alot farther. Going off on a tangent and blaming the US for being successfull and productive is more likely to just get you shut out of the debate. Pick your battles better and you'll get farther ahead.Or just keep whining while the USA protects your socialist borders, freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat.
To the first bolded statement: Yes, CO2 and other greenhouse gases only keeps the suns energy on earth, they don't "reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'". Nice try though, but your teory is way off base. http://en.wikipedia..../Greenhouse_gasThe second bolded statement:First of all, the US is not the only country that needs to make fundamental changes. Basicly every country in the world have to comabt this problem. EU and USA just happen to be the worst culprits. And why do you think we are trying to "freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat." Yes, the US is the biggest economy in the world, but you are acting like the rest of the world can't take care of itself without you, which is just plain false. The US is in no way superior except in one thing, military power. You have an ignorant opinion in the matter.

View PostLoismustdie, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 8:27 PM, said:

What caused it to be warmer 400 years ago- that's a damn good question. I would love to hear the answer to that.
You don't understand the facts. Read this and you'll see that yes, it was warm 400 years ago, but it is possibly warmer now and it will become warmer.

Quote

Study Says Earth's Temp at 400-Year HighBy JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press WriterThursday, June 22, 2006(06-22) 08:10 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.The Bush administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.
What probably happened after this report is that someone that didn't like the conclusions (or didn't fully understand them) said that it was this warm 400 years ago, global warming is therefore a fraud. They failed to mention (or didn't grasp) the fact that the current rise in average global temperature is unprecedented.

View PostBalloon guy, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 2:50 AM, said:

puhleese. They did an IQ test for all the states????? Might want to think about the logistics of that one. That's alot of number 2 pencils.And I do believe that I am subject to hearing how Katrina, Tornados, etc etc etc are results of global warming, so why can't an all time record low be used against that argument. Although I agree that it isn't, but the point of having isolated incedents to prove a point, also must allow isolated incedents to disprove the same point. I know ISAspelling
Scientist don't really understand why hurricanes form, but they do know where they get their power from. Warm water adds energy to hurricanes. The global average temperature rise caused the mexican gulf to be above normal when it comes to temperature. This led to Katrina beeing extremely powerfull, so in a way, global warming was the cause of the extent of the destruction.Also, you don't seem to understand how statistics work. Do you think they ask every voter when they do before an election polls? They ask a small amount of people, usually around 1000, how they would vote, and with that small population (statistical term) they can make a 95% certain prediction. The same can be done with IQ tests. That is how they can statisticly show, that red states are inhabited by, on average, less intelligent people, than blue states. I haven't seen the data, but it is certainly possible to conclude such a thing.

View PostAtremis, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:27 AM, said:

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.
The first bolded statement: No, you are largly incorrect in this matter. If a scientific study showed that humans are not the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere it would surely be published. The reason there is none such paper is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the cause, so therefore, if a study showed we weren't, the paper would be wrong, and therefore not published.The second bolded statement: Mysteriously, these same men also swore that smoking and second hand smoke wasn't unhealthy back in the day when some people actually could say such a thing and be taken seriously. Watch this investigative report: http://video.google....2...67811&hl=en
FCP's resident swede...
...and global warming informer.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest
evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
" - Bertrand Russell

#46 Atremis

Atremis

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Hold 'Em

Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:52 AM

View PostZeatrix, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

The first bolded statement: No, you are largly incorrect in this matter. If a scientific study showed that humans are not the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere it would surely be published. The reason there is none such paper is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the cause, so therefore, if a study showed we weren't, the paper would be wrong, and therefore not published.
I fear that you have bolded the wrong portion of my argument. Focus on the word 'explicitly.' Gore is technically correct when he says what he does because there is no one paper that disproves global warming. However, a conglomeration of them do cast doubt on this 'proven' idea:"From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D. M., Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. H., McKay, C. P., and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response.” Nature 415: 517-20."The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979." Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40."Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years."Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.As one may infer from my citations, all three of these articles, and many more, have been published in reputable journals. These directly contradict the notion that Antarctica is experiencing a continent-wide glacial melt. Gore is correct when he talks about one particular peninsula, but what he does not reveal is the miniscule percentage of Antarctica's actual landmass this one peninsula constitutes. These papers, as a whole, indirectly cast doubt on the idea of global warming. One must simply do some searching to find them.

#47 All_In

All_In

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,202 posts
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Poker, Golf, Poker, Guitar, Poker, etc...

Posted 07 March 2007 - 12:41 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 6:55 PM, said:

Well this idiot is driving an SUV and comes from a state that has a higher GNP than your whole pathetic whiney country. When you quit living in our shadows like snot nosed little children, then you can come to the table and talk with the grownups. Until then keep your opinion amongst yourselves during recess and don't try to equate yourself with your betters.Oh and turn off your light bulbs and sit in the dark, I will be needing the extra energy for my 3rd house. BTW, when the world does get destroyed, will the good earth conscience people die last? My next house is on a hill about 500 feet above the valley floor, I guess I'll get about a week extra time than the poor slobs on the bottom.Global warming is not a threat, it's a cult.
yep, u r an idiot. oh, and add materialistic.
I don't need to be a global citizen because I'm blessed by nationality I'm member of a growing populace we enforce our popularity I feel sorry for the earth's population 'cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners can copy our morality they can visit but they cannot stay Only precious few can garner the prosperity it makes us walk with renewed confidence He's the farmers barren fields the force the army wields The expression in the faces of the starving millions The power of the man he's the fuel that drives the clan He's the motive and conscience of the murderer He's the preacher on t.v. the false sincerity The form letter that's written by the big computers He's the nuclear bombs and the kids with no moms

#48 All_In

All_In

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,202 posts
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Poker, Golf, Poker, Guitar, Poker, etc...

Posted 07 March 2007 - 12:49 PM

View PostAtremis, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.
ohhh, i get it..it's now the whole scientific community that's to blame! because they would never allow another opinion to be voiced, like general relativity, black holes, hawking radiation, etc...and it's the scientists who are NOT up-to-date on the recent discoveries (retired) or the fringe, that you claim deny it...please back this up with info, if u want to.it's really funny. why do u guys continually deny global warming as man-made and real, when ALL people who are, ohh, about a million times more EDUCATED ON THE ISSUE than you (besides your retirees and 'independants', whatever that means) says it is happening?just makes u all appear ignorant..wait, it's can't be ignorance, the data is available. guess it must be laziness and a simplistic mind, easily swayed. why does that one poster keep mentioning things rush limbagh said? that doesn't help your argument.
I don't need to be a global citizen because I'm blessed by nationality I'm member of a growing populace we enforce our popularity I feel sorry for the earth's population 'cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners can copy our morality they can visit but they cannot stay Only precious few can garner the prosperity it makes us walk with renewed confidence He's the farmers barren fields the force the army wields The expression in the faces of the starving millions The power of the man he's the fuel that drives the clan He's the motive and conscience of the murderer He's the preacher on t.v. the false sincerity The form letter that's written by the big computers He's the nuclear bombs and the kids with no moms

#49 Atremis

Atremis

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Hold 'Em

Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:16 PM

View PostAll_In, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 2:49 PM, said:

and it's the scientists who are NOT up-to-date on the recent discoveries (retired) or the fringe, that you claim deny it...please back this up with info, if u want to.
I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested.

#50 TrulyRaNd0m

TrulyRaNd0m

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Quad Cities, IL
  • Interests:You know, the usual.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Omaha hi/lo

Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:21 PM

View PostAtremis, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 4:16 PM, said:

I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested.
Let's be sensible please. You have, what, 3 posts? Obviously this means that anything you say is completely WORTHLESS. After all, you've only posted 3 times. Are you even human? LOL noobamentssw- TR
"But Stan, don't you know, it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics." - South Park quote

#51 Muck, You Suckers!

Muck, You Suckers!

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Poker, Guitars, Hunting, Fishing

Posted 07 March 2007 - 05:58 PM

View PostZeatrix, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

Scientist don't really understand why hurricanes form, but they do know where they get their power from. Warm water adds energy to hurricanes. The global average temperature rise caused the mexican gulf to be above normal when it comes to temperature. This led to Katrina beeing extremely powerfull, so in a way, global warming was the cause of the extent of the destruction.
LOL BS statements galore. Here on the gulf we have some summers that are hotter than others, just like everywhere else in the world. Some years we have colder winters than usual. When we had our big freeze in the 80s and had a massive fish kill along the coast was that from global warming too? LOL It's called nature. When we have a hot summer the gulf water heats a little above normal, and when we have a cold winter the temperature falls below normal. And get over Katrina, it was just another hurricane. Most of the damage being blamed on Katrina had nothing to do with the power of the storm. Bad planning and failure to properly prepare caused more damage than the storm did. The New Orleans disaster happened after the storm had passed. But let's not bring that up because it's not helpful to your global warming theory right?Oh, and the scientists at NOAA know exactly why hurricanes form. What orifice of your body did you pull the statement that they don't from? I would suggest you research before you spew.

#52 All_In

All_In

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,202 posts
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Poker, Golf, Poker, Guitar, Poker, etc...

Posted 07 March 2007 - 07:14 PM

View PostAtremis, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 3:16 PM, said:

I would classify the three articles I cited in my subsequent post as evidence. There's more where that came from, if you are interested."From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."
oh man, where do i start?
I don't need to be a global citizen because I'm blessed by nationality I'm member of a growing populace we enforce our popularity I feel sorry for the earth's population 'cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners can copy our morality they can visit but they cannot stay Only precious few can garner the prosperity it makes us walk with renewed confidence He's the farmers barren fields the force the army wields The expression in the faces of the starving millions The power of the man he's the fuel that drives the clan He's the motive and conscience of the murderer He's the preacher on t.v. the false sincerity The form letter that's written by the big computers He's the nuclear bombs and the kids with no moms

#53 offset

offset

    Not a Kangaroo

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei

Posted 07 March 2007 - 10:17 PM

View PostAll_In, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:14 PM, said:

oh man, where do i start?
First, unplug your modem...

#54 YouLoveIt

YouLoveIt

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:16 PM

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife :D . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out :club:

#55 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:27 AM

View PostYouLoveIt, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife :D . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out :club:
I like this guy already
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#56 Zeatrix

Zeatrix

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 806 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE

Posted 08 March 2007 - 12:41 AM

View PostAtremis, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 6:52 PM, said:

I fear that you have bolded the wrong portion of my argument. Focus on the word 'explicitly.' Gore is technically correct when he says what he does because there is no one paper that disproves global warming. However, a conglomeration of them do cast doubt on this 'proven' idea:"From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold."Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D. M., Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. H., McKay, C. P., and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response.” Nature 415: 517-20."The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979." Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40."Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years."Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.As one may infer from my citations, all three of these articles, and many more, have been published in reputable journals. These directly contradict the notion that Antarctica is experiencing a continent-wide glacial melt. Gore is correct when he talks about one particular peninsula, but what he does not reveal is the miniscule percentage of Antarctica's actual landmass this one peninsula constitutes. These papers, as a whole, indirectly cast doubt on the idea of global warming. One must simply do some searching to find them.
No, they don't. What they show is that the temperatures have fallen in those parts of Antarctica, that in itself does not "cast doubt on the idea of global warming". The notion of global warming is that the temperature, on average, is steadily increasing on earth. This does not in any way say that every part of the world will see a increase in temperature. There will be parts that will become colder and there will be parts that will become warmer, but on average, the temperature will increase. "Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century." (http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming)The scientific community agrees that the increase of greenhouse gases is human related. What they don't agree fully on, and can't, is what exactly this will mean to the earths ecosystem. They can't agree because frankly, you can't see into the future. They can only make predictions and very complex simulations, but even the most advanced simulations can't fully predict the future. So I acknowledge that there is a chance that global warming won't affect the earth in a observable way, but what I also realize when I read the scientific studies is that the risk of global warming causing significant changes to the earths ecosystem is much much greater. Will the earth explode and every human die? Nope. Will the climate change in a way that can potantially be catastrophic to parts of the human race, not to mention nature. Probably unless we make a change in the way we live.

View PostMuck, You Suckers!, on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 2:58 AM, said:

LOL BS statements galore. Here on the gulf we have some summers that are hotter than others, just like everywhere else in the world. Some years we have colder winters than usual. When we had our big freeze in the 80s and had a massive fish kill along the coast was that from global warming too? LOL It's called nature. When we have a hot summer the gulf water heats a little above normal, and when we have a cold winter the temperature falls below normal. And get over Katrina, it was just another hurricane. Most of the damage being blamed on Katrina had nothing to do with the power of the storm. Bad planning and failure to properly prepare caused more damage than the storm did. The New Orleans disaster happened after the storm had passed. But let's not bring that up because it's not helpful to your global warming theory right?Oh, and the scientists at NOAA know exactly why hurricanes form. What orifice of your body did you pull the statement that they don't from? I would suggest you research before you spew.
No, actually it is not bulls**t. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HurricaneI did however phrase it badly, they do understand some of it, but they don't understand it all. One thing they do understand is where the power comes from. Warm water. That's why hurricane Katrina was "third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States." (http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina). The strongest, Hurricane Wilma, struck southern florida in 2005. Beacuse of this you can't say that global warming is the cause of the increase in hurricanes, but it is the cause of the increase in power the hurricanes develop, since on avearge ocean temperatures have increased.

View PostYouLoveIt, on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 8:16 AM, said:

I live in the mountains so whatever. I think it would be kinda funny if it turned into a water world even if I bit it as well. This world is depraved if you ask me. Plus it will be funny to see which religion is right. I think everyone will be laughing at the athiests in the afterlife :D . I'm laughing now as a matter of fact. What a crappy team to root for... even from a basic odds perspective being an athiest is like folding preflop when your all in with the blinds. I mean sheesh! Even if the odds are only .0001 percent of your religion being right I'd rather take those odds than 0% for anything. Oh and if you are gonna worry about anything. Worry about the Terminator fulfilling Demolition Man prophesy and becoming president someday... then you'll have no choice, but to accept the existance of the antichrist.Peace Oxide Nitrous Out :club:
I'm an atheist. If there is a god of any kind (or kinds) I really doubt any religion has gotten it right. Also, you assume that if you don't believe in the god, you will not be apart of a "afterlife". What if there is a god and everyones invited no matter what belief they have? If there is a god that is almighty and wise he surely wouldn't exclude a majority of the population from heaven, or whatever you'd want to call it. Remember, christianity only consists of about 2/3 of the worlds population.Anyways, the whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous, even if there is one humans can't possibly have gotten it right. The notion of an afterlife was invented by humans thousands of years ago for a purpose: Man should not fear death. In a world where 40 was considered very old and war and death was much more common than it is today it gave humanity hope that when they die, often young, they would come to a better place and therefore didn't fear death. People who don't fear death are more usefull than the scared, and not only in war.These last two paragraphs are just my opinion.
FCP's resident swede...
...and global warming informer.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest
evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
" - Bertrand Russell

#57 Muck, You Suckers!

Muck, You Suckers!

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Poker, Guitars, Hunting, Fishing

Posted 08 March 2007 - 03:38 AM

View PostZeatrix, on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 2:41 AM, said:

No, actually it is not bulls**t. "The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HurricaneI did however phrase it badly, they do understand some of it, but they don't understand it all. One thing they do understand is where the power comes from. Warm water. That's why hurricane Katrina was "third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States." (http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina). The strongest, Hurricane Wilma, struck southern florida in 2005. Beacuse of this you can't say that global warming is the cause of the increase in hurricanes, but it is the cause of the increase in power the hurricanes develop, since on avearge ocean temperatures have increased.
You need to get better at reading comprehension. Katrina was not the 3rd strongest hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. It was the 3rd strongest recorded while still at sea. Before it made landfall it had downgraded to a category 3. There have been three category 5 hurricanes that came ashore as category 5, and many category 4 hurricanes that made landfall and recorded as such...... way before Katrina. Being the 3rd largest recorded at sea doesn't mean it was the 3rd strongest ever. Up until just a few years ago there wasn't any way for them to record how strong they actually were at sea. Hurricanes like Camille and Carla came ashore as powerful hurricanes in the 1960s, and how strong they actually were at sea is unknown. Again, go do some research, and actually read up on the subject before you post.

#58 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 08 March 2007 - 04:52 AM

You can’t argue with a zealot. Nothing will change the mind of young and dumb. It is just the way of life, with experience they will learn (unless you’re AL Gore)…take some scientific paper written by a couple quacks with an agenda, hold it as golden and argue to your last breath.Give it 20 years and you’ll be panicking about global temps dropping and the rare spotted fish of the tropics is on the verge of extension due colder water…then you will clamor for smoke stacks to cool things down.Think before you jump!!
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#59 YouLoveIt

YouLoveIt

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 March 2007 - 06:02 AM

View PostZeatrix, on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 1:41 AM, said:

I'm an atheist. If there is a god of any kind (or kinds) I really doubt any religion has gotten it right. Also, you assume that if you don't believe in the god, you will not be apart of a "afterlife". What if there is a god and everyones invited no matter what belief they have? If there is a god that is almighty and wise he surely wouldn't exclude a majority of the population from heaven, or whatever you'd want to call it. Remember, Christianity only consists of about 2/3 of the worlds population.Anyways, the whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous, even if there is one humans can't possibly have gotten it right. The notion of an afterlife was invented by humans thousands of years ago for a purpose: Man should not fear death. In a world where 40 was considered very old and war and death was much more common than it is today it gave humanity hope that when they die, often young, they would come to a better place and therefore didn't fear death. People who don't fear death are more useful than the scared, and not only in war.These last two paragraphs are just my opinion.
Of course thats your opinion or being an atheist might seem a little more metaphysically masochistic. I'm not here to get into a religious debate anyhow <however stating the 'whole notion of an afterlife is rediculous' is ridiculous in itself>. People are gonna believe in whatever fits their lifestyle anyhow and usually deviate from that on top of it all. Like I said earlier, I kind of think a world wide catastrophe would be a-ok. This whole planet is corrupted by power. Not like that has changed much. However if you take into account technology and military capabilities what they are today, I don't foresee a realistic revolution on the part of us peons even IF enough of us figured out that we're being sucked into some hidden authoritarian government. I like the idea of hitting the reset button on a goofy planet robbing the evil people of any ill gotten gains and taking the suffering and easing them of it. If there is no afterlife then it wouldn't matter anyhow how long the charade of our existence continues would it? Besides, now that I think of it. You don't really believe there is no afterlife anyhow with your back door afterlife theory. Sounds like your probably afraid of facing a crappy afterlife for a poorly executed life, which would make it a neat little logical package to cling onto just like the religious people right? At least they have convictions. :club: Seriously though, I hope everyone does end up in some cool afterlife and everyone gets along hunky dory. Just in case though, I'll do my thing and you do yours. We'll see who comes crawling to who for spiritual advice when the Kennedy's get Arnold as Commander in Chief.BTW good looking out Balloon Guy. Now I don't have come after your colorful midget voice activators with my rubber ball sharp wit and butter knife like keen intellect.Peace OxideWhat was I saying :D

#60 All_In

All_In

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,202 posts
  • Location:ON
  • Interests:Poker, Golf, Poker, Guitar, Poker, etc...

Posted 08 March 2007 - 07:48 AM

View Postakoff, on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 5:52 AM, said:

You can’t argue with a zealot. Nothing will change the mind of young and dumb. It is just the way of life, with experience they will learn (unless you’re AL Gore)…take some scientific paper written by a couple quacks with an agenda, hold it as golden and argue to your last breath.Give it 20 years and you’ll be panicking about global temps dropping and the rare spotted fish of the tropics is on the verge of extension due colder water…then you will clamor for smoke stacks to cool things down.Think before you jump!!
the bolded part actually describes the people who deny global warming is occurring, and man-made.and again, why are people so angry about this? because it might force them to make difficult decisions? guilt? it is very funny.
I don't need to be a global citizen because I'm blessed by nationality I'm member of a growing populace we enforce our popularity I feel sorry for the earth's population 'cuz so few live in the U.S.A. At least the foreigners can copy our morality they can visit but they cannot stay Only precious few can garner the prosperity it makes us walk with renewed confidence He's the farmers barren fields the force the army wields The expression in the faces of the starving millions The power of the man he's the fuel that drives the clan He's the motive and conscience of the murderer He's the preacher on t.v. the false sincerity The form letter that's written by the big computers He's the nuclear bombs and the kids with no moms




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users