The bats

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
7

The bats; under my eaves
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 25 2011, 07:52 PM (2,842 Views)
Jack the IV	Aug 13 2011, 06:33 AM Post #121
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	I believe this graph illustrates what could happen if a disease similar to smallpox were to infect the overpopulated planet we know as earth:
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 06:42 AM Post #122
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	I am altogether concurrent with Jack's thesis.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Aug 13 2011, 07:50 AM Post #123
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 12 2011, 11:06 PM gs Aug 12 2011, 04:42 PM you're putting words in my mouth. something you love doing. when did i ever say i support any of those measures? and no, i don't call it shortsighted i agree with you. this discussion has been about whether global warming is a real problem, not about how to solve it. i'm not for any radical changes because i'm well aware our economy can't handle that, i'm just saying people are ignorant about this (demonstrated perfectly by you) and i'm for opening people's eyes about it so that whenever they're not 'fighting to build a living' (which many people aren't) they can for example purchase some solar panels or whatever. this goes for governments and big corporations as well. spending money is always a good thing (for the economy, too), and if it would otherwise sit in a bank account i don't think the choice should be all that difficult. and this is just one of a million things people could do. not using your car for short distances or just using public transport more in general is something else. etcetera. as long as people know about the problem and care about it as much as they should we don't even need any radical measures. ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of. Dude, those are the measures needed to fight AGW. That's the only way to reduce emissions. That's what cap-and-trade is. Quote: and 'environment ahead of human interest' is never a valid sentence. the environment IS, or should be, a very important human interest. i'm not talking about respecting the earth because i love it so much, i'm talking about the necessity of respecting it because otherwise humanity may be screwing itself over long term. the thing with long term stuff is, and i speak from experience, people aren't as likely to care about that as much as their direct future. it's important though, whether we like it or not. That's what I'm saying. You're willing to severely hurt human interests in the present, based on a belief in a future human interest. Quote: ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of. You guys are like Chicken Little. "The sky is falling!" Everywhere you look, there's some sort of crisis. Calm down. Overpopulation is not a problem; it's another myth by the green eugenics movement. There's more than enough food and space for everyone. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1182/news_detail.asp http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/ lol if you're using the Chicken Little analogy then that means we're right about the problem and that no one is listening to us
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Jam	Aug 13 2011, 02:29 PM Post #124
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 06:20 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped. A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues. No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic. But does not education enable families to break away from the cycle of poverty? If they all had degrees they would still be poor because there aren't enough of those jobs to go around.
	Long live Carolus


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 13 2011, 03:51 PM Post #125
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	But does not an educated society mean more frequent business enterprise? Would not more frequent business enterprise lead to a greater availability of employment? Would not a greater availability of employment enable greater wealth, thus allowing the lower classes of labour to earn a greater amount in the sale of farm produce, for example, or the mere polishing of shoes, leading to further additional employment?
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM Post #126
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:58 PM DragonLegend Aug 12 2011, 11:10 PM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped. A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues. No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic. What we need is more people, not less. The West is dying. Tell that to China. I'm not talking about western countries. China isn't Western, so I was not talking about them. If the West wants to stay dominant in the future, Western women need have children earlier and more often. 2 kids per woman and after the age of 30 is suicidal. Right now immigration is pretty much the only thing that keeps the population growing, and too many of those immigrants are anti-Western. Look at Europe for a great example of people of foreign cultures who refuse to assimilate. It's not pretty. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:17 AM Post #127
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 06:20 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped. A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues. No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic. But does not education enable families to break away from the cycle of poverty? And dragon, of course overpopulation is a problem; why do you think there are so many people starving? It's because there's too many of them! Not to mention, if you have more people, you're also going to have more deaths, crime, atheism etc. how can you countenance this? That's an issue of distribution, not supply. There's more than enough food to feed everyone. It's not my problem that some tyrants keep their people poor, hungry and powerless. Not to mention that's a magnet for foreign aid, which is free money for more weapons, sports cars, and power.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:20 AM Post #128
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Incog Aug 13 2011, 07:50 AM DragonLegend Aug 12 2011, 11:06 PM gs Aug 12 2011, 04:42 PM you're putting words in my mouth. something you love doing. when did i ever say i support any of those measures? and no, i don't call it shortsighted i agree with you. this discussion has been about whether global warming is a real problem, not about how to solve it. i'm not for any radical changes because i'm well aware our economy can't handle that, i'm just saying people are ignorant about this (demonstrated perfectly by you) and i'm for opening people's eyes about it so that whenever they're not 'fighting to build a living' (which many people aren't) they can for example purchase some solar panels or whatever. this goes for governments and big corporations as well. spending money is always a good thing (for the economy, too), and if it would otherwise sit in a bank account i don't think the choice should be all that difficult. and this is just one of a million things people could do. not using your car for short distances or just using public transport more in general is something else. etcetera. as long as people know about the problem and care about it as much as they should we don't even need any radical measures. ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of. Dude, those are the measures needed to fight AGW. That's the only way to reduce emissions. That's what cap-and-trade is. Quote: and 'environment ahead of human interest' is never a valid sentence. the environment IS, or should be, a very important human interest. i'm not talking about respecting the earth because i love it so much, i'm talking about the necessity of respecting it because otherwise humanity may be screwing itself over long term. the thing with long term stuff is, and i speak from experience, people aren't as likely to care about that as much as their direct future. it's important though, whether we like it or not. That's what I'm saying. You're willing to severely hurt human interests in the present, based on a belief in a future human interest. Quote: ultra, overpopulation is a big problem but sadly there is no way to prevent it without just straight up killing people or telling them they can't have kids. so let's focus on things we can actually solve, or at least limit the damage of. You guys are like Chicken Little. "The sky is falling!" Everywhere you look, there's some sort of crisis. Calm down. Overpopulation is not a problem; it's another myth by the green eugenics movement. There's more than enough food and space for everyone. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1182/news_detail.asp http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/ lol if you're using the Chicken Little analogy then that means we're right about the problem and that no one is listening to us Too bad that's not what the analogy actually is. Try reading the quoted sentence to see why I referenced Chicken Little.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 01:29 AM Post #129
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 13 2011, 03:51 PM But does not an educated society mean more frequent business enterprise? Would not more frequent business enterprise lead to a greater availability of employment? Would not a greater availability of employment enable greater wealth, thus allowing the lower classes of labour to earn a greater amount in the sale of farm produce, for example, or the mere polishing of shoes, leading to further additional employment? Jobs are created where there is a pro-growth, pro-business environment. That means capitalism. Most poor nations don't have free economies at all. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 02:21 AM Post #130
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 12 2011, 11:55 PM overpopulation is not a problem in itself but causes almost every problem we have. as for radical measures being the only solution to the greenhouse effect i disagree. it's not that alarming, not yet anyway. if people are aware of it and actively try to prevent it whenever they're able that should be a good start. i already gave an example too, public transport. hybrids is another. but cars aren't even the main problem. i don't remember what is but whatever it is i'm sure it can be tuned down a little with the right attitude. vast amounts of money aren't really needed. if you don't think it's a real problem why are you arguing radical measures are necessary anyway? I don't think anything is needed. I'm just telling you what the AGW alarmists say is necessary to fight global warming. They say CO2 is what's warming the planet. Therefore, CO2 emissions need to be reduced. But individuals can't and won't reduce a country's emissions, and neither will companies, energy plants, and the like. The only way to reduce a country's emissions is through legislation, using the power of the law. The main way to do this is through Cap & Trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading Quote: the climategate thing didn't mean anything. there's always shit like that happening all over the world on both sides of any scientific discussion. even if you're right, you still have to convince the world and that's always easier if you mislead them. i'm not saying i support the actions of the people involved, but it doesn't prove anything about whether they were right or wrong. Nonsense! The entire AGW claim is based on the three main global temperature datasets of the UEA CRU, NASA, and NOAA. We know for a fact that, among other things, 1) CRU's claims lack any basis in reality, as the hacked e-mails showed, 2) a Freedom of Information request showed that NASA considered their data inferior to the [discredited] CRU's, and 3) and CRU, NASA and NOAA have self-endorsing mechanisms and aren't independent of one another, meaning if one of them is wrong, all of them are wrong. The entire AGW argument crumbles. AGW is an unproven, disproved, discredited, debunked, unscientific belief. Them's the facts. Edited by DragonLegend, Aug 14 2011, 02:51 AM.



Jam	Aug 14 2011, 03:22 AM Post #131
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 01:09 AM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 11:58 PM DragonLegend Aug 12 2011, 11:10 PM Hyperactive Jam Aug 12 2011, 07:49 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 12 2011, 04:58 PM The solution to overpopulation is education, imho; developed countries have a perceptibly lower population growth than those that are underdeveloped. A sufficient education is perhaps the solution to the majority of global issues. No, it's poverty, lack of available birth control, that is responsible for a breeding epidemic. What we need is more people, not less. The West is dying. Tell that to China. I'm not talking about western countries. China isn't Western, so I was not talking about them. If the West wants to stay dominant in the future, Western women need have children earlier and more often. 2 kids per woman and after the age of 30 is suicidal. Right now immigration is pretty much the only thing that keeps the population growing, and too many of those immigrants are anti-Western. Look at Europe for a great example of people of foreign cultures who refuse to assimilate. It's not pretty. I was not talking about the west so why are you directing this at me.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 03:58 AM Post #132
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Well, I was talking about the West, so why did you mention China?



Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 04:00 AM Post #133
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	when talking about the world's unequal distribution of wealth and necessities its not between countries and governments its between the rich and the poor. The problem is the richest 1% of the world own 40% of the wealth. also capitalism only creates a further disparity between social classes. What the US is facing right now with attacks on social benefits and workers is just the next step in creating a more and more capitalist society which doesn't work. People like the social benefits and unions they have now which are communist ideals. But it doesn't work in a capitalist society because the point of capitalism is like monopoly, one person to eventually earn all the wealth in order to win.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 04:25 AM Post #134
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	That must be why even Cuba, China and North Korea are opening up to capitalism. They must be unaware that their socialist systems are super and capitalism is bad.



Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 04:44 AM Post #135
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	Cuba opening up to capitalism is a big mistake and is out of desperation after struggling to develop because of the embargo they've been facing for decades. Hmm sounds fair to judge, right? China has never been truly Marxist it was a system developed by Mao. North Korea = marxist? Really? have you read the communist manifesto written by marx and engels?



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 04:49 AM Post #136
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	You have an excuse for everything, Richard. I'm sorry, but Marxism is dying pretty much everywhere. Even the Europeans have realized that one of the inconvenient facts about Marxism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. "The reason Marxism didn't work is because they just didn't do it right" is not fooling anyone anymore.



Jack the IV	Aug 14 2011, 05:00 AM Post #137
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Communism is only viable in a small town setup of around 100 people. As the world sits now, there must be a mix of capitalistic and communistic ideals. Finding that balance proves to be the difficulty every nation faces.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 05:15 AM Post #138
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	or shut the fuck up. this is like discussing evolution with a religious extremist. The facts are out there and yet you guys continue to make baseless assumptions with convoluted ideas of what you think are relevant. Please, I've said it before dragon, read a fucking book for once and get your ideas straight from the source. And Jack, there can't be a mix if you would take the time to study it instead of expressing your baseless opinion you'd understand why.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 05:29 AM Post #139
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	You are very immature. I ignore you for days, then decide maybe I was wrong and should discuss things with you, and this is how you respond.



Jack the IV	Aug 14 2011, 05:35 AM Post #140
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	There has to be a mixture. There is no way, no fucking way the transition from socialism to communism would ever occur. And even if it did, some warmonger could overthrow it in the blink of an eye. The way we live in the US and Europe is better than any human has ever lived before. I do agree that our nations should become less imperialistic, but as a realist, communism is just the dream of a drunk.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Jam	Aug 14 2011, 06:33 AM Post #141
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 03:58 AM Well, I was talking about the West, so why did you mention China? Because China is an example of a country has too many people. I was talking about the third world, but didn't specify. You replied to me as though I was talking about the west, I informed you that I was not and gave an example of what I was talking about, then you replied to be about the west again.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 07:05 AM Post #142
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	OK. I tried to quote you all because I wanted to add to the overpopulation discussion. I wasn't replying to anyone in particular.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 14 2011, 09:09 AM Post #143
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	The thing about overpopulation is that its issues are confined to particular regions, where a high population density leads to troubles with settlement and supply of food, energy, and other necessities. It's not that the world can ever have too many people; it's that there can be too many people in one place. This is why you cannot simply argue, "We must in fact be increasing our population because there is room enough for everybody," because humans don't live a precise distance apart from one another, and you cannot simply use a mathematical equation to determine that, with so-and-so an amount of people, we can still all have two square kilometres of territory to ourselves. This issue is most particular in less developed countries, where inhabitants of rural areas are departing their homes in hope of employment in the cities. Roadways become congested with traffic, and power shortages become more frequently experienced - yes, it is a matter of supply, and that is the trouble with it; a greater population is more challenging to provide for altogether. The influx of people conduces to overemployment, and steadily, good jobs will become harder to find. Poverty ensues. Overpopulation employs pressure on industries, particularly in less developed countries where rapid growth is most noticeably occuring, and wealth is not to be had. A larger population will need to be housed, provided jobs, afforded social services and given infrastructure; these things don't rise from the ground by the mere force of will. Homelessness, poverty, informal employment and underdevelopment are already profound issues in countries that are presently threatened by overpopulation. Worse still, overpopulation conduces to an intensified issue of overpopulation. If there are too many people for a government to provide for, many will be neglected; they will be confined to the cycle of poverty, where a lack of education, housing and skills forces them to take jobs that provide them with a contemptible wage. This, and an absence of sufficient social services, are an impulse to families to produce many children, because it will be upon sheer numbers that they rely if they hope to earn enough of an income to survive. In countries such as Bangladesh, and in improverished regions of India, children are perceived as financial assets; more children means greater support for the family, and an assured income for the parents when they become too old to seek further work. These immense families make the entire issue very much worse. Secondary issues to overpopulation are that there will be more people in society, by percentage, who cannot contribute to any productive output. Improving medical facilities, particularly in developed countries, will enable a lowering death rate, which in part contributes to overpopulation; this lowering death rate will increase the number of people above 65 years of age, who therefore cannot be expected to have work. What have you said about food and space being plenteous is not the issue. People don't get food or space for free, no matter what utopian notions you feel inclined to harbour; they must be able to afford it. As I have explained, overpopulation accentuates poverty in poor societies, thus making the necessities of living more difficult to purchase. When you calculate the intensity to which overpopulation will affect the Earth, you do not take the number of human beings alive and divide it by the area of habitable land that is available; otherwise, theoretically, we could harbour tens of billions of people without issue. You must assess the impact that overpopulation makes upon communities that are threatened. So, yes, overpopulation is a problem, and a severe one. Edited by The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom, Aug 14 2011, 09:14 AM.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 09:41 AM Post #144
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Well, Ultra, you got me there. Some of that is false, but I'm unable to present an argument against the rest. You may or may not be correct, mind you, but I don't know how to prove you wrong with the information I have at the moment.



gs	Aug 14 2011, 11:20 AM Post #145
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 02:21 AM Quote: the climategate thing didn't mean anything. there's always shit like that happening all over the world on both sides of any scientific discussion. even if you're right, you still have to convince the world and that's always easier if you mislead them. i'm not saying i support the actions of the people involved, but it doesn't prove anything about whether they were right or wrong. Nonsense! The entire AGW claim is based on the three main global temperature datasets of the UEA CRU, NASA, and NOAA. We know for a fact that, among other things, 1) CRU's claims lack any basis in reality, as the hacked e-mails showed, 2) a Freedom of Information request showed that NASA considered their data inferior to the [discredited] CRU's, and 3) and CRU, NASA and NOAA have self-endorsing mechanisms and aren't independent of one another, meaning if one of them is wrong, all of them are wrong. The entire AGW argument crumbles. AGW is an unproven, disproved, discredited, debunked, unscientific belief. Them's the facts. funny how you say 'nonsense!' and then don't even reply to my post. sorry, i don't feel like getting into an agw discussion. i was only giving CFCs as an example of what huge impact people can have on the environment when they're not careful and you kept bringing up agw. anyway i can predict the discussion will just be us pointlessly linking each other to scientific articles. meh



Big Richard	Aug 14 2011, 07:20 PM Post #146
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 05:29 AM You are very immature. I ignore you for days, then decide maybe I was wrong and should discuss things with you, and this is how you respond. You're the immature one starting a conversation you know nothing about and acting as if you're the right based on your false evidence. I told you many times to get a legitimate education on the subject by reading the actual book or studying some of Marx's principles and yet you continue to shove your head further up your ass and ignore the reality. This is the reason why its intellectuals that discuss communism worldwide and retards like you that criticize it without even taking time to learn about it. as for Jack, you're saying its impossible for a transition from socialism to communism simply because the risk of a tyrant? There's risks of tyrants in every system. And if you were to study communism you would know that its the people of a society that will demand the transition and not a government doing it for them. As for pointing to the US living standards, we live better but at who's expense? Are you really living well or are you just feeding off the scraps that the elite 1% leave behind? Capitalism is not complete yet in this country, the attacks on unions and worker's rights are exactly the consequences predicted by Marx those in a capitalist society would experience. Because in a capitalist society the workers are to be exploited whereas communism allows for the working class to protect itself. Besides if either of you would take time to educate yourselves on the subject you would know that Marx didn't even think communism was 100% right he in fact invited constructive criticism. He also believed that the next step after communism would be a utopian society devoid of government entirely. Communism is not meant for this generation or lifetime. It is a long, long process of the dialectic of ideas that will continue to produce a better and better system until we can reach a point where the wealth isn't competed for and the mentality of the people has changed from the consumerism driven into the brains of citizens under a capitalist system. Capitlism is an improvement from feudalism, the next step (and we are seeing its demand for change now) is socialism. If you disagree I can only tell you to read about first before you judge and that history and the future will ultimately support Marx's theories.



DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 11:07 PM Post #147
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs Aug 14 2011, 11:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 02:21 AM Quote: the climategate thing didn't mean anything. there's always shit like that happening all over the world on both sides of any scientific discussion. even if you're right, you still have to convince the world and that's always easier if you mislead them. i'm not saying i support the actions of the people involved, but it doesn't prove anything about whether they were right or wrong. Nonsense! The entire AGW claim is based on the three main global temperature datasets of the UEA CRU, NASA, and NOAA. We know for a fact that, among other things, 1) CRU's claims lack any basis in reality, as the hacked e-mails showed, 2) a Freedom of Information request showed that NASA considered their data inferior to the [discredited] CRU's, and 3) and CRU, NASA and NOAA have self-endorsing mechanisms and aren't independent of one another, meaning if one of them is wrong, all of them are wrong. The entire AGW argument crumbles. AGW is an unproven, disproved, discredited, debunked, unscientific belief. Them's the facts. funny how you say 'nonsense!' and then don't even reply to my post. sorry, i don't feel like getting into an agw discussion. i was only giving CFCs as an example of what huge impact people can have on the environment when they're not careful and you kept bringing up agw. anyway i can predict the discussion will just be us pointlessly linking each other to scientific articles. meh What do you mean? I did reply to your post. The only things I need to link to are the hacked e-mails. There you can see how your 'scientist' friends destroyed their raw data, falsified their findings, silenced dissent within the scientific community, and generally gave us all undeniable proof that AGW is a scam. AGW is unscientific, unproven and disproved. You irrationally and illogically believe it's true. It's a faith. Remember that next time you criticize Christians or other religious people for being unscientific, irrational, illogical believers. May Gaia be with you!



Incog	Aug 14 2011, 11:13 PM Post #148
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	KNEW that one would come in handy
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Aug 14 2011, 11:53 PM Post #149
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Can't face the facts, Incog? Can't admit that you have an unscientific, irrational belief, just like them religious folk?



gs	Aug 15 2011, 01:04 AM Post #150
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 11:07 PM gs Aug 14 2011, 11:20 AM DragonLegend Aug 14 2011, 02:21 AM Quote: the climategate thing didn't mean anything. there's always shit like that happening all over the world on both sides of any scientific discussion. even if you're right, you still have to convince the world and that's always easier if you mislead them. i'm not saying i support the actions of the people involved, but it doesn't prove anything about whether they were right or wrong. Nonsense! The entire AGW claim is based on the three main global temperature datasets of the UEA CRU, NASA, and NOAA. We know for a fact that, among other things, 1) CRU's claims lack any basis in reality, as the hacked e-mails showed, 2) a Freedom of Information request showed that NASA considered their data inferior to the [discredited] CRU's, and 3) and CRU, NASA and NOAA have self-endorsing mechanisms and aren't independent of one another, meaning if one of them is wrong, all of them are wrong. The entire AGW argument crumbles. AGW is an unproven, disproved, discredited, debunked, unscientific belief. Them's the facts. funny how you say 'nonsense!' and then don't even reply to my post. sorry, i don't feel like getting into an agw discussion. i was only giving CFCs as an example of what huge impact people can have on the environment when they're not careful and you kept bringing up agw. anyway i can predict the discussion will just be us pointlessly linking each other to scientific articles. meh What do you mean? I did reply to your post. The only things I need to link to are the hacked e-mails. There you can see how your 'scientist' friends destroyed their raw data, falsified their findings, silenced dissent within the scientific community, and generally gave us all undeniable proof that AGW is a scam. AGW is unscientific, unproven and disproved. You irrationally and illogically believe it's true. It's a faith. Remember that next time you criticize Christians or other religious people for being unscientific, irrational, illogical believers. May Gaia be with you! didn't even read your post. thanks for the blessing though. i'll have you know though that my reasoning is always rational and i think purely about how it will affect myself or occasionally humanity. there is nothing i blindly believe in, and that includes any so called god of nature.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
7