xboxscene.org forums

Off Topic Forums => General Chat => Politics, News and Religion => Topic started by: Arvarden on December 08, 2004, 05:52:00 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Arvarden on December 08, 2004, 05:52:00 AM

"The US has been defending its decision not to take part in the Kyoto Protocol, just two months before the international agreement to cut greenhouse gases comes into force."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4077137.stm

Where there's blame there's a claim..

:ph34r:

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: jimjom on December 08, 2004, 06:04:00 AM

QUOTE

The fact is Kyoto would be bad for the US Chris Hart, Lawrenceville, USA

Everyday it becomes more and more embarassing to be American. Pfft!!

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RcbUK on December 17, 2004, 05:51:00 PM

In 50/100 years time i'd like to see what America have to say  

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RonnieIsBack on December 17, 2004, 06:27:00 PM

I can't say what will happen but people are predicting the weather 100+ years from now and they say the ice caps will be gone or close to it.My problem with this is the fact that we cant predict weather accurately a week from today and these people are going a hundred years in the future with their predictions.

You make up your own mind but my argument is a good one.
Of course I'm an American so every non American will automatically disagree with me,right?  <_<

This post has been edited by RonnieIsBack: Dec 18 2004, 02:41 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 17, 2004, 06:30:00 PM

No scientific study has shown conclusive evidence of carbon dioxide levels increasing proportionally to global temperatures.  Additionally, these things have only been studied for about fifty years, and global climate changes could just be natural phenomena - we did just get out of an ice age, remember.  So please excuse the US for trusting the facts instead of b movies, nutty conspiracy theories and junk science.

This post has been edited by nemt: Dec 18 2004, 02:31 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RcbUK on December 17, 2004, 05:59:00 PM

QUOTE (RonnieIsBack @ Dec 18 2004, 02:59 AM)

I can't say what will happen but people are predicting the weather 100+ years from now and they say the ice caps will be gone or close to it.My problem with this is the fact that we cant predict weather accurately a week from today and these people are going a hundred year in the future with their predictions. You make up your own mind but my argument is a good one. Of course I'm an American so every non American will automatically disagree with me,right?

Well I would have thought it was fairly obvious....

Plus when the ice caps are gone most of the world will be flooded which means less land for a bigger population...

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RonnieIsBack on December 17, 2004, 06:50:00 PM

Why would it be obvious?
Do you have experience with such events  happening somewhere else?
What was the outcome????
:P


The US doesnt need to be part of any treaty to stop global warming.If your contries leaders believe it is true then they can do something about it.The US has helped the world enough in the past 100 years.Why does the US have to be the one to do it again.

BTW we have too many people living now.Not in the US but in the places.China has over 1 billion heads and they need food from other countries to feed them.Why  have more people alive that cant feed themselves or take care of their families?

And I like fishing so more water means more fish!!!!!

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pug_ster on December 17, 2004, 07:28:00 PM

QUOTE (nemt @ Dec 18 2004, 03:02 AM)

No scientific study has shown conclusive evidence of carbon dioxide levels increasing proportionally to global temperatures.  Additionally, these things have only been studied for about fifty years, and global climate changes could just be natural phenomena - we did just get out of an ice age, remember.  So please excuse the US for trusting the facts instead of b movies, nutty conspiracy theories and junk science.

Nemt, maybe when you get a PHD in environmental science, you can counterclaim what all the other environmental scientists said.

This post has been edited by pug_ster: Dec 18 2004, 03:29 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 17, 2004, 07:44:00 PM

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Dec 17 2004, 10:00 PM)

Nemt, maybe when you get a PHD in environmental science, you can counterclaim what all the other environmental scientists said.

Show me a report proving there's any corrolation between carbon dioxide (you know, that awful gas every plant on the planet needs to survive) levels and global temperatures.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pug_ster on December 17, 2004, 08:22:00 PM

QUOTE (nemt @ Dec 18 2004, 04:16 AM)

Show me a report proving there's any corrolation between carbon dioxide (you know, that awful gas every plant on the planet needs to survive) levels and global temperatures.

http://www.pnas.org/...full/94/16/8370

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Intensecure on December 17, 2004, 08:35:00 PM

It is, as usual, irrelevant.
The US will pursue policies that mean that the home economy will not be affected. If the US stood to gain by reducing it's emissions, it would sign the treaty.
Vested interests, short term gain, and the externality of future generations that have no vote in what we do to their situation and environment.
For nemt: (although banging one's head a brick wall here ) try reading this article, from the New Scientist. and the various weblinks at the right hand side for links to the wealth of articles and information from the UN and other research institutes. Of course, you will probably argue that Nobel Laureates are mis-informed because Fox news told you otherwise but more clear thinking folks might find the evidence more compelling than that which has been commissioned in support of the official US position.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: K98 on December 17, 2004, 09:08:00 PM

I dont believe in global warming on the basis of no evidence. Accurate thermometers have been around for maybe 100 years so how can you get a good view of what the climate does. Maybe it gets warm for 100 years then cools down you dont know.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 17, 2004, 09:11:00 PM

The article doesn't show any proof of a direct relation between increases in temperature and increases in these supposedly dangerous greenhouse gases.  First off, there's no easy way to determine the temperature of the earth...and if you compare the temperatures in cities today with data from 25 or 50 years ago, how can you be sure that's enough to tell you anything reliable?  The earth is billions of years old, remember?  Maybe over the past 100 years the average world temperature has gone up one degree, but there's no way to prove it's the result of human actions and not some natural variation.  While co2 has been increasing steadily since the industrialization, global temperatures have not.  Does that raise any questions for you?

The earth has been around a long time, and humans have been here for a very small fraction of it.  You can believe in the span of 100 years there is sufficient evidence to prove humans are causing the 3.5billion year old rock to warm up to cataclysmic temperatures, but I'm just not buying it - and neither is anyone with common sense.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pegasys on December 17, 2004, 09:26:00 PM

Greenhouse gasses keep the heat on earth, like a greenhouse, thus raising teperatures, it's a fact.  But it dosn't matter because by the time anyting happens we will all e dead anyway so fuck the next generation, or the one after that, right?  Or is that immoral, but I thouht our president was all for morality and preserving life?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RonnieIsBack on December 17, 2004, 10:08:00 PM

Peg...your sarcasm is soooo funny.

Im sure most people would want to keep the earth from becoming a swimming pool but obviously people disagree with that as a possiblilty.Why?It must be because there is no real evidence that it is happening.Just because someone makes a theory like this one doesnt mean everyone should support it or that it is right.You are clearly looking at only half of the argument.When you see both sides then you can come back and tell me how you feel about it.



BTW nemt,the earth is 4.6 billion years old.  

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pegasys on December 18, 2004, 05:58:00 AM

while i see your point in the fact, that global warming may not be cause by us, I diagree with that. I have dine studies and research on it my self for school, and have found that it is true.  It appears that the argument is not about the US not entering into the treaty.  It is about whether humans can and have effected the climate.  So noone can win the argument because, if you bnelive that it is based on bad science than all my aand your counter arguments are declared null and void.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: elfey1 on December 18, 2004, 05:58:00 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 18, 2004, 06:36:00 AM

QUOTE (pegasys @ Dec 17 2004, 11:58 PM)

Greenhouse gasses keep the heat on earth, like a greenhouse, thus raising teperatures, it's a fact.  But it dosn't matter because by the time anyting happens we will all e dead anyway so fuck the next generation, or the one after that, right?  Or is that immoral, but I thouht our president was all for morality and preserving life?

Head for the hills, it's a degree warmer than it was a century ago?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pegasys on December 18, 2004, 07:39:00 AM

The idea is that if the trend continues, in a few hundred years there could bve catastrophic disaster.  But since most people are selfish capitalistic pigs(at times my self included) they only look at the short term.  If I was raking in millions and I would not fell the bad effects of what I was doing because I wopuld be dead already, I would be reluctant to stop doing it.  I understand Bush's position regardless of how much I disagree with it.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 18, 2004, 09:39:00 AM

..and yet, there's no scientific evidence to show greenhouse gases have any effect on global temperatures.  So you're scared for nothing?  Are you still pissed off you spend new year's eve 1999 in a bomb shelter?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Mr. Chips on December 18, 2004, 01:02:00 PM

I want to read Michael Chricton's new book.
He says that global warming is waaay overblown.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 18, 2004, 02:05:00 PM

QUOTE (Mr. Chips @ Dec 18 2004, 04:05 PM)

I want to read Michael Chricton's new book. He says that global warming is waaay overblown.

There's no proof it even exists.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: LepPpeR on December 18, 2004, 02:29:00 PM

It is not just America that is not interested in this treaty.  Russia is in talks to withdrawl because they to see it as stopping the growth and forward movement of their country.  China, India, and most developing nations which have little CLEAN technology would be devastated if they were to cut their admissions.  Do you really think it is going to work?  Are you able to move forward without the United States holding your hands?  If you want to cut the gases, go for it.


Note:  Its currently 29 degrees (F) below 0 © where I am.  I am not outside in a T-shirt but I did just buy a winter coat most likely made in China.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Arvarden on December 18, 2004, 04:21:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: RonnieIsBack on December 18, 2004, 05:07:00 PM

?

Anyway the US cant pull out of the kyoto treaty again.We did it one time and thats all we had to do.
Maybe youre missing the point.You dont know what causes global warming.So until we do we shouldnt make changes that could hurt our countrys economy.

I am all for cleaner fuels and stronger laws against pollution but the kyoto treaty was too much.Knee jerk reactions like this arent good for anyone.

And I just looked up some weather history for the UK.The city I checked is currently at the same temp as last year.(Leeds)

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 18, 2004, 05:51:00 PM

Say what you want about scientists knowledge of the environment. I definitely believe in the scientists. But all we know for sure is that we're getting a lot more natural disasters than we did a hundred years ago. And very pure logic says that our extreme consumption of oil and other destructive gases, ought to affect something. We KNOW that the holes on the ozon-layer are extremely much bigger than the first measurements.

Does any "real" scientist hesitate we're going towards warmer times? We can't just let this happen because we don't have evidence enough (which we sure do). If we spend some of our lovely money on technology that partly exist today, we can at least make sure we did what we could. Look at Iceland, they will be the first oil-free nation. Sure they've got splendid resources, but they set a standard.

Why do so many americans automatically choose not to believe in the scientists? They're not doing this because it's fun, all right? Do you really think so? It's a very logical concern, and should not be adressed as rediculous because you're concerned about your money. No fucking God will save us from this problem so you should stop acting like morons who give God the responsibility to fix this problem, so you can keep dancing around your happy tree. USA stand for 1/4th of all toxic waste, and should act like the "grown-up" nation it is, and help fixing the problem, not ignore it as rediculous.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: pug_ster on December 18, 2004, 06:38:00 PM

Leave it up the Republican Noise Machine.  People like Rush Limbaugh can dispel any myth (like global warming) known to man even if they do not have the scientific knowledge.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: LepPpeR on December 18, 2004, 07:12:00 PM

Here is a conspiracy theory for you.



The European Union wants to limit the amount of GH gases so that they can limit the economic powers that are rising in Asia (mostly China) and India.  By cutting GH Gases they limit the production and growth of these new, fast rising, super powers because they (the EU) cannot keep up.  They fear that with the United States of America already have a Mammoth lead in Arms, Economics, and Science that if they were to fail again to Asia, India, and eventually Russia that they will become more and more alientated and become worthless to these new Super Powers.

Maybe the Climate in Politics is more scary to them than the actual GH Gases.

Just a crazy Conspiracy Theory that has no meaning, but it makes you think I guess.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 18, 2004, 07:50:00 PM

QUOTE (gronne @ Dec 19 2004, 02:54 AM)

Say what you want about scientists knowledge of the environment. I definitely believe in the scientists. But all we know for sure is that we're getting a lot more natural disasters than we did a hundred years ago. And very pure logic says that our extreme consumption of oil and other destructive gases, ought to affect something. We KNOW that the holes on the ozon-layer are extremely much bigger than the first measurements. Does any "real" scientist hesitate we're going towards warmer times? We can't just let this happen because we don't have evidence enough (which we sure do). If we spend some of our lovely money on technology that partly exist today, we can at least make sure we did what we could. Look at Iceland, they will be the first oil-free nation. Sure they've got splendid resources, but they set a standard. Why do so many americans automatically choose not to believe in the scientists? They're not doing this because it's fun, all right? Do you really think so? It's a very logical concern, and should not be adressed as rediculous because you're concerned about your money. No fucking God will save us from this problem so you should stop acting like morons who give God the responsibility to fix this problem, so you can keep dancing around your happy tree. USA stand for 1/4th of all toxic waste, and should act like the "grown-up" nation it is, and help fixing the problem, not ignore it as rediculous.

I believe the scientists too, especially the Nazi's research in ergonomics.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 18, 2004, 07:57:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Arvarden on December 19, 2004, 02:59:00 AM

 Ronnie I was cus the UK is well known for it's crappy weather, like today it's fluffin freezing! (prays for snow) and yes I'm not wearing a T shirt today.

A freak storm hit Paris yesterday with hurricane wind speeds.  The storm only lasted a few minutes and came from "no where".

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Mage on December 19, 2004, 05:52:00 AM

And how much does a volcano output again in a single erruption?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 19, 2004, 08:19:00 AM

QUOTE (RonnieIsBack @ Dec 19 2004, 05:00 AM)

Maybe they are doing it to get paid millions of dollars in government grants...

It's very much more likely it's the other way around, especially in USA.

Sure, they have "points". Like I use to say that Greenland is called green-land because when it was discovered it was... green, and the reason it's completely icy today is due to natural weather changes. Another famous example is when a swedish king and his army on the 16th century crossed a big ice-plate to another island. Today we wonder how that happened as there's hardly any ice at all there.

This SHOULD be taken in consideration, but it's highly unlikely these fast changes we see now have anything to do with natural changes.

Believe me, I would love to believe you guys are right, but if the scientists are sure about their things, (and they've been reporting about these future problems BEFORE we got this intense amount natural disasters everywhere) I sure will believe them and not Bush's scientists.

QUOTE

The European Union wants to limit the amount of GH gases so that they can limit the economic powers that are rising in Asia (mostly China) and India. By cutting GH Gases they limit the production and growth of these new, fast rising, super powers because they (the EU) cannot keep up. They fear that with the United States of America already have a Mammoth lead in Arms, Economics, and Science that if they were to fail again to Asia, India, and eventually Russia that they will become more and more alientated and become worthless to these new Super Powers. Maybe the Climate in Politics is more scary to them than the actual GH Gases. Just a crazy Conspiracy Theory that has no meaning, but it makes you think I guess.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry, because it's really sad some people can be this dumb. For a starter, USA might have a "lead" over Europe, but anyone who think USA will still be a superpower in 20-30 years should take a good look on the reality. Asia will become very powerful, yes. But if Europe would try to stop asia from becoming too powerful it's even more stupid USA won't support the kyoto-protocole. I'm sure EU wouldn't want Asia to become too powerful, but we have much more environmental problems than they have, so why do we want sign the kyoto-protocole?

Even if you don't believe the man has made the environmental problems, you must realize something is happening that will end in a catastrophy. This is a problem that MUST be dealt with and not ignored, and not signing the kyoto-protocole is to ignoring the problem. Unfortunately it's the poor people that will suffer the most from the rich people's abuse.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on December 19, 2004, 11:34:00 AM

America produces like .1 % of the pollution on this Earth (<- not a fact, im not exactly sure what it is), because we ENFORCE our OWN pollution control.

Look at all the 3rd world countries still using lead gas, completely unfiltered factories, etc.

America is not the big problem on this planet as far as pollution goes

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 19, 2004, 11:55:00 AM

What are you talking about? You are joking right? Everyone knows America is the sole source of all things evil and unjust in the world. Hail Satan.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 19, 2004, 02:02:00 PM

You can find scientists who will say/do anything you want.  Facts are facts, there's no proof of any kind of global warming, and if there were it would most certainly not be the result of human actions.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: tupac2 on December 19, 2004, 05:09:00 PM

ooo boolys da boo bo dodoolys boos bumers

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 19, 2004, 05:16:00 PM

QUOTE

You can find scientists who will say/do anything you want. Facts are facts, there's no proof of any kind of global warming, and if there were it would most certainly not be the result of human actions.

Please elaborate why it couldn't be the result of human beings. This should be very interesting. Or is it possibly the result of Satan? (Gee, I forgot about him).

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 19, 2004, 06:50:00 PM

QUOTE (gronne @ Dec 20 2004, 02:19 AM)

Please elaborate why it couldn't be the result of human beings. This should be very interesting. Or is it possibly the result of Satan? (Gee, I forgot about him).

Maybe Volcano's? Anyway gronne is right (although he does seem to suffer from a classical case of penis envy), everything evil and unjust in the world is the result of America and their evil capitalistic ways. Hail Satan.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 19, 2004, 07:07:00 PM

I always thought it was named that to trick enemies.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 19, 2004, 08:24:00 PM

QUOTE (RonnieIsBack @ Dec 20 2004, 04:01 AM)

Ok now isnt time for a history lesson from me but the reason Greenland(which was mostly ice 1000 years ago and is mostly ice now) was called greenland is because the part of the island where the vikings landed was indeed greener than where they came from,Norway. It was only greener than the part of norway they were from it wasnt a green island. Blah blah blah. I feel cold.

Nice. I just had to check it all up, and I had messed up a scientific article I once read about Greenland actually being green... about a million years ago, or something like that    Well, it was at least called greenland because Erik wanted to attract others there, although most of it was still ice (I'm glad you had me check it up, since it felt weird it was green 1,000 years ago. Now I know better)

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Arvarden on December 20, 2004, 06:18:00 AM

/Smakes try hard wannabe with 50ft sledgehammer, now poodly doodly doo woo off you irritating gay twat.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 21, 2004, 11:45:00 AM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 20 2004, 05:27 AM)

Nice. I just had to check it all up, and I had messed up a scientific article I once read about Greenland actually being green... about a million years ago, or something like that    Well, it was at least called greenland because Erik wanted to attract others there, although most of it was still ice (I'm glad you had me check it up, since it felt weird it was green 1,000 years ago. Now I know better)

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 21, 2004, 06:10:00 PM

QUOTE(FektionFekler @ Dec 21 2004, 08:48 PM)

Owned. Now you should admit to being wrong about everything else.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 21, 2004, 06:54:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 22 2004, 03:13 AM)

Remember Ivan the Terrible? You have a lot to learn from life, son. Being a nazi won't help you, no matter how often you must talk about your lovely ideology.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 21, 2004, 07:03:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 22 2004, 03:13 AM)

Remember Ivan the Terrible? You have a lot to learn from life, son. Being a nazi won't help you, no matter how often you must talk about your lovely ideology.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 21, 2004, 07:16:00 PM

QUOTE(FektionFekler @ Dec 22 2004, 04:06 AM)

What about Alexander the Great? What about the oldest recorded human remains only being around 18,000 years old? etc.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 21, 2004, 07:59:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 22 2004, 04:19 AM)

I still don't get how you misinterpreted me about that. I never confused anything, you just got my post really wrong. Don't blame me for your bad reading, comprade? And I idolize Che, but I definitely don't agree with his killings. The difference between Che and Stalin is that Stalin din't stand for communism AT ALL. Stalin only fought for himself, you surely can't say that about Che. And I wouldn't blame Che for Cuba's failures, try Castro. Had it not been for Che's killings he absolutely would've been an even greater hero. That's also very important to admit.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 21, 2004, 08:34:00 PM

QUOTE(FektionFekler @ Dec 22 2004, 05:02 AM)

Go back and read that thread, because your post is both incoherent and misinformed, now if you would be so kind as to clarify what you really intended, I would appreciate it, because as it stands now that post seems to refute my claims that there have been discoveries of human (modern man) remains much older than your initial figure of 18,000 (also in that post you seem to state that mungo man was the same remains found in Indonesia, that is wrong). All that I ask is for you to either: admit you were wrong, or rephrase your post. Don't blame me for your bad english (and spanish), comprende? Che was an egotistical prick, if you actually believe in his bullshit crusade to free the proletariat from the Batista regime (which was pretty bad I will admit, but replacing it with an equally as bad communist dictatorship, wasn't a great idea either), then you are a fool. Also why do you not idolize Mao and Stalin, even though your man Che did?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 21, 2004, 09:27:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 22 2004, 05:37 AM)

About my spanish, maybe I should stop writing to jerks at 5 in the morning. I'm going to bed asap. Anyways Che did criticize Stalin as well, he only realized it too late. And I have no idea how you have messed up my text where I definitely don't think the oldest find of modern man is only 18,000 years old, or that I believed the mungo man and the find in Indonesia had anything to do with eachother. So please elaborate how you got my text wrong, or I can't explain your misinterpretation. But if you're asking me if I could admit being wrong about it; no I can't as it's all a misunderstanding from you. But would you admit you were wrong about Ivan then? You can blame others(with no substance to your accusations), but you can't admit your own mistakes. So, please elaborate how you misinterpreted my text about the find in Indonesia which I never connected with the mungo man whatsoever. Stupid fucking "conversations" I always have to have with you. Good night, and I hope you've explained yourself by the time I get back here.

It would be my pleasure  

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 10 2004, 01:32 AM)

QUOTE(FektionFekler @ Dec 9 2004, 08:12 PM)

18,000 you say? They found 50,000 year old remains of homo sapiens (modern man) in Australia (Mungo man), and 110,000 year old remains in China, which rules out the African Eve Theory, and just recently remains dating back to 30,000+ years in South Carolina, which rules out entirely the Bering Strait Theory (as to how homo sapiens came to be in North America). They are making new discoveries everyday, it is exciting times that we live in.

Most scientists still very much believe we originate from Africa, but it shouldn't automatically be taken as fact. You talked about 50,000 year old homo sapiens, this is not homo sapiens. They are not 100% it's part of the homonid-family. I just read they were found on an island in Indonesia. And these homonids apparently differed a lot from homo sapiens sapiens (modern man). They suppose they must have split early in the hominid-family, and evolution have made them small due to the lack of nutrition on the isolated island.

If you would be so kind, please elaborate on what you meant in the bold. The third world english is killing me. Here's the thread, to show you the quote is unaltered.

http://forums.xbox-s...ic=319359&st=60

On a side note, regarding your admiration of Che, would you not be offended if someone admired Hitler?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 22, 2004, 07:51:00 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 22, 2004, 04:37:00 PM

QUOTE(FektionFekler @ Dec 22 2004, 06:30 AM)

It would be my pleasure 

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 22, 2004, 08:44:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 23 2004, 01:40 AM)

I have to agree with Nemt, you get off-topic EVERY time you interfere these discussions. And you do it with the most insanely stupid accusations. But I will try to answer you eventhough I still can't see what's wrong about my text. But OK: quote: "You talked about 50,000 year old homo sapiens, this is not homo sapiens."

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 23, 2004, 06:10:00 PM

 It's funny you never mention him again   And have you checked UNDPA's list, yet?  

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: FektionFekler on December 24, 2004, 08:39:00 AM

QUOTE(gronne @ Dec 24 2004, 02:41 AM)

Then it's good he didn't kill thousands of people. I've said it over and over again, his killings can't be accepted. At least he did it because he had to, in order to get the power which was very much needed. And if you really read my explanations you'd understand what I mean, too bad you're the fucking moron weighing 250 pounds. I never refered to your fucking mungo man once. I wasn't the one bringing the mungo man up at all, and I never bothered the least about it. I started speaking about the find in Indonesia, and only got irritated you brought the mungo man up. What the hell did the mungo man have to do with it at all? You were the one mixing it up from the beginning, otherwise I never would've bothered at all. Why don't you read some about Ivan again, you seem to lack a lot about him    It's funny you never mention him again  And have you checked UNDPA's list, yet? 

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: nemt on December 24, 2004, 09:22:00 AM

Che is not a figure to romanticize, he was a charismatic communist, but a communist nonetheless, and his death is a credit to our world.  Additionally, Che had no outspoken opinions on global warming.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on December 25, 2004, 02:57:00 PM

As this is the most ludicrous "discussion" I've ever taken part of, I won't post more regarding this "issue" after this post. It doesn't matter if I continue to explain that Fek got me wrong, and now tries to imply things I've never meant. It just feels stupid needing to defend text that's been misinterpreted. Badly written by me, or badly percieved by him doesn't really matter as it's not what I meant, which is the ONLY thing that matters. This discussion has no value whatsoever and should end now. What the hell is being discussed really?

Nemt: I respect your opinion and agree to some extent. It's very valid to question the cause of the former communism. And it's very valid to question the cause of neo-communists like I would probably consider myself. My only response would be that my communism doesn't emphasize much with the USSR-communism. A doctor should earn more than a cleaner, the only question is how big the gap should be. I would wish for the rich ones to be content with the knowledge that their less fortunate fellow citizens can take part of a system that won't discriminate their rights to a respectable life. This is the least you can say about virtually any society today. Every man should feel like a free man, but freedom must also have its limits of course (there shouldn't be freedom to use violence and so forth). Guevara should be questioned, and I can perfectly understand why you dislike him. I recognize his use of violence as not acceptible (It should be understood he would've been killed himself if he hadn't killed them, so it could also be seen as self-defense). People will always connect any communism with USSR and the alike. This I can very well understand, but it doesn't matter if you use another name, it will still be connected with USSR. The problem is that many in my communist-party do emphazise with the former communism, so we're a very split party, and will most likely separate where I will join the "right-wing" part of the communist party.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: monkeyboyj on December 28, 2004, 07:40:00 PM

Damn, Im moving to canada
republicans suck!!

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Boba_Fett on December 29, 2004, 11:24:00 PM

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 19 2004, 03:09 AM)

Leave it up the Republican Noise Machine.  People like Rush Limbaugh can dispel any myth (like global warming) known to man even if they do not have the scientific knowledge.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on December 30, 2004, 01:55:00 PM

Regarding the "Republic Noise Machine" :-

The only thing trashing democracy is the partisanship you and millions of other morons never shut up about.

Thumbs up your asses.

Edit: Advertising such a lameass book like that makes you no better than ass-clowns like Rush Limbaugh.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on December 30, 2004, 02:35:00 PM

Though you might not know, the Republican machine is indeed real, and is the sole source of everything evil and unjust. He's just trying to open your eyes to the truth. They are also responsible for the recent Tsunami incident which they have spinned as a "natural" disaster. President Bush along with Black Manta and the rest of the Republicans, better known as the Legion of Doom, concocted a plan to the set the world as we know it into chaos. They operate from within the Capital Building, aka the Hall of Doom (pictured below).

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on December 30, 2004, 03:16:00 PM

The "Alliance of Pure Souls For an Honest and Successful Future", also known as the Democratic Party, would definitely agree with you there.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Boba_Fett on December 30, 2004, 06:43:00 PM

QUOTE(The unProfessional @ Dec 30 2004, 10:26 PM)

Advertising such a lameass book like that makes you no better than ass-clowns like Rush Limbaugh.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on December 30, 2004, 07:57:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on December 30, 2004, 08:46:00 PM

QUOTE(Boba_Fett)

Interesting, I always considered you for a conservative type unProfessional. What exactly do you have against Mr. Limbaugh? The guy is just doing his job, a damn fine one IMO...

I generally am conservative.  But I'm also tramendously against extremism and biased media in general... whether it be the Washington Post or Rush, it's pretty frustrating to me.  In Rush's favor though, at least he claims himself as a political commentator, rather than a source of "news".

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Wolfblade13 on January 04, 2005, 11:07:00 AM

QUOTE(nemt @ Dec 18 2004, 02:30 AM)

No scientific study has shown conclusive evidence of carbon dioxide levels increasing proportionally to global temperatures.  Additionally, these things have only been studied for about fifty years, and global climate changes could just be natural phenomena - we did just get out of an ice age, remember.  So please excuse the US for trusting the facts instead of b movies, nutty conspiracy theories and junk science.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 11, 2005, 11:19:00 AM

You wanted a respected scientists who does not agree with the global warming theory:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Meteorologist professor Richard Lindzen Short Bio.

Heres a short article on a lecture he gave titled: Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science':
Full Article

He basically argues that Global Warming is a cult.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 11:26:00 AM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 12:02:00 PM

Yesterday we had the biggest storm in Sweden since the sixties. It crushed all electricty in southern Sweden, and destroyed very much in its way, and will cost our small country several billion crowns(1/6th of a dollar). We've had several natural disasters later years, and we're not discussing whether it's got to do with pollution or not, we know it's the pollution. It's PROVEN that the hole in the ozon-layer gets bigger every year, and that it's the reason the arctic ice is melting. And if you say that the hole in the ozon-layer don't have anything to do with environmental problems, then your searching in the wrong end. Norway have got worse problems than we, and they know they'll face even more problems in a near future. So the discussion whether it's a man made problem or not, is not existing. But for some reason Americans will always differ, when others are sure.

Sure, it's acceptible to believe the global warming doesn't have anything to do with the pollution, but to say it CAN'T have anything to do with pollution, is CRAZY and very sad. I'm sure this debate will end pretty soon, the more problem we'll see. No one can defend their beliefs when they have water up their arms. It'll be interesting to see this "debate" in 15 years.

In the late 19th century there was hardly any man made pollution. 100 years later there's man made pollution EVERYWHERE. Billions of cars pouring out gasoline, airplanes and factory pollution was NON existent in the late 19th century. Is it hard to believe this incredible amount of pollution have affected the gloabl warming and other environmental issues? No, but it's strange if one can't see the clear connection. Ignorance won't help the problem, that's all I know.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 12:35:00 PM

QUOTE

But for some reason Americans will always differ, when others are sure.

You're the master of anti-American blanket statements, Gronne.  Ridiculous.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on January 11, 2005, 12:43:00 PM

Yea im sure you dont use any of those pollutants... hypocritical retard.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 12:51:00 PM

The US an Australia lead in greenhouse gas emissions, with Canada and New Zealand following close behind.



Whether or not the effects of global warming can be substantiated with current research and technology, we should assume that the fewer harmful emissions we have, the better, for many reasons, not just global warming.

The part that pisses me off is the anti-US hollier than thou bullshit attitude.  Attacking all Americans based on nothing but your own limited experience is B.S.  Yes, I'm talking to you Gronne, because you continue to do it in virtually every one of your posts.  Ignorance is bliss, no?

As an American, I do my part.  I live close to work (expensive) and I drive a PZEV (partial-zero emissions vehicle) car, which wasn't my desired car.  During the winter I never heat my house past 68 and during the summer I never cool it (via A/C) passed 72.  Gronne, you'll probably say that I should be riding a unicycle to work and heating my house with solar panels, but I prefer the practical approach.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 11, 2005, 12:52:00 PM

QUOTE(Gronne)

Yesterday we had the biggest storm in Sweden since the sixties. . .

This is nothing more than alarmism.  Our ever increasing ability to acurately record events all over the world, compounded by our large populations, is making it seem far worse than it actually is.  When you can say this is the biggest [insert your choice of natural disaster] we have had in the last 8000 years and at the same time you have had 10 such natural disasters, you may have a point, but we are no where near that and your statement is proves it.

QUOTE(Gronne)

we know it's the pollution

Sure you do.  Just like Jihadist "know" they will get 72 virgins upon killing themselves in a suicide attack.  You asked for a respected Scientists that thinks that Global Warming is rubbish and I gave it to you.  You cant get more respected than Massachusetts Institute of Technology Meteorologist professor Richard Lindzen.  And unlike most of the so called scientists that are proclaiming "Global Warming", he is actually an expert in the field.

QUOTE(Gronne)

It'll be interesting to see this "debate" in 15 years.

Yes it will.  America, having abondoned the false religion of global warming, well have even further surpassed the world in science and Inustry.  I imagine the "Kyoto II", well read something like this
       Now that we know that "Global Warming" does not exists and have spent countless trillions trying to stop it leaving the rest of the world bankrupt, we insist that the united states pay for the rest of the world to catch up to their current level of science, and open their library of secrets to the rest of the world.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 01:06:00 PM

QUOTE(The unProfessional @ Jan 11 2005, 09:06 PM)

You're the master of anti-American blanket statements, Gronne.  Ridiculous.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on January 11, 2005, 01:08:00 PM

QUOTE

When you can say this is the biggest [insert your choice of natural disaster] we have had in the last 8000 years and at the same time you have had 10 such natural disasters, you may have a point, but we are no where near that and your statement is proves it.

no, he tried to use an example that the last biggest was 40 years ago...

every time a record breaks then it must be the end of the world i guess.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: melon on January 11, 2005, 01:13:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 01:17:00 PM

QUOTE

but please come over here and you'd see america from a different perspective.

That's correct... but I don't consider my perspective of Sweden more valuable than yours - you're the one who lives there.  You probably have an incredibly skewed perspective of the U.S... as an individual, you need to understand that before making accusations.

The shortcomings of the Chinese is a whole other subject.  Personally, having done alot of business with Chinese companies, I find the culture in general to be fairly ruthless and enormously greedy.  Thankfully, I've only experienced that behavior in business, for the most part.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 01:27:00 PM

QUOTE

Gronne, you'll probably say that I should be riding a unicycle to work and heating my house with solar panels, but I prefer the practical approach.

I'm not accusing you for the world pollution, and I don't ask anything from you but to not acknowledge the problem as complete bogus. The scientists don't do this for fun, I suppose.

QUOTE

Sure you do. Just like Jihadist "know" they will get 72 virgins upon killing themselves in a suicide attack.

Just like you "know" you'll go to heaven.

QUOTE

You asked for a respected Scientists that thinks that Global Warming is rubbish and I gave it to you. You cant get more respected than Massachusetts Institute of Technology Meteorologist professor Richard Lindzen. And unlike most of the so called scientists that are proclaiming "Global Warming", he is actually an expert in the field.

And because he must be right, that would make the absolute majority of all scientists wrong then, I guess?

QUOTE

Now that we know that "Global Warming" does not exists and have spent countless trillions trying to stop it leaving the rest of the world bankrupt, we insist that the united states pay for the rest of the world to catch up to their current level of science, and open their library of secrets to the rest of the world.

If this scenario would be true, then I would almost be proud humanity at least did something to one of the greatest problem we would face. But believe me, I genuinely hope you're right.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: melon on January 11, 2005, 01:44:00 PM

To be fair to gronne the general opinion the world has of Americans isnt very good.
The stereotype (wrongly) is of an obese person who is arrogant and rude.
Every person I know that has done some back packing says whenever you meet an American they are saying they are Canadian to avoid getting shit or worse.
I intend to say i'm Irish when I go because our country isnt nearly as unpopular as yours but its still unpopular, Gronne can confirm that.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 01:52:00 PM

Of course the general consensus is anti-American.  Most of the world considers the US a superpower.  As a result, the US will always be the first blamed for just about anything.  It's a basic component of human nature.  Not only that, but the US steretypes, whether they're right or wrong, are the opinions of those who bring them to you - primarily hollywood and "news" organizations.  This is why you must always trust your own eyes before theirs.

I'm not one to plaster American flags all over myself, but I'd never lie about my nationality.  In my opinion, it's cowardly to show shame in your homeland, wherever it may be.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 01:57:00 PM

QUOTE(The unProfessional @ Jan 11 2005, 09:48 PM)

That's correct... but I don't consider my perspective of Sweden more valuable than yours - you're the one who lives there.  You probably have an incredibly skewed perspective of the U.S... as an individual, you need to understand that before making accusations.

It's not a fair comparison as you hardly get to know anything about Sweden, whereas I have to breath american culture no matter I like it or not, and I don't. But you obviously know a lot more about USA, from your perspective at least. And believe me, I know when I'm hurting someone's toe. One learn to see things from the opposite perspective. That however doesn't mean you should avoid pointing out their flaws, and it's apparent I don't when the issue is important to me. Like this one.

And that's right melon that chart didn't look too good in comparison. I don't think we drive that little in Sweden, but we should consider that our gas cost twice as much as us than for the americans, and we are a very concerned people who do what we can to help the environment. The companies in Sweden have great problems with environmental laws. Really good, if you ask me.

Melon: You're right that we think less of Britain when you supported Bush. But we don't think less of the brittish people as we know most of you didn't support the war anyway, and we know that you really opposed it. I actually like brits pretty a lot, as I know that you take a lot more responsibility than the americans. The americans, however, didn't oppose the war anywhere near the brits. Too bad.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on January 11, 2005, 02:06:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 11 2005, 10:28 PM)

It's not a fair comparison as you hardly get to know anything about Sweden, whereas I have to breath american culture no matter I like it or not, and I don't. But you obviously know a lot more about USA, from your perspective at least. And believe me, I know when I'm hurting someone's toe. One learn to see things from the opposite perspective. That however doesn't mean you should avoid pointing out their flaws, and it's apparent I don't when the issue is important to me. Like this one.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 02:09:00 PM

QUOTE

The companies in Sweden have great problems with environmental laws. Really good, if you ask me.

They do here, as well.  Through college I wrote analysis software to process data we collected about companies all over the US (as well as some in Europe and Africa).  We had the enjoyment of notifying many of them of their "Accidental" infringements on local environmental law.  Very gratifying.  Many of us Americans are also very concerned for our environment.  However, as a long-time industrialized nation, many new conventions conflict with the long-term habits of ancient industries and corporations.  Gradually we're having an impact and forcing old dogs to learn new tricks, and in the end it all works out.  They always go kicking and screaming, but eventually they start saving money in waste removal & processing, avoiding fines, etc.

You are force-fed pieces of American "culture" indeed.  It's a broadcasted mis-representation of the American people.  The pop-culture hollywood atmosphere is brutally wealthy, and speak much louder than they should given their understanding of world policy.  It's also an overwhelming tendency for them to spread anti-US sentiment as much as humanly possible.  They seem to enjoy spreading hatred about the country that fills their pockets.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 02:15:00 PM

QUOTE(SKoT @ Jan 11 2005, 10:37 PM)

... Stereotyping?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 11, 2005, 02:20:00 PM

QUOTE(The unProfessional @ Jan 11 2005, 09:22 PM)

Whether or not the effects of global warming can be substantiated with current research and technology, we should assume that the fewer harmful emissions we have, the better, for many reasons, not just global warming.

I agree with that - I live in a city with a terrible inversion problem.  Its uncomfortable to live in an area that has pollution issues.  I just dont think the reason to clean up should be due to some, at the very least, highly controversial claim like "Global Warming".  And I certainly dont think that my tax dollars should go to cleaning up other countries pollution issues.  If they dont like asthma, they can clean it up themselves.

QUOTE(Gronne)

Just like you "know" you'll go to heaven.

Well atleast you have demonstrated you know what a dogma is.  Now if you can just take one step further and realize that Global Warming is a dogma as well . . .

QUOTE(Gronne)

And because he must be right, that would make the absolute majority of all scientists wrong then, I guess?

Its not a majority of experts in the field.  Their is not even a consensus of the experts.  The only real consensus that seems to exists among meteorologists is that the Kyoto Protocol will have no impact on climate change.  And that is it.  Why should Americans even give it a glance?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 02:38:00 PM

QUOTE(damam @ Jan 11 2005, 10:51 PM)

I agree with that - I live in a city with a terrible inversion problem.  Its uncomfortable to live in an area that has pollution issues.  I just dont think the reason to clean up should be due to some, at the very least, highly controversial claim like "Global Warming".  And I certainly dont think that my tax dollars should go to cleaning up other countries pollution issues.  If they dont like asthma, they can clean it up themselves.

They can clean it up themselves? Well as you are the greatest reason to the environmental problems why should others pay for what you've done? The great paradox is that the poor people living in South America, Africa and Asia who don't pollute much are the ones that will have the greatest problems with catastrophees, whereas the rich people who created the problems will have minor problems with natural catastrophees. Talk about a paradox. Eventually it will hit USA hard as well, but by that time you're not a superpower anymore, so you can't help when you finally want to.

Unpro: That sounds good. Let's hope they actually will learn the old dog to sit then. You seem to acknowledge the issue as real.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 02:51:00 PM

I acknowledge that pollution is real.  I take responsibility for it.  I don't however agree that Global Warming is a substantiated issue (yet) or that the US is somehow responsible for the world.  I did mention my involvement with environmental research.  To the extent of my research, I experienced no legislation more strict than that of the United States in regards to environmental protection.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 11, 2005, 02:59:00 PM

QUOTE(Gronne)

They can clean it up themselves? Well as you are the greatest reason to the environmental problems why should others pay for what you've done? The great paradox is that the poor people living in South America, Africa and Asia who don't pollute much are the ones that will have the greatest problems with catastrophees, whereas the rich people who created the problems will have minor problems with natural catastrophees. Talk about a paradox. Eventually it will hit USA hard as well, but by that time you're not a superpower anymore, so you can't help when you finally want to.

That is totally absurd in every possible way
the collective pollution my country is putting out is not causing asthma (which actually has been tied to pollution and there is a consensus on) in Africa, South America, or Asia     These are localized issues that remain in localized regions
To say that Pollution is causing "Global Warming" is a stretch.  To say it is causing natural disaster is entirely unsuportable.  Like I said earlier, when we start having the biggest storms ever seen in the last 8000 years (ill even shorten that up a bit and say recorded history), AND have had several such events in recent history (like the last 10 years), You Might have an arguement.  Until that occurs, you have nothing to base your claims on.

QUOTE(The unProfessional)

The shortcomings of the Chinese is a whole other subject.  Personally, having done alot of business with Chinese companies, I find the culture in general to be fairly ruthless and enormously greedy.  Thankfully, I've only experienced that behavior in business, for the most part.

Isnt that the truth.  They are hard negotiators.  Even when you think you have a deal, and stuff is being produced and sold, it doesnt mean a thing.  And with no copy right agreements etc, there is little that can stop them.  The only thing that is making them economically US friendly right now is that they are peged to the US Dollar - that ever changes watch out.  

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 03:01:00 PM

QUOTE(The unProfessional @ Jan 11 2005, 11:22 PM)

I acknowledge that pollution is real.  I take responsibility for it.  I don't however agree that Global Warming is a substantiated issue (yet) or that the US is somehow responsible for the world.  I did mention my involvement with environmental research.  To the extent of my research, I experienced no legislation more strict than that of the United States in regards to environmental protection.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 11, 2005, 03:06:00 PM

QUOTE

That is totally absurd in every possible way
the collective pollution my country is putting out is not causing asthma (which actually has been tied to pollution and there is a consensus on) in Africa, South America, or Asia  These are localized issues that remain in localized regions
To say that Pollution is causing "Global Warming" is a stretch.

Global warming, which is caused by pollution(not what you think, I know) affects floodings and tornadoes(you should know about them, FL), which most often occurs in poorer areas. So, I'm not talking about asthma.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: The unProfessional on January 11, 2005, 03:26:00 PM

QUOTE

I would be glad if e.g. SUVs weren't so popular among americans.

So would I - for many reasons, not just environmental.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 11, 2005, 04:25:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 11 2005, 11:37 PM)

Global warming, which is caused by pollution(not what you think, I know) affects floodings and tornadoes(you should know about them, FL), which most often occurs in poorer areas. So, I'm not talking about asthma.

I still dont know what your talking about.  Florida and America as a whole saw average hurricanes and flooding.

Average hurricans per year = 5-7
Hurricanes in 2004 = 5    <- its on the lower side of whats considered average

Granted we did see just over 1700 tornadoes - and the average is abt 1200 - but its still a stretch to say pollution caused them.  And we have only been recording tornadoes for abt 50 years.  So who is to say that 51 years ago, there was not 1800?  Also, our ability to detect smaller tornadoes that no one ever sees has increased dramatically due to satalites etc.  So their is a good chance that years 1950 through 1990 did not have accurate counts.

QUOTE(Gronne)

I would be glad if e.g. SUVs weren't so popular among americans.

Some people do need SUV's.  Most dont.  
Heres a picture of hypocritical idiot and (by coincidence?) Kerry supporter, Ashton Kutcher
 that definitely doesnt  -  Wouldnt life be better without hollywood hypocrits?
   
for me its pure economics - its simply cheaper for me to ride a bike when ever possible.  I do have a car but I based the type I bought on the real cost of owner ship which takes into account how expensive it is to driver per mile.  Consequently my sentra gets just over 40mpg.  Right now, I am driving all of the time cause I just gave birth to a baby girl 2 weeks ago.  As soon as I can I will be back on my bike.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: melon on January 11, 2005, 04:55:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 12:46:00 AM

QUOTE(damam @ Jan 12 2005, 12:56 AM)

I still dont know what your talking about.  Florida and America as a whole saw average hurricanes and flooding.

Average hurricans per year = 5-7
Hurricanes in 2004 = 5    <- its on the lower side of whats considered average

Granted we did see just over 1700 tornadoes - and the average is abt 1200 - but its still a stretch to say pollution caused them.  And we have only been recording tornadoes for abt 50 years.  So who is to say that 51 years ago, there was not 1800?  Also, our ability to detect smaller tornadoes that no one ever sees has increased dramatically due to satalites etc.  So their is a good chance that years 1950 through 1990 did not have accurate counts.

Ok, so you can see that there's more tornadoes now than before. Let's say you're right it doesn't have anything to do with pollution, but haven't the tornadoes also become more destructive than what we're used to?

Do people think it's strange that we're worrying when there's proved to be a gigantic hole in the ozon-layer?

And yes, I agree that Hollywood actors are hypocritical. Very many artists are on the political left and claim they care about the poor, yet they demand $20 million dollars/movie. Very hypocritical indeed. If the actors used all the money to charity I would be glad they charged a lot, but they keep most to themselves. Jay Leno, being pretty smart and anti-Bush, is also a real polluter.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on January 12, 2005, 08:52:00 AM

they arent being more destructive, the media just has better coverage and/or they overplay it WAyyyyyyy to much.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 12, 2005, 09:01:00 AM

QUOTE(Gronne)

Ok, so you can see that there's more tornadoes now than before. Let's say you're right it doesn't have anything to do with pollution, but haven't the tornadoes also become more destructive than what we're used to?

No they really arent.  My Dad says that americans are wooses today when it comes to tornadoes.  Even just in my lifetime, during the 80's, I saw bigger tornadoes with more destructive force.

QUOTE(Gronne)

Do people think it's strange that we're worrying when there's proved to be a gigantic hole in the ozon-layer?

Im not argueing that there is no whole in the ozone layer.  I am saying that humans have had a negligable effect on it at best.  Solar proton storms have been shown to be a much bigger problem for the ozone, as it has been observed that solar proton storms cause immediate enormous wholes in the ozone.  A single storm depletes .5 - 1% of the entire ozone on the planet.  There has also been increased solar activity over the last 20 years compounding this problem.  So what should do about that?  Block out the sun?

If you going to talk about CFC dribble, dont bother.  Atmospheric Scientists have now concluded that CFC's only go up to a max altitude of 40 km (the average elevation is actually much lower around 25km).  At that rate, 1 billion O3 (ozone) molecules are reformed for every one CFC that is busted apart.  So guess what that means, the entire CFC scare was total bunk.  

QUOTE(melon)

congratulations

Thanks  

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 09:27:00 AM

QUOTE

So guess what that means, the entire CFC scare was total bunk.

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

So what are you telling me? Won't there be global warming? Or won't the warming affect anything?

I can't understand why you want to be so naive about this situation. It's like christian fundamentalists who claim dinosaur bones can't be older than 6000 years old and so forth. Some stupid people might take those statements for fact. It's ALL about being rational. Being rational is not the same as defending something at all costs for various stupid reasons. It's good to question the scientists, but to begin with defending the opposition because you want them to be right is neither good nor intelligent. As I've said before, I would love you to be right, but it seems VERY unlikely to be so. But when you eventually must admit you were wrong I hope you take responsibility for what you've done. But then you'll say that you couldn't know it was bad, like all smokers who defend their smoking in the sixties because they couldn't know it was bad. It's called stupidity and nothing else.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 12, 2005, 10:50:00 AM

Elitism will be the downfall of humanity.

"...it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 12:16:00 PM

QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Jan 12 2005, 07:21 PM)

Oh sweet irony. Elitism will be the downfall of humanity.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 12, 2005, 12:51:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 05:58 PM)

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

Heres Link
Nasa on Proton Storms
Think of this article and all the ozone that is being destroyed the next time you see the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights).  When I lived up in Alaska, I read an article in the news paper about a study that showed direct corelations between Aurora Borealis occurances and ozone depletion over Fairbanks.


This graph was taken from the Enviromental Protection Agency and the Picture was taken from the University of Tennessee.  Basically showing that CFC dont get higher than 40KM and generally settl around 22km.  Ozone exists from 10km-50km but has its highest concentration in the upper stratosphere around 40km.  Thats very important because UV radiation is gone by 25km (except in areas where there are holes).  Nearly all of it is absorbed before 40KM.  Basically, the CFC's never get the chance to do the destruction they are accused of doing.
UV penetration in the Stratosphere
University of Tennesee

QUOTE( gronne)

So what are you telling me? Won't there be global warming? Or won't the warming affect anything?

What I am basicly saying is that their is no evidence that any of this is human induced.  Tree Ring reconstruction is showing that the earth was much hotter 1000 years ago, than it is today.  You cant blame humans on that.  And, since elder knowledge seems to be so important to enviromentalists, their are no Eskimo Elders to say "I remember back in 921, now that was a hot summer . . . "

What Enviromental Alarmists fail to realize is that the Earth, Solar System, and Universe as a whole is dynamic and ever changing.  They would like you to believe that the Earth is Static.  And that is simply not the case.  The Earth has gone through far too many extinction periods for that to be true.  

QUOTE(Gronne)

I can't understand why you want to be so naive about this situation.

We have been observing the ozone for abt 50 years.  The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  Who knows how old the solar system is?  What is both naive and arrogant is to assume that from our little snapshot we can assess anything at all let alone what is human induced and what is a naturally occuring process.  The only thing I will agree with you on, is that the ozone hole is getting bigger.  The cause is what is up for debate.

Now Gronne- I gave you some links.  If you would please.  Provide me with a couple links that demonstrate the CFC reaction with O3 proposed has been tested and verified in a lab, or the actual chemical reaction has been observed in some other way.  ie. not just through theory and chemical equations

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 12, 2005, 01:42:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 05:58 PM)

Please show me some links and I "might" believe you.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 02:25:00 PM

 I'm bad at searching. I'm actually sure you could find those links, however  

No, but seriously I can't say if the links you provided are definitive evidence the problem with CFC was all bogus, as I don't have any of the knowledge concerning the issue. The reports could be all faked as well, but I suppose NASA would lose all credibility then. I'll drop this one for the time being.

QUOTE

What Enviromental Alarmists fail to realize is that the Earth, Solar System, and Universe as a whole is dynamic and ever changing. They would like you to believe that the Earth is Static. And that is simply not the case. The Earth has gone through far too many extinction periods for that to be true.

I would refrain from believing scientists think the earth to be static, but sure, some make sure they get results they want. This is the same on both sides, however.

QUOTE

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Not that it matters but weren't you a christian fundamentalist. Or at least I thought you believed in the 6000 years theory.

I agree with you we haven't had that much observing of really anything, but the numbers are alarming nonetheless. I would rather take the alarms seriously, and try to adapt according to the alarms, rather than saying it's rediculous and continue as nothing. Then in the future I can say I wasn't one of the bastards who ignored the scientists because I loved driving cars all the time.

It's good to question scientists as many of them think they're Jesus reincarnated, if you follow me. But automatically saying they're wrong is ludicrous.

QUOTE

Respect someone else's perspective for once. The only elitist here is you comrade (ooh another paradox). If you weren't one, then you would understand her "naivety", and leave it at that, there would be no argument, because her belief is just as plausible as yours.

When did you last respect others opinions? I really haven't seen anyone more of a supremacist than you. You just told someone in the other thread to "adapt". You have no respect for anyone but your capitalist brothers. You're the only one that can't be argued with. Damam is someone I respect a whole lot more than you, at least.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 12, 2005, 02:44:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 10:56 PM)

I really haven't seen anyone more of a supremacist than you.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 03:02:00 PM

QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Jan 12 2005, 11:15 PM)

For someone who seems to rely so heavily on science, you sure don't appear to know the basic fundamentals Darwinism. Evolution is capitalism, survival of the fittest

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: damam on January 12, 2005, 04:07:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 10:56 AM)

  I'm bad at searching. I'm actually sure you could find those links, however 

It was a loaded requests.  They dont exist.  No one to date has ever been able to prove that the reaction can occur in a lab, let alone in nature.  I will grant that CFC's MAY NOT be entirely bogus.  We simply dont know, and wont know until it is tested and shown.  That is what science is about.  Its about reproducable tests and observations, its not about speculation.  Proton Storms, on the other hand, have been observed in nature, AND demonstrated in labs to have severe consequences on the ozone layer.  

QUOTE(Gronne)

Not that it matters but weren't you a christian fundamentalist. Or at least I thought you believed in the 6000 years theory.

I am a Christian.  I am not a christian fundamentalists.  This is off topic, but I assume that you refering to the carbon dating thread.  Carbon dating is deeply flawed.  You can only trust it as far as it has been calibrated too.  And it has been calibrated to 13,000 yrs ago based on Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings).  Anything beyond that is speculation.  If it were a hard science, carbon dating would never have been needed to be calibrated in the first place.  I do think that the earth is much older than 13,000 yrs old.  I really dont want to debate this again unless you can see flaws in my logic from the other thread.  I have no problem with speculation, so long as it is appropriately labeled and we are not making laws around it.  If you do see flaws in my carbon dating stance feel free to start a thread, and I will join in.

QUOTE(Gronne)

I agree with you we haven't had that much observing of really anything, but the numbers are alarming nonetheless. I would rather take the alarms seriously, and try to adapt according to the alarms, rather than saying it's rediculous and continue as nothing. Then in the future I can say I wasn't one of the bastards who ignored the scientists because I loved driving cars all the time.

I understand where you are coming from.  I guess my only reply is that how do we (the human race) know that the numbers are alarming, when we have no experience to base them on?  As far as we know, there has always been holes in the ozone.

 

QUOTE(Gronne)

It's good to question scientists as many of them think they're Jesus reincarnated, if you follow me. But automatically saying they're wrong is ludicrous.

I would never automatically disregard a well done scientific study.  I will admit that I have become rather cynical about researchers, having done research on doxorubicin for 2 years and been immersed in the research culture.  What I found from my experience is that the researcher that can raise the most alarms gets the most grant money.  And thats what its all about, getting grant money.  So researchers send their research to Activist groups and the media.  The media spins it to make the biggest story, and activists spin it to propell their agenda.  Both take advantage of the publics scientific illiteracy.  By the time it actually gets to general public its complete bunk.  The public eats it up, and puts pressure on the govt to do something so they sink more money into research and make laws.  Other researchers, wanting to get in on the money join in, and it starts this really bad cascade of what is being dubbed as "junk science".  Aside from grant money, their is also money to be made through lawsuits as well.  And it just goes on and on.

I love science.  It was my life.  But, currently it is in a terrible state.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 12, 2005, 04:13:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 11:33 PM)

Ok stupid. Yes, I rely on science eventhough I think they miss many important aspects that should matter. Cynicism has been very effective in science(unfortunately), but now a great deal of scientists accept stuffs like Qi, from a scientific p.o.v. But they admit there's something to it. I perfectly believe in darwinism, but what the HELL does that have to do with ideology? No one can ever say that any system "works". All I know is that capitalism always "works" as it follows "survival of the fitest", but that doesn't mean it's good. No matter what system we use "survival of the fitest" ALWAYS rule. It's completely impossible to stop the ruling of socialdarwinism, but since humans have conscience we can adapt to other systems within socialdarwinism. That's why true blue communism can't work, but there are other systems like social-democracy which works very well.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 12, 2005, 04:16:00 PM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 12 2005, 10:56 PM)

I would rather take the alarms seriously, and try to adapt according to the alarms, rather than saying it's rediculous and continue as nothing.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: gronne on January 12, 2005, 11:39:00 PM

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 13, 2005, 08:11:00 AM

QUOTE(gronne @ Jan 13 2005, 08:10 AM)

What the hell's your problem? You used the word adapt to be rude when you replied to his post, not? He didn't have to adapt to anything, but you wanted him to as you disagree'd with him. No doubt about that. I didn't use the word adapt in any other way but to explain what I DO. I'm not telling others should adapt to things they don't want, you did. There's a huge difference.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: elfey1 on January 13, 2005, 09:25:00 AM

QUOTE

Hell is only a curse word if you believe in God, and since you are after all, a non believer, there is no need for you to make religious references, so from now on try to refrain from doing so.

What a load of bollocks.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: SKoT on January 13, 2005, 10:34:00 AM

im sorry, but why are we comparing our governments to those of insects... i mean... is that some kind of measuring bar? Ants and bees get owned by humans btw.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Baner on January 13, 2005, 11:43:00 AM

QUOTE

Yes the USSR worked, but that wasn't communism, it was fascism, and on that note, it didn't last very long, because of their shit communist economic policies.

Hmm... not communists, but have communist policies eh?

QUOTE

Oh sweet irony.

Haha, idiot.

QUOTE

Hell is only a curse word if you believe in God, and since you are after all, a non believer, there is no need for you to make religious references, so from now on try to refrain from doing so.

Hmm, that's about the closet thing to the most idiot post on this forum I've seen to date. Hell, in a religious sence, is not a curse word in the context of Gronne's use. Maybe if he said, "Go to Hell." then he, in turn, would believe in the place "Hell" which is a religious idea. Think before you post, I know that'll be new to you, but you might actually make a friend. (heck, two new accomplishments in 1 day? Don't wanna move too fast)

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 13, 2005, 12:19:00 PM

QUOTE(Baner @ Jan 13 2005, 08:14 PM)

Hmm... not communists, but have communist policies eh?

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: melon on January 13, 2005, 02:55:00 PM

everything, why dont you try something new and contribute to a thread instead of just picking fights?

I mean jesus christ all you do is cause hell on these forums. For gods sake try and add something productive for a holy mother fuckin change! Im off to bash the bishop....

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 13, 2005, 03:27:00 PM

   

jse I know it is you.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: melon on January 13, 2005, 03:58:00 PM

im not going to get into an argument with you but wasnt it you and scont who brought the level of that thread down? There were some valid points made.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on January 14, 2005, 07:57:00 AM

How rich.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Intensecure on February 26, 2005, 12:15:00 AM

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 16 2005, 05:00 PM)

Kyoto is now in force and guess what?  Thats right the Americans are once again undermining a global effort to tackle global warming by staying out of Kyoto, suprise, suprise. 

As each day pass's it is becoming clear that humans are effecting our climate. 

Now why would the American govenment want to ratify a treaty that would mean that they would be financially punished for their "Great American way of life" - it's not going to happen.
The interests of the oligarchic structure of American politics means that no party in the bi-party "democracy" can afford to undermine vested interests.
The American people seem to have no power to affect rational choice in their body politic, and we may all suffer the consequences of their ignorance, selfishness and inertia.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: Intensecure on February 26, 2005, 12:23:00 AM

QUOTE(EverythingButAnAnswer @ Jan 12 2005, 09:50 PM)

For someone who seems to rely so heavily on science, you sure don't appear to know the basic fundamentals Darwinism. Evolution is capitalism, survival of the fittest (adapt; it is after all what humans do, it is natural)

Darwinism is about the survival of the species. And there are very many more poor people than rich people. And poor people breed more prodigiously than rich people. Ergo, poor people are the ideal of Darwinist principles. And capitalism has f all to do with it.

Title: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks
Post by: My_Brain_is_on_Fire on February 26, 2005, 02:27:00 AM

QUOTE(Intensecure @ Feb 26 2005, 07:29 AM)

Darwinism is about the survival of the species. And there are very many more poor people than rich people. And poor people breed more prodigiously than rich people. Ergo, poor people are the ideal of Darwinist principles. And capitalism has f all to do with it.