zmanzzzz

the supreme court rules ...

Recommended Posts

So, whatever is good enough for the Chinese is good enough for you. :D By the way, I omitted the fact you mention India and China together because it completely destroys the non-relevent statement I just made! :D:tup:

 

Fixed

 

:doh:

 

Never said that. What is good enough for the Chinese is good enough for... the friggen' Chinese! They don't give a sh!t about me, you OR our country.

 

The US has made amazing strides in cleaning up the environment and reducing the impact we have. There are still many areas that need improvement (see TVA post above for example), but as a 1st world nation, we are doing better than most.

 

I am actually benevolent to the whole "human-impact-on-the-world" thingy. We either screw it up for everyone, die off and (as said before) the cockroaches and rats take over, or go on for another million years or so before we inevitably become bio-genetically inviable as a species and go extinct anyway :D .

 

Oh and for all the other "innocent" living things that share the planet with us... We can write that off to an unfortunate evolationary timetable.

 

The reality is that someday, our sun will go supernova and we had all have better gotten to a different solar system by then. Our precious planet earth will have been reduced to a baked speck of sand at this point, irrelevant to the overall scheme of things. As we fly off to infect another "virgin" world, do you thing we will be taking two of everything with us on the spaceships? Do we have a "right" to impose our presence on another planet, or should we allow that one to continue on with its normal evolutionary course until that systems sun goes super nova?

 

This whole human "we are so important to everything" arrogance is such a hoot. We are only part of a larger, unstoppable system. Our presence as a species will not even be a blip on the galactic time-table. All we can do is our best to ensure our survival for as long as possible. We either do as a species, or kill ourselves off before the genetic bomb explodes.

 

Remember that there is one commonality between all living things past and present. They have either gone extinct or will go extinct. It is a basice premise of the "laws of nature".

 

Now on that happy note... Have a nice day! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the consensus of climate scientists regarding global warming, it' refreshing to see how many of us are informed and don't believe the socialist propoganda movement. We can no longer count on lobbyists and ignorance to determine our energy and environmental policies against the overwhelming power of the dirty hippies.

 

:highfive:

 

 

:D

 

There is a consensus of scientists that global warming is occurring - in fact a consensus isn't needed - it's a fact shown by recorded data. There is NO consensus of climate scientists that the global warming is due in a large (or only) part to the influence of man. Stop listening to Al Gore & the other idiots making these claims & get educated.

 

Did you know that temperatures on other planets in the solar system are also rising? I suppose that your argument is that man's pollution on Earth is so bad that it's actually flooding across millions of miles of space & affecting other planets, huh? There's a much better factual case for our planet warming due to natural cycles that have repeatedly occurred over the life of the Earth rather than anything that man and his puny insignificance can do to the Earth. Can man have an impact on the Earth's climate? Sure, but only a as very minor factor.

 

It sounds as though you need to get informed instead of listening to this ridiculous hoax and dismissing other more logical and factually supported arguments.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed

 

:D

 

Never said that. What is good enough for the Chinese is good enough for... the friggen' Chinese! They don't give a sh!t about me, you OR our country.

 

The US has made amazing strides in cleaning up the environment and reducing the impact we have. There are still many areas that need improvement (see TVA post above for example), but as a 1st world nation, we are doing better than most.

 

I am actually benevolent to the whole "human-impact-on-the-world" thingy. We either screw it up for everyone, die off and (as said before) the cockroaches and rats take over, or go on for another million years or so before we inevitably become bio-genetically inviable as a species and go extinct anyway :D .

 

Oh and for all the other "innocent" living things that share the planet with us... We can write that off to an unfortunate evolationary timetable.

 

The reality is that someday, our sun will go supernova and we had all have better gotten to a different solar system by then. Our precious planet earth will have been reduced to a baked speck of sand at this point, irrelevant to the overall scheme of things. As we fly off to infect another "virgin" world, do you thing we will be taking two of everything with us on the spaceships? Do we have a "right" to impose our presence on another planet, or should we allow that one to continue on with its normal evolutionary course until that systems sun goes super nova?

 

This whole human "we are so important to everything" arrogance is such a hoot. We are only part of a larger, unstoppable system. Our presence as a species will not even be a blip on the galactic time-table. All we can do is our best to ensure our survival for as long as possible. We either do as a species, or kill ourselves off before the genetic bomb explodes.

 

Remember that there is one commonality between all living things past and present. They have either gone extinct or will go extinct. It is a basice premise of the "laws of nature".

 

Now on that happy note... Have a nice day! :tup:

 

 

I see. Allow me to rephrase. Its all Armageddon anyway, so whatever is good enough for the Chinese and Indians is good enough for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

There is a consensus of scientists that global warming is occurring - in fact a consensus isn't needed - it's a fact shown by recorded data. There is NO consensus of climate scientists that the global warming is due in a large (or only) part to the influence of man. Stop listening to Al Gore & the other idiots making these claims & get educated.

 

Did you know that temperatures on other planets in the solar system are also rising? I suppose that your argument is that man's pollution on Earth is so bad that it's actually flooding across millions of miles of space & affecting other planets, huh? There's a much better factual case for our planet warming due to natural cycles that have repeatedly occurred over the life of the Earth rather than anything that man and his puny insignificance can do to the Earth. Can man have an impact on the Earth's climate? Sure, but only a as very minor factor.

 

It sounds as though you need to get informed instead of listening to this ridiculous hoax and dismissing other more logical and factually supported arguments.

 

step away from the crack pipe... u will think clearer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed

 

:tup:

 

Never said that. What is good enough for the Chinese is good enough for... the friggen' Chinese! They don't give a sh!t about me, you OR our country.

 

The US has made amazing strides in cleaning up the environment and reducing the impact we have. There are still many areas that need improvement (see TVA post above for example), but as a 1st world nation, we are doing better than most.

 

I am actually benevolent to the whole "human-impact-on-the-world" thingy. We either screw it up for everyone, die off and (as said before) the cockroaches and rats take over, or go on for another million years or so before we inevitably become bio-genetically inviable as a species and go extinct anyway :D .

 

Oh and for all the other "innocent" living things that share the planet with us... We can write that off to an unfortunate evolationary timetable.

 

The reality is that someday, our sun will go supernova and we had all have better gotten to a different solar system by then. Our precious planet earth will have been reduced to a baked speck of sand at this point, irrelevant to the overall scheme of things. As we fly off to infect another "virgin" world, do you thing we will be taking two of everything with us on the spaceships? Do we have a "right" to impose our presence on another planet, or should we allow that one to continue on with its normal evolutionary course until that systems sun goes super nova?

 

This whole human "we are so important to everything" arrogance is such a hoot. We are only part of a larger, unstoppable system. Our presence as a species will not even be a blip on the galactic time-table. All we can do is our best to ensure our survival for as long as possible. We either do as a species, or kill ourselves off before the genetic bomb explodes.

 

Remember that there is one commonality between all living things past and present. They have either gone extinct or will go extinct. It is a basice premise of the "laws of nature".

 

Now on that happy note... Have a nice day! :doh:

 

By this logic we should never try and improve or take action on anything. With several strokes of your keyboard, you have utterly destroyed any reason for any kind of progress. Left up to you, we should never have bothered moving out of caves "'cos we're all gonna die in 8,000,000 years anyway".

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

step away from the crack pipe... u will think clearer....

 

 

Rather than being so arrogantly dismissive, can you disprove anything I've posted? I'm not talking about hysterical Al Gore/Green Earth Movement/Blame Evil Corporations/Scared Mindless Nimrod ridiculous assertions - I'm talking about factual evidence that what I've posted is false.

 

I'll wait...

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than being so arrogantly dismissive, can you disprove anything I've posted? I'm not talking about hysterical Al Gore/Green Earth Movement/Scared Mindless Nimrod ridiculous assertions - I'm talking about factual evidence that what I've posted is false.

 

I'll wait...

 

We could post the graph showing CO2 quantities totally off the charts in complete defiance of any natural cycle over the last half million years. Or we could show the pace of Arctic melting and ice cap dissipation moving much faster than at any time in geological history. Or all sorts of other data all pointing in the same direction.

 

But what would be the point? I don't see you and your fellow ostriches taking any notice whatever data is produced. Much easier to just call environmentalists hippies and tree huggers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic humor has ruined the internet; I can't tell the sincerely moronic posts from the intentionally moronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than being so arrogantly dismissive, can you disprove anything I've posted? I'm not talking about hysterical Al Gore/Green Earth Movement/Blame Evil Corporations/Scared Mindless Nimrod ridiculous assertions - I'm talking about factual evidence that what I've posted is false.

 

I'll wait...

 

 

 

Actually, BB, the irony here is that the problem with your argument is the same problem that the uber-environmentalist, Al Gore has: Attributing all the cause of global warming to one set of factors, while completely discounting others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could post the graph showing CO2 quantities totally off the charts in complete defiance of any natural cycle over the last half million years. Or we could show the pace of Arctic melting and ice cap dissipation moving much faster than at any time in geological history. Or all sorts of other data all pointing in the same direction.

 

But what would be the point? I don't see you and your fellow ostriches taking any notice whatever data is produced. Much easier to just call environmentalists hippies and tree huggers.

 

 

You mean this chart?

 

LINK

 

Tell me, if humans caused the CO2 levels to rise so much in the past 150 yrs, what caused them to rise to almost the exact same amounts 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, and 330,000 years ago? Mammoth crap decay? The graph I'm looking at that you referenced show a very repeatable pattern, and we're now at a point where CO2 levels ought to be as high as they are now according to those patterns. Have you actually looked at the chart that you're talking about & have no way of identifying easily discernable patterns, or are you just repeating someone's else's baseless assertion?

 

How about the documented increase in the Antarctic ice levels? Have you read about those facts also? Oh, that's right, that's due to the same global warming that has caused the melting of the Arctic ice. :D

 

Scientists do NOT agree with the causation of the data collected - and to simply assume one group is right because you feel the need to blame the progress of man for everything bad in the natural world is assinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, BB, the irony here is that the problem with your argument is the same problem that the uber-environmentalist, Al Gore has: Attributing all the cause of global warming to one set of factors, while completely discounting others.

 

yup

 

keep waiting but don't stare int the sun to long you will go blind BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, BB, the irony here is that the problem with your argument is the same problem that the uber-environmentalist, Al Gore has: Attributing all the cause of global warming to one set of factors, while completely discounting others.

 

 

I don't dismiss any argument. I do ask someone to offer more proof than rantings from ultra-leftist Greenies when there is significant debate within the scientific community, and there is hardly any consensus amongst credible scientists as to the degrees of different causations of global warming, as much as the eco-nuts want to assert that there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean this chart?

 

LINK

 

 

Scientists do NOT agree with the causation of the data collected - and to simply assume one group is right because you feel the need to blame the progress of man for everything bad in the natural world is assinine.

 

mmmm not sure anyone here is doing that but u are saying or implying that man has no or little effect witch makes u a wetoad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup

 

keep waiting but don't stare int the sun to long you will go blind BB

 

 

I thought that you were looking for proof to rebut my assertions? Or is it that you can't find any and so you just continue you juvenile stupidness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If we did start something, shall we say, “bad”, it is probably too late to do anything about it and we will have to ride it out. Just wait until India and China become fully industrialized. You think they are gonna pull the plug on advancement just because we say so? They say, “You got yours, shut up!” :D

 

 

 

No - but how about we push into green technology, succeed at producing it on a massive scale, bring the cost of it production down and then sell it to them as their alternative as well?

 

Whatever happened to the 'bong on a smokestack' guy that Az posted on last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people that believe in global warming being caused by humans could set some kind of example by stop driving and using electricity and basically breathing out that deadly gas. Maybe you'll decrease the carbon dioxide levels enough the rest of us non-believers will follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic humor has ruined the internet; I can't tell the sincerely moronic posts from the intentionally moronic.

 

 

Many times around this place it's really not worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean this chart?

 

LINK

 

Tell me, if humans caused the CO2 levels to rise so much in the past 150 yrs, what caused them to rise to almost the exact same amounts 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, and 330,000 years ago? Mammoth crap decay? The graph I'm looking at that you referenced show a very repeatable pattern, and we're now at a point where CO2 levels ought to be as high as they are now according to those patterns. Have you actually looked at the chart that you're talking about & have no way of identifying easily discernable patterns, or are you just repeating someone's else's baseless assertion?

 

 

BB. I suggest you stop right now before you make a complete arse of yourself. Take a look over at the right hand side. You will see a number. It says 377, in white numbers in a black box. It is a measure of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and is at the top of a spike sticking vertically up from the current cycle. The four natural cycles present all top out at roughly 285, until the last century or so.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a good look before posting next time, mmmkay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmm not sure anyone here is doing that but u are saying or implying that man has no or little effect witch makes u a wetoad...

 

 

It's hard to believe, but your debating skills are actually worse than your spelling and grammar skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that you were looking for proof to rebut my assertions? Or is it that you can't find any and so you just continue you juvenile stupidness?

 

ill go with the juvenile stupidness its the only thing you will hear and what exactly are you're assertions... that left wing nutty's are wrong, that they are over stating things, that science isn't real.... let me know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to believe, but your debating skills are actually worse than your spelling and grammar skills.

 

ma gramer is fine as are the uther too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB. I suggest you stop right now before you make a complete arse of yourself. Take a look over at the right hand side. You will see a number. It says 377, in white numbers in a black box. It is a measure of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and is at the top of a spike sticking vertically up from the current cycle. The four natural cycles present all top out at roughly 285, until the last century or so.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a good look before posting next time, mmmkay?

 

 

Let me ask you a couple of simple questions:

 

1) Have historical CO2 levels ever been as high or higher than they are currently?

 

2) Is there any proof that higher CO2 levels are harmful to the environment? Is there any proof that higher CO2 levels are beneficil to the environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB. I suggest you stop right now before you make a complete arse of yourself. Take a look over at the right hand side. You will see a number. It says 377, in white numbers in a black box. It is a measure of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and is at the top of a spike sticking vertically up from the current cycle. The four natural cycles present all top out at roughly 285, until the last century or so.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a good look before posting next time, mmmkay?

 

 

Do you drive a combustible engine? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB. I suggest you stop right now before you make a complete arse of yourself. Take a look over at the right hand side. You will see a number. It says 377, in white numbers in a black box. It is a measure of CO2 in the atmosphere right now and is at the top of a spike sticking vertically up from the current cycle. The four natural cycles present all top out at roughly 285, until the last century or so.

 

Do yourself a favor and take a good look before posting next time, mmmkay?

 

 

pwned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pwned

 

 

That would be true if the debate were over. I'm waiting for a response to a couple of very simple questions.

 

We haven't even gotten to the tougher questions, like why we are so worried about CO2 when the large predominance of global warming through atmospheric causes is related to water vapor, which human activity has little to no effect upon over a global scale. Or why we should be concerned about higher CO2 levels when scientific studies have shown that plants flourish in higher CO2 levels, are more weather resistant, that higher CO2 levels significantly aid agricultural productivity and greatly aid in the growth of rain forests.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.