[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are you of the opinion that climate change poses no threat to life as we know it?[/quote]
Yes.
What are the implications really?
Receding coastline? How far will it recede? And how quickly? I’m pretty sure we’ll see the ocean coming.
From 1900 until now the sea level has risen by like 7 inches or something. You’ll forgive me if I’m not shakin in my boots.[/quote]
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are you of the opinion that climate change poses no threat to life as we know it?[/quote]
Yes.
What are the implications really?
Receding coastline? How far will it recede? And how quickly? I’m pretty sure we’ll see the ocean coming.
From 1900 until now the sea level has risen by like 7 inches or something. You’ll forgive me if I’m not shakin in my boots.[/quote]
What about more severe weather events/patterns? What about massive droughts, powerful, more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes? What about not being prepared at all for any of it? What about allowing people to continually build along vulnerable coastal areas, knowing that when each house crumbles into the ocean it represents an ever-increasing rise in insurance costs for everyone else?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What about more severe weather events/patterns? What about massive droughts, powerful, more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes? What about not being prepared at all for any of it? What about allowing people to continually build along vulnerable coastal areas, knowing that when each house crumbles into the ocean it represents an ever-increasing rise in insurance costs for everyone else?[/quote]
Yeah that’s a whole other can of worms. I will say I haven’t looked into the extent that weather events like those are caused by either co2 or warming climate. What could we realistically even do though?
Pittbull, you know “The Earth” is, like, just a big fucking rock, right? Things have been smashing into it (like the thing that created the fucking Moon), and burning it, and growing on it and dying on it for, like, billions of years, right? … and she just keeps chugging along, quaking and letting out sulphur farts that kill some of the parasites now again.
Mountains come and go. Oceans come and go. Climate gets hot and cold. Species come and go.
“The Earth” will do just fine.
I think you may be anthropomorphosizing (is that a word?) your pet rock a little too much.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are you of the opinion that climate change poses no threat to life as we know it?[/quote]
Yes.
What are the implications really?
Receding coastline? How far will it recede? And how quickly? I’m pretty sure we’ll see the ocean coming.
From 1900 until now the sea level has risen by like 7 inches or something. You’ll forgive me if I’m not shakin in my boots.[/quote]
What about more severe weather events/patterns? What about massive droughts, powerful, more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes? What about not being prepared at all for any of it? What about allowing people to continually build along vulnerable coastal areas, knowing that when each house crumbles into the ocean it represents an ever-increasing rise in insurance costs for everyone else?[/quote]
LOL there’s an old saying here behind the Maple Curtain in the People’s Republic of Maine:
“You know the difference between an evil developer and an environmentalist? An evil developer wants to build a house on the coast. An environmentalist already has one.”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Uh, no. I think you should familiarize yourself with the concept of “sedimentary rock” before you go any further. And roughly 2.5 billion years ago, the Earth was covered almost completely by water. The only real debate in the science community is how quickly the continents emerged and lessened the amount of water coverage and at what exact time this occurred. But literally no one is debating that Earth was at some point almost all water. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that it was almost completely covered by ice as well at one point.
Also, fossils of sea life have been found in mountains nowhere near present-day oceans, buried in sedimentary rock.[/quote]
DB - “Fossils of sea life … in mountains…”
That’s a line that literal “Creationists” use to make the case for “The Flood”. Those fossils are there through tectonic mountain building (ie. orogeny) and other mechanisms, not that the oceans were ever that high.
Using the point that (paraphrasing) ‘The Earth was almost completely covered in water’, is kind of misleading. The Earth was completely molten at one point before. Then, when it started to cool, it would have been completely dry. Now, since life has been around, it’s probably safe to say that at some points it’s been more covered and less covered than others. It’s about 3/4 covered now (what’s a few percentage points amongst friends?)
Meh.
I apologize for invoking the word “Creationist”.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is hard to communicate with some one that has exclusive meanings to words. [/quote]
Not too sure I understand what you are driving at. I don’t have exclusive meanings for words. You just don’t know the definitions of very many words period. One is not equal to the other.
Yet these majestic creatures will strike at injection molded plastic with hooks dangling from them. If you catch them at the right time, you can catch them as fast as you can reel one in and cast your line out again.
Which is why it is glaringly apparent that you command a level of economic ignorance which prevents you from being anything but a laughing stock when you attempt lecture someone with an MBA who also happens to specialize in farm and ranch management issues.
Cost is a function of supply and demand. This is particularly true in the case of agriculturally produced commodities. People must have food. There is nothing one can substitute for food to gain the same utility.
Shorter version: people must eat. When there is a ton of food to choose from food costs are low. When food supplies are tight - the cost of food goes up. People can’t substitute anything for food like they can - say - streaming a movie for free versus paying to go to the movie theater. Nor can they just quit eating until the price comes down. People must eat, and when the supply is short, they will pay more for the food they must have to survive.
To say that food costs have nothing to do with supply is - well - just plain ignorant.
The earth is an inanimate object. Therefore, it is utterly ambivalent with regards to geo political donkey dung.
So politics trumps everything. My friend, you are completely clueless. It’s not that my fingers are in my ears - it is that your head is up your ass.
Your semantical tap dance aside, I know precisely what I am disagreeing about, and with whom. One more free lesson: Try using complete sentences, or if that isn’t feasible, try to complete a thought.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
How does one walk on human rights by collecting information?
What is private enterprise?
What is a nitch?
Who would fund the government if there were no “private enterprise” (whatever that is)?
[/quote]
I love this post it shows the true intellectual midget that you are :)[/quote]
just for you pig ,
@pig just because Bass strike at injected molded plastic lures does not make them less than any other species . I think i have to remind you that it is a fish
You keep inferring I do not get something that you do about the economy , please tell me what you perceive that to be ?
your post about your head up your ass and my ability to dance are silly , if I have disparaged some one for their belief in God please bump or cut and paste . Thanks I know you can’t do it because it doesn’t exist
A little economic reading for you , I know it is probably a liberal rag
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are you of the opinion that climate change poses no threat to life as we know it?[/quote]
Yes.
What are the implications really?
Receding coastline? How far will it recede? And how quickly? I’m pretty sure we’ll see the ocean coming.
From 1900 until now the sea level has risen by like 7 inches or something. You’ll forgive me if I’m not shakin in my boots.[/quote]
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!![/quote]
FUCK THE CHILDREN!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@pig just because Bass strike at injected molded plastic lures does not make them less than any other species . I think i have to remind you that it is a fish [/quote]
Didn’t say they were less…they just tend to mistake injected plastic and metal hooks for food. Kinda like you mistake anything progressive for factual information.
I explained what you don’t understand quite clearly. Perhaps you should read.
Not nearly as silly as your contention that I have my fingers in my ears. If you haven’t said anything about religion - then my bad. Given your level of groupthink-itis, it was a rational assumption to make.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
Requires a login. I don’t offer my email addresses up to radical progressive propagandists.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
DB - “Fossils of sea life … in mountains…”
That’s a line that literal “Creationists” use to make the case for “The Flood”. Those fossils are there through tectonic mountain building (ie. orogeny) and other mechanisms, not that the oceans were ever that high.
[/quote]
What you’ve failed to realize is that literal creationists believe that tectonic mountain building is THE reason for those fossils being found there and NOT that the oceans were ever that high.
Tsk. Tsk.
Come now and let us reason together.
[/quote]
Some literal Creationists.
You have to understand that there isn’t one unifying Creationist interpretation, or maybe better stated, that’s not the consistent debate point I’ve ever heard from ‘all Creationists’. The Bible would be the ‘unifying document’.
We can take this to any of the other 999999 Creationist threads as not to derail this one if you want, my good friend.
Now that I think about it, I think I’d like to explore your ‘literal creationist tectonics theory’ a bit more in another thread. I don’t want to debate or change your mind or anything, but I’d like to hear your perspective on it as the idea of ‘tectonics’ is relatively young in science and I’d think that interpretation wouldn’t have been around very long.
Again, sorry to the OP and Climate junkies for this slight derailment. I knew the word “Creationist” was a hot button word.
#thirdrail
yup
[quote]Waittz wrote:
yup[/quote]
Ahhh, man’s consistent inability to truly understand its own limitations.
On topic sections: men can only get so big, we have set limits
PWI: Man can literally control the Earth and create a better world
And may I ask, what are the costs of this “better” world?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
yup[/quote]
Ahhh, man’s consistent inability to truly understand its own limitations.
On topic sections: men can only get so big, we have set limits
PWI: Man can literally control the Earth and create a better world
And may I ask, what are the costs of this “better” world?[/quote]
Very interesting question that I will not directly answer. Here is my humble opinion. First the cost is irrelivant because if one assumes man can control the earth to any extent on purpose, one is assuming all of mankind work together as a whole. This is a bold and again in my opinion, inacurate description of man. Since humankind do not work together, think the same way, act and behave in a uniform manner or work in the same view of best interest(key point) man as a general term to describe humans cant control anything.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I explained what you don’t understand quite clearly. Perhaps you should read.
[/quote]
What specifically don’t I understand quite clearly ?
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@pig just because Bass strike at injected molded plastic lures does not make them less than any other species . I think i have to remind you that it is a fish [/quote]
Didn’t say they were less…they just tend to mistake injected plastic and metal hooks for food. Kinda like you mistake anything progressive for factual information.
I explained what you don’t understand quite clearly. Perhaps you should read.
Not nearly as silly as your contention that I have my fingers in my ears. If you haven’t said anything about religion - then my bad. Given your level of groupthink-itis, it was a rational assumption to make.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis
Requires a login. I don’t offer my email addresses up to radical progressive propagandists.
[/quote]
It did not require a password last night , here is another link , same story What Goldman Sachs should admit: it drives up the cost of food | Deborah Doane | The Guardian
The articles are about the way Goldman Sachs taxes our food supply and I know it is free enterprise 