This is too much reading, I have to go take a dump!!!
This guy is an MIT physicist.
Check out his blog. He has tons of stuff about GW and he is a skeptic.
He uses facts and reality to destroy most of the myths and hype that the media reports.
Another MIT Scientist not buying into the doom and gloom.
He doesn’t receive any funding from oil companies either.
[quote]unforgiven2 wrote:
This is too much reading, I have to go take a dump!!![/quote]
just print out this thread and you can use that to wipe your butt.
Toilet paper? Who still uses toilet paper? Flushable wet wipes are where it’s at!
Wipe your ass with toilet paper and when you are done, use a wet wipe. You’ll be amazed at how much sh*t the wet wipe cleans up. And that’s after you clean with toilet paper.
Try’em, your ass will thank you.
dont know if anyone has posted it, but i know im not alone here, if i were to use 1 sheet of toilet paper, my hand would go straight through the fucking thing what a dumb wench
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity![/quote]
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
[/quote]
Yes. A select few billion that have been lucky enough to be exposed to it.
Just thought I would point out that the last time the earth went through its cycle we weren’t there to record what happened. So the scientists may be correct in saying that everything is worse than in any HUMAN history.
But they don’t really know what happened 6 billion years ago its a guess. And although we may be speeding the process or not, life will go on. Always has always will. So stop all your bitchin’ cause the damage is done already the changes are happening weather we want them to or not. (End Rant)
Oh and as far as TP goes one square of this college sand paper singly ply “toilet paper” ain’t going to do it.
no probs, it would have to be one frikkin long piece though
[quote]Reyno109 wrote:
Just thought I would point out that the last time the earth went through its cycle we weren’t there to record what happened. So the scientists may be correct in saying that everything is worse than in any HUMAN history.
But they don’t really know what happened 6 billion years ago its a guess. And although we may be speeding the process or not, life will go on. Always has always will. So stop all your bitchin’ cause the damage is done already the changes are happening weather we want them to or not. (End Rant)
[/quote]
You get it. Good job.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
…
NOt sure what allegations you are referring to.
…
No allegations. Truth. The IPCC is run by the UN. They get a bunch of scientists around the world to look at the issue. They collect data and submit a report.
The UN then doctors the reports conclusions, makes it heavy on doom and gloom and issues it. The press then discusses the doom and gloom “conclusion” written by the UN politicians and ignores the report written by the scientists themselves.
I can give you a quick summary if you would like.
There is no scientific consensus. Nobody know what is going on. Some scientists claim this is a natural cycle. Some claim it is a manmade problem. Some say it is a combination. Some say we are entering a cooling cycle.
Some say warming will benefit humanity. Some say it will be harmful. Some say it is a total non-issue and they do not want to waste their lives working on it so they move on to other things.[/quote]
I agree with you…but only to a very limited extent. It is true that the IPCC report is not independantly audited. However,I dont believe that affects the accuracy of what they have found. Neither do I believe that they purposefully make it heavy on doom and gloom.
Look at it like this; how could it possibly serve the interests of the UN to emphasis the doom and gloom aspect of the reports? It would be FAR easier for any organisation to pretend that global warming is not a real problem. It is a BIG problem for the member states of the UN to accept global warming because, in doing so, they are placed under an obligation to introduce massive changes. What possible reason could they have for unduly emphasising the negative aspects of the report?
furthermore, pretty much every single government has accepted the legitmacy and conclusions of the science of the IPCC report. This includes Bush, who has previously been one of the biggest opponenets of the idea of climate change. What possible alternate agenda could he have for accepting the reports?
You stated that there is no scientific consensus on the issue. I would disagree with this. I have stated it several times already the level of support that the concept of GLobal Warming has…governements, pretty musch every body set up on the subject, the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists. I ask for the same level of evidence in support of the arguments I have heard and so far, nobody has come close to providing it.
Several people have posted individual fact such as methane from cows and asked ‘well what about this, this proves you are wrong’. well, as I said, I cant refute every fact that is thrown at me since I am not an expert. However, I CAN reflect what the MASSIVE and overwhelming body of scientific evidence etc etc etc is saying. I am quite sure they factored facts like that into their equations when they were coming to their conclusions.
In your defence, Zap, you posted two sources of information. However, this fits exactly with what I have been saying before. The only “sources” of evidence for the theories that I have heard here are the views individual scientists. This is compared against the huge body of independant evidence, studies and overwhelming majority of scientific opinion from the other side.
Yet, skeptics choose to believe the argument which has the least amount and least quality of scientific support. Please cite the ‘methodically explained’ and ‘peer reviewed’ studies which refute what I have said.
One example of the conssensus you deny springs to mind. In 2004 there was a study which took a RANDOM sample of 900+ such studies. do you know how many disagreed with the idea that humans have SIGNIFICANTLY altered the climate and global warming was man made? Exactly zero…
You state that I am not well versed in the argument since I stated that Russia supports what I have said, and Russian scientists are among the sceptics. Well, I was referring to the russian state, which most certainly DOES support the idea of global warming.
I was citing their support as an illustration that even those who have a huge amount to lose (oil revenue) are supporting it. I have no doubt that some russian scientists are skeptics…but again, these are individuals. Again, no peer reviewed research.
You could sit there all day citing examples of indivudual scientists that are sceptics but the fact remains that these are only individuals.
Here is my summary:
Massive majority, governments, scientisits, independant bodies, intergovernmental bodies, studies etc etc etc (all i have mentioned before) accept the idea of global warming and that it is a serious and mad made problem. NONE of these people have any possible interest (monetary or otherwise) in supporting this idea.
SOME scientists disagree. However, NO independant and peer reviewed studies exist to support their theories (at least non I have ever come across) In comparison to the body of evidence in favour of the proponents of global warming, the amount and quality of evidence in favour of the sceptics is astronomically small.
Can we prove that GLobal Warming exists??? No, we cant. I never suggested we could. the only thing we can do is analyze the data and best try to interpret. And so far, the data and studies have overwhelmingly said that Global warming is a REAL and MAN MADE problem.
I think she just likes to feel her finger tickling her ass, so she only uses one sheet to justify that. Techically, if you fold a sheet of toilet paper 4 times you can get away with one sheet, but your finger will smell like your shit. Yes, I have tried this.
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
…
Look at it like this; how could it possibly serve the interests of the UN to emphasis the doom and gloom aspect of the reports? …
[/quote]
You have to understand that the UN is all about redistributing wealth to the poorer nations. They are setting up a system of carbon credits where the manufacturing nations will pay the non manufacturaing nations for theri carbon credits.
There are a lot of people with a lot of money tied up in this. Al Gore has put himself right in the middle of trading credits.
Most governments are happy to pretend to go along because it gives them more power over their people. If you will notice there are plenty of governments that are pledging to reduce CO2 emissions yet none of them are.
The politics are way ahead of the science on this one.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
…
NOt sure what allegations you are referring to.
…
No allegations. Truth. The IPCC is run by the UN. They get a bunch of scientists around the world to look at the issue. They collect data and submit a report.
The UN then doctors the reports conclusions, makes it heavy on doom and gloom and issues it. [/quote]
The anti-industrial revolution?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
God bless capitalism and God bless industry, the two great benefactors of humanity!
If you mean a certain SELECT FEW in humanity then I might agree with you.
[/quote]
Most of us are alive today because of capitalism. Capitalists need someone to sell things to. They therefore employ people to produce those things, since you can’t sell things you don’t have. Everyone benefits.
GW is the public face of the Anti-Industrial Revolution, which the elites of the world want. They want to be medieval kings and barons. They introduce socialism and communism into societies to enslave the society. Who wants a bunch of employed people or small businessmen who aren’t dependent on the government? They can’t be easily ruled.
Do you think that socialism and communism were introduced to benefit the common man? LMAO!!!
Capitalism is humanity at its best!!!
Are corn cobs coming back? Now with ethanol becoming popular, there will be lots more corn cobs available over toilet tissue.
And…like the little dog said when the farmer rubbed a corn cob across his ass: ‘Ruff, ruff!!’
"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent “Thank you” to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find."
– “The Anti-Industrial Revolution,” The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution. — AYN RAND
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
WEll, pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist on the entire earth would disagree[/quote]
When you start with a ridiculous sentiment like this it’s hard to take the rest of your statement too seriously.
There are a number of highly-respected scientists who have come out on the opposite side of your scientists.
Others have cited sources yet you retort with things like
[quote]pretty much every single RESPECTED scientist…[/quote].
Please don’t expect to be taken seriously when you enter an argument based on science and rely on hyperbole to make your points.
[quote]kroby wrote:
WHAT? The past four volcanic eruptions have loosed more “greenhouse” gasses than all of human history.[/quote]
Where are you getting this from? According to the USGS:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992).
This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)
[ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
from http://tinyurl.com/3hasm
or Understanding volcanic hazards can save lives | U.S. Geological Survey