OT: Why I hate hippies and the french! [Archive]

SanHeChuan

07-25-2007, 09:19 PM

Siu Lum Fighter So...what's causing the more than obviously bizarre weather trends again?? Oh, ya I forgot, it's just...natural. It's natural that the Amazon rainforest is now DRYING UP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344310.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7gpAy4ivZ0
I suppose the whole environmental movement is just an advertising campaign for solar panel manufacturers and eco-friendly products too, right??

Penn and his deaf-mute, little sidekick are a couple of tools.

obviously bizarre weather trends :rolleyes: Well Obviously :rolleyes:

You video said Deforestation and "Global warming" are causing the Amazon to Dry up. That contracts my videos how? My videos don't say global warming doesn't exists, just that it's not anthropogenic.

F_ck'n hippies... :(

Oh and you know what else the Brazilian government is cutting down the Rain forest for? Sugar cane crops, for the Production of Ethanol to replace CO2 producing fossil fuels. But that's OK because Fossil fuels are so bad we don't have to think about the consequences of alternative fuels, right? :rolleyes:

WinterPalm

07-25-2007, 09:44 PM

So...what's causing the more than obviously bizarre weather trends again?? Oh, ya I forgot, it's just...natural. It's natural that the Amazon rainforest is now DRYING UP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344310.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7gpAy4ivZ0
I suppose the whole environmental movement is just an advertising campaign for solar panel manufacturers and eco-friendly products too, right??

Penn and his deaf-mute, little sidekick are a couple of tools.

It's all natural! Removing all the forests. Consuming too much, having too much garbage.
Jeez, that's what the dinosaurs did and they did fine. The T-Rex even became a chicken!
Humans and their culture have had a very drastic effect on the planet. Look at everything we've used up. Areas that are so polluted. Landfills. It doesn't take a scientist to look outside on a hazy day in Toronto where nobody can go out due to smog warnings that we, humans, have done something very wrong to the planet!

Ben Gash

07-25-2007, 11:47 PM

But that's part of the debate, the global warming agenda has pushed aside every other environmental issue. Reduction of smog, landfill, pollution etc are very important issues, which have direct measurable effects.
I think people should perhaps watch the documentary before they comment on it, instead of churning out stuff that's addressed in the film :rolleyes:

Siu Lum Fighter

07-26-2007, 12:19 AM

originally quoted by SanHeChuan
obviously bizarre weather trends Well Obviously

You video said Deforestation and "Global warming" are causing the Amazon to Dry up. That contracts my videos how? My videos don't say global warming doesn't exists, just that it's not anthropogenic.

F_ck'n hippies...

Oh and you know what else the Brazilian government is cutting down the Rain forest for? Sugar cane crops, for the Production of Ethanol to replace CO2 producing fossil fuels. But that's OK because Fossil fuels are so bad we don't have to think about the consequences of alternative fuels, right?
Well, let's see, my video would "contract" (how you could mistake a 'c' for an 's' dumb@ss:rolleyes:) your video because the fact that humans are causing the deforestation makes it anthropogenic, doesn't it George?
And more forest is cut down for cattle ranches than sugar cane.

F_ck'n fascists...

PangQuan

07-26-2007, 10:47 AM

hippies hate death metal. we must get to the center and play raining blood by slayer.

Jeff Hanneman is a guitar god. Hes right up there with Stevie Ray Vaughan, only speed metal.

Slayer is music for people who like to nail farm animals to trees.fixed that one for ya. :D

synack

07-26-2007, 12:14 PM

I like how people attack the messenger by calling them "Hippies" instead of discussing the issues.

I guess all those scientists are hippies all smoking pot and getting their free love on. :rolleyes:

Oso

07-26-2007, 06:04 PM

Ban Babies.

Seriously.

We're full.

There is a leftover genetic impulse to procreate that is irrelevent in today's world.

Stop producing humans and the need for everything else will naturally dissipate.

SanHeChuan

07-26-2007, 07:18 PM

Well, let's see, my video would "contract" (how you could mistake a 'c' for an 's' dumb@ss) your

See now your the dumb@ss because I didn't mistake a 'c' for an 's' because I meant to write "contradict". You can't even correct me correctly. :p

your video because the fact that humans are causing the deforestation makes it anthropogenic, doesn't it George?

Well yes deforestation is anthropogenic, are you trying to draw a connection between "global warming and deforestation"? If so, how so? Otherwise I don't see how your point is relevant to this discussion. Did you even watch the videos?

And more forest is cut down for cattle ranches than sugar cane.

Again how is your point relevant. Are you trying to argue that emissions from cows are responsible for "global warming"?

You are off on some tangent and need to make your self more clear. It makes it easier for me to tear you down that way.

synack I like how people attack the messenger by calling them "Hippies" instead of discussing the issues.

I am discussing the issues, but I have to draw people in to the discussion. I posted videos contradicting the popular claim of anthropogenic "global warming", once people try to argue a point against the film and it's ideas, we'll have a discussion.

Care to take a shot? ... Hippie ... ;)

Oh and in this case I am the messenger.

I guess all those scientists are hippies all smoking pot and getting their free love on.

Which scientist? The ones in the video? Do you even know whose side you on? Do you need to take remedial reading comprehension? :confused:

The hippies are the Bah Bah sheep, and the IPCC is the shepard.

greendragon

07-26-2007, 11:25 PM

Hippies don't care what morons think.
Some hippies can kick your ass. Believe it.
To hate anyone only destoys yourself.

synack

07-27-2007, 04:14 AM

No problems with comprehension over here, maybe you need to take a look in the mirror? I'm definitely not a hippie, I've cut down about 20 trees on my property this year, shooting is one of my favorite hobbies and I hate taxes. But hey if the title makes you feel fuzzy inside, go ahead and toss it around.

But what do I know? I believe pollution might be a bad thing to breathe which I guess makes me a hippie :rolleyes:

Step away from the keyboard and turn down the AM Radio.

Oso

07-27-2007, 05:29 AM

Just ban humans, period.

Then the ursinoids will finally rule all as intended in the first place.

Fuzzly

07-27-2007, 05:47 AM

"Well yes deforestation is anthropogenic, are you trying to draw a connection between "global warming and deforestation"? If so, how so? Otherwise I don't see how your point is relevant to this discussion. Did you even watch the videos?"

Deforestation is much related to global warming.

GLW

07-27-2007, 07:14 AM

Just what the hell is a Hippie?

I had long hair in the 60's and early 70's. I was anti-Viet Nam war. I didn't like Nixon. I listened to Woodstock music (and there have been very few folks who come close to what was created then musically)

I was and still am essentially non-violent and try to be green....but at the same time, I usually only turn the other cheek to position myself better to hit back.

And what REALLY is the downside to assuming that Climat Change is real and that our irresponsible behavior contributes to it? Hmmm...let me see, we would limit pollution, greenhouse gases, curtail deforestation, try to be more fuel efficient, try to leave as clean a planet as possible for our kids... Hmmm... Aside from the fact that many of these things cost more in the short term...but less in the long run, have I mentioned anything that is really NOT a good goal to have?

Man is one of the only creatures on this planet that will sh!t where he eats....

rogue

07-27-2007, 07:39 AM

The only one who stinks more on guitar than Jeff Hanneman is Kerry King. Hes right up there with Sanjaya, only speed metal.

fixed that one for ya. :D

PangQuan

07-27-2007, 10:37 AM

fixed that one for ya. :D

rofl !!!!!!

SanHeChuan

07-27-2007, 01:10 PM

greendragon Hippies don't care what morons think.

Care to put your ideas where your mouth is? All I hear is a bunch of crying "stupid head call me a hippie..." Whatever, get over it. If you have some kind of valid point to add to this discussion then give it. Otherwise I am left to assume that I am indeed intellectually superior to you. :p

synack No problems with comprehension over here,

Then clairify the direction of your comments. :confused:

synack I guess all those scientists are hippies all smoking pot and getting their free love on.

Which scientist? The ones in the video? The IPPC? Who are YOU talking about?

Fuzzly Deforestation is much related to global warming.

Well you got a thesis, care to back it up with some research, or are you just going with your gut on this one?

COME ON PEOPLE, I NEED SOME FUEL FOR THE FIRE OF DEBATE, NOT A BUNCHING OF WINNING OVER THE HARDLY OFFENSIVE "HIPPIE" CALLING. :rolleyes:

Becca

07-27-2007, 02:13 PM

I like how people attack the messenger by calling them "Hippies" instead of discussing the issues.

I guess all those scientists are hippies all smoking pot and getting their free love on. :rolleyes:
No, all those scientists put some time in thinking things through before commiting to something. The avaerage hippy does not.:)

GLW

07-27-2007, 02:22 PM

Again, what the F is a hippie...

Back in the day, we referred to ourselves a Freaks, humorously as "Long Haired Hippie Freaks" but I never knew anyone that called themselves a Hippie just straight like that.

So what IS a hippie?

There were Flower Children - they were more the wide eyed folks from Neverland.

Fu-Pow

07-27-2007, 06:04 PM

Information on quoted/interviewed scientists and speakers featured in this doc:

Climate scientists featured in the doc (w/ some selected quotes):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

More recently, in a publication in the series Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy he said:[5]

* "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation."

* Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv

"Recently Nir Shaviv’s Solar Hypothesis has been disputed by new analysis of the sun’s output over the last 25 years, which shows that the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985 while global temperature have continued to rise at an accelerating pace.

Nir Shaviv has tried to rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and their effect on the Earth's climate. But Professor Lockwood's data, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.

Professor Lockwood dismissed Nir Shaviv’s claim as "disingenuous".

"Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It's only been invoked now as a way out," he said."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark

In 2004 Clark wrote a letter to the Editor of the The Hill Times saying:
“ That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"Wall Street Journal (June 11, 2001), Lindzen stated that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college." [4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wunsch

"I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the climate wars because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise... I am on record in a number of places as complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [2] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

"He has received financial support in research funding and consulting fees from the fossil-fuel energy industry.[9] He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association."

?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Not climate scientists:

-Philip Scott (Professor of Biogeography)
-James Skikwati (Economist and Author)
-Nigel Calder (Former Editor New Scientist)
-Lord Lawson of Blaby
-http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
-Professor Paul Reiter (entymologist)
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz
-Paul Driesen, author

Fuzzly

07-27-2007, 07:06 PM

I'm going to explain this as if talking to someone whose never had a biology course, I honestly don't mean to offend, but this will offer a good chance to find any mistakes I might make.

Plants use photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which CO2, sunlight, and water are turned into energy for the plant, in the form of sugar, with oxygen and water as products as well.

Plants/forests are also great carbon sinks. Since much of a plant is carbon. Burning these plants releases this carbon into the atmosphere.

Deforestation means less plants.

Part of the greenhouse effect is created by CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 helps hold energy that would normally be lost from the sun due to reflection. Greenhouse gases act as an insulator. There are other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and methane.

We can in fact see the effect plants have on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When the Northern hemisphere is in it's winter months, the CO2 levels are higher than when it is in it's summer months. This is due to most of the Earth's vegetation being in the Northern hemisphere. Winter=less photosynthesis.

So, we can see the relationship between the amount of photosynthesis going on and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So here's a rundown.

Less photosynthesis=More CO2 in the atmoshpere.

Less plants=less photosynthesis.

Less plants=More CO2 in the atmosphere.

More CO2 in the atmosphere=More energy stored in the atmosphere

More energy stored in the atmosphere=higher global temp.

greendragon

07-27-2007, 11:08 PM

There is no global warming.
There was no war in Viet Nam.
George Bush is not a criminal.
Genetically altered food is safe.
All fights end up on the ground.
Stupid Hippies are perpetrating a complex campaign of disinformation.

The Willow Sword

07-28-2007, 07:40 AM

is why i do not care for the conservative right wing propaganda machine whose only main concern is to privatize and christianize everything and live in a jaded bubble world and be apathetic to the real issues out there like environment and the very planet we live on. its all about money for them and how to aqquire more of it by any means necessary, they have this biblical " we dominate everything" attitude and they discount everything else because it doesnt jive with their political and religious agendas(and the same can be said for the left wing as well who are so wrapped up in their own political agendas)

You can put down the hippie culture all you want but it still doesnt change the fact that our planet is heating up, and all this rain we are having in Texas is a prime example of the countering effects that the warming trends are having on our environment. The science is there to support it and the science is there to refute it(which seems strange to me and tells you something about science itself). so which science is better? The science that states that it is all a bunch of horsesh!t and we should do NOTHING, or the science that states that there is DEFINATELY something going on and we need to do something about it lest we make it increasingly more difficult for humans and everything else to live on the planet?

I for one feel it is useless to blame and put down the hippie culture as it is to put down the conservative culture. but hey i do it anyway just like everyone else does to everyone else. There IS some hope i feel to the divides in our politics and our way of thinking and how we live our lives. We can ALL get along if we just pull our heads out of our A$$es and start working together instead of against each other on these issues.

Peace,TWS

Fu-Pow

07-28-2007, 08:01 AM

all this rain we are having in Texas is a prime example of the countering effects that the warming trends are having on our environment.

Unlikely. You can't look at localized weather patterns and blame it on global warming.
At least the science is not there yet, that's the point that at least one of the credible scientists in the documentary was pointing out.

It'd be just as easy for someone to say, well its been cooler in my area the last few years and so global warming is not happening.

As I understand it, when scientists are looking at global warming they are looking at the mean global temperature. How they arrive at that number I'm not sure but my guess is that its by taking temperature readings all over the world and looking at the net changes over time.

FP

The Willow Sword

07-28-2007, 08:07 AM

LOL and you are in seattle the rain capitol of the USA. Ive been there and the weather there is very similar to how the weather is HERE and has been for two months straight. It is definately unusual for there to be so much rain in central texas over such a period of time,such as it is now. I mean not to say that we dont ever get rain, and we certainly get floods(Stevie Ray Vaughn wrote some awesome songs about it) but TExas rains are like freakshows here and they are quick and immense, then they leave and the sun comes out. We havent had a really clear day since early june.

SanHeChuan

07-28-2007, 05:46 PM

GLW So what IS a hippie?

Trying to define hippie is like trying to define an a$$hole, They are who ever you deem them to be.

As a gross generalization I'd say a hippie is anyone who adheres to any kind of unrealistic perfect world ideology, weather it be a world with out war, hunger, pollution, people, whatever.

In the context of this discussion I'd say a hippie is someone who has rejected rational thought for the "green party line". Those who use irrational sensationalism, and fear mongering, such as "our world is dieing", in order to push an agenda that no rational person could accept. An agenda tightly interwoven with Communism and anti-capitalism.

GLW And what REALLY is the downside to assuming that Climate Change is real and that our irresponsible behavior contributes to it?

Because you CAN NOT make good decisions based on bad information. If their "facts" were that strong that wouldn't need to use sensationalist propaganda to try and push their agenda.

Fuzzly
Less photosynthesis=More CO2 in the atmosphere.
Less plants=less photosynthesis.
Less plants=More CO2 in the atmosphere.
More CO2 in the atmosphere=More energy stored in the atmosphere
More energy stored in the atmosphere=higher global temp.

Well my videos did make a strong argument against CO2 causing higher global temperature. Can you convincingly refute the claims made in the video.

greendragon
There is no global warming.
There was no war in Viet Nam.
George Bush is not a criminal.
Genetically altered food is safe.
All fights end up on the ground.
Stupid Hippies are perpetrating a complex campaign of disinformation.

And yet again you contribute nothing useful to the discussion. Thats what irrationalism with gets you, sarcasm.

The Willow Sword
TExas rains are like freakshows here and they are quick and immense, then they leave and the sun comes out. We havent had a really clear day since early june.

Weather patterns change all the time, it snows in south texas once a decade. Are you going to read something into that. Change is nothing new. :rolleyes:

NJM

07-28-2007, 05:52 PM

Once again.

DPL

07-28-2007, 07:18 PM

Check out the interview and debate that came out of this Great Global Warming Swindle show. It's divided up into multiple parts, but it doesn't get really good until they start the panel discussion in part 3 when all the scientists start talking about how each others' science is so bad.

It's comical. The IPCC made mistakes/coverups, the guy who made this show made mistakes/coverups.

They're all frauds looking to support their particular viewpoints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE&mode=related&search=

Siu Lum Fighter

07-30-2007, 01:03 PM

The weather is JACKED UP! Anyone who thinks it's not largely due to humans IS LIVING IN DENIAL! Not anthropomorphic:rolleyes:give me a flip fargin' break!!!! WAKE UP YOU REPUBLICAN DOOFUSES!!!!

PangQuan

07-30-2007, 01:45 PM

I get all of my real life definitions from this web site

Hippie: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hippie

Hippy: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hippy

Dirty Hippie: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dirty+hippie

Dirty Hippy: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dirty+hippy

Oso

07-30-2007, 03:09 PM

Hippie Student: [Kumar trying to buy pot] Here, that's sixt - 80 bucks.
Kumar: 80 bucks?
Hippie Student: Yeah, 80 bucks.
Kumar: Yo, this is worth 40 tops bro!
Hippie Student: Bro? I'm not your bro, bro. ok, and that's 80 bucks. You don't feel like getting high tonight? If you don't feel like getting high, that's cool with me because there's lots of people around here. See this guy? Hey, what's up, George? I smoke buds with George all the time.
Kumar: What kind of a hippie are you?
Hippie Student: What kind of hippie am I? Man, I'm a business hippie, I understand the concept of supply and demand.

AJM

07-31-2007, 08:33 AM

We don't have to worry about global warming. It's OK to continiously polute the atmosphere, the oceans and all the fresh water on the planet. There will be no reprocussions for our children, our grandchildren ect. We had nothing to do with the sahara, the fertile cresent, the dust bowls in the midwest in the thirties. Maybe we should build an amusement park over the love canal.
(This is where in a normal environment I would explode in a tirade of obsenities that would make a truck driver go " hey, hey hey! There's mechanics present!")

WinterPalm

07-31-2007, 08:47 AM

Here's an idea:
Forget about global warming for now.
Let's work on stopping the pollution. Stopping the destruction of the planet that is currently hosting us. That'd be a place to start.
Stop consuming so darn much. Maybe take the bike or the bus to work.
Sticter regulations on all businesses to reduce drastically their polluting output.

Global warming is a cause for the left and the right. For the left it is a cause to put through more green and environmentally friendly alternatives (most likely because the left is being bought by green companies). For the right it is a cause to point and scream that it's wrong as an excuse to do nothing or such a miniscule amount that it doesn't really matter.

The joke is that so many people would claim to be humanitarian or compassionate yet won't lift a finger to prevent the destruction of our planet which our children's children are going to inherit.

The fact is if we don't change but only continue to consume and pollute, the planet is only going to get worse what with all the new people coming in western style consumption and lifestyle patterns.

TaiChiBob

07-31-2007, 10:23 AM

Greetings..

There are those that are willing to risk the planet's future for their immediate gratification/comfort.. and there are those that believe that every effort should be made to restore the planet's viability to preindustrial ratios.. If the risk takers are wrong, the future is in jeapordy.. if the restoration advocates are wrong, things just get better.. hmmm, i think even a reasonable 5 year old can figure this one out..

I don't need a scientist to confirm what simple reasoning makes clear..

The usable atmosphere on this planet is +/- 6 miles thick.. the radius of the earth is +/- 4000 miles.. the ratio of atmosphere to earth is 0.0015, or.. if the earth is represented by a model 12 inches in diameter, the usable atmosphere is +/- 1/100th of an inch.. that would require a magnifying glass to observe relative to the model.. does anyone seriously deny that human involvement plays a significant role in the atmosphere.. a detrimental role.. Can there be any logic to abstaining from the Kyoto agreement due to economic concerns? Is it too expensive to protect the future?

Chances are that the last 2 people on the planet will be arguing about the cause.. wishing they had someone to blame..

Be well..

Pork Chop

07-31-2007, 10:52 AM

Don't like getting involved in politics and i could be wrong; but the impression I got out of the Kyoto agreement was that the countries that signed it have made no steps to comply with it and that we didn't want to be signing something where we would be the only ones expected to comply with it.

TaiChiBob

07-31-2007, 12:26 PM

Greetings..

the impression I got out of the Kyoto agreement was that the countries that signed it have made no steps to comply with it and that we didn't want to be signing something where we would be the only ones expected to comply with it.
Yep, the last thing the US wants to do is set an example..

It just seems too easy to find excuses not to do something.. like looking for credibility issues in the thousands of scientists that agree on global warming, like their credibility will change the actuallity, the earth is heating up.. humans play a significant role.. and there are measures we can take to mitigate the situation..

I would much rather be wrong if the planet is just going through a cycle.. than to be wrong and have my children and grandchildren pay the price for human involvement in real global warming..

Be well..

SanHeChuan

07-31-2007, 03:20 PM

DPL

Good find.

The mistakes made in the swindle were, 1) changing their movie based on feed back, to correct any inaccuracies made. I view that as a major plus and does not degrade my opinion of the film in any way. 2) Not tack on new data to their charts, hardly criminal. It would be fraud to do so, without giving proper credit. They could have explained the new data without altering someone else model, but I think their point was to show that there are alternate views, rather than to prove them. Still the omission was clearly bias. 3) The ocean dude recanted after receiving hate mail.

The mistakes made in the Al Gore movie.
http://www.stopdumbingdown.com/index_files/Page496.htm

I think the swindle comes out on top on that one.

As for the rest of the debate, I think the best point made from the IPCC dude, was the amplifying lag effect of CO2. Not a proven effect but still something to look at, and be addressed.

Everyone laughed at the dude who brought up the eugenics connection, but then that lady at the end brought up over population. What was her implied solution I wonder.

Siu Lum Fighter The weather is JACKED UP! Anyone who thinks it's not largely due to humans IS LIVING IN DENIAL! Not anthropomorphicgive me a flip fargin' break!!!! WAKE UP YOU REPUBLICAN DOOFUSES!!!!

What a reasonable level head and scientific point. :rolleyes:

AJM

I defy you to prove a scientific connection between the sahara, the fertile cresent, the dust bowls in the midwest in the thirties, and Athropogentic climate change. The Sahara was a desert long before the industial age. The dust bowls were caused by extensive farming. The Fertile cresent, well I couldn't find anything about it's reduction.

Good luck

DPL

08-01-2007, 08:30 AM

DPL

Good find.

The mistakes made in the swindle were, 1) changing their movie based on feed back, to correct any inaccuracies made. I view that as a major plus and does not degrade my opinion of the film in any way. 2) Not tack on new data to their charts, hardly criminal. It would be fraud to do so, without giving proper credit. They could have explained the new data without altering someone else model, but I think their point was to show that there are alternate views, rather than to prove them. Still the omission was clearly bias. 3) The ocean dude recanted after receiving hate mail.

I mostly agree with you on your post, except on #2 above. It felt to me like the guy knew he was avoiding data that would hurt his case, and then made some lame excuses about how 'the other side's data sucks too'.

It ultimately undermines his argument, which brings us right back around to both sides manipulating the data to make their cases SEEM more airtight (ha, get it? airtight? Carbon Dioxide?), than they really are.

The biggest kicker in the whole debate for me is the indisputable fact that a couple of decades ago the scientists of the world, and many of the folks involved in the issue now, were worried about global cooling. That stark reversal of mass popular opinion, coupled with the fact that neither side can come up with anything vaguely resembling a conclusive argument, just reveals that we're making decisions based on the most popular political flavor of the moment. Which means we'll do whatever's demanded by the people screaming the loudest. And that's bad juju.

AJM

08-01-2007, 08:40 AM

Actually the sahara was much smaller before the romans deforested northern africa. Archeologist have proven people had to leave the fertile cresent because they deforested it. The dust bowl and the sod busters is a no brainer.

Siu Lum Fighter

08-01-2007, 01:40 PM

Tell me SanHeChuan, who funded your little movie. That might explain why all of these morons are actually trying to argue that these massively increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone aren't man-made and/or aren't causing the planet to heat up. I mean, why is there even a debate?! It's obvious all these hack scienstists receive funding from conservative groups and politicians. And most of them are all a bunch of materialistic sh!t-heads who would like nothing more for it to be "business as usual". The whole Republican money machine is based on oil revenue and arms sales. You think they're going to allow some environmentalists or anyone concerned about climate change affect that? Following the money will say a lot about all of this madness.

I'm assuming you are a Republican since you also "hate the French". This wouldn't even be a nation if it wasn't for the French!! This "hating the French" to the point of renaming French fries movement seemed to start when they voted against invading Iraq in the Security Council. It was all of these Republican dipsh!ts who wanted everyone to hate the French because of that!! Wow, what a bunch of block heads. Anyone who thinks Gore would have been "worse" is living in an alternate reality and should be committed. Ya, way to go for voting Bush numnuts!!

SanHeChuan

08-01-2007, 02:39 PM

DPL The biggest kicker in the whole debate for me is the indisputable fact that a couple of decades ago the scientists of the world, and many of the folks involved in the issue now, were worried about global cooling. That stark reversal of mass popular opinion, coupled with the fact that neither side can come up with anything vaguely resembling a conclusive argument, just reveals that we're making decisions based on the most popular political flavor of the moment. Which means we'll do whatever's demanded by the people screaming the loudest. And that's bad juju.

THANK YOU

My problem is not how Global warming came about, but the sensationalism behind the movement. People are acting like it's religious dogma, and frothing at the mouth. Good decisions about how to solve the problem whatever it's cause can not be made from a fanatical mind set. And the fact that political bodies are taping in to this and encouraging it, means that they want the people to be irrational when they ask them to do something really stupid.

AJM Actually the Sahara was much smaller before the Romans deforested northern Africa. Archaeologist have proven people had to leave the fertile crescent because they deforested it. The dust bowl and the sod busters is a no brainer.

That is a direct effect, people go in and cut down trees, you have less forest. You are suggesting an indirect effect. If the Sahara got bigger, or the fertile crescent got smaller because of climate change, and not because the direct hand of man, then you'd have a place to start to make your case. As it stands you are irrelevant to this conversation.

Siu Lum Fighter

I mean, why is there even a debate?!

Because people like you make statements like that. :rolleyes:

Tell me SanHeChuan, who funded your little movie.

I think it was the beer industry. :p

It's obvious all these hack scienstists receive funding from conservative groups and politicians.

The IPCC is a political body. Al Gore is a politician. I didn't see any politicians narrating the swindle. :rolleyes:

Like any one needs a reason for hating the french (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceSxEjwXHcM&mode=related&search=). Oh la la. ;)

DPL

08-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Siu Lum Fighter

08-04-2007, 11:59 AM

originally posted by SanHeChuan
My problem is not how Global warming came about, but the sensationalism behind the movement. People are acting like it's religious dogma, and frothing at the mouth. Good decisions about how to solve the problem whatever it's cause can not be made from a fanatical mind set. And the fact that political bodies are taping in to this and encouraging it, means that they want the people to be irrational when they ask them to do something really stupid.
The reason for people being fanatical about it is Because no amount of urgent action to the problem has been made to undo the damage that has already been done. Not just the damage to our environment, but the damage to communities and peoples lives. We're now gearing up for possibly one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, and there's no reason to fanatically address the problem?

That is a direct effect, people go in and cut down trees, you have less forest. You are suggesting an indirect effect. If the Sahara got bigger, or the fertile crescent got smaller because of climate change, and not because the direct hand of man, then you'd have a place to start to make your case. As it stands you are irrelevant to this conversation.
When you have less trees you have less condensation and a dryer climate. A hot and dry area where there are no trees is usually defined as a desert. One condition can (and usually does) directly affect the other. So, you are irrelevant in this case, sir.

Like any one needs a reason for hating the french. Oh la la.
So...some really hot French chick in thigh-high stockings is a primary reason to hate the French. Does this hatred of yours really stem from you being a closeted gay guy? It's O.K., really, I won't judge you.

originally posted by DPL
Wow. Dude, substitute some of your enviro-language with immigration or anti-gay language and you've just produced a fanatical rant on par with anything I've seen from the Republican side concerning those issues.

You don't have to be a Republican to keep your eyes open about the rhetoric concerning global warming, and the knee-jerk reactions from its supporters when challenged with valid opposing points of view.
It's amazing that you would consider that "fanatical". I was just stating my opinion on the matter. Whether or not we humans trash our planet's ecosystem in the name of profits is, I feel, an important issue. If everyone was content with "not rocking the boat" then there would be no progress with any pressing issues, now would there?

DPL

08-04-2007, 03:47 PM

It's amazing that you would consider that "fanatical".

Umm, why? In the same post in which you just responded to me, you also respond to SanHeChuan with the following (bold added by me):

"The reason for people being fanatical about it is Because no amount of urgent action to the problem has been made to undo the damage that has already been done... We're now gearing up for possibly one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, and there's no reason to fanatically address the problem?"

Soooo...

Is it fanatical, or isn't it? Or maybe it's not fanatical if you're responding to me but it is fanatical if you're responding to SanHeChuan...? Fanatic's a funny word, isn't it?

Also, anytime someone is in a debate with someone else and says something like "I mean, why is there even a debate?! It's obvious [my viewpoint here]...," such as in your previous post, my Spidey-sense starts tingling for potential fanatic attack.

I was just stating my opinion on the matter. Whether or not we humans trash our planet's ecosystem in the name of profits is, I feel, an important issue.

But not important enough to double-check the science you're currently blindly believing to make sure efforts to fix the perceived problem won't cause more harm? H3ll, just dig into it a little bit with an analytical eye. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, I'm saying there's a lot of bad science going on and lots of rhetoric covering it up.

If everyone was content with "not rocking the boat" then there would be no progress with any pressing issues, now would there?

Buying snake oil from a democratic environmentalist instead of a republican industrial doesn't really constitute 'rocking the boat'. It just means you're funding different lies.

Fuzzly

08-04-2007, 07:20 PM

Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments come down like this.

A: We believe global warming exists because of X,Y, and Z. We've done scientific studies that show this.

B: Nu uh! Your science is wrong!

The Willow Sword

08-04-2007, 08:43 PM

SanHechuan has nothing REAL to contribute here, much like one of his martial systems he bases his knowledge on what he is told rather than what he can research for himself and see right in front of his eyes. He like many others of his mindset will go strictly on politics and "scientists who cater to it" and beat that into the ground as a reason for a "swindle" rather than common sense in these matters. Its difficult because simple brains cant distinguish between BS and what their upbringing has brainwashed them to believe.

I find it funny AND typical of most of the repubs who are grasping at straws to maintain their integrity in the midst of the fact that their president is a complete idiot and their scandals and illegal actions have thrust them into some of the worst policies and war mongering ever, since Nixon and that whole administration came to be.

Very amusing indeed, ,TWS

DPL

08-04-2007, 09:49 PM

Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments come down like this.

A: We believe global warming exists because of X,Y, and Z. We've done scientific studies that show this.

B: Nu uh! Your science is wrong!

Well, sure (b) happens when (a) is presented more like:

"We believe global warming exists because of X, Y, and Z. We've done scientific studies that show this, and even though there are big, gaping holes in our studies much like the one in the ozone layer, and even though other studies that were performed with at least as much if not more scientific rigor than ours contradict what we think is obvious we're going to ignore those studies in favor of our own because we think it's obvious that mankind is killing the planet."

"For evidence we give you the shrinking ice caps. Oh, wait, they shrink and expand over time? Okay, for evidence we give you the extreme weather that we're now experiencing. Oh, wait, it's been just as extreme in the past, and we used to blame extreme weather on global cooling? Okay, for evidence we give you the increase in temperature across the globe. Oh, wait, there are lots of areas where the temperature has actually gone down?"

And so on...

At some point, all that's really left to say is 'your science is wrong'.

And for the record, for all the 'he must be Republican' non-thinkers out there, I've voted Democrat more than I've voted Republican. Sorry to not fit into your convenient little pigeonhole that keeps you from having to produce thoughtful arguments, although I'm sure you can still point to the fact that I have at some point voted Republican as proof of something diabolical, rather than evidence of an open mind.

The better way to approach this debate, and the only way that doesn't make you look like blindly fanatic non-thinking liberals, who are absolutely, positively no better than blindly fanatic non-thinking conservatives, is to actually do some research on your own and see just how holey (not holy, you wacky fanatics) the science is.

At that point I think it becomes very, very difficult to avoid the impression that BOTH sides have engaged in misdirection, omission and downright lies and no one can really conclusively prove their arguments, but at least then you'd be armed with enough information to make an informed decision as to which viewpoint you think is less wrong, as opposed to what I see here, which is a lot of 'well obviously we're right'.

It's all politics. Science is at best tangentially involved as a way to bolster political decisions, when convenient. Believing anything else is very sadly naive, and will probably give you blisters from that ring in your nose. Just try to get in the back of the line so all the other lemming bodies will form a soft cushion when you hit the bottom of the cliff.

The Willow Sword

08-05-2007, 05:52 AM

DPL

08-05-2007, 08:22 AM

And for the record, for all the 'he must be Republican' non-thinkers out there, I've voted Democrat more than I've voted Republican

Oh so you are an indecisive flip flopper then are ya?:rolleyes:

Stay Republican, you fit the mentality quite well,dude.

TWS

Thank you, for proving my point so concisely.

Although I suppose I should take this advice to heart, since you are such a well-known KFM forum proponent of flip-flopping your blind belief in one thing to blind belief in something else. Why allow a little thing like analytical thinking get in the way, or especially an even-handed and open approach to divisive issues?

Fuzzly

08-05-2007, 12:10 PM

DPL, you're right. There are cycles in the Earth. However, that doesn't mean humans are not effecting them.

Yes, the average temperature goes up and down, however, the mean temperature keeps going up.

Yes, ice caps shrink/grow. But are you talking about over a period of centuries? Or are you talking about seasonally?

What it comes down to is that you will see what you want to see.

Personally, to think that humans have no effect on the environment is silly. If it makes you feel better to think that we don't, have at it.

DPL

08-05-2007, 12:42 PM

What it comes down to is that you will see what you want to see.

Thank you, for confirming the point I've been making pretty much since this thread started. If you read carefully, you'll notice that my view the entire time is that there's flawed science and misdirection on both sides. If I say 'Republicans and Democrats are both crooks' does it automatically mean I'm a Republican?

The interesting thing is, when I point out that both sides are at least partially full of crap, the liberals immediately jump on me with personal attacks, and yet the one clear conservative on this thread (SanHeChuan) disagreed with me thoughtfully and with further evidence to back up his claims.

Arguing global warming with the current crop of liberal converts is like arguing religion with fundamentalists. There's a lot of parroting messages, but not much analytical thought or open-minded acceptance of different viewpoints.

Personally, to think that humans have no effect on the environment is silly. If it makes you feel better to think that we don't, have at it.

That's quite possibly the most pathetic straw man argument ever built as I've very clearly never said this.

My position is actually simple for most to understand, so I'll try one more time, just for you: The science on both sides is at best incomplete and very often just plain bad. There are holes in reasoning and logic on both sides. Neither side can conclusively prove their arguments.

Are any of those words too big for you?

The Willow Sword

08-05-2007, 08:05 PM

Although I suppose I should take this advice to heart, since you are such a well-known KFM forum proponent of flip-flopping your blind belief in one thing to blind belief in something else.

and since you know ME SO WELL please tell me what i flip flopped on? oh you mean when i woke up and saw that SD was a dead end? and what pretell did i change one blind belief for another blind belief? i mean this is all about opinion correct? You dont seem to want to take sides just present your "on the fence vote wishy washy back and forth when it suits you" mentality. If you are loyal to one side and change your side for whatever reasons then i think that is honorable and i can respect sanhechuan for staying loyal to his side(even though i think it is full of sh!t) YOU seem to be a proponent of teetering back and forth as you have so wonderfully demonstrated with that little comment of yours about voting democrat more than you have voted republican, LOL!!! I dont know which is worse, them or you.
whatever turns your crank dude, TWS

David Jamieson

08-05-2007, 08:28 PM

I don't doubt that we poison ourselves and our environments with our machinations and chemical ****tails spewed into the air.

But global warming has been going on since the end of the ice age (which according to the science that does exist, is still happening).

So are we the sole cause of global warming and is it killing the earth.

well, I don't think there is any science on that yet that is quantifiable & sound one way or the other.

if you're concerned, stop driving to work and stop using electricity.

Besides, if we are all connected to the planet and the planet to us, and if this is a natural connection, then who is to say that what is happening is not the natural way of things and the obvious means of our own demise or some other check or balance we put on ourselves vis a vis our technology combined with our natural being?

How much raw sewage does a human produce in a year that gets pushed out as effluent into a body fo water somewhere? stop crapping! its bad for the fish! :rolleyes:

Global warming may be happening, but what i it's supposed to be happening? And we didn't cause the end of the great flood and the huge glacial recession that followed. near as I can tell, those glaciers are supposed to recede.

I don't take the reports as dead to rights bona fide. too sketchy and definitely can't trust a politician on the issue. Clearly there is an agenda at play whenever a politician is involved and the whole thing is so vague and nebulous that it just reeks of scam.

just an observation, and my opinion may change, but for now, I haven't seen anything that is truly convincing that this is not the way things are supposed to be.

I would think that the several hundred nuclear weapon explosion tests carried out by various nations since the 50's are probably more of a problem than my ac running to keep my house cool for 2 hours while i am out as opposed to running it for 6 hours to get the house back to a livable temperature.

DPL

08-06-2007, 06:05 AM

[B]YOU seem to be a proponent of teetering back and forth as you have so wonderfully demonstrated with that little comment of yours about voting democrat more than you have voted republican, LOL!!!

Absolutely I'm a proponent of voting your mind as opposed to voting with blind loyalty, which you naively view as a strength. The republican party changed when it was handed over to religious fundamentalists. I didn't change - the party did.

I'm starting to have trouble with the democrats because, aside from their problem in ever producing a strong presidential candidate, the party is now being handed over to environmental fundamentalists such as yourself. Again, I didn't change - the party is. Obviously the party has always supported the environmental movement - I'm saying NOW the environmental fundamentalists are getting intimately involved in policy setting and it's not a good thing, because, well, read your posts... lots of parroted messages and personal attacks but no substance whatsoever.

DPL

08-06-2007, 06:10 AM

I don't take the reports as dead to rights bona fide. too sketchy and definitely can't trust a politician on the issue. Clearly there is an agenda at play whenever a politician is involved and the whole thing is so vague and nebulous that it just reeks of scam.

Exactly!!!

The Willow Sword

08-06-2007, 06:42 AM

WHY is it such a wrong thing to want to protect and preserve our environment?People as a whole do not seem to give a sh!T about any of it. Those who want to politicize the environmental issues and actually impede any efforts to get things changed because it doesnt jive with their POLITICAL issues is just sad and STUPID,if you ask me. ITS THE PLANET WE LIVE ON AND WHETHER YOU WANT TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT WE ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PLANET IN A NEGATIVE WAY. Ok so global warming AND cooling has been happening since the dawn of time, ok i can accept that, but just because the scientists say this doesnt make it a SWINDLE OR FALSE THAT WE AS A SPECIES OF PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET ARE NOT AFFECTING THE CLIMATE CHANGES WITH OUR USE AND ABUSE OF FOSSIL FUELS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT POISONS OUR AIR AND WATER.

You want to downplay al gore for bringing this to light and bringing forth an issue that is of great concern for us as a people because he represents the politics that you dont agree with. If the issue of environment should not be in the political forefront then WHERE SHOULD WE PLACE IT THEN? SHOULD WE JUST PUT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE HANDS OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND LET THEM FIND THE ANSWERS?

what about trying to see past the political agendas and actually THINK for once that just because someone represents a political view you dont agree with and who cares about the environment and uses their political power to get the message across in a good way, that it is not because they wish to push a political agenda for their own gain. I certainly do not think that al gore took on this issue just so he could try to further his political office, i mean he isnt even running for president for christs sake!!(dont shoot the messenger and disregard the Message)

The issues of environment are put in the political arena because that is where most will focus their attention on rather than a bunch of "tree huggers" and "dirty hippies" carrying signs and ranting on the street corner. at least this issue is being put forth in an educated way that COUNTERS the brainwashed consenus that we arent doing anything negative to the world we live in. JESUS WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!
It is my opinion that the ones who disregard the environmental issues, such as most of the conservative populous and those who profit from the polluting of our environment and the so called "scientists" who are in their pockets, do so because they are so apathetic to it all and have been brought up to believe MORE in what our souls will be doing in the afterlife RATHER than HOW WE ARE LIVING OUR LIVES RIGHT NOW.

So what is it going to take to get people on the same page? MORE KATRINAS? Or something Worse perhaps? Are we so mule headed stubborn that it is actually going to take a 2x4 upside the head to get us to move?

Peace,TWS

Siu Lum Fighter

08-06-2007, 04:52 PM

originally posted by DPL
Umm, why? In the same post in which you just responded to me, you also respond to SanHeChuan with the following (bold added by me):

"The reason for people being fanatical about it is Because no amount of urgent action to the problem has been made to undo the damage that has already been done... We're now gearing up for possibly one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, and there's no reason to fanatically address the problem?"

Soooo...

Is it fanatical, or isn't it? Or maybe it's not fanatical if you're responding to me but it is fanatical if you're responding to SanHeChuan...? Fanatic's a funny word, isn't it?

Also, anytime someone is in a debate with someone else and says something like "I mean, why is there even a debate?! It's obvious [my viewpoint here]...," such as in your previous post, my Spidey-sense starts tingling for potential fanatic attack.
O.K., does it not say, "the reason for people being fanatical about it". Is there any admission on my part that I'm being "fanatical"? And even if I were, so what. Ooooh...you got me to admit I'm being "fanatical". Good one.

All I'm saying is, it's understandable for people to be so fanatical about this issue. Especially when there's all of these butt wipes going on like it's all "junk science". "Your just listening to one point off view yada yada..." And who are the main proponents of the other point of view? All of the Conservative butt heads who own the factories, lumber mills, oil companies, etc...who keep us headed for an environmental meltdown.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FdLv_Hj_cOg