|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:21 PM |
|
|
Dargon, als Arachnis suggested above, you´re not really worth talking to. But I can´t resist to make a few more comments ... let´s take a look at this:
Quote:
... How would you even begin to know how much I reflect or not? ... Your narcissistic arrogance in such an accusation is readily apparent.
Thanks for the analysis, doctor, but where did I say anything about "knowing" about you? I said you seem to be a person that doesn´t self-reflect, and you just confirmed this impression of mine. And this is not because of your different opinion, it´s the biasedness that you show us here to a ridiculous extend. Look at what you´re doing! When you run out of arguments on the matter of global warming, you start to make up conspiracy theories: It´s all the invention of power-hungry socialists and money-greedy scientists. I wonder how you manage to do this without feeling like a living joke. Maybe it´s because of your lack of self-reflection?
Now you support a bomb war where thousands of civilists will die, but call me inhuman, evil(!), and a hater when I make that sarcastic remark about the pope. When did you lose that final string that kept you in contact with reality?
Of course the pope is not responsible for the existence of Aids, but you have to be blind if you do not recognize the consequences of his preachings.
Quote:
Do condoms help prevent AIDS…of course….but the only way to be free from AIDS (save children who are born with it) is 1. don’t use IV drugs 2. Remain monogamous 3. Make sure the blood supply is clean.
Points 1 and 3, do you seriously think that 25 millions of Africans have been infected with AIDS by the use of drugs and blood transfusions? And to point 2, that you underlined with the following words:
Quote:
Yes in your naive manner of thinking somehow humans have no choice but to screw any orifice they can find. The truth of the matter is that humans can transcend their passions…maybe you should examine that.
Yes, educating 100000000+ people to be monogamous is a great idea, especially when they live in 3rd world countries and barely have enough water to live.
Quote:
Yes our purpose is good and yes the terrorist are evil….and the point you are making is?
To show how narrow, ignorant and self-righteous your world-view is. And how similar you are in your thinking to those suicide bombers.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:34 PM |
|
|
Damn it lews and Dargon can you guys manage to just like put across arguments without snowing? Can't you just put your opinions across and agree to disagree?
And btw Dargon you may well be the only one.......... but I can still agree with you on some things.
Lews The reasons for aids put forward are many and frankly all are valid ones. Coincidentally many non-catholic africans catch aids because they don't agree with using condoms purely because they do not understand the consequences of the disease and how it is caught. The Catholic church sure does not help though when it spouts it rhetoric about condom usage.
Dargon may simply not be narrow minded. I spent many posts discussing Israel and Palestine with him and in the end we agreed simply that we were both just telling the argument from the opposing side, and we can both realise that both have some truths in their argument. If he was "narrow minded" I would be suprised as when I confronted him about the IRA and terrorism he was honest enough to say he knew nothing about it, and then looked into the issue before arguing on it. Does this strike you as narrow minded?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:42 PM |
|
|
i agree with privatehudson next time we open a thread to trade ideas we put rules no quote.. with quoting people stop to say their ideas and start to search others mistakes
ofcourse this is only for serious members... tossing is free as always
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:42 PM |
|
|
Remember that part/most of the problem in Africa with regard to Aids is the refusal of the African leadership to acknowledge the problem - I mean, come on, how can a nation's leader seriously claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. I don't think the Pope has anything to do with Africa's AIDS situation since it's not a predominantly Roman Catholic area.
I can't stress enough how much condoms would help fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, though. No, they're not foolproof, but from an epidemiology standpoint they don't need to be. Remember, to catch aids through sex if you're wearing a condom, you need to 1. be having sex with somebody who has AIDS and 2. the condom needs to fail. Even then, it's actually not guaranteed that you will catch it. The end result is, that if condoms are used regularly, the rate of infection ends up slower than the rate of death due to AIDS and the prevelance of AIDS gets reduced to the point where it is no longer a crisis (well, except for the people who still have it, that is). Clean blood supply is kind of a moot point in Africa since, let's face it, most people don't have access to blood transfusions there anyway. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather hand out little rubbery things and help solve the problem, which is at the point that it affects many, many more people than just the ones who have it than go to the AIDS ward and give them a lecture on how I hope they've learned their lesson on the evils of sex.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 05:45 PM |
|
|
Hmmmmmm bort has some points there although some former French colonies are catholic in name. Another reason is that often the african people mistrust "white mans medicine" if you like and refuse to use it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted September 06, 2002 07:25 PM |
|
|
awe to think and act are 2 entirely different things
Quote:
Mad_Unicorn
I actually am quite well versed in ethics, morality, and religion. I know there are grey areas, just as readily as I know there are black and white areas. Only a fool would not know that both exist. I am sure you acknowledge this also, but just because someone has a strong conviction does not mean that they cannot entertain and consider various perspectives….that my friend is distorted logic.
Being well versed in all is one thing but acting on them is a different matter. I can say that i am this and that but what it truely comes down to will I do this and that?
I agree with andi on this and lews basically anyone looking at the whole picture rather than the american stand point. I live in america and actually quite close to any "hot spots" and i feel the tensions in people.
You got the haters sayin blow em up and inflicting all sorts of injustices against american-indians immigrants etc.. Kids are more likely to be this type or younger adults as they lack the comprehension to understand whats going on around them. Unfortunatly you will have this type of person running things in 10 years.... so if the world dont end now it will then. Which is why this matter is alot bigger than most suspect.
I heard the other day 1 year after the fact "mommy why did daddy have to die?" now this poor kid gonna be a hater.
Now i have no particular logic to the way i think(its a curse and blessing probably why i wander around in my posts) but the way things are going with youth and the way bush is reacting and the church(LMAO) America if not destroyed will be the new Nazi Regime in about 20 years. Sucks to be andi :/
(i gonna get flamed and probably not realizing why i said things in such an order)
Dargon......
did u get a chance to find at ur library For love of Evil by piers anthony?
or is the word evil mean its "naughty"
on a super side note
the church has done ALOT of bad things in the past but responsible for aids i dont think so. Responsible for near genocide of a culture yes, responsible for the extermination of a way of thought yes but aids i highly doubt. Then again the church has powers we cant even fathom just look how many people flock to it like lambs to be slaughtered. (ever wonder why jesus is like a shepard leading his people like lambs?) tee hee
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2002 11:27 AM |
|
|
Lews_Therin
My pride hates doing this…really hates doing this but none-the-less I need to apologize to you. My actions have been wrong. My Faith states that you are as valuable to God as I am. When I have belittled or disrespected you I have insulted His creation. My actions have been hypocritical to my Faith. All humans are worthy of dignity and respect. I have failed to honor this. Though I strongly disagree with you I need to respect you as an important person as we all are. I let my political passions overrun my beliefs about how Jesus modeled for me to live. I hope in future posts to not get so personally involved and to put things in perspective….people matter more than ideas. For my attacking words I want to say I am sorry.
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 07, 2002 11:45 AM |
|
|
Ok .. perhaps somebody already said this but here are a few keywords anyways ...
* Bush
* election
* economic situation of USA (the are giving money away .. interest versus inflation)
* Oil
* war
* booming economics
* long term conjuctur waves (did I spell that correct?)
Are u guys getting the idea yet?
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2002 12:07 PM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 7 Sep 2002
|
AndiAngelslayer
I really dislike that USA gets involved in so many international affairs. Sometimes I wish we would just let the world create its own destiny and we our own….but then I realize the world impacts us as we impact the world. Sometimes I wish we were more isolationist…but that most likely would not help anyone’s situation.
I really don’t think the Iraq situation has anything to do with policing the world. This is a dictator who has murdered millions…a dictator who has broken the terms of his surrender, a dictator who tried to assassinate OUR former president, a dictator who has been supporting terrorist who’s mission it is to DESTROY AMERICA and other democracies….so world police…I think not…this situation has much to do with us and we have a right to intervene for our own safety and self defense.
I really am surprised that you would imply that America turns a blind eye to the worlds suffering…we give the most humanitarian aid on the planet! I really would think that would indicate we definitely don’t turn a blind eye….that is not even mentioning all of our private charities which give a huge amount of time, money, and personal work to relieve world hunger, diseases, etc.
Bort
LOL about Ted Danson…though he was not the only person I quoted. There were others that are a recognized “expert” that I qouted who were completely incorrect. But I would strongly encourage you to quote Rush L….as you might of concluded I think he is one of the foremost comprehensive and insightful political thinkers of our time…as at least 20 million other listeners would seem to agree.
I have found that most people who discount him have a fraction of understanding about what he has actually said and have never ventured to read any of his writings. Even the Clinton Whitehouse was a continuous visitor to his web site and most major newspapers are always referring to his statements, etc. It would seem by the democratic response and concern about Rush, that whether they agree with him or not they recognize him as a major mover and shaker in the political arena. He has made errors I am sure he has…but overall he has contributed untold information to the political dialogue.
As much as liberal policies (environmentalist, feminist, democratic, etc.) turn my stomach I recognize the truth in the implications of your post. In the last year or so I have found myself occasionally being thankful for liberals (please say it isn’t true)….in some ways they have helped us produce a better society. In these reflections I think about how if there were no liberals the conservatives and “free enterprise” would most likely go over the edge…..the liberals unfortunately () balance the conservatives sometimes so as to make a better society. There needs to be rational regulation of capitalism I would agree…I just think that overall the liberals tend to go much too far.
Mad_Unicorn
My library has books written by authors I strongly disagree with…so to answer your question no I wouldn’t be offended by any book that had the title you mentioned…thanks for the recommendation I will look into it.
Privatehudson
Thanks for your words of admonition and encouragement…appreciate both of them m8
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
|
posted September 07, 2002 12:36 PM |
|
|
2 dargon : Bush is really your president
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2002 01:54 AM |
|
|
Dargon, I apologize for mixing provoking and insulting language into my arguments, too. This doesn´t in any constructive way further a discussion, instead I should be glad for the opportunity to exchange thoughts with people from different cultures.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2002 09:42 AM |
|
|
Thanks Lews
Back to the environment. For clarification I have not been using the term global warming n the sense of disputing its existence…it is a fact…I use the term global warming in the manner of the current debate which is "Has man made carbon dioxide produced a measurable effect on global temperatures to date?".
For those who are so very concerned that doomsday is just around the corner because of our environmental abuse. I find the following global warming and environmental issues interesting.
1. For those who think there is no scientific debate…..In 1998 17,000 scientist “signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto”
2. In the last 30-40 years in the USA our air has never been CLEANER, our rivers and lakes more UNPOLLUTED, and we have released less amounts of all major toxic pollutants.
3. “Greenhouse gases cannot explain the rise in global temperature prior to 1940 and cannot explain the temperature drop between 1940 and 1970”, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D
4. The hottest years in the 20th century in America were in the early 1930s.
5. It is reported that in the last century our temperature has apparently warmed ˝-1 degree…you would think with all the exaggerated concern this number would be much higher. Historical projections over the recent centuries actually show that there are periods of higher temperature….but I thought all of our man-made technology created all the warming? Also do you know that there are a group of scientific thinkers who actually think the environment would be better if it was warmer (I am not saying I agree with this last group, but still very interesting).
6. CBC reported a study “The study of ancient tree rings from 14 sites around the world found the Medieval Warm Period of nearly 1,000 years ago closely matches the warming trend of the 20th century.”
7. “A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the Geophysical Society believe that the warming trend of the 20th century is a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Data also exist to refute global warming. NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the last two decades, and December 1997 was the coldest month on record.”
8. For those who claim the US is an ungodly polluter “Though scientists still debate the validity of global warming, the U.N. convention resulted in a Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below-1990 levels. The key feature of the protocol is emission-reduction targets, which include six major greenhouse gases, for developed nations. Targets vary from country to country. For the United States, they are 8 percent below 1990 emission levels.” This reduction is higher than EU and Japan which had a 6-7% reduction.
9. As for those who think US could care less about global warming…I am saddened to report that “The U.S. government spends $2.1 billion per year on global change research”…that is a huge wad of cash.
10. “May 16 issue of Science magazine. Their, senior environmental reporter Richard Kerr found widespread discontent over the magnitude and even the detection of global warming. Kerr found, as predicted by the skeptics for 15 years now, that when climate models are cleansed of their "fudge factors" (his words) that they will produce precious little greenhouse warming in the next century.”
11. Where are we measuring from? “While surface temperatures taken during the course of a century showed a warming trend, upper-air temperatures, measured by satellites and balloon probes, showed a slight cooling in recent decades.”
Well I could go on and on with more points…but I will spare ya
To be sure there are arguments in favor of a global warming theory. The main point I am trying to make is 1. there IS NOT consensus on the data about global warming. 2. there is not any type of scientifically conclusive evidence about what results if any will occur in the type of climate change we may or may not be observing. I have found that far too many people have too easily been taken in by the rhetoric of today and believe that catastrophic global warming is a fact that will have dire consequences.
What gets me really peeved is that in America our public funded schools allow environmental activists to come into our schools and propagandize our children during school hours about catastrophic global warming while not allowing the children to hear an alternative viewpoint. We are indoctrinating a whole generation with Politically Correct dribble.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted September 08, 2002 10:11 AM |
|
|
wanna know something really cool?
global warming yeah..... uhm... huh well +1 or .01 or whatever change temperatur will not mean much to us no BUT and BIG ARSE BUT
Take that 1 degree increase apply it to the poles......
well i cant truely explain as i am no scientist but i saw a pretty picture of a tropical island in the artic....
+1-5 can mean a drastic change in the artic so with our temperature rising by +1% per year it can get pretty warm where its meant to be pretty cold
I am no tree hugger but i would rather hug a tree than a smoke pipe or some toxic run off. I am for the enviroment reverting to the way it was but that will never happen. So i have to take the simple joys of seeing somebodies summer home(meaning they have others) being ripped to shreds by the weather.(sure it would be unfortunate if they in the house at the time oh well mother nature can be cruel)
I know i had another thought but i guess it was lost oh well back to rotting my brain.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 08, 2002 03:41 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 8 Sep 2002
|
1. For those who think there is no scientific debate?..In 1998 17,000 scientist ?signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto?
Ah yes... "the petition" Here's my main problem with the petition - one of their main points was that the increase in CO2 is offset by CO2 fertilization of plants, leading to increased growth. The effect they talk about is true. However, that only works if you stop reducing the area of land covered by vegetation. The other effect of high levels of CO2 fertilization is that you dry out the plants - in other words, think forest fire. Of course, you could cut the trees down to prevent the forest fire, but then you lose the CO2 fixation that you wanted to begin with. Finally, the increase in growth requires that nothing else be the limiting factor in growth - ie, water, biologically available nitrogen. This isn't a problem in the lab, but in the wild it clearly becomes an issue. It should also be pointed out that, as intelligent as Seitz (the originator of the petition) he is a solid state physicist, not a meteorologist or geologist or anything like that. It should also be pointed out the the review "article" used was neither peer reviewed nor published. They specifically used the PNAS format to fool people into thinking it had been published. If it had been peer reviewed, a number of things would have been caught. For instance, figure 2, which bandies about the famous, and innacurate "medieval warm period" (they call it the medieval climate "optimum" to suggest that warm = good). Note that they only give data for the Sargasso Sea. That is because other data, such as Southern Hemisphere tree ring data (if you don't believe tree ring data is good, remember that they use it in, for instance, figure 17. So if you discount tree ring data, you have to discount their study as well) does not support the alleged "medieval warm period." (Source: 1000 Years of Climate Change Ray Bradley Science 2000 May 26; 288: 1353-1355.) Even advocates of the medieval warm period are forced to admit that "Evidence for the Medieval Warm Period from other parts of the world exists but is spotty and/or circumstantial." and "The case for a global Medieval Warm Period admittedly remains inconclusive." (source : Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Wallace S. Broecker Science 2001 February 23; 291: 1497-1499.) It is true that there has been climate change in the past, but never at the incredible rate it's happening at now.
2. In the last 30-40 years in the USA our air has never been CLEANER, our rivers and lakes more UNPOLLUTED, and we have released less amounts of all major toxic pollutants.
Never? I'd argue against that. What you probably mean is that it is cleaner than it was immediately after the industrial revolution and postwar. In other words, BEFORE emission standards and clean air protocols. Once again, see my earlier comments regarding changes already in place.
3. ?Greenhouse gases cannot explain the rise in global temperature prior to 1940 and cannot explain the temperature drop between 1940 and 1970?, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D
I don't deny that this quote was made, but I'd like to see in what context. Baliunas generally attacks global warming models but goes out of his way to say that he is going after a particular model and that he does NOT disprove a human action cause for global warming. (for instance, see Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties Soon W, Baliunas S, Idso SB, Kondratyev KY, Posmentier ES CLIMATE RESEARCH 18 (3): 259-275 NOV 2 2001)
4. The hottest years in the 20th century in America were in the early 1930s.
I don't know where you got this information. It's not true, though. The 1990s was the warmest decade since they've been measuring it. (Source : 1000 Years of Climate Change Ray Bradley Science 2000 May 26; 288: 1353-1355.)
5. It is reported that in the last century our temperature has apparently warmed ˝-1 degree?you would think with all the exaggerated concern this number would be much higher. Historical projections over the recent centuries actually show that there are periods of higher temperature?.but I thought all of our man-made technology created all the warming? Also do you know that there are a group of scientific thinkers who actually think the environment would be better if it was warmer (I am not saying I agree with this last group, but still very interesting).
Again, see my above remarks refering to the periods of higher temberature.
6. CBC reported a study ?The study of ancient tree rings from 14 sites around the world found the Medieval Warm Period of nearly 1,000 years ago closely matches the warming trend of the 20th century.?
Again, see above.
7. ?A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the Geophysical Society believe that the warming trend of the 20th century is a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Data also exist to refute global warming. NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the last two decades, and December 1997 was the coldest month on record.?
Dunno what to tell you on this one. Source? (Not because I'm denying it but because I would very much like to read it.)
8. For those who claim the US is an ungodly polluter ?Though scientists still debate the validity of global warming, the U.N. convention resulted in a Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below-1990 levels. The key feature of the protocol is emission-reduction targets, which include six major greenhouse gases, for developed nations. Targets vary from country to country. For the United States, they are 8 percent below 1990 emission levels.? This reduction is higher than EU and Japan which had a 6-7% reduction.
As I've said earlier, I don't feel it is all the US's fault. See my earlier post regarding carbon fixing.
9. As for those who think US could care less about global warming?I am saddened to report that ?The U.S. government spends $2.1 billion per year on global change research??that is a huge wad of cash.
Not in comparison to the price of one B-2 bomber... but seriously, I don't think the US does nothing, I do not feel that it is fair to blame the US for everything especially in light of the fact that we are responsible for so much CO2 fixation.
10. ?May 16 issue of Science magazine. Their, senior environmental reporter Richard Kerr found widespread discontent over the magnitude and even the detection of global warming. Kerr found, as predicted by the skeptics for 15 years now, that when climate models are cleansed of their "fudge factors" (his words) that they will produce precious little greenhouse warming in the next century.?
First of all, PLEASE give me years for the references - the article is from 1997 and it took me forever to find it since I had to scroll back through every one of Kerr's articles to find when May 16th coincided with an issue of science.
Second, Kerr is a reporter, not a scientist.
Third, have you read the article? Here's what it says - that even the most conservative model, with no "fudge factors" still shows a 2 degree celsius rise in temperature. It also says that, even using the most liberal model for "natural variation," you still can only account for 3/4 of the observed temperature change over the last 130 years.
However, if you want to quote Kerr, how about "Greenhouse Warming Passes One More Test" (April 13, 2001)
11. Where are we measuring from? ?While surface temperatures taken during the course of a century showed a warming trend, upper-air temperatures, measured by satellites and balloon probes, showed a slight cooling in recent decades.?
Well of course the upper-air temperature went down - remember, the point of the greenhouse effect is that heat is trapped and unable to escape to, for instance, the outer atmosphere.
PS : Unicorn - ease off the submit button. I counted 6 copies of your last post!
Edit : Also, in light of the fact that there are 71,000 biology PhDs, 132,000 biology Masters degrees, 149,000 physical/earth science PhDs, 155,000 physical/earth science Masters degrees, 39,000 agriculture/forest science PhDs, and 109,000 agriculture/forest science masters degrees in the US alone, 7,677 in those fields that signed the petition hardly seems impressive (especially since they don't specify that all 7,677 have advanced degrees). they do say that 2/3 have advanced degrees of some sort, which would be 11,400 advanced degree signatories. However, that apparently includes scientists as a whole, which would have to be taken from the 186,000 psychology PhDs, along with 341,000 psychology masters degrees, not to mention the 154,000 engineering doctorates, 694,000 engineering masters degrees, 37,000 math/statistics doctorates to go with 150,000 math/statistics masters and 954,000 doctors and dentists who are technically scientists with advanced degrees. (All statistics about signatories taken from the webpage that hosts the petition, all statistics about numbers of degree holders from US census data). My point is, 17,000 sounds like a lot, but it's not in relation to the number of scientists in the US alone.
|
|
Thunder
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2002 06:58 PM |
|
|
It looks like we all are going back to prehistoric times, when all was warmer.
I haven't really studied this Global Warming that much but some scientists claim that it might be because of increased explosions in sun that the weather is warmer. Of course, those scientist were swedes, so don't take this too seriously.
Also some are worried that Global Warming would have negative effect on warm ocean currents. In a way that it might cause them to stop working or change them and, ironically, Global Warming would produce Global Cooling instead.
It seems that hard times are coming. Floods and risen ocean level will cause people to be expelled. The world will be more crowned and the countries may not be able to accept anymore foreigners, which might lead to war. Some arctic animals, like Polar Bears, will become extinct or at least threatened. Desertification may or may not increase.
But it's not all bad as there are some good side-effects due to global warming. Farming in cold nations like Canada and Russia is easier, and crops are more fertile. There will propably be more mushrooms to pick up and the rain forests will survive and spread. And reptiles, amphibians and fish will surely enjoy warmer climate. Factories, which make sunglasses, ice creams and suntan creams will prosper. Tropics won't be that rare anymore and we will get a new Hawaii out from Ahvenanmaa! Eskimos can sunbathe without travelling from their home country.
____________
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 09, 2002 01:06 AM |
|
|
Whatever you have said in there, Thunder, global warming is still a major problem in the world.
The cause of global warming reduces the Antartic icecap by a considerable amount each year and it also causes the sea levels of the oceans to rise a little each year, therefore threatining small islands in the Atlantic and Pacific, and also causing devastating floods in lowland coastal areas where global warming is felt most (Europe has seen its worst floods for many years not long ago).
The Kyoto agreement is just a small step into curbing this problem, but the USA (who produces most of the greenhouse gases in this world) refused to sign it. So did Australia, but at least Australia is looking into the possibility of signing it, unlike the USA.
Global warming is not good for the earth and it is not good for those who are MOST VULNERABLE to the consequences. 
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2002 07:34 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 9 Sep 2002
|
Mad U
The decrease of temperature was over a century not a year.
As far as the polar regions...in my understanding "global warming" has had little effect in general. The temperature is far past freezing level already...so it will take a lot more than 1 degree to start melting the stuff in the coldest areas.
Bort...dang you...took me lie 2-3 hours to research all that stuff...you seem much quicker given your scientific background...so I don't have time to respond to all your thoughtful posts right now....though it does seem like we are in agreement about some issues regarding the US as we always seem to have been....those posts were more for the "blame everything on America crowd".
but I do have two quick qeustions for you as I am not sure I know what your views are.
In your objective opinion is there indisputable evidence that contined global warming will in fact occur and it will have catastophic consequences? Also what do you make of the situation that 20-30 years ago all the experts and activists were saying we were in danger of global cooling and now we are in danger of global warming?
Rock on
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2002 07:41 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 9 Sep 2002
|
Back to Saddam
For those who have been wanting more proof....I earlier said that I believed more would be comming out as the regime replacement gets closer...and here is some of the latest news from the leftest tabloid New York Times
"In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped."
"The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months. "
"The attempted purchases are not the only signs of a renewed Iraqi interest in acquiring nuclear arms. President Hussein has met repeatedly in recent months with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and, according to American intelligence, praised their efforts as part of his campaign against the West. "
"Iraqi defectors who once worked for the nuclear weapons establishment have told American officials that acquiring nuclear arms is again a top Iraqi priority. American intelligence agencies are also monitoring construction at nuclear sites."
"Still, Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war."
And I think this qoute really sums it up and is a excellent question:
"The question is not, why now?" the official added, referring to a potential military campaign to oust Mr. Hussein. "The question is why waiting is better. The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 09, 2002 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bort...dang you...took me lie 2-3 hours to research all that stuff...you seem much quicker given your scientific background...so I don't have time to respond to all your thoughtful posts right now....though it does seem like we are in agreement about some issues regarding the US as we always seem to have been....those posts were more for the "blame everything on America crowd".
It took me a little while, too. I have access to some of the really good database search engines and I can access full text on all of the Science and Nature articles so that makes it easier.
Quote:
but I do have two quick qeustions for you as I am not sure I know what your views are.
In your objective opinion is there indisputable evidence that contined global warming will in fact occur
I do think there is pretty indisputable evidence. I'm not going to say indisuptable, because if you put three scientists in a room they'll come up with four opinions. It's why prosecutor's hate putting scientific witnesses on the stand because when replying to the "well is it possible that somebody borrowed my client's fingerprints?" they'll always answer "yes" since we tend to have a much more leniant view towards possible. Is global warming occuring and are humans at least partially responsible? Yes.
Quote:
and it will have catastophic consequences?
Will the worst case scenario happen? Probably not. Manhattan isn't going to be under water, and Europe isn't going to be plunged into another ice age (for those people who have been mentioning global cooling, what I think you're talking about is that one effect of global warming may be to destroy the gulf stream which cycles warm water from the gulf of mexico to Europe. Without it, Europe would be as cold as it's latitude suggests it should be - ie, ice age) but the effects are much more subtle. For instance, as the tropics expand somewhat, the range that malaria affects increases. You also disrupt the weather patterns that have been prevailing for so long - ie more frequent and severe droughts and flooding. I used the word catastrophic since worst case scenario is undoubtedly catastrophic. I think that since you need absolutely the best possible case to happen to even minimize the effects, I think action is warrented.
Quote:
Also what do you make of the situation that 20-30 years ago all the experts and activists were saying we were in danger of global cooling and now we are in danger of global warming?
They were wrong. It's been known to happen before. I'm not sure about "all" the experts and activists were saying this, but it's much harder to do literature searches from the 70s since most of the articles aren't on line yet.
As to Kyoto, I don't know if I would have signed it if the decision were mine. I would need to read more of the actual document, but I do think that there are flaws in it. I think it unfairly rewards certain nations whose emissions are "low" simply because much of their industrial output shut down during that last century because it was unable to compete and I think it rewards those same nations who, because they have been settled and urbanized for so long cut down much of their forest a long time ago. I think it also gives too many allowances to developing nations. If I recall, and I give this without reference because I don't have time right now to do the search, it's in a Science article somewhere that one of the problems that the National Academy of Science had with the proposal (this isn't to say the National Academy of Science is opposed to it, there isn't an official stance yet and a large number of members have come out in favor of it) is that it fails to take into account, for instance, soot. The US factories are, for lack of a better word, "clean" burning - ie, they completely combust fuels to CO2, many of the developing nations do not have such abilities, and this results in incomplete combustion - stuff like soot and carbon monoxide. Not technically greenhouse gasses, so it looks like their being all environmentally sound when in fact their stuff is worse. I also think that carbon fixation is not adequately addressed. I know I seem to harp on this, but there's a really good reason why deforestation is bad, it's because the forests and other vegetation are ultimately what can alleviate global warming even more than emission controls. Other vegetation includes crop production - all that starch in a potato? It used to be atmospheric CO2. A certain large nation that produces a lot of CO2 also fixes a lot of CO2. You know all those high yield genetically engineered crops people are complaining about? High yield = high carbon fixation. Once again, my main reason for thinking that CO2 fixation should be emphasized more is to save the rainforest in places like Brazil and the Congo.
Does that mean I ultimately would NOT have signed Kyoto? I don't know. I do feel it's unfair, but on the other hand, something needs to be done so in the balance I probably would have since I'd rather be unfairly treated and sitting on the beaches of the outer banks of NC (which, by the way would be the first to go in the event of rising sea levels) than sitting on a large pile of money and wishing there was a good vacation spot to spend it on.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 09, 2002 05:31 PM |
|
|
That's interesting Dargon, but I still would like clear evidence of just why members of my family need to risk their lives in a war. Just a simple rundown of the reasons with definate proof would be nice, but Blair an Bush won't even bother to do us the courtesy of doing that.
An interesting opinion I heard on another site basically revolved around a question an American asked about why Europe and the Arab nations are so frightened of war. Many people seemed to think simply that they were scared, but I prefer to think that these nations are simply saying that without proof then there should be no invasion. Why risk destabalising the area if your own allies won't even be straight with you? I would support a strike (non-air) if only I had some sort of clue as to why rather than vauge hints.
Another interesting one was that A canadian friend told me of this program done for Canadian telly, where a comic went around an american city asking the question should we bomb saskatchewan(prob spelt wrong)? Apparently at least 1 in 5 americans were in favour of bombing the area. Interesting really to see sometimes what people will do to avoid looking stupid on camera and asking where the hell it is!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
