DescentBB

i pretty sure i've already explained global warming multiple times in past threads. If you idiots are calling for a do-over - consider such requests to now be falling on deaf ears. I'm not your ★■◆●ing mother holding your hand through your education. You know howto get information

I know you're very sure of yourself, Roid (and Alter-Fox). Your \"information\" sources may be very sure. But this is not simple science. Global warming is not universally excepted/proven (no matter how much Al Gore would like it to be). You can't just go out and \"get information,\" at least not without being well educated in the more specific sciences.

It's my perception that most of the experts don't even have a good handle on all of the variables. Anyone who is so dead-certain about the issue is either ahead of the pack, presumptuous, or largely politically or emotionally motivated.

This is a very highly charged subject, and there is way too much emotional and political interest involved for my liking. And because I find both the political and the emotional interests to be unsound, I'm operating on the assumption that it's bull****, while at the same time keeping an open mind that there may be some truth to certain aspects of it. No good lie is absolutely untrue.

Roid and Al Gore probably get their information from Xenu. What could be more sure?

roid wrote:i pretty sure i've already explained global warming multiple times in past threads. If you idiots are calling for a do-over - consider such requests to now be falling on deaf ears.

Now you're insulting us? Great job! Though you've yet to provide a non-wikipedia link that proves that every scientific group agrees with man-made global warning. Why don't you try that before calling us idiots.

How dare you, roid would NEVER insult anybody! It’s prolly just a euphemism.

When stupid people feel compelled to take control of situations they don't understand trainwrecks ensue.
No one does train wrecks better than politicians: Pssst, Hey dude...over here! Wanna buy some carbon credits so you can drive that car?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

roid wrote:what reference? your post had no reference.
to save you some time collecting it, i'm willing to bet it's THIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle
If you didn't bother to check it's veracity, you did yourself a great disservice.

Referring to something a reference does not make? My grammatical bad?

Yeah, that's the one.

I might use Wikipedia to get a vague idea about something, one way or the other, but to check its "veracity?" I don't think so.

Alter-Fox wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:... Do you know what that would mean?

It means Al Gore has Asperger's Syndrome*. I know someone who has it so well that that person might as well be me** and I know how people with Asperger's Syndrome think better than I know how normal people think. Sometimes the person I'm talking about will omit details like that because they don't think it's as important as the point they're trying to make. The ommision is probably just an oversight.

No. It would mean that increased CO2 levels are the result of climate change, not the cause.

You're assuming at least two things that you haven't proven:
1. That the two graphs have a linear relationship.
2. That the units used to measure temperature and the units used to measure CO2 concentration are equivalent.

Find the graphs somewhere, find a formula to convert the CO2 graph to the temperature graph, and do the math.

Does it really make any difference if global warming is our fault? It's still going to wipe us out if we don't do something about it.

Alter-Fox wrote:...Does it really make any difference if global warming is our fault? It's still going to wipe us out if we don't do something about it.

Who says it will wipe us out?
What steps are required to actually stop it?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I know you're very sure of yourself, Roid (and Alter-Fox). Your "information" sources may be very sure. But this is not simple science. Global warming is not universally excepted/proven (no matter how much Al Gore would like it to be). You can't just go out and "get information," at least not without being well educated in the more specific sciences.

It's my perception that most of the experts don't even have a good handle on all of the variables. Anyone who is so dead-certain about the issue is either ahead of the pack, presumptuous, or largely politically or emotionally motivated.

This is a very highly charged subject, and there is way too much emotional and political interest involved for my liking. And because I find both the political and the emotional interests to be unsound, I'm operating on the assumption that it's bull****, while at the same time keeping an open mind that there may be some truth to certain aspects of it. No good lie is absolutely untrue.

Okay, so were not sure. We decide to take the time to know for certain. If it is true, global warming wipes out humanity while we're trying to decide whether or not it's actually happening. It's impossible for science to actually prove anything, only to disprove it. We're in a quandary then. We can't prove global warming exists, but we can disprove it. At the same time, we can't prove that global warming doesn't exist, but we can disprove that, too. If we disprove that global warming exists, we prove that it doesn't exist, which is impossible. If disprove that global warming doesn't exist, we prove that it does, which is also impossible. Therefore, if we disprove either of those, we disprove reality. What do you think will happen to peoples' egos when they discover they don't exist?

Alter-Fox wrote:If the temperature had already risen somewhat before CO2 levels started rising en-masse and causing it to rise more, that could explain it. Besides, the CO2 comes from vehicles/machines/factories, because some particles in the emissions bond with other atoms in the air. Heat could cause it to react faster, thus warming the Earth more, but the heat wouldn't be rising as fast as the CO2 it's helping to create. Meaning the heat that's created by the CO2 helps to create more CO2.

How am I ever supposed to answer you if you don't stop changing your reply?

Alter-Fox wrote:You're assuming at least two things that you haven't proven:
1. That the two graphs have a linear relationship.
2. That the units used to measure temperature and the units used to measure CO2 concentration are equivalent.

Find the graphs somewhere, find a formula to convert the CO2 graph to the temperature graph, and do the math.

Hey, talk to your buddy Al Gore about that. I bring up a problem with the info, and now that it's mine you want to question the whole thing, huh?

Al Gore wrote:Does it really make any difference if global warming is our fault? It's still going to wipe us out if we don't do something about it.

... If it's not our fault, then everything changes. Why have a carbon tax or carbon credits if CO2 is no longer the cause? You Global Warming folks are slippery devils. Maybe you should hold still long enough to either be right or wrong, and then go from there.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...You Global Warming folks are slippery devils.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???????????????????(_)()_()( ???????????////////////////////////)))))))))((((((((((((((((++++++++==
Why else would I call myself a fox? Do you honestly believe it's because I feel more like I'm kin to foxes than to humans?

How did you mistake me for Al Gore? Or are you a fox too?

So you're saying you'd rather not pay carbon tax, and thus die along with the rest of the human race, than do something about it, and ensure everyone's survival? I think that's pretty selfish.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:How am I ever supposed to answer you if you don't stop changing your reply?

If you can't answer me, I automatically win the argument. (Just kidding.)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I know you're very sure of yourself, Roid (and Alter-Fox). Your "information" sources may be very sure. But this is not simple science. Global warming is not universally excepted/proven (no matter how much Al Gore would like it to be). You can't just go out and "get information," at least not without being well educated in the more specific sciences.

It's my perception that most of the experts don't even have a good handle on all of the variables. Anyone who is so dead-certain about the issue is either ahead of the pack, presumptuous, or largely politically or emotionally motivated.

This is a very highly charged subject, and there is way too much emotional and political interest involved for my liking. And because I find both the political and the emotional interests to be unsound, I'm operating on the assumption that it's bull****, while at the same time keeping an open mind that there may be some truth to certain aspects of it. No good lie is absolutely untrue.

Come to think of it, I don't blame Roid for getting angry. This whole post is a veiled insult to anyone who believes in global warming. My self esteem is low enough as it is. Don't make it worse.

Alter-Fox wrote:Come to think of it, I don't blame Roid for getting angry. This whole post is a veiled insult to anyone who believes in global warming. My self esteem is low enough as it is. Don't make it worse.

Roid got mad before my reply.

Your self-esteem is a non-issue when it comes to debate, so just learn to deal with argument as argument, and try not to make it personal when it's not. It's not like I was dweeb enough to call you an idiot or suggest that you thought I was your mother, or anything crazy like that.

And yes... you really do need a reason.
(lay off the edit button!)

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. And I like to make sure my posts are PERFECT, because otherwise they're often misinterpreted.

But now the mixed messages have driven me insane.

Juliet - \"Oh Romeo.\"

Romeo - \"Oh Juliet.\"

Juliet - \"Here, catch.\" (Throws H-Bomb).

Director - \"Cut! Juliet, stop throwing H-bombs. Bring out the Auto-Romeo Maker.\"

Juliet - {{{{{{{{}}}333333333334444444uuuuskafhkj;ldfshdkjlhj''''''''';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]-0--------

(evil laughter) (throws H-Bomb)

O joy, another roid.

Spidey wrote:O joy, another roid.

I was thinking the old AceCombat - wonder if he has a cat?

It's not a cat, it's a genet. (Completely different species, and has a PROPER snout, instead of looking like its face has been kicked in. Family: Vivveridae.)

Spidey wrote:O joy, another roid.

????????""""''''''';p;iiiiiiiiiit6444444444444%$@#

hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

co2 reduction is ok and all that.. (personally, I'm ready to puke over the whole \"Carbon footprint\" agenda).. keep the kids out of it. They can learn about it in other places than grade schools and will thanks to the general media.

Also, where CO2 is concerned, how are we supposed to cap the amount that the oceans produce??? .. the largest by far culprit.

all of this is accessable to a simple google search.
But hey, lets just keep asking questions pretending that people actually have time for our trolling - coz if there isn't a spoon waiting to feed us at every turn - we can kick and scream that there's no answer, hell yeah!

We will protect ourselves with willful ignorance, lets see those environmental scientists with all their fancy \"study\", \"learning\" and \"degrees\" try to break through THAT.

enjoy your circle jerk of ignorance. You'll be here forever

If we all just stop breathing the world will be a much cleaner place. Places a wild flower in Roid's mouth.

roid wrote:all of this is accessable to a simple google search.....

roid, I have googled for answers to my questions and I've discovered your consensus can't give a straight answer to them.
Here, maybe you have the answer and would be willing to enlighten me:

1) What level/rate of warming is acceptable?

2) If 20 years ago we cut our emissions in half and held it to that level until now would we still be warming at the present rate and would we still be at the temp we are now?
Would it have helped reduce the temp and rate of increase by less than one percent? two percent? 10 percent? With all their collective knowledge they could put some kind of number on it...if the answer suited their agenda that is...

If things are as certain as you claim it seems to me these questions would be really easy to give an answer to. If you are sincerely interested in knowing the truth about what your consensus really knows versus what kind of speculation they want you to hold as gospel you would ask these questions and expect straight forward answers.

If, on the other hand, the double talk about models that range from one extreme to the other is all you need to buttress your preconceived notions about the anthropogenic aspect of global warming then just continue to sit back and declare victory and hurl insults....

roid wrote:all of this is accessable to a simple google search.

True, however by a simple google search I can also find out that we did not land on the moon, the world may very well be flat, and that if I don't send at least a half dozen different people money I will burn in hell for being an heathen.

You have to know which sites are reliable. If you're looking it up in Uncyclopedia, chances are you'll get something like that. (Hyperbole intended.)
I try to stick to sites that are official to whatever group's information I'm looking up. (Doesn't apply only to global warming.)