DescentBB

I also think that before you have the right to criticize others, you should first try to set an example to follow. A good example, I want to emphasize, not a bad example.

But, but, the Russians don't like our environmental protesters when they try to do the right thing.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/09/25/russ ... tional-law

I’ll give you the greenhouse gasses theory, but I thought we were talking “climate change”.

Also the greenhouse effect can only give “accurate” predictions in a controlled environment…not to split hairs or anything…

The reason there is no “climate change” theory is pretty simple, we can’t calculate all of the variables, and unknowns.

tunnelcat wrote:But, but, the Russians don't like our environmental protesters when they try to do the right thing.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/09/25/russ ... tional-law

No. It can not be an excuse for you. Americans blatantly ignore the most correct criticism when it comes to their money, no matter what.

It was a JOKE sigma.

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And theory is not reality, Slickster. Let's not open that can of worms just because you believe this kool-aid should be universally consumed.

You have no idea what a scientific theory is, do you?

Theory of Gravity
Big Bang Theory
Theory of Relativity
Heliocentrism
The Copenhagen Interpretation
The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
The Theory of Plate Tectonics
Nuclear Theory



You want to refute these as "not reality" too?

And yet at one time there was a theory that:

The sun revolved around the earth
The earth was flat
The universe would slowly collapse inward and create another Big Bang
The Ethanol would burn cleaner than gasoline
Mars had no water
Mars had canals
Bad air (miasmas) caused disease
Blood letting cured disease

So you see Ferny, Our history was filled with bad theories that only got corrected when advanced equipment proved them wrong. So it is with "models" trying to prove global warming is anthropomorphic. Even the UN scientist have no good answer why global warming had slowed down for the last 10 years when the "models" say it should be increasing.

woodchip wrote:So you see Ferny, Our history was filled with bad theories that only got corrected when advanced equipment proved them wrong. So it is with "models" trying to prove global warming is anthropomorphic. Even the UN scientist have no good answer why global warming had slowed down for the last 10 years when the "models" say it should be increasing.

The only thing disputed at this point is the rate of increase and the extent of damage. You can argue all you want but it doesn't change the fact the Earth is warming and humans are exacerbating it. All your talk about the heliocentric model and whatnot, while certainly highlighting you anti-intellectual side, does nothing to further your point. First is was "there is no global warming" then "we aren't causing it" then "it's not going as fast as you said" and so the can gets kicked down the road. This is the same grasping at dead ideas that fuel creationism and conspiracy theories.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's a conspiracy!

Thank you thorne, you said exactly what I figured you'd say. And thanks for... you know, dodging the question and everything.

tunnelcat wrote:It was a JOKE sigma.

Ferno wrote:Thank you thorne, you said exactly what I figured you'd say. And thanks for... you know, dodging the question and everything.

Ferno you can't just take your ball and go home every time someone's reply is above your reading level. Break out a dictionary and see the son of a ★■◆● through!

You don't have to be the kind of twerp that claims victory while running away. People can change.

Seriously, though, anyone who won't permit the notion of a conspiracy with the kind of money and power we're talking about here has their head in the sand and refuses to bring it out.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:can't just take your ball and go home every time someone's reply is above your reading level. Break out a dictionary and see the son of a ★■◆● through!

Yeah that's it exactly. Somehow "being fed fears and consolidating power" is above my reading level, and completely not conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I think my mistake was thinking you're an adult, and not treating you like the five year old you really are.

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:can't just take your ball and go home every time someone's reply is above your reading level. Break out a dictionary and see the son of a ★■◆● through!

Yeah that's it exactly. Somehow "being fed fears and consolidating power" is above my reading level, and completely not conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I think my mistake was thinking you're an adult, and not treating you like the five year old you really are.

And yet I seem to remember you saying 9/11 was a govt conspiracy.

woodchip wrote:And yet I seem to remember you saying 9/11 was a govt conspiracy.

This isn't the first time I had to correct you on this. I said there were questions. You took it to mean conspiracy.

Go ahead, dig up the thread where I said 'conspiracy'. I'll wait. But you won't because you know for fact you'll see I said 'questions' and you'll end up exposing your defamation. Just like always. Spinning your garbage here and trying to pass it off as fact in an attempt to discredit someone.

No one's buying it anymore, and I certainly will not put up with it.


Here's a tip. If you're going to accuse someone of something, you'd better be dammed ready to back it up.

Well here was one of your replies. Label it how you want but you certainly appear to agree with the conspiracy advocates

Ferno wrote:Back where I grew up, there was a controlled demolition of the Bow Valley Center (AKA Calgary General Hospital). WTC 1, 2, and 7 looked just like that.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:I asked my friend about the Pentagon lawn. She said she went past there taking an airport shuttle about 3 days after the attacks (spent 9/12 in a very empty art museum!) and that the lawn looked pretty messed up. Not like torn out or anything, but like something had scraped along it. The grass was still there but it was in really bad shape.

So something messed up the lawn AFTER the strike happened?

In short Ferny, you appeared to be promoting a conspiracy theory. You can drape yourself in a question cloak but you were still advocating conspiracy.

I see nothing in those words alone that suggest that he believes any conspiracy theory.

Actually it does suggest that he believes it could have been intentionally demolished. It's a pretty straight-forward statement.

Personally I don't think Ferno gives me nearly enough credit in his assessment of my "conspiracy theory". Whether that's just because he doesn't like me or not... I just write it off as trollish behavior when someone jumps on me for a very general claim and sticks me in a camp full of looneys. There's all kinds of justification for my opinions on "climate change" that we never and probably won't get into. People are naive. Period. Life is a struggle to be less naive, and people who are less naive are constantly taking advantage of people who are more naive. You're exposed to something so much you start to think it's the norm, and you get in a rut where it's difficult to imagine that it might be another way. I'm telling you, we don't have secret societies and secret government meetings for nothing. The direction government is being steered in is fed to us as a combination of confusion, soap opera, and sports, none of which truly explains when is taking place, but it makes it more difficult for the average person to be in opposition to, which is very much the aim. The direction some of the higher-ups in government and business want to take this country is not something the average citizen would be happy with if they were told up-front.

Ask yourself why the German people didn't revolt and overthrow Hitler. Do you think the German people were just mostly assholes? Were they outnumbered?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Actually it does suggest that he believes it could have been intentionally demolished. It's a pretty straight-forward statement.

no, he simply said it 'looked' the same as a planned demolition.....not that he thought it was.

Ask yourself why the German people didn't revolt and overthrow Hitler. Do you think the German people were just mostly assholes? Were they outnumbered?

groupthink and bad economic conditions before it was too late, and he was too powerful. How does this relate to climate change, which, as I noted elsewhere, is very real, very potentially life-altering for a lot of people, might be able to be addressed in a positive way by human actions? Are you actually suggesting that climate change is being somehow 'made up' to justify some sort of politics you don't agree with? Also, to equate such politics with Hitler? Really? And you whine and moan about being 'lumped in' with loons and idiots?

And I said "could have".

Yes, I believe "Climate Change" will lead to political ends which I would view as unconscionable. There are already people who do not look at war in as bad a light as they might because it would lead to a reduced human footprint on the earth--a positive in their mind because of the climate change issue. Abortion is unconscionable, and I believe that is already being encouraged inasmuch as is socially acceptable in light of this issue. That isn't even scratching the surface, because I think the governmental changes in the works will cause more trouble than the social side of it. A global government will be the single greatest enemy to human liberty that this world has ever known.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Yes, I believe "Climate Change" will lead to political ends which I would view as unconscionable. There are already people who do not look at war in as bad a light as they might because it would lead to a reduced human footprint on the earth--a positive in their mind because of the climate change issue.

please, find me one, just one, serious human being who thinks anything of the sort. War has always been(in the population dynamics sense) man's way of thinning the herd, often due to environmental pressures, but find me one serious thinker suggesting war as a positive because of climate change.
If you cannot, please consider yourself a full-fledged member of the idiot extremist fringe.

...you just volunteered, Slick. You view war as a natural result of population pressures. You're half-way there.

It's a stupid position anyway, because wars are not started by the populations, they're started by leaders.


So the question is why do we war?

Your answer: it's natural and tied to overpopulation. (why do you think the human population is too great?)

Congratulations you're part of the problem.

War is also extremely expensive in terms of burning fossil fuels (I'd venture quite a bit more than peace), so your "reduce carbon footprint by reducing population with war" theory is pretty weak.

It is also shown that right after the war, populations quickly rebound as the men come home...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...you just volunteered, Slick. You view war as a natural result of population pressures. You're half-way there.

no, I am not. I am making an observation,not giving it some sort of approval.

It's a stupid position anyway, because wars are not started by the populations, they're started by leaders.

not necessarily. Was World War I started by 'leaders'? Nope.

So the question is why do we war?

Your answer: it's natural and tied to overpopulation. (why do you think the human population is too great?)

Congratulations you're part of the problem.

the whys of going to war vary, and generally boil down to pure economics. However, one can note that tensions rise, aggression rises and violence erupts in natural systems whenever the population grows to a certain point.
As to whether I think the human population is too great, that is another matter. I do think the Earth is straining to deal with the biological pressure of too many top-tier predators(read: humans) in the food chain. Once again, I am not suggesting war as a good way to address that issue, which could be handled by more enlightened family planning. It would seem brain-dead obvious that we cannot continue to feed, house and provide clean air and water for the number we now have. Otherwise, the daily toll of deaths from starvation and disease wouldn't be what they currently are.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A global government will be the single greatest enemy to human liberty that this world has ever known.

How so?

Krom wrote:War is also extremely expensive in terms of burning fossil fuels (I'd venture quite a bit more than peace), so your "reduce carbon footprint by reducing population with war" theory is pretty weak.

The fact that the war industry and war itself have an environmental impact had crossed my mind, but for the theory to be weak one would have to explicitly rule out extraordinary death tolls. Population has an effect on the size of industry, on the amount of land in use, and then of course on the amount of fossil fuels being directly consumed by that population (gasoline, electricity, goods, ...). I don't think it's weak at all.

Woodchip, that may be true, but what if you come home from war with a 1 child law in place?

Sergeant Thorne wrote: what if you come home from war with a 1 child law in place?

then, you would be a participant in an enlightened society, actually doing something about the human impact on the planet.

I've been giving some thought to you comments on overpopulation and war, slick, and at some point it does seem certain that if the ratio of resources to people is one-sided enough it would reduce the likelihood of war. I would say that's even in agreement with the Bible's statement on the cause of war. At the same time, I believe it's entirely a mistake to propose that the world's population is responsible for wars. More likely, I would say, it would be tied to how those populations choose to distribute themselves. Unless a person literally had to kill their neighbor in order to have a piece of earth to squat on, I would say it is folly at best, and evil at worst to blame our problems on the number of us living, and not on the choices made by certain quantities and ideologies in that number.

callmeslick wrote:It would seem brain-dead obvious that we cannot continue to feed, house and provide clean air and water for the number we now have. Otherwise, the daily toll of deaths from starvation and disease wouldn't be what they currently are.

Has it ever occurred to you that you suffer from a need to indulge in a ridiculous degree of hyperbole in stating things you feel strongly about? No, I don't believe that deaths and starvation are tied to the sum totally world population, for the reasons given above. People could very well live without war, and with plenty for all. They just don't.

Just as an aside, has it ever occurred to anyone here that pressure might be exerted on a population (economic, ...) for the purpose of building to war? Just a thought.

woodchip wrote:In short Ferny, you appeared to be promoting a conspiracy theory. You can drape yourself in a question cloak but you were still advocating conspiracy.

wow. that's weak, even for you.

once again, this is about your interpretation of what I said. not what I actually said.

and again, just because I noted a SIMILARITY, doesn't mean I EQUATED the two events. The two words: "looked like" should have been a dead giveaway.

Trying to say that I believed in a conspiracy because of the words "looked like" is like saying someone believes the earth is flat because they say looks like it stops twenty miles out.


Reading comprehension. learn it.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: what if you come home from war with a 1 child law in place?

then, you would be a participant in an enlightened society, actually doing something about the human impact on the planet.

Slick, did you do that on purpose, or are you getting senile? What was on the other side of the equals sign, after Woodchip's argument was overcome, was that war may be considered by some as a viable means of reducing the population. So your enlightened society just engaged in a war with the intent of reducing human impact on the planet--targeting innocents because in your zealotry you believe that world population is the cause of various problems. That makes you a mass murderer. That's hardly enlightened.

Oh, and on the topic of scientific theories, maybe a picture will help illustrate the point.

*edit* crap, something went terribly wrong. not sure if I can fix this one.

War is actually a pretty bad way to control population. Like, almost useless unless we are talking full-on nuclear war. Of the 5.5 Billion deaths in the 20th Century only 131 million were caused by war, which is about 2.3%.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... ury-death/

So if I'm hearing you guys correctly you're all pretty much saying that war could not conceivably achieve the goals of people who want the Earth's population to be drastically reduced unless it was a big war with a lot of casualties. Did you all take stupid pills with breakfast? And it's not like there are that many super-powers that own nuclear arsenals, right, Vision? ...Golly.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And it's not like there are that many super-powers that own nuclear arsenals, right, Vision? ...Golly.

How many nuclear wars have there been in the history of Earth?

Ferno wrote:Oh, and on the topic of scientific theories, maybe a picture will help illustrate the point.

*edit* crap, something went terribly wrong. not sure if I can fix this one.

Like so many of your posts...

woodchip wrote:Like so many of your posts...

ah, you're lucky I'm in a good mood. that made me laugh a bit.