NationStates Jolt Archive

#8, An Essay-- How I Know "Global Warming" Is A Lie

The Humanists are a proud bunch. Never to be stopped or even delayed in bringing in their "Brave New World." They are proud of their accomplishments and even prouder of their future plans. They like to brag on the way in which they never let a "challenge" get them down. Whether it is splitting the atom, finding a cure for smallpox, defeating a fascist regime, or going to the moon, they never let the magnitude of any obstacle deter them or cause them to fret.

Even now they are talking about setting up colonies on the lunar poles and mining water from lunar rocks in -200 degree temperatures like it's just a trip around the block. Build a space station? Travel to Mars? No Problem! Yet when faced with the ogre of "Global Warming," these same brave souls turn into quivering masses of flesh, paralyzed by the immensity of this "threat." There is no hope! "We're all going to die!" "The world is going to end!" "The sky is falling!"

If the Humanists of the world really believed that the world was getting warmer, they would look at it--not as a threat--but as a mere "bump" in the road that they would be certain they would overcome. Instead, they all panic and call for more control over industry. (?)

Think about this. If "Global Warming" is true, then think about the positive affects that it would have on the world:

1. There would be more land with moderate climate for all those people who are "overpopulating" the earth to live on. (Overpopulation problem solved)

2. There would be more fresh water available for irrigating desert lands. (Food Shortage solved)

3. More arable land to grow crops. (Food Shortage solved)

4. Milder winters. (Heat fit~Lshortage solved)

5. Milder winters. (Less sickness)

6. More Ultra Violet rays getting to earth. (UV kills some bacteria)

7. Longer summers, longer tourist seasons. (More national income)

If the Humanists really believed the world was getting warmer, they would be telling us not to be alarmed because "Man will rise to the occasion!" Instead, they huddle in the corner like terrified mice. Why? Because they want Americans to huddle in the corner like terrified mice so they can gain more power over us. Humanists hate America.

I have said it time and time again. The goal of environmentalism and animal rightism is not to "save the earth." Their goal is to destroy the American economy. Why? Because a strong America is a detriment to a One World government! That's why over 160 nations were exempted from the environmental restrictions placed on the U.S. at Kyoto Japan. The nations with the dirtiest air were exempted while stricter regulations were imposed on America--the nation that has done the most to clean up its environment.

Remember the Gulf War? (The one to liberate Kuwait; not the one Clinton wants to fight to get our attention off of Monica.) Remember when Saddam Hussein poured raw crude oil into the Persian Gulf and then set over two hundred oil wells on fire? Where was the indignant outcry of environmentalism against Hussein? Nowhere! Why? Because he wasn't an American! Because Iraq isn't America!

So here are men who are optimistic about finding a cure for AIDS. Men who talk about manned flight to Jupiter as though it were plausible. Yet "Global Warming"? They can't think of anything positive to say. They can see no hope whatsoever. That's because they see it as an opportunity to place greater restrictions on your freedoms and a tool to push-America into poverty.

Me? I'm going to pretend that "Global Warming" is true for a moment.

I look forward to seeing vast corn fields in northern Canada and Siberia.

I look forward to the additional rainfall from "the greenhouse" (tremble, please) turning our deserts into lush, fertile plains where new cities will spring up to take in the "overflow" from the "growing population".

I look forward to it being warmer the year round, to the new citrus groves in Ohio and the rest of the Midwest.

I look forward to the auto and aircraft industries expanding to supply transportation for the expanded populations in our northernmost regions.

And I really look forward to San Francisco being underwater!

Do you see? Do you see how easy it would be to put a positive spin on this so-called "Global Warming" if they really wanted to? But they don't do it. Do they? No. Because they have other plans--sinister plans for you, your family, and your country.

So if you really believe in "Global Warming," then you should lighten up a little! It really won't be the disaster that you've been told it will be. You'll soon be sipping iced tea by the pool in your new retirement community in balmy North Dakota while your investments in corn production in the Northwest Territories continue to bring you more income. You'll be watching some loony "earth scientist" on TV trying to warn you of global Cooling" due to "increased greenhouse gases." (Like they tried in the '70's.)

You just have to realize that these people are mentally ill; and the sooner we put them away, the sooner we can get on to "This bold new challenge facing us."

We don't have a problem with "Global Warming." We have a problem with the loonies that are claiming that it's bad. I know that there is a shortage of asylums to put them in. But we can build more. In fact, why don't we build them in Alaska?! It might be a little cold for a few more years, but in no time at all they'll be enjoying the view of tropical Alaska from their "rubber room" windows. Then they'll see how wrong they were to bother us with their foolish worries about such a wonderful blessing as "Global Warming!"


Discuss :)
Essay from
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/gippwarm.htm

I'm failing to see the part where the evidence for global warming is contested?

Not to mention, their ideas of the "effects of global warming" are so laughable they don't even deserve mention.

What a heap of steaming shite.

There is nothing in that article to back up the claim it makes, because global warming is a scientific fact.

The "benefits" it cites are also completely wrong - there will be less temperate zones, and extreme weather conditions (eg floods, droughts) will become (and are already becoming) more commonplace.

More UV = more skin cancer. You kill harmful bacteria under intense UV light, not under the sun's rays.

Longer summers? Erm, not in Britain mate - longer, colder, wetter winters, I think you'll find. Global warming will increase the outflow of the freezing Siberian rivers which will turn off the Gulf Stream.

Less sickness? More floods = more cholera and other water-borne diseases. Tropical illnesses will also return to areas that are currently free of them. And the "common cold" has very little to do with exposure to the cold.

Oh, and more wars over water supplies, too.

I know :) look around that site ;) it is utterly rediculous lol

I thought landoverbaptist.org was funny

But this is a REAL site and it is even more rediculous then landover (which is like the onion ... fake)

Hahaha, funny essay. I love it when religous school Ph.D. start talking things they have no idea of. Starting by the term "humanist".

There are several indications of global warming. Still in the air is how much has been provoked by us and whether the trend can be reversed. I don't think that placing limits on industry pollution is a bad idea anyway because clean air and water are a good thing in themselves.

This "doctor" seems to have a very childish idea of what global warming means, i.e. that it doesn't refer to a nice increase of overall temperature, but to a disruption in "normal" (to us humans) weather patterns that would bring an average increase in global temperature but with localized ups and downs that may be severe in some cases.

Whether the north will get colder or warmer remains to be seen. If rain patterns are affected in such a way that they stop travelling away from the equator, we might very well see a much wider band of desertification in the world's breadbaskets (US and Ukraine), while the northern regions get even colder winters and shorter summers. Something similar happened in the Sahara a few thousand years ago.

That's a pessimistic scenario and the situation may not be as bad. But I don't think it will be too good either.

Can humans adapt? I'm pretty sure we can, but it's going to cost a lot, in money and lives.

What a heap of steaming shite.

There is nothing in that article to back up the claim it makes, because global warming is a scientific fact.

The "benefits" it cites are also completely wrong - there will be less temperate zones, and extreme weather conditions (eg floods, droughts) will become (and are already becoming) more commonplace.

More UV = more skin cancer. You kill harmful bacteria under intense UV light, not under the sun's rays.

Longer summers? Erm, not in Britain mate - longer, colder, wetter winters, I think you'll find. Global warming will increase the outflow of the freezing Siberian rivers which will turn off the Gulf Stream.

Less sickness? More floods = more cholera and other water-borne diseases. Tropical illnesses will also return to areas that are currently free of them. And the "common cold" has very little to do with exposure to the cold.

Oh, and more wars over water supplies, too.


Siberian rivers stopping the gulf stream eh? sounds an awful lot like something out of that slightly amusing film "The Day After Tomorrow". Espescially since Siberian rivers would have to be very creative to get to the gulf stream.

silly little depiction of this:http://img86.exs.cx/img86/8962/siberianrivers.jpg

(no, I don't actually propose that siberian rivers will pour through India, but it looked funny all the same)

And you've been reading that one pentagon report recently have you?

Hahaha, funny essay. I love it when religous school Ph.D. start talking things they have no idea of. Starting by the term "humanist".

There are several indications of global warming. Still in the air is how much has been provoked by us and whether the trend can be reversed. I don't think that placing limits on industry pollution is a bad idea anyway because clean air and water are a good thing in themselves.

This "doctor" seems to have a very childish idea of what global warming means, i.e. that it doesn't refer to a nice increase of overall temperature, but to a disruption in "normal" (to us humans) weather patterns that would bring an average increase in global temperature but with localized ups and downs that may be severe in some cases.

Whether the north will get colder or warmer remains to be seen. If rain patterns are affected in such a way that they stop travelling away from the equator, we might very well see a much wider band of desertification in the world's breadbaskets (US and Ukraine), while the northern regions get even colder winters and shorter summers. Something similar happened in the Sahara a few thousand years ago.

That's a pessimistic scenario and the situation may not be as bad. But I don't think it will be too good either.

Can humans adapt? I'm pretty sure we can, but it's going to cost a lot, in money and lives.


Fear not, humans are the most adaptable species there is. Given a bit of forewarning we could even survive a massive comet impact. We can surely survive gradual change. Also, with any luck will be off messing up Mars by the time it gets so bad we cannot live here anymore.

The Humanists are a proud bunch. Never to be stopped or even delayed in bringing in their "Brave New World." They are proud of their accomplishments and even prouder of their future plans. They like to brag on the way in which they never let a "challenge" get them down. Whether it is splitting the atom, finding a cure for smallpox, defeating a fascist regime, or going to the moon, they never let the magnitude of any obstacle deter them or cause them to fret.


Damn right, 'tard.


Even now they are talking about setting up colonies on the lunar poles and mining water from lunar rocks in -200 degree temperatures like it's just a trip around the block. Build a space station? Travel to Mars? No Problem! Yet when faced with the ogre of "Global Warming," these same brave souls turn into quivering masses of flesh, paralyzed by the immensity of this "threat." There is no hope! "We're all going to die!" "The world is going to end!" "The sky is falling!"


How about, "Hay guys, stop fucking up our atmosphere?"
"Venus is a nice place but I wouldn't want to live there?"


If the Humanists of the world really believed that the world was getting warmer, they would look at it--not as a threat--but as a mere "bump" in the road that they would be certain they would overcome. Instead, they all panic and call for more control over industry. (?)


The problem is solved by limiting the production of greenhouse gases/chemicals that adveresly affect the atmosphere. Logical solution.


Think about this. If "Global Warming" is true, then think about the positive affects that it would have on the world:

1. There would be more land with moderate climate for all those people who are "overpopulating" the earth to live on. (Overpopulation problem solved)
2. There would be more fresh water available for irrigating desert lands. (Food Shortage solved)
3. More arable land to grow crops. (Food Shortage solved)
4. Milder winters. (Heat fit~Lshortage solved)
5. Milder winters. (Less sickness)


It's hard to predict what will actually happen on factors that are hard to predict such as whether rainfall will increase or decrease. It cannot be determined which areas will become wetter or drier.

All these supposed "benefits" are baseless.


6. More Ultra Violet rays getting to earth. (UV kills some bacteria)


I don't see what this has to do with global warming. Likely the writer has confused it with the ozone layer. I am struck by the idea the OP is fond of skin cancer.


If the Humanists really believed the world was getting warmer, they would be telling us not to be alarmed because "Man will rise to the occasion!"


By limiting the factors that cause the problem in the first place?


Instead, they huddle in the corner like terrified mice. Why? Because they want Americans to huddle in the corner like terrified mice so they can gain more power over us. Humanists hate America.


Ad Hominem, Non Sequitur, Prejudicial Language, Straw Man ... if this article is an attempt to fit the most logical fallacies in a single text, the author seems to be on the first track.


I have said it time and time again. The goal of environmentalism and animal rightism is not to "save the earth."


Nice try grouping those two together, "Animal Rights" has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


Their goal is to destroy the American economy. Why? Because a strong America is a detriment to a One World government!


Damn those Illumiati! http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/emot-tinfoil.gif


That's why over 160 nations were exempted from the environmental restrictions placed on the U.S. at Kyoto Japan. The nations with the dirtiest air were exempted while stricter regulations were imposed on America--the nation that has done the most to clean up its environment.


Substantiate this claim.


Remember the Gulf War? (The one to liberate Kuwait; not the one Clinton wants to fight to get our attention off of Monica.) Remember when Saddam Hussein poured raw crude oil into the Persian Gulf and then set over two hundred oil wells on fire? Where was the indignant outcry of environmentalism against Hussein? Nowhere! Why? Because he wasn't an American! Because Iraq isn't America!


Relevance to issue at hand? I was five years old at time, don't look at me.


So here are men who are optimistic about finding a cure for AIDS. Men who talk about manned flight to Jupiter as though it were plausible. Yet "Global Warming"? They can't think of anything positive to say. They can see no hope whatsoever. That's because they see it as an opportunity to place greater restrictions on your freedoms and a tool to push-America into poverty.


What freedoms? How are American industries disadvantaged if everyone has to meet comparative demands?


Me? I'm going to pretend that "Global Warming" is true for a moment.


You have failed to demonstrate it is not.


I look forward to seeing vast corn fields in northern Canada and Siberia.
I look forward to the additional rainfall from "the greenhouse" (tremble, please) turning our deserts into lush, fertile plains where new cities will spring up to take in the "overflow" from the "growing population".
I look forward to it being warmer the year round, to the new citrus groves in Ohio and the rest of the Midwest.
I look forward to the auto and aircraft industries expanding to supply transportation for the expanded populations in our northernmost regions.
And I really look forward to San Francisco being underwater!


Substantiate these claims.


Do you see? Do you see how easy it would be to put a positive spin on this so-called "Global Warming" if they really wanted to? But they don't do it. Do they? No. Because they have other plans--sinister plans for you, your family, and your country.


It's easy to make things up. Like the sinister plans of the Humanist Illumiati planning to create a one world government. http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/emot-tinfoil.gif Which I personally wouldn't mind.

That site is a comedy goldmine, isn't it? The sad part is, they're serious.

Damn right, 'tard.



How about, "Hay guys, stop fucking up our atmosphere?"
"Venus is a nice place but I wouldn't want to live there?"



The problem is solved by limiting the production of greenhouse gases/chemicals that adveresly affect the atmosphere. Logical solution.



It's hard to predict what will actually happen on factors that are hard to predict such as whether rainfall will increase or decrease. It cannot be determined which areas will become wetter or drier.

All these supposed "benefits" are baseless.



I don't see what this has to do with global warming. Likely the writer has confused it with the ozone layer. I am struck by the idea the OP is fond of skin cancer.



By limiting the factors that cause the problem in the first place?



Ad Hominem, Non Sequitur, Prejudicial Language, Straw Man ... if this article is an attempt to fit the most logical fallacies in a single text, the author seems to be on the first track.



Nice try grouping those two together, "Animal Rights" has nothing to do with the topic at hand.



Damn those Illumiati! http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/emot-tinfoil.gif



Substantiate this claim.



Relevance to issue at hand? I was five years old at time, don't look at me.



What freedoms? How are American industries disadvantaged if everyone has to meet comparative demands?



You have failed to demonstrate it is not.



Substantiate these claims.



It's easy to make things up. Like the sinister plans of the Humanist Illumiati planning to create a one world government. http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/emot-tinfoil.gif Which I personally wouldn't mind.


wow you took the time to reply line by line lol ... you know this was a joke dont you (actualy the site is REALY which is really depressing but I posted as a joke) lol whoever wrote that wont be around here to substantiate anything lol

That site is a comedy goldmine, isn't it? The sad part is, they're serious.
:) yes it is ... thanks for showing it to me in that other thread :)

I did it because I enjoy it. Can't I have my fun? :p

Global Warming is probably a fact. I have two young children who love dinosaurs and we have seen the BBC's Kenneth Branagh 'Walking with Dinosaurs' about a gazillion times. One episode got me interested enough in global temperatures over the ages to do a bit of research, and I discovered that we are living in an Ice Age. (Speaking in terms of Geologic Ages)

The world is far cooler now, than what is probably its average temperature over the ages. The earth also does not actually seem to have a 'normal' temperature. It is always heating up or cooling down. The current warming trend is probably part of the interglacial period that started about 10,000 years ago and has about 10,000 years left to run. Should this actually be the end of the current ice age that started about 2 million years ago, then whatever we do, the earth is going to get a whole lot hotter. Should it not, then the earth is going to warm for a few more years (decades or centuries) and then get really freaking cold. (Minnesota, where I see one poster is from, will be Glaciated again.)

The point is that Global temperature variations happen, have happened and will happen. There is little we can do about it. Should we heat the world too much (something that I think is beyond our abilities) then people will die from the climate change. Should the earth stay the same temperature (an unlikely occurance in any case) people will overpopulate the earth in a couple of centuries and start dying of starvation anyway. (Hitting a population of around 20 billion by the end of this century if current trends prevail; never mind Euk-189, SIR2, FoxM1b and so on...)

The bottom line is that polution is bad, and we should reduce it's level, but humanity is probably not responsible for global warming. (or cooling for that matter) My main beef with Kyoto is that too many countries that are large poluters are exempted, and these exemptions will assure that Kyoto has no real effect. If the point of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions then it should put limits on all countries. If China is exempt then companies that wish to polute will simply move to China. This will accomplish global wealth redistribution to the eastern world, but will not really reduce CO2 emissions.

Consider the news story below. China is the last country that should be getting an exemption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3978329.stm

I did it because I enjoy it. Can't I have my fun? :p
Fair enough … I just thought with the “substantiate these claims” lol when I was not really claiming anything

everyone is wrong and has an invalid argument for 1 reason, they are yet to read my AWESOME paper on global warming I did last year for english class.

so everyone prepare to be educated and enlightend on "The Myth Of Global Warming"

html version http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalwarming.html

in word document form http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalbullshit.doc

Global Warming is probably a fact. I have two young children who love dinosaurs and we have seen the BBC's Kenneth Branagh 'Walking with Dinosaurs' about a gazillion times. One episode got me interested enough in global temperatures over the ages to do a bit of research, and I discovered that we are living in an Ice Age. (Speaking in terms of Geologic Ages)

The world is far cooler now, than what is probably its average temperature over the ages. The earth also does not actually seem to have a 'normal' temperature. It is always heating up or cooling down. The current warming trend is probably part of the interglacial period that started about 10,000 years ago and has about 10,000 years left to run. Should this actually be the end of the current ice age that started about 2 million years ago, then whatever we do, the earth is going to get a whole lot hotter. Should it not, then the earth is going to warm for a few more years (decades or centuries) and then get really freaking cold. (Minnesota, where I see one poster is from, will be Glaciated again.)

The point is that Global temperature variations happen, have happened and will happen. There is little we can do about it. Should we heat the world too much (something that I think is beyond our abilities) then people will die from the climate change. Should the earth stay the same temperature (an unlikely occurance in any case) people will overpopulate the earth in a couple of centuries and start dying of starvation anyway. (Hitting a population of around 20 billion by the end of this century if current trends prevail; never mind Euk-189, SIR2, FoxM1b and so on...)

The bottom line is that polution is bad, and we should reduce it's level, but humanity is probably not responsible for global warming. (or cooling for that matter) My main beef with Kyoto is that too many countries that are large poluters are exempted, and these exemptions will assure that Kyoto has no real effect. If the point of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions then it should put limits on all countries. If China is exempt then companies that wish to polute will simply move to China. This will accomplish global wealth redistribution to the eastern world, but will not really reduce CO2 emissions.

Consider the news story below. China is the last country that should be getting an exemption.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3978329.stm


ohhh another serious poster :)

Here's another fundy link. Equally scary and funny at the same time.

http://business.gorge.net/zdkf/family/wi-wff.html

Fair enough … I just thought with the “substantiate these claims” lol when I was not really claiming anything

I thought it was obvious I was addressing the author, though I did have a conversational tone in places.

You can't really blame anyone for being serious with the "right-wing" nuts here that seem to latch on to the most outrageous things.

Here's another fundy link. Equally scary and funny at the same time.

http://business.gorge.net/zdkf/family/wi-wff.html
Damn lol another great one :)

So, ladies, the question now becomes: ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING WITH YOUR OWN HEAIR THAT MAKES YOU A SLAVE OF THE DEVIL (and his workers of iniquity)? lol

I thought it was obvious I was addressing the author, though I did have a conversational tone in places.
thats ok :) maybe I just cant read :)

Discuss :)
#8, An Essay-- How I Know "Global Warming" Is A Lie

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]The Humanists are a proud bunch. Never to be stopped or even delayed in bringing in their "Brave New World." They are proud of their accomplishments and even prouder of their future plans. They like to brag on the way in which they never let a "challenge" get them down. Whether it is splitting the atom, finding a cure for smallpox, defeating a fascist regime, or going to the moon, they never let the magnitude of any obstacle deter them or cause them to fret.
If you say so...

Even now they are talking about setting up colonies on the lunar poles and mining water from lunar rocks in -200 degree temperatures like it's just a trip around the block. Build a space station? Travel to Mars? No Problem! Yet when faced with the ogre of "Global Warming," these same brave souls turn into quivering masses of flesh, paralyzed by the immensity of this "threat." There is no hope! "We're all going to die!" "The world is going to end!" "The sky is falling!"
Because it is a serious problem?

If the Humanists of the world really believed that the world was getting warmer, they would look at it--not as a threat--but as a mere "bump" in the road that they would be certain they would overcome. Instead, they all panic and call for more control over industry. (?)
If they act according to your prejudices, yes.

Think about this. If "Global Warming" is true, then think about the positive affects that it would have on the world:
Practically none at all...

1. There would be more land with moderate climate for all those people who are "overpopulating" the earth to live on. (Overpopulation problem solved)
No as the polar ice wil melt and put half Europe under water, and that's just Europe.

2. There would be more fresh water available for irrigating desert lands. (Food Shortage solved)
Sure, and more fllodings and monsunes in the those fertile countries...

3. More arable land to grow crops. (Food Shortage solved)See the above...


4. Milder winters. (Heat fit~Lshortage solved)Ok, can't deny that.

5. Milder winters. (Less sickness)
And warmer summers, which means more diseases and bacterias...

6. More Ultra Violet rays getting to earth. (UV kills some bacteria)
And gives you cancer...

7. Longer summers, longer tourist seasons. (More national income)
Totally right.

If the Humanists really believed the world was getting warmer, they would be telling us not to be alarmed because "Man will rise to the occasion!" Instead, they huddle in the corner like terrified mice. Why? Because they want Americans to huddle in the corner like terrified mice so they can gain more power over us. Humanists hate America.
And the reason why you couldn't make it to art academy is the whole jewish popultaion, right?

I have said it time and time again. The goal of environmentalism and animal rightism is not to "save the earth." Their goal is to destroy the American economy. Why? Because a strong America is a detriment to a One World government! That's why over 160 nations were exempted from the environmental restrictions placed on the U.S. at Kyoto Japan. The nations with the dirtiest air were exempted while stricter regulations were imposed on America--the nation that has done the most to clean up its environment.HAHAHAHAHALOL!!!111FUXORS AMERICAN WHO BELIVE THAT!
Maybe it is because of the fact that you don't control your environment and have the money to do it?


Remember the Gulf War? (The one to liberate Kuwait; not the one Clinton wants to fight to get our attention off of Monica.) Remember when Saddam Hussein poured raw crude oil into the Persian Gulf and then set over two hundred oil wells on fire? Where was the indignant outcry of environmentalism against Hussein? Nowhere! Why? Because he wasn't an American! Because Iraq isn't America!Because Saddam isn't Irag and he was a dictator everybody hated at first?


So here are men who are optimistic about finding a cure for AIDS. Men who talk about manned flight to Jupiter as though it were plausible. Yet "Global Warming"? They can't think of anything positive to say. They can see no hope whatsoever. That's because they see it as an opportunity to place greater restrictions on your freedoms and a tool to push-America into poverty.See my above thig, those prejudices you have are totally free from even the fartest relation with the term humanism...


Me? I'm going to pretend that "Global Warming" is true for a moment.
Sounds great to me...

I look forward to seeing vast corn fields in northern Canada and Siberia.
But now you have radical ideas, right? Which makes you a "humanist", and thus your points ignorable?

I look forward to the additional rainfall from "the greenhouse" (tremble, please) turning our deserts into lush, fertile plains where new cities will spring up to take in the "overflow" from the "growing population".
I look forward to hot summers from the greeenhouse that willl increase desersts and turn yet hospitable, forested land into in-fertile plains...

I look forward to it being warmer the year round, to the new citrus groves in Ohio and the rest of the Midwest.
Could be nice though...

I look forward to the auto and aircraft industries expanding to supply transportation for the expanded populations in our northernmost regions.
Which has what to do with this?

And I really look forward to San Francisco being underwater!
Sue thing...:P

Do you see? Do you see how easy it would be to put a positive spin on this so-called "Global Warming" if they really wanted to? But they don't do it. Do they? No. Because they have other plans--sinister plans for you, your family, and your country.
YES, and Europe is controlled by evil nazi/fascist/communists/liberal Illuminati!

So if you really believe in "Global Warming," then you should lighten up a little! It really won't be the disaster that you've been told it will be. You'll soon be sipping iced tea by the pool in your new retirement community in balmy North Dakota while your investments in corn production in the Northwest Territories continue to bring you more income. You'll be watching some loony "earth scientist" on TV trying to warn you of global Cooling" due to "increased greenhouse gases." (Like they tried in the '70's.)
it hink you should lighten but I can't force you, which makes me non-humanist of course...

You just have to realize that these people are mentally ill; and the sooner we put them away, the sooner we can get on to "This bold new challenge facing us."
Ehhhmmm...

We don't have a problem with "Global Warming." We have a problem with the loonies that are claiming that it's bad. I know that there is a shortage of asylums to put them in. But we can build more. In fact, why don't we build them in Alaska?! It might be a little cold for a few more years, but in no time at all they'll be enjoying the view of tropical Alaska from their "rubber room" windows. Then they'll see how wrong they were to bother us with their foolish worries about such a wonderful blessing as "Global Warming!"

LOL, you ought to be comidian...

everyone is wrong and has an invalid argument for 1 reason, they are yet to read my AWESOME paper on global warming I did last year for english class.

so everyone prepare to be educated and enlightend on "The Myth Of Global Warming"

html version http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalwarming.html

in word document form http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalbullshit.doc


Nice paper. Informative.

If you say so...


Because it is a serious problem?


If they act according to your prejudices, yes.


Practically none at all...


No as the polar ice wil melt and put half Europe under water, and that's just Europe.


Sure, and more fllodings and monsunes in the those fertile countries...

See the above...


Ok, can't deny that.


And warmer summers, which means more diseases and bacterias...


And gives you cancer...


Totally right.


And the reason why you couldn't make it to art academy is the whole jewish popultaion, right?

HAHAHAHAHALOL!!!111FUXORS AMERICAN WHO BELIVE THAT!
Maybe it is because of the fact that you don't control your environment and have the money to do it?


Because Saddam isn't Irag and he was a dictator everybody hated at first?


See my above thig, those prejudices you have are totally free from even the fartest relation with the term humanism...



Sounds great to me...


But now you have radical ideas, right? Which makes you a "humanist", and thus your points ignorable?


I look forward to hot summers from the greeenhouse that willl increase desersts and turn yet hospitable, forested land into in-fertile plains...


Could be nice though...


Which has what to do with this?


Sue thing...:P


YES, and Europe is controlled by evil nazi/fascist/communists/liberal Illuminati!


it hink you should lighten but I can't force you, which makes me non-humanist of course...


Ehhhmmm...


LOL, you ought to be comidian...

um that was the intent ... to be a comedian ... unless you took me or that stupid article seriously

everyone is wrong and has an invalid argument for 1 reason, they are yet to read my AWESOME paper on global warming I did last year for english class.

so everyone prepare to be educated and enlightend on "The Myth Of Global Warming"

html version http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalwarming.html

in word document form http://www.bjjfighter.com/temp/globalbullshit.doc

Consider the following statement from your paper:

The problems arise when examining their first statement. This being that the earth has warmed 1 degree in the past century. This cannot be considered credible evidence for the following reasons. Taking global temperature measurements over 100 years old is extremely inaccurate.

Except for the fact that using thermometers is not the only way to measure climate. There are also ecological studies (nature is very sensitive to temperature), the types of crop that are grown in different areas, and no doubt many other methods of working out the climate in a given period of time. And the 1870s weren't that long ago - scientific measurements were already pretty damn accurate.

I'm sure I can pick your argument to pieces in a similar fashion all the way through, but I can't be bothered. You started with a conclusion and then tried to fill in the gaps.

Discuss :)
Essay from
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/gippwarm.htm

The author is an idiot.

I believe global warming is a big pile of steaming shite! It is a lie! If the world is getting so warm then why dont I feel it? We have had some of the coldest winters on record lately and our last 2 summers have been luke warm at best! Global warming my ass! Everyone, arm your spray paint and any other aresol cans you have and lets really warm up this planet! I want it to be warmer! I wish global warming really was happening! But its not. Enviromentalists will do anything to put fear into people. Screw the enviroment! We have enough of it! I wish they would stop complaining and making up stupid crap like global warming.

lol

The author is an idiot.
I happen to agree ... funny stuff though :) should see their views on evolution

Wanna stop global warming?

Here's what you gotta do:

1. Don't buy anything. Production of everything from food to goods are produced and shipped in one way or another via gas-burning machines.

2. Don't own a car. Expels CO and CO2. Even electric cars are bad (coal-fired electrical plants)

3. Don't use electricity. Most places on the eastern seaboard use petroleum or natural gas to generate electricity.

4. Don't have a fireplace, don't build a fire, etc.

5. Don't breathe. You're poluting the air every time you exhale. Especially when you are talking about global warming.

Don't wanna give up all this stuff? Wanna live? Wanna have a good quality life?

Well, you just can't have these things and combat global warming.

By the way, I've heard that the reason scientists were seeing "global warming" was because Russia quit giving temperature data during the Cold War. Without this data, the story goes that the average temperature (even if statisically accounted for) would be higher.

Even electric cars are bad (coal-fired electrical plants).

Since when have electric cars been plugged into the national grid?

Humanists hate America.

And here we find the reason behind the fuzzy logic.


Anyway, if God wanted America blessed, He would have populated it with good sound Dutch and Swiss and Scottish Calvinists... not with anabaptist addle-brains.

Wanna stop global warming?

Here's what you gotta do:

1. Don't buy anything. Production of everything from food to goods are produced and shipped in one way or another via gas-burning machines.

2. Don't own a car. Expels CO and CO2. Even electric cars are bad (coal-fired electrical plants)

3. Don't use electricity. Most places on the eastern seaboard use petroleum or natural gas to generate electricity.

4. Don't have a fireplace, don't build a fire, etc.

5. Don't breathe. You're poluting the air every time you exhale. Especially when you are talking about global warming.

Don't wanna give up all this stuff? Wanna live? Wanna have a good quality life?

Well, you just can't have these things and combat global warming.

By the way, I've heard that the reason scientists were seeing "global warming" was because Russia quit giving temperature data during the Cold War. Without this data, the story goes that the average temperature (even if statisically accounted for) would be higher.

Black-or-white only huh? :rolleyes: Brillient! Either do absolutely nothing or commit suicide.

Why don't you try to add something useful?

No, global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. (visit any encyclopedia)

I believe global warming is a big pile of steaming shite! It is a lie! If the world is getting so warm then why dont I feel it? We have had some of the coldest winters on record lately and our last 2 summers have been luke warm at best! Global warming my ass! Everyone, arm your spray paint and any other aresol cans you have and lets really warm up this planet! I want it to be warmer! I wish global warming really was happening! But its not. Enviromentalists will do anything to put fear into people. Screw the enviroment! We have enough of it! I wish they would stop complaining and making up stupid crap like global warming.
And where I live we have had the warmest summers since 100 years back and the warmest winters since 70 years back, good point man...

Here is a great paper on Average Geologic Temperature: http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/past.html

Wanna stop global warming?

Here's what you gotta do:

1. Don't buy anything. Production of everything from food to goods are produced and shipped in one way or another via gas-burning machines.

2. Don't own a car. Expels CO and CO2. Even electric cars are bad (coal-fired electrical plants)

3. Don't use electricity. Most places on the eastern seaboard use petroleum or natural gas to generate electricity.

4. Don't have a fireplace, don't build a fire, etc.

5. Don't breathe. You're poluting the air every time you exhale. Especially when you are talking about global warming.

Don't wanna give up all this stuff? Wanna live? Wanna have a good quality life?

Well, you just can't have these things and combat global warming.

By the way, I've heard that the reason scientists were seeing "global warming" was because Russia quit giving temperature data during the Cold War. Without this data, the story goes that the average temperature (even if statisically accounted for) would be higher.
Yes I want to live, but it will be impossible under the circumstances you propose...

Yes I want to live, but it will be impossible under the circumstances you propose...

So you've bought into his bullshit argument? :rolleyes: Great...

So you've bought into his bullshit argument? :rolleyes: Great...
My first joke thread gone mad ... sweet

And here we find the reason behind the fuzzy logic.


Anyway, if God wanted America blessed, He would have populated it with good sound Dutch and Swiss and Scottish Calvinists... not with anabaptist addle-brains.


You might want to clarify your response after this correction to your statement:

Here are a few tidbits about the Anabaptists:
Contemporary groups with early Anabaptist roots include the Mennonites, Amish, Dunkards, Landmark Baptists, Hutterites, and various Beachy and Brethren groups.
There is no single defining set of beliefs, doctrines, and practices that characterizes all Anabaptists.
The era of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation in Europe spawned a number of radical reform groups, among them the Anabaptists. These Christians regarded the Bible as their only rule for faith and life. Because of their radical beliefs, the Anabaptists were persecuted by other Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics.
Mennonites have been characterized historically by a love for the Word of God, and by a strict demand for holiness of life.
The evangelical and non-revolutionary Anabaptists of Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands, were somewhat of a trial to the leading reformers because of their radical views on the nature of the church and of the Christian ethic.
January 21, 1525, is generally considered the birthdate of Anabaptism

For further info visit: http://www.anabaptists.org
Think B4 you type.

That site is a comedy goldmine, isn't it? The sad part is, they're serious.
I have to agree with you - it's absolutely hilarious! Check this one out from the same site:
Proving Evolution wrong:
It starts off subtle enough:
TO YOU TEACHERS OF EVOLUTION-- A QUESTION
Are you mentally handicapped in any other area?
Before it gets to the real nitty gritty:
The following comes to us from Researchers Don Korycansky of the University of California-Santa Cruz, Gregory Laughlin of NASA, and Fred Adams of the University of Michigan.

(CNN) -- A group of astronomers has come up with a plan they claim will save life on Earth from an early demise. All it takes, they say, is moving the planet into a different orbit. Their deadline is about 3.5 billion years in the future.

At that time, the scientists say, the sun will be 40 percent brighter than it is today and the Earth will be too hot to sustain life. Even looking just a billion years down the road, the increased brightness of the sun would cause a "moist greenhouse" effect which will have a catastrophic impact on the planet.

Now, these geniuses want to find a way to move the earth out of its present orbit to be farther from the sun and save the earth for continued habitation. They are serious folks. They say they can change the earth's orbit by shooting an asteroid past the earth every 6000 years for the next 5 billion years. The asteroid will cause the earth to wobble and take a couple steps away from the sun, and they say this will need to be done only 83,000 times over the next 5 billion years.

But, here is the riot of it all. They are, by this proposal, blasting away the theory of evolution. You see, the earth has been orbiting right where it is for, allegedly, 3 trillion years, according to the theory of evolution.

So, if the sun will get 40% brighter in 5 billion years, this world would have been an ice cube of unbelievable cold temperatures for most of the common era of evolution.

Let's be generous and throw away one of the three trillion years the evolutionists ask for. If we divide 5 billion years into 2 trillion years, we get 400 such intervals in time. If one of these intervals into the future would result in a 40% brighter sun, then what would the sun look like 400 such intervals into the past? I gather the sun would have been so small that the earth would have been about the same temperature of Pluto. Nothing would have evolved and lived during such severe conditions.

Now, here is another thought from my humble and limited knowledge of science. I think the PhDs failed to take into account a couple of small details.

They need to find an asteroid, according to these brilliant PhDs, which is 62 miles across, which is headed, let's say, north at thousands of miles per hour. They then have to lasso the thing and turn it so it will head right across the bows of the earth, but not too close so it won't hit the earth and bust it.

To do this, the PhDs fail to tell us what kind of propulsion will be needed, how to get it to the fanny of the asteroid, attach it, and fly the thing into place. And, no one has bothered to figure out the cost. We haven't gotten anything into orbit bigger than a barn, but we are going to fly a rock 62 miles in diameter, and fly it half way across the solar system?

Lastly, who is going to convince the US Senate to fund these 83,000 flights? How will Ted Kennedy every understand about flying rocks across the sky when he cannot drive his Oldsmobile home without running it off of a bridge?

What is ironic is that these PhDs don't believe in God, creation, or the Word of God, but they believe that they can do all these tricks and fly rocks around the universe.

This is the kind of idiotic rubbish modern scientists come up with, and only a perfect fool would take them seriously. The same people who invent evolutionary fairy tales then invent the notions of the sun burning us up.

Where to begin, oh where to begin? It's so lacking even the most basic of scientific understanding and riddled with illogic and flaws, it's breathtaking. I bolded a couple of bits for extra amusement.
I can scarcely believe this guy is serious, but then I remember 59 million Americans voted for GWB. My guess this is one of them.
'Limited knowledge of science' indeed.

Good lord, that article is a big steamy pile. But..."global warming" as the effect of mankind to "destroy the Earth" is still just a throry, abd probably unprovable in either direction. Three things to keep in mind:

1) the climates of the planet have been changing regularly since the planet started to cool. It's natural, and brought on by lots of things, from plate tectonics to cow farts. I highly doubt that there's anything that we mere humans can do to either stop, start or change this natural cycle.

2) humans have only been taking accurate, daily measurements of atmospheric conditions for about 200 years. 200 years is less than 1/2 a heartbeat to the planet. We don't KNOW what the weather is really like in the long term, because we don't have the right sort of data. We do have incidental supporting data, like ice core samples or the written records of "the year without a summer" (Europe, sometime in the 1400s I think)

3) historically, the single largest contributor to the destruction of the environment and massive, global changes in the planet's ecosystem is man...and his GOATS. Why did the Sahara turn from a temperate, fairly water rich area to a dry and continually growing desert? Goats, man's second domesticated animal. Goats (and to a lesser degree sheep) have small hooves that exert a lot of ground pressure, which compacts the soil. Compacted soil means few plants will grow in tit, and little moisture is retained. Compact the soil for 5000-10,000 years, and you get a desert. Start a big enough desert, and the local ecosystem changes, with more radiation bouncing off the barren soil changing weather patterns. Change the weather patterns enough, and you basically never get any moisture at all. There are areas in the Sahara that haven't been rained on in 50+ years. The Sahara has screwed up weather patterns for most of north Africa and SW Asia. Man evolved in this area, and most of our first great civilizations arose here. We didn't wander into a dusty, barren wasteland and say to ourselves, "Hey; this is nice. Let's invent cropland and writing in this hellhole". Man created the desert everyone's now so worked up about.

Wanna stop global climate changes? Ban goats.

Don't worry, I know that its a joke, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew this:

WE HAVE LOTS OF CORNFIELDS AND OTHER SUCH AGRICULTURE IN CANADA!!!! WE HAVE MORE AGRICULTURE THAN MOST NATIONS!!!! WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL WARM SUMMERS!!! WE ARE NOT A FROZEN WASTELAND!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope nobody REALLY believed we don't have cornfields....sheesh..... you'd have to know nothing about Canada to think that. Hey, quick quiz! How many privinces and territories do we have? Who's our Prime Minister?

Don't worry, I know that its a joke, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew this:

WE HAVE LOTS OF CORNFIELDS AND OTHER SUCH AGRICULTURE IN CANADA!!!! WE HAVE MORE AGRICULTURE THAN MOST NATIONS!!!! WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL WARM SUMMERS!!! WE ARE NOT A FROZEN WASTELAND!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope nobody REALLY believed we don't have cornfields....sheesh..... you'd have to know nothing about Canada to think that. Hey, quick quiz! How many privinces and territories do we have? Who's our Prime Minister?
Quick quiz did you know That this guy is an idiot and cant find his own two shoes lol

This thread is hilarious.
The article it is based on have been proven to be made by an ignorant that doesn't know what he is talking about.
The argument that earth have already suffered global warming/freezing does not take in account how fast the warming is being done. Comparing the current one with others from the past is like compairing a forest fire with the nuclear fire.

The arguments that breath and stuff like this pollute the athmosphere is probably the dumbest I've seen, since anyone with the minimum of education knows that the natural processes that destroys carbon have a speed limit - ie, those processes are fast enough to control the emission caused by animals, humans, and an industry under certain laws.

Discuss :)
Essay from
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/gippwarm.htm
sure. and earth is flat. and the sun goes around the earth. :rolleyes:

Quick quiz did you know That this guy is an idiot and cant find his own two shoes lol

True, and I know that :) I just wonder sometimes... I actually once had someone ask me in all seriousness if I lived in an igloo :rolleyes:

True, and I know that :) I just wonder sometimes... I actually once had someone ask me in all seriousness if I lived in an igloo :rolleyes:
Hey man I am from minnesota :) not that big of climactic difference :)

OHNOES TEH LIBERALCOMMIE SCUM R TAKIN OVER1!

Next they'll be claiming all those 'starving' Africans are real. Assholes. Everyone knows if they were Christian they'd have enough to eat, and anyone who disagrees is an eliteist liberal pinko anti-American Canadian, or even worse, a European.

Seems to me that ALL or NOTHING thoughts comes from the same level of THINKING that has created MOST of the worlds problems. ALL of NOTHING analysis cannot truely grasp the solutions however....

It's pretty clear BUYING nothing isn't within the field of reality, so considering that this is some form of solution is not paying attention to the FACTS and typifies the type of thoughtlessness that has placed humanity where it is.

The facts clearly support global climate change. In fact major changes in climate are the NORM. In its simplest terms- Man may have been unknowingly be contributing to these NATURAL cycles. This is called a "CLIMATE FORCING" .

The implications of such additions to GLOBAL climate cycles are far beyond the climate models to predict since these models are incomplete. Think about it: CAN smaller(local) models even predict weather with great accuracy?

If you'd like to better see under the hood of one area of thinking on climate change you might start here:

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council

The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic—and often extreme—shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.

Abrupt climate changes of the magnitude seen in the past would have far-reaching implications for human society and ecosystems, including major impacts on energy consumption and water supply demands. Could such a change happen again? Are human activities exacerbating the likelihood of abrupt climate change? What are the potential societal consequences of such a change?

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises looks at the current scientific evidence and theoretical understanding to describe what is currently known about abrupt climate change, including patterns and magnitudes, mechanisms, and probability of occurrence. It identifies critical knowledge gaps concerning the potential for future abrupt changes, including those aspects of change most important to society and economies, and outlines a research strategy to close those gaps.

Based on the best and most current research available, this book surveys the history of climate change and makes a series of specific recommendations for the future.


http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10136.html

The world cools and heats naturally. We're hardly headed for a tropical age. And even if we were, it would probably resemble the era of the dinosaurs. Hell, it was a whole lot warmer than five (f) degrees more so then. If I remember correctly they believe the temp was, what? 20 (f) degrees warmer. So don't worry. Even if we are involved in global warming it isn't apocalyptic. Just globe changing. And whoever said globe changing is a bad thing?

global warmins is happening.. and just cuz "warming" is in that scentance dosnt mean that it is only getting warmer but colder..

in my country, over the past decade, summers have been getting hotter.. breaking a record every year (racords dating back to the middle ages) (43° here where its supposed to be much lower).. and winters getting colder (maybe -14°,in the low "warm" lands, the disel fuel in our busses have frozen those days)... this year has also been radical.. it is already feezing cold early here and this summer has not been at all hot.. infact its been a COLD summer...i'm talking about switzerland here BTW.. all our glaciers are retreating at a rate never seen before in our histry and snow is dissappearing aswell as getting droughts in the summer. etc. etc..

Sure global warming is real....or is it? how long have we been studying weather, with actual machines none of this roman stuff, onlt for the past 60 years how do we know this isnt jsut one reacuring activity that our planet goes through, sure humans may play a part in it but oh-well. I dont care about the planet really. I dont recycle I drive a Cadilac Deville that prett much gets a mile to a gallon, oh well if we fuck up the planet we will fine some substitute... and alos humanists, animal rights activits, wahtever you call 'em i jsut call them draft dodgeing hippies, really do hate America.

Consider the following statement from your paper:



Except for the fact that using thermometers is not the only way to measure climate. There are also ecological studies (nature is very sensitive to temperature), the types of crop that are grown in different areas, and no doubt many other methods of working out the climate in a given period of time. And the 1870s weren't that long ago - scientific measurements were already pretty damn accurate.


wow, so stupid. Crops only grow on land, land is only 30% of earth and thus cannot be acccuratly attibuted to global temperature. You CANNOT measure some corn and get the temperature of the entire earth within a TENTH of a degree as the graphs shows. And beyond that my paper points this out and then says, lets assume the temperature is increasing.

Here's an even better website for crackpot Christian 'Science':
http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

Such gems as:
What do HIV, West Nile Fever, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's have in common? These plagues were all developed as a joint effort by the money masters and governments of the world.
And this:
the speed of light may not be a constant. It does vary in different media (hence the rainbow effect of light going through a prism)
This about Global Warming:
most of the environmental hype is really to help bring about Karl Marx's dream (nightmare) of a Communist world
Worried about the Ozone hole? According to Dr. Kent Hovind you needn't be - it's all part of the environmentalist propaganda to fulfill their Communist dreams of world domination:
Ozone is absent from the North and South Poles because the sun never strikes those areas directly, but at such an oblique angle that it does not produce ozone. It's normal to have an ozone hole in these areas...the R-12 from our refrigerators and air conditioners never rises high enough to destroy atmospheric ozone
Got Cancer? No worries! Dr. Hovind has found that the Vitamin B17, coupled with Vitamin C will soon cure you. You see, cancer is due to a Vitamin B17 deficiency.
One of his arguments against Evolution:
The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is "obvious" that we all started off as penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many "millions of years" we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets—opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beans—with 22 chromosomes each.
If we are allowed to "continue evolving" we may someday be tobacco plants and maybe we may even become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes! Don’t you believe it! God made this world and all life forms, as recorded in the Bible.


I refrain from making smart-arse comments as it's all too easy...

The world cools and heats naturally. We're hardly headed for a tropical age. And even if we were, it would probably resemble the era of the dinosaurs. Hell, it was a whole lot warmer than five (f) degrees more so then. If I remember correctly they believe the temp was, what? 20 (f) degrees warmer. So don't worry. Even if we are involved in global warming it isn't apocalyptic. Just globe changing. And whoever said globe changing is a bad thing?

Andaluciae,

I'm curious why it is that YOU think that you can accurately PREDICT the future? On what ASSUMPTIONS do your "rosy" assertions REST? Your OPINION isn't compelling enough, let's see some DATA.

ken

the speed of light isn't a constant!! that's a genius one!! approximately 3x10^8 m/s. nope not at all. put it in a prism!!! god will split it for us!! or was that refraction and differing wavelengths!! i get confused sometimes!! man right wing religious nuts are frightening and hilarious all at the same time!!

Andaluciae,

I'm curious why it is that YOU think that you can accurately PREDICT the future? On what ASSUMPTIONS do your "rosy" assertions REST? Your OPINION isn't compelling enough, let's see some DATA.

ken

The fact is... everyone has been attempting to PREDICT the future, both proponents of global warming and people against it. Fact is NO ONE can know the future, we can only attempt to predict based on the data that we have available. Problem is that often each side only looks at the data that supports their claim and rejects anything that doesn't fit as bogus. Feel that if they acknowledge the anomalies as true they have to accept the opposite.

the speed of light isn't a constant!! that's a genius one!! approximately 3x10^8 m/s. nope not at all. put it in a prism!!! god will split it for us!! or was that refraction and differing wavelengths!! i get confused sometimes!! man right wing religious nuts are frightening and hilarious all at the same time!!

This is the EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Not everything the other side says has to be false. And by making it so you only seem like complete idiots yourself. See the link below. Wish I could post the Science Article, but this will have to do. Don't have much time right now.

http://www.rochester.edu/pr/News/NewsReleases/scitech/boyd-slowlight.html

"Light passing through a window is 1.5 times slower while moving through the glass, and is slowed slightly less so when passing through water."

Is thinking before you respond too much to ask?!

You might want to clarify your response after this correction to your statement:

Here are a few tidbits about the Anabaptists:
Contemporary groups with early Anabaptist roots include the Mennonites, Amish, Dunkards, Landmark Baptists, Hutterites, and various Beachy and Brethren groups.
There is no single defining set of beliefs, doctrines, and practices that characterizes all Anabaptists.
SNÏP Think B4 you type.

Frankly, those born-again hicks look too much like the originals to me.
It is like distinguising between methodists and arminians.
No doubt THEY think they are different groups - but to me, they are the same breed.

More UV = more skin cancer. You kill harmful bacteria under intense UV light, not under the sun's rays.

Despite the fact I believe that global warming is a threat, I must point out that this statement is false.
The Earth's Ozone Layer is what filters out UV radiation and it WAS being weakened in the Antarctic, however, this threat is no longer as the area affected is returning to normal. Nations have cooperated and have almost completely eradicated most of the excessive CFC emissions through technological advances.

What is the real threat is the excessive emission of Carbon Dioxide being pumped into the air, more so than trees can use in photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is a gas that can trap heat (a reason why Venus and not Mercury is the hottest planet in the Solar System). Heat is therefore trapped inside the atmosphere by the deposition of Carbon Dioxide in the air and this why we have Global Warming.

If we do not significantly reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide WORLDWIDE, then we will have a serious problem.
What America has to realise is that short-term economic advances should be sacrificed in favour of more environmentally friendly practices. If not, then the long term is pretty much screwed.

I hate to ramble and preach my air-head eco-liberal commie pinko science but I believe it necessary.

So think on....

Siberian rivers stopping the gulf stream eh? sounds an awful lot like something out of that slightly amusing film "The Day After Tomorrow". Espescially since Siberian rivers would have to be very creative to get to the gulf stream.



The Met Office has measured a noticeable slowdown in the gulf stream (or atlantic conveypr effect as we apparently like to call it these days) and has predicted a 50% likelihood of the gulf stream stopping altogether within the next 100 years. I got this from Horizon, and haven't been able to get references it on the net just now.

Your less than amusing picture http://img86.exs.cx/img86/8962/siberianrivers.jpg actually almost shows how siberian rivers interfere with the gulf stream. Remember that the earth is a BALL so the green line you drew would actually be a much shorter line into the north atlantic. And the gulf stream is a STREAM so it doesn't just stay in the gulf - it works by flowing into the north atlantic. Too much fresh water in the north atlantic (from siberian rivers and the north pole ice cap melting) causes the downdraft effect in the north atlantic to stop. The conveyor is a circuit. If currents stop going down through the sea in the north atlantic, they stop going back to the gulf. If they stop going back to the gulf, they stop coming from the gulf to the north east atlantic. Where the UK is.