An Inconvenient Truth...Global Warming my Ass... - Page 6 - GoFuckYourself.com

BusterBunny · 01-12-2007, 05:11 PM

250..........

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Hey, don't forget the Theory of Relativity.

Fucking theories, all bullshit.

There you go too.. god, all these theories, how does one manage?

I can't wait till my generation takes over.

R

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D_hodough

My advice is to stop arguing just to argue, stop listening to what others think, and simply look at the raw science of it all.

If you can't add 2 and 2 there, and at least quirk an eyebrow at the matter, god help ya.

You know, i should have just posted this.

I would have accomplished the exact same thing..

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

YOU HAVE TO BE THE BIGGEST MORON ON HERE.

Do you fucking talk to just hear yourself. If you lived in pittsburgh then you would know why the air cleaned up. Jesus fucking christ. YOU people are so FUCKING STUPID.

First of all you are a moron for using "Pittsburgh" as a litmus test for World Wide Smog and polution. You might want to have a bigger sample set to base your data on. Then you might want to look at OTHER FACTORS and actually be educated in what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania

You lived in Pittsburgh and you didnt know this ???? It took me 5 mins on Google to get the info.

BTW, if you standing next to a fire there will be smoke, if you put out the fire the smoke will go away. Do you fucking get ?

Maybe you missed the whole point eh? Why were the temperatures not high back then when we REALLY had pollution? So are you trying to tell me Pittsburgh was the only city that polluted like that? You call me the biggest moron and you dont even get the simple point I was making. Ok..... lets make this clear. Why is it getting hotter now, when pollution is way way down compared to what it was? And by the way I knew about it, and even posted pictures as pollution got better. Do you think I thought pollution just stopped without a reason. Do you think the only pollution caused by huge factories blowing out smoke, and chemicals runoff etc into the Three rivers just went away? Jesus fucked a goat...

Webby · 01-12-2007, 05:27 PM

Damn.. this thread still going on???

The discussion is still creeping below the idiot level with the totally ignorant pushing ahead with their views based on nothing?? Awesome

aico · 01-12-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Damn.. this thread still going on???

The discussion is still creeping below the idiot level with the totally ignorant pushing ahead with their views based on nothing?? Awesome

There are lots of other cures for insecurity, you should try those too.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D_hodough

Gravity's only a theory, too, ya know.

But I still expect that if I hold out a rock and let it go, it's gonna fall.

So, since you didn't seem moved by me outright refuting an earlier point you made, let's try to work with the only real model we have to make comparisons with outside of our own planet's record-keeping: Other planets.

The Earth is in a period of warming.

source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The Why?

Whether we are to blame, or not - whether or not mankind's involvement in resource redistribution is more than the Earth's climate is prepared to handle and still produce life in its present variety... well, that's a subject for debate, sure.

So let's look at Venus. Venus does not have a single drop of liquid water (not even gonna mention "ice") on the planet because the surface temperature is around 900 degrees F (c. 480 degrees C), which is hot enough to melt lead. The planet is so frikkin hot _not simply_ because of the fact that it's closer to the Sun, but also because its atmosphere is so CO2 rich, that it has a run-away greenhouse affect. The Heat, once enveloped in the planet's atmosthere, has a very difficult time escaping.

CO2 is the same compound that Americans release into the atmosphere at the rate of about 40,000 pounds per American per year... and other industrial nations seem to be doing their best to catch up.

pair all this with the fact that species of coral are already dying because of the world temperature change being altered just tenths of a degree, and we have issues.

My advice is to stop arguing just to argue, stop listening to what others think, and simply look at the raw science of it all.

If you can't add 2 and 2 there, and at least quirk an eyebrow at the matter, god help ya.

That chart looks pretty bad till you see its less than 1 degree for the whole chart. Then you take into account the accuracy and frequency of record keeping prior to the 50s and 60's. Then you take into account that urban sprawl and massive amounts of concrete might just tend to increase slightly the average median temperature.

NTSS · 01-12-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberAge-Dave

So I decide to watch this movie finally and get hit with this weather.
What to believe?

This is the coldest its been and its even getting colder here in Southern California.

I guess I need a thicker Jacket when riding my bikes.

I'm in Ohio. It's almost mid January and I havent had to shovel snow not once, which is extremely unusual. Some winters I have to shovel 8 to 12 times. Currently it is raining and feels like spring. I think the temp reached 49 degrees earlier...something strange is going on. I think climates are changing world-wide.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Oh man . . . are you suggesting that this hasn't happened in the past, prior to "global warming?"

Sure polar bears getting stranded has happened in the past, i am sure it has happend more then once at some point in time. What the article is pointing out is that the frequency of this happening is going up drastically.

See if you can follow the logic.

Warmer temps = ice melts.
polar bears hunt along the waters edge, on the edge of ice.
Ice sheet break off and float away more often.
Polar bears get stuck on ice floating away more often. It isn't like it is a 6 foot by 6 foot piece of ice. Some of these are huge and may break a 100 yards in from the edge they could be floating away and not even know the ice has broken off.

aico · 01-12-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

That chart looks pretty bad till you see its less than 1 degree for the whole chart. Then you take into account the accuracy and frequency of record keeping prior to the 50s and 60's. Then you take into account that urban sprawl and massive amounts of concrete might just tend to increase slightly the average median temperature.

You seriously are so dense that you really think they get their data from record keeping? Holy shit, you need to just go take a nap.

Day 1, 1850 "Laws yes it shurly was a hot one today, Bessie didn't want to give her milk, and the trout were all in the deeps".

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Sure polar bears getting stranded has happened in the past, i am sure it has happend more then once at some point in time. What the article is pointing out is that the frequency of this happening is going up drastically.

See if you can follow the logic.

Warmer temps = ice melts.
polar bears hunt along the waters edge, on the edge of ice.
Ice sheet break off and float away more often.
Polar bears get stuck on ice floating away more often. It isn't like it is a 6 foot by 6 foot piece of ice. Some of these are huge and may break a 100 yards in from the edge they could be floating away and not even know the ice has broken off.

Am I the only one that knows polar bears can swim?

aico · 01-12-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Am I the only one that knows polar bears can swim?

Guess you also missed the part in the movie, which you said you watched (obviously a lie), where they specifically talked about the dramatic increase in polar bears drowning.

pocketkangaroo · 01-12-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Right but take into account that most of the people that started getting skin cancer were some of the first generation to really be what we called sun worshipers. Prior to that bathing done at the beach etc most people were covered up pretty good. Think that the increase in sun cancer could of had something to do with the decrease of clothing? And not some hole that got larger because I used too much aquanet back then lol.

I'm sure it does. But I also know that people were morons back in the day when it came to sun tanning. People would lay on the beach all day covered in baby oil. It's kind of crazy to think of how far the perception of tanning has changed.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

You seriously are so dense that you really think they get their data from record keeping? Holy shit, you need to just go take a nap.

Day 1, 1850 "Laws yes it shurly was a hot one today, Bessie didn't want to give her milk, and the trout were all in the deeps".

yup they took ice core samples to find out what the temperature was in 1922....

Tell ya what in 5 years come back to this thread if its not frozen, or melted or underwater. I guarantee there will be a brand new gloom and doom theory going on by then.

Webby · 01-12-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

There are lots of other cures for insecurity, you should try those too.

Forget the insecurity bullshit aico - better send a few back to college (or maybe kindergarten) for an education - before they form their opinions on anything

Some of this thread is at the same level as "how many sides does a triangle have" and trying to "insist" in establishing their view is the right one and everyone else is wrong. Most of the countries on the planet acknowlege "global warming" - except the minority in denial.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Guess you also missed the part in the movie, which you said you watched (obviously a lie), where they specifically talked about the dramatic increase in polar bears drowning.

I must of been masturbating to Al Gore during that part. Either that or fell asleep.

I watched it here

http://movies.peekvid.com/s4055/

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Forget the insecurity bullshit aico - better send a few back to college (or maybe kindergarten) for an education - before they form their opinions on anything

Some of this thread is at the same level as "how many sides does a triangle have" and trying to "insist" in establishing their view is the right one and everyone else is wrong. Most of the countries on the planet acknowlege "global warming" - except the minority in denial.

The minority being two of the biggest super powers with alot of the leading scientists in the world.

aico · 01-12-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

yup they took ice core samples to find out what the temperature was in 1922....

Tell ya what in 5 years come back to this thread if its not frozen, or melted or underwater. I guarantee there will be a brand new gloom and doom theory going on by then.

Have you taken a single science class in your life? I don't know about your school, but the schools I went to, there was never the "Just go and look what they wrote down" lab project.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Maybe you missed the whole point eh? Why were the temperatures not high back then when we REALLY had pollution? So are you trying to tell me Pittsburgh was the only city that polluted like that? You call me the biggest moron and you dont even get the simple point I was making. Ok..... lets make this clear. Why is it getting hotter now, when pollution is way way down compared to what it was? And by the way I knew about it, and even posted pictures as pollution got better. Do you think I thought pollution just stopped without a reason. Do you think the only pollution caused by huge factories blowing out smoke, and chemicals runoff etc into the Three rivers just went away? Jesus fucked a goat...

i'm leaving for the weekend, but now i finally get what the point you're trying to make. No, it wasn't obvious, since i thought you would have put some thought into it.

The reason why global warming wasn't a problem in the 40's:

Not a fucking chance am i going to explain to you why 2+2 = 4.

I'm not going to explain to you why a oven has to HEAT UP before you notice it's hot.

You can swim too, start swimming. Don't stop till i get back on monday ok? that's what, 50 odd hours? You think you'll still be alive?

R

Webby · 01-12-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

The minority being two of the biggest super powers with alot of the leading scientists in the world.

Superpowers have no relation or better opinions on global warning than anyone else - what's the relevance of "superpowers"??

And the "scientist" bullshit is more crap...

pocketkangaroo · 01-12-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

That chart looks pretty bad till you see its less than 1 degree for the whole chart. Then you take into account the accuracy and frequency of record keeping prior to the 50s and 60's. Then you take into account that urban sprawl and massive amounts of concrete might just tend to increase slightly the average median temperature.

But it's still going up by .2 degrees every ten years. This seems small, but it's signifigant in the long run. That's a degree every 50 years if we don't raise at a higher rate. With the population growing signifigantly and more countries becoming industrialized, there is a good chance it could get worse.

I'm not a doom and gloomer and I don't think the world will be completely destroyed in 30 years or whatever because of it. But I do think we are slowly destroying the world. Ocean levels will rise slowly as temperatrues increase. Maybe nothing will happen for 200-300 years, but it will happen eventually where this becomes a problem. I don't think we need to completely change the world to stop this, but I do think we should do our best to limit what is happening.

pocketkangaroo · 01-12-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

The minority being two of the biggest super powers with alot of the leading scientists in the world.

That is politics though. Both countries are very dependent on oils and the burning of fossil fuels. The only reason they don't accept it is because it would either hurt their economy (in China's case), or would hurt their political parties funding (Republicans oil money). The decision to not accept global warming by those two countries has nothing to do with science.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

yup they took ice core samples to find out what the temperature was in 1922....

Tell ya what in 5 years come back to this thread if its not frozen, or melted or underwater. I guarantee there will be a brand new gloom and doom theory going on by then.

core samples were able to tell the tempature?

I could be wrong, but no.

They tell the tempature, kinda, but digging holes in the ground. Called BOREHOLES. I mentioned it when i blew one of your more serious posts out of the water.. it's useless due to tempatures being altered by quick different situations..

R

D · 01-12-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

That chart looks pretty bad till you see its less than 1 degree for the whole chart. Then you take into account the accuracy and frequency of record keeping prior to the 50s and 60's. Then you take into account that urban sprawl and massive amounts of concrete might just tend to increase slightly the average median temperature.

Well... most of the action on the chart is after the 1960's, if you'll take note of that, too.

We're also talking about ecological time here... epochs take a long time. The spaces between epochs can last millions of years... the idea is that we might be speeding that up by a half million per cent via our interaction with our environment.

As far as the anomaly variance, again - it only takes a degree or two to dramatically affect certain species - like the coral that are dying after remaining bleached for a week due to warming temperature variance of less than a degree in their local ecosystem.

I think it stands to reason that continuing down this road would possible cause such effects to march right up the evolutionary chain.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the belief that life will persist no matter what... and us humans have a pretty solid chance no matter what goes down due to our ability to reason, use symbolic logic, and shape our environment... and ya, I believe that warming and cooling periods are part of the natural progession, personally...

(And, honestly, I've yet to have the opportunity to watch Mr. Gore's documentary, though I do look forward to it when I find the time)

But I also believe that all this shit we're throwing around affects something. Opposite and Equal reaction, and all that jazz...

Maybe it's just the way of things... species go extinct all the time. But if _we_ are the ones responsible for this change, maybe we owe it to our environment to correct for the consequences... take out our own trash, ya know.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

But it's still going up by .2 degrees every ten years. This seems small, but it's signifigant in the long run. That's a degree every 50 years if we don't raise at a higher rate. With the population growing signifigantly and more countries becoming industrialized, there is a good chance it could get worse.

I'm not a doom and gloomer and I don't think the world will be completely destroyed in 30 years or whatever because of it. But I do think we are slowly destroying the world. Ocean levels will rise slowly as temperatrues increase. Maybe nothing will happen for 200-300 years, but it will happen eventually where this becomes a problem. I don't think we need to completely change the world to stop this, but I do think we should do our best to limit what is happening.

i guess this does make me a "doom and gloomer", but from what has happened, nothing is going to happen "slowly".

You look at how fast things have happened, you wonder how fast things are going to be later on.

R

aico · 01-12-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

core samples were able to tell the tempature?

I could be wrong, but no.

They tell the tempature, kinda, but digging holes in the ground. Called BOREHOLES. I mentioned it when i blew one of your more serious posts out of the water.. it's useless due to tempatures being altered by quick different situations..

R

Careful, he might be trying to "sucker you in".

will76 · 01-12-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Hey btw what happened with this years hurricane season? Wasnt it supposed to be even worse than the year befores with Katrina? I seem to recall that hmmm....

Have you ever been around someone so fucking stupid you feel like you could just hit them for being stupid. I can't believe you are "old'. I assume you are in your 40 - 50's? since you talk about things that happened years back as if you were there to see it. But you sound like a 16 punk who took a high school history class, read a few newspapers and watched CNN and you think you know everything.

here is a little hurricane info for you. Global warming is responsible for ( get this ) warming of the earth. The water temp rises as the earth heats up. above 80 degress water temp is needed to form a hurricane. Just because you have hot water (80+) doesn't mean you will have lots of hurricanes. there are several other factors such as wind patterns (jet stream, high pressure ridges, etc...) that can affect how many hurricanes are formed each year.

You are a moron if you are trying to imply that there were less hurricanes this year so that somehow disproves global warming. As far as the people trying to predict how many hurricanes we will have each year, they usually get it wrong 9 out of 10 years. We are not close to being able to predict a number, It might never be possible to do but a bunch of idiots try each year.

pocketkangaroo · 01-12-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

i guess this does make me a "doom and gloomer", but from what has happened, nothing is going to happen "slowly".

You look at how fast things have happened, you wonder how fast things are going to be later on.

R

I know what you're saying and I do believe we should be doing things to stop it. But I don't buy these theories that we'll all be underwater in 20 years or whatever. I believe our climate is changing, but I also believe this is a change that will take a long time.

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Careful, he might be trying to "sucker you in".

the scary thing is he's smart.. we need to convince stupid people of this

R

Webby · 01-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

Have you taken a single science class in your life? I don't know about your school, but the schools I went to, there was never the "Just go and look what they wrote down" lab project.

Of course he didn't

There is also an awesome ignorance of the current avenues of most governments in the world re "global warning"/climate change and the number of more credible people involved in this area that our dear friend Sticky.

Sticky's problem starts with Al Gore and guided by US domestic politics - he must oppose Gore at all costs, whether he's right or wrong

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I know what you're saying and I do believe we should be doing things to stop it. But I don't buy these theories that we'll all be underwater in 20 years or whatever. I believe our climate is changing, but I also believe this is a change that will take a long time.

Great, you believe it.

That's just wonderful, really.

Ever pissed in snow? You know how that piss goes straight to the bottom asap? Same thing happens with cold water. Goes to the bottom, creating a very large landbased ice problem. Extremely.

You look at that pic i posted of Greenland, and you tell me how much water you think is frozen there. How much water do you BELIEVE will raise because of that?

Is that enough for you? What about the fact if this shit happens, what else is going south? Do you think this is going to be a lovely seaside for everyone? Look how fast New Orleans hit the fan. That's with a fully functional PLANET.

R

_Richard_ · 01-12-2007, 06:03 PM

why believe in something, when you don't have to believe at all, you just do.

That's MY argument.

polle54 · 01-12-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneprone

Yep.. Places like Oregon, Washington, Greenland, and Iceland could use some warming up..

People need to stop the bitching.

hehe then I hope you don't live near the sea, since it will rice about 6 meter the next 20 years due to the heating of greenland

will76 · 01-12-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Nah, made it through 5th - but just barely

There are too many things I have control over that I spend time working on fixing. .02C changes in the weather every 10 years just isn't anywhere near the top of my list.

who said that we are trying to fix anything here. It's a debate about whether we think the problem even exist. People like you (who have 0 knowledge on the subject) seem to think you have it figured out and it doesn't exist.

you keep throwing around the .02 temp increase over 10 years. Do you understand how "time" vs. "geological time" works. I'll assume not since that was at least an 8th grade level subject. .02 per 10 years is huge especially since it is increasing at a faster rate of late. Do you know it only takes a couple degree increase to pretty much wipe us all out.

Quote:

While temperature does vary considerably at a daily level in any one place, global average temperature is remarkably constant. According to analyses of ice cores, tree rings, pollen and other "climate proxies," the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere had varied up or down by only a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1000 AD and about 1900, when a rapid warming began. A global average temperature change ranging from 2.5°F (1.4°C) to 10.4°F (5.8°C) would translate into climate-related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred during the 10,000-year history of civilization.

you really should read up a little: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/.../382_myths.htm

aico · 01-12-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Sticky's problem starts with Al Gore and guided by US domestic politics - he must oppose Gore at all costs, whether he's right or wrong

And apparently Al Gore using a Mac makes him angry too.

WarChild · 01-12-2007, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Superpowers have no relation or better opinions on global warning than anyone else - what's the relevance of "superpowers"??

And the "scientist" bullshit is more crap...

Interesting .. So which country has the most Nobel Prizes in science then?

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Have you ever been around someone so fucking stupid you feel like you could just hit them for being stupid. I can't believe you are "old'. I assume you are in your 40 - 50's? since you talk about things that happened years back as if you were there to see it. But you sound like a 16 punk who took a high school history class, read a few newspapers and watched CNN and you think you know everything.

here is a little hurricane info for you. Global warming is responsible for ( get this ) warming of the earth. The water temp rises as the earth heats up. above 80 degress water temp is needed to form a hurricane. Just because you have hot water (80+) doesn't mean you will have lots of hurricanes. there are several other factors such as wind patterns (jet stream, high pressure ridges, etc...) that can affect how many hurricanes are formed each year.

You are a moron if you are trying to imply that there were less hurricanes this year so that somehow disproves global warming. As far as the people trying to predict how many hurricanes we will have each year, they usually get it wrong 9 out of 10 years. We are not close to being able to predict a number, It might never be possible to do but a bunch of idiots try each year.

So what you are saying is they couldnt even predict the hurricane season one year in advance, yet they somehow have a grasp over what happened thousands of years ago, and what will happen in the next 20.....

Btw Im Ill be 34 in March. If global warming happens Ill be the first to admit Im wrong, I personally think Ill never have to make that apology.

Dont you have spyware to fight or something? You feel the need to call me a moron alot over a totally unproven theory that is still fully under debate in the scientific world.

WarChild · 01-12-2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

you keep throwing around the .02 temp increase over 10 years. Do you understand how "time" vs. "geological time" works. I'll assume not since that was at least an 8th grade level subject. .02 per 10 years is huge especially since it is increasing at a faster rate of late. Do you know it only takes a couple degree increase to pretty much wipe us all out.

Did you know that while there was an actual increase of .2 degrees, the predicted increase was 1 degree. That's right, scientists were off by 500%. That's a pretty fantastic margin of error, +/- 500%.

It's ALMOST like the science isn't all that advanced and scientists don't really know what's going to happen in 1 year, 10 years or 100 years.

Fuck, we can't even accurately forecast weather a year in advance but you're trying to tell me you can forecast global climate change over a period of 40 years or more? Does that really make sense to you?

will76 · 01-12-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Maybe you missed the whole point eh? Why were the temperatures not high back then when we REALLY had pollution? So are you trying to tell me Pittsburgh was the only city that polluted like that? You call me the biggest moron and you dont even get the simple point I was making. Ok..... lets make this clear. Why is it getting hotter now, when pollution is way way down compared to what it was? And by the way I knew about it, and even posted pictures as pollution got better. Do you think I thought pollution just stopped without a reason. Do you think the only pollution caused by huge factories blowing out smoke, and chemicals runoff etc into the Three rivers just went away? Jesus fucked a goat...

GOD DAMN YOU ARE FUCKING DUMB.

THE "POLLUTION' WAS IN THE AIR OVER PITTSBURGH. BY THE TIME IT MADE ITS WAYYYY UP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THE CO2 WAS DISPERSED. SORRY BUT THE POLUTION FROM PITTSBURGH ISN'T ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE TEMP OF THE WORLD AND JUST BECAUSED THE SKY / AIR IN PITTSBURGH IS POLUTED DOESN'T MEAN YOU TEMP IS GOING TO GO UP THERE.

WHILE POLUTION IN PITTSBURGH HAS GONE DOWN, THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CO2 AROUND THE WORLD HAVE GONE WAY UP.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? WHAT HAPPENS IN FUCKING PITTSBURGH IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FUCKING WORLD. YOU THINK BECAUSE PITTSBURGH IS NOT POLUTED NOW THE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE.

READ WHAT YOU POSTED ABOVE AND READ WHAT I REPLIED ABOUT 5X AND YOU WILL SEE HOW TRUELY FUCKING IGNORANT YOU ARE.

WarChild · 01-12-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

WHILE POLUTION IN PITTSBURGH HAS GONE DOWN, THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CO2 AROUND THE WORLD HAVE GONE WAY UP.

Curiously enough, between 1940 and 1970 CO2 was on the rise while temperature was falling. Is the CO2 today different from the CO2 back then? Is it possible there are other factors besides CO2?

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

GOD DAMN YOU ARE FUCKING DUMB.

THE "POLLUTION' WAS IN THE AIR OVER PITTSBURGH. BY THE TIME IT MADE ITS WAYYYY UP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THE CO2 WAS DISPERSED. SORRY BUT THE POLUTION FROM PITTSBURGH ISN'T ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE TEMP OF THE WORLD AND JUST BECAUSED THE SKY / AIR IN PITTSBURGH IS POLUTED DOESN'T MEAN YOU TEMP IS GOING TO GO UP THERE.

WHILE POLUTION IN PITTSBURGH HAS GONE DOWN, THE FACTORS THAT CAUSE CO2 AROUND THE WORLD HAVE GONE WAY UP.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? WHAT HAPPENS IN FUCKING PITTSBURGH IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FUCKING WORLD. YOU THINK BECAUSE PITTSBURGH IS NOT POLUTED NOW THE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE.

READ WHAT YOU POSTED ABOVE AND READ WHAT I REPLIED ABOUT 5X AND YOU WILL SEE HOW TRUELY FUCKING IGNORANT YOU ARE.

So..... what with all the caps and all.... What I surmised from your post is that the industrial revolution happened ONLY in Pittsburgh? Is that your hypothesis young Will ? Are you sure the same kind of pollution wasnt happening all over the world as the advancement of machinery spread? Are you ACTUALLY fucking saying only Pittsburgh had pollution that bad? Pittsburgh was the pictures I used as an example.

Let me get this straight once and for all before you try to confuse the issue. Is pollution better now or worse than it was from 1890 till 1984? Simple question. Is pollution better now, or worse now?

aico · 01-12-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

So what you are saying is they couldnt even predict the hurricane season one year in advance, yet they somehow have a grasp over what happened thousands of years ago, and what will happen in the next 20.....

You honestly don't see the difference between predicting the future, and studying things that have already happened?

Here's an example for you, to help you better understand the difference. Tommy had a car, he went 20 miles an hour and skidded, got out an measured the skid it was EXACTLY 10 Meters. Tommy said he skidded 10 Meters and was 100% correct.

Johnny had a car, he predicted he could skid for 10 Meters on Monday. Monday it rained, he skidded 20 meters. Johnny was wrong.

will76 · 01-12-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Am I the only one that knows polar bears can swim?

yeah i met one in Miami this past summer he said he swam down for the weekend.

+1 more stupid thing you said. Hey asshole, since you know they can swim, how far can they swin??? You missed the part that in most cases the ice floats away and they don;t even know. They could be on if for hours before they realize it has be detached from the mianland. It's not like oh look the ice broke off let swin this 6 feet to get back to shore.

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico

You honestly don't see the difference between predicting the future, and studying things that have already happened?

Here's an example for you, to help you better understand the difference. Tommy had a car, he went 20 miles an hour and skidded, got out an measured the skid it was EXACTLY 10 Meters. Tommy said he skidded 10 Meters and was 100% correct.

Johnny had a car, he predicted he could skid for 10 Meters on Monday. Monday it rained, he skidded 20 meters. Johnny was wrong.

So you are saying because of Johnny's history of skidding he will get in an accident that will set a forest on fire, which in turn will engulf a nuclear power plant and cause the eventual demise of all life as we know it?

Webby · 01-12-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarChild

Interesting .. So which country has the most Nobel Prizes in science then?

Don't you start *lol*

The only relevant mention of a country is prob the one who causes more fuckups of the environment than all others - the US being at the top of the list, - at least right now. Nations like China and Russia blah do acknowledge the problem and are attempting to do something about it - tho, remains to be seen how long that interest lasts when economic pressure is put on em.

PS Hell knows who has the most Nobel Prizes awarded in science - presume the biggist messer of the plant?? Does that speak volumes??

We can wait for Sticky to pick up on this and slant it around to boasting all US scientists have a clue on global warming next - he heard it on Fox

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

yeah i met one in Miami this past summer he said he swam down for the weekend.

+1 more stupid thing you said. Hey asshole, since you know they can swim, how far can they swin??? You missed the part that in most cases the ice floats away and they don;t even know. They could be on if for hours before they realize it has be detached from the mianland. It's not like oh look the ice broke off let swin this 6 feet to get back to shore.

6 miles an hour. And they eat fish. Fish that live in the ocean. Fish that Id imagine would be around the ice they were floating on.... But the real point is do you think this only happened because of global warming. Oh no a polar bear went out on an ice sheet and died. Fuck what will we do. lmao

stickyfingerz · 01-12-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Don't you start *lol*

The only relevant mention of a country is prob the one who causes more fuckups of the environment than all others - the US being at the top of the list, - at least right now. Nations like China and Russia blah do acknowledge the problem and are attempting to do something about it - tho, remains to be seen how long that interest lasts when economic pressure is put on em.

PS Hell knows who has the most Nobel Prizes awarded in science - presume the biggist messer of the plant?? Does that speak volumes??

We can wait for Sticky to pick up on this and slant it around to boasting all US scientists have a clue on global warming next - he heard it on Fox

whats a biggist messer of a plant?

Phoenix · 01-12-2007, 06:40 PM

sticky you cant seriously believe all this?

devils advocate? someone fighting the good fight for the legion of Doom?

you trying to get the right hand seat and reign in hell? lol

not that you believe in such things im sure

pocketkangaroo · 01-12-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

sticky you cant seriously believe all this?

devils advocate? someone fighting the good fight for the legion of Doom?

you trying to get the right hand seat and reign in hell? lol

not that you believe in such things im sure

When people get tied into a political party, they believe what they are told to.

Webby · 01-12-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

whats a biggist messer of a plant?

Oh my.. a typo.. I'm make a post and correct this since it's so important to Ryan

Translated... it says... "The US is the biggest messer of the planet in environmental terms" - try accepting that fact or do you wish to dispute that as well??

01-12-2007, 05:11 PM	#251
BusterBunny perverted justice decoy Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: unborn still in the womb connected via blackberry Posts: 19,291	250.......... __________________ my sig caught gonoherpasyphilaids and died

01-12-2007, 05:27 PM	#255
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	Damn.. this thread still going on??? The discussion is still creeping below the idiot level with the totally ignorant pushing ahead with their views based on nothing?? Awesome __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

01-12-2007, 06:40 PM	#298
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,457	sticky you cant seriously believe all this? devils advocate? someone fighting the good fight for the legion of Doom? you trying to get the right hand seat and reign in hell? lol not that you believe in such things im sure __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

01-12-2007, 06:03 PM	#282
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	why believe in something, when you don't have to believe at all, you just do. That's MY argument.