EVE Search - Climate Change / Global Warming

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Climate Change / Global Warming

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 14:59:00 - [1] Edited by: Khan d''barr on 11/05/2008 14:59:56 This topic has probably been covered before, but eve-search.com isn't loading for me (probably my sucky uni) and the eve search isn't worth trying. So anyway, climate change is happening, global warming... is happening but it's nothing too major to worry about and it's all natural. That statement will probably get some of you foaming at the mouth, who knows, but I've watched http://www.discovery.org/v/30 (presentation) which pretty much explains everything. Who knows why this hasn't reached the media in such a large scale, I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the political agenda (not to be discussed here ofc. ) of the UN on "Global Warming". Oh and before anyone starts telling me about Al Gore's paper, it was discredited by thousands of scientists, so I'm siding with the majority. So yeah, after watching that presentation, what's your view point on Global Warming/Climate Change?
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 14:59:00 - [2] Edited by: Khan d''barr on 11/05/2008 14:59:56 This topic has probably been covered before, but eve-search.com isn't loading for me (probably my sucky uni) and the eve search isn't worth trying. So anyway, climate change is happening, global warming... is happening but it's nothing too major to worry about and it's all natural. That statement will probably get some of you foaming at the mouth, who knows, but I've watched http://www.discovery.org/v/30 (presentation) which pretty much explains everything. Who knows why this hasn't reached the media in such a large scale, I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the political agenda (not to be discussed here ofc. ) of the UN on "Global Warming". Oh and before anyone starts telling me about Al Gore's paper, it was discredited by thousands of scientists, so I'm siding with the majority. So yeah, after watching that presentation, what's your view point on Global Warming/Climate Change?
Twelve Jackals	Posted - 2008.05.11 15:15:00 - [3] in before **** storm
Spiffy Sunkist Grail Seekers	Posted - 2008.05.11 15:19:00 - [4] WE DIDN'T LISTEN!
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.11 15:30:00 - [5] THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyrall Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.11 15:44:00 - [6] Originally by: ReaperOfSly THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! THE GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!! Global warming is cake? - Originally by: Kyrall Pfft antivirus? Real men use a hard drive tank.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 16:12:00 - [7] So you go on about how the United Nations and Al Gore and yada yada are all just pursuing some sort of nebulous political agenda regarding climate change, and you try to counter those positions by posting a presentation by none other than the Discovery Institute? The same organization that pursues among other things to teach creationist and anti-evolution beliefs on US schools, and whose manifesto includes the goal to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"? /fail
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 16:26:00 - [8] Originally by: Isiskhan So you go on about how the United Nations and Al Gore and yada yada are all just pursuing some sort of nebulous political agenda regarding climate change, and you try to counter those positions by posting a presentation by none other than the Discovery Institute? The same organization that pursues among other things to teach creationist and anti-evolution beliefs on US schools, and whose manifesto includes the goal to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"? /fail The debate is about climate change. So tell me this, when did climate change involve religion? You sir, "/fail"
Twelve Jackals	Posted - 2008.05.11 16:49:00 - [9] Originally by: Khan d'barr Originally by: Isiskhan So you go on about how the United Nations and Al Gore and yada yada are all just pursuing some sort of nebulous political agenda regarding climate change, and you try to counter those positions by posting a presentation by none other than the Discovery Institute? The same organization that pursues among other things to teach creationist and anti-evolution beliefs on US schools, and whose manifesto includes the goal to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"? /fail The debate is about climate change. So tell me this, when did climate change involve religion? You sir, "/fail" See: Quote: The Discovery Institute is a U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses. That kind of multiplied their credibility by zero.
Admus Multiverse Corporation Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.05.11 17:02:00 - [10] The phrase "global warming" is somewhat misleading and I think people are misunderstanding the issues. What is a concern is more generally, climate change. What humanity has done in the last century or two is initiate a large uncontrolled experiment with the ecosphere. We've injected a large amount of greenhouse gases (of which the main component is carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere that will capture more energy from the sun and be difficult to remove. While this may mean warming, it could have other effects that might change the transfer of energy around the globe. It scares me that people just shrug off climate change as natural. The data does not lie; we have increased the carbon content of our atmosphere from 280 ppm (preindustrial) to 375 ppm[1]. The earth has never seen this rapid injection before (except in catastrophic impacts/eruptions) and we should be prepared to make changes. We should not just sit idly by if some select researchers theorize it's harmless. Some references: 1. Pacala, S. Et. Al. "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies." Science. Vol 305 (2004) 2. Friedlingstein, F. "A Steep Road to Climate Stabilization." Nature. Vol 451 (2008) ---------------------------------------------------------- "Villains always have antidotes. They're funny that way."
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.11 17:11:00 - [11] Originally by: Admus The phrase "global warming" is somewhat misleading and I think people are misunderstanding the issues. What is a concern is more generally, climate change. What humanity has done in the last century or two is initiate a large uncontrolled experiment with the ecosphere. We've injected a large amount of greenhouse gases (of which the main component is carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere that will capture more energy from the sun and be difficult to remove. While this may mean warming, it could have other effects that might change the transfer of energy around the globe. It scares me that people just shrug off climate change as natural. The data does not lie; we have increased the carbon content of our atmosphere from 280 ppm (preindustrial) to 375 ppm[1]. The earth has never seen this rapid injection before (except in catastrophic impacts/eruptions) and we should be prepared to make changes. We should not just sit idly by if some select researchers theorize it's harmless. Some references: 1. Pacala, S. Et. Al. "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies." Science. Vol 305 (2004) 2. Friedlingstein, F. "A Steep Road to Climate Stabilization." Nature. Vol 451 (2008) Yes, we're always being made to feel guilty about the state the atmosphere is in. The question is: what can we actually do about it that's significant? Sure, we can turn lights off when we leave a room, and not leave the telly on standby. That will reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere by what, 0.0000000000000001%? And if I ever rise up to become Great Overlord of Earth, I will probably be able to do something about it. But it seems unlikely. In the meantime, I guess I'll have to build a little windmill and hook it up to a rechargeable battery. I wonder how much crap was released into the atmosphere to manufacture the parts... --------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Jackals	Posted - 2008.05.11 17:13:00 - [12] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Yes, we're always being made to feel guilty about the state the atmosphere is in. The question is: what can we actually do about it that's significant? Sure, we can turn lights off when we leave a room, and not leave the telly on standby. That will reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere by what, 0.0000000000000001%? And if I ever rise up to become Great Overlord of Earth, I will probably be able to do something about it. But it seems unlikely. Your laziness does not qualify as an argument.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 17:24:00 - [13] "Our ice-core logs didn't show anything" I hate how politicians are trying to make it a big deal. Yeah, it's stupid to release too much CO2 into the atmosphere, if we can. But it's not causing what Al Gore claims.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 18:04:00 - [14] Some of your replies are astounding. You haven't watched the presentation, IRREGARDLESS of the stance of their religious views. So what if they're Christian, Muslim, Athiest? Science is science, and what people have understood from Al Gore is completely incorrect. If you discredit scientific research because they're Christian, then you've got something wrong with you. Same goes for any other religion. The amount of CO2 has not dramatically affected the climate of the world. CO2 increase has mainly been due to ice caps melting, yet they're thickening in the south pole. The main effect of warming is NOT CARBON DIOXIDE, it's water vapour. The Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, and with the statistical data shown, what's happening at the moment is a) not extreme compared to medieval times or the "small ice age" we had about 70 years ago b) and it is all naturally enduced by solar activity. We can't help what the Sun does, and besides, with the data shown, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has increased plant growth. That's a good thing right?
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 18:09:00 - [15] Originally by: Khan d'barr We can't help what the Sun does, and besides, with the data shown, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has increased plant growth. That's a good thing right? I actually found it interesting that he claimed that CO2 was a gift. Sure, plant growth is good. But a gift? Well, that is a bit extreme.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 18:11:00 - [16] Well it's a gift to plants no? Anyway, it's shown that with increases of two or three-fold in use of hydrocarbons (that surprisingly emit CO2) nothing much has changed. It's all a big farce of human intelligence tbh, everyone seems to believe whatever the media puts in front of them.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.11 18:17:00 - [17] the biggest mistake they ever made was calling it global warming. if it is anything outside of natural phenomena (i cant help but think some of what we do has a big impact, but that doesn't mean we can say A=B) it is more of a case of global weather extremism. if the patterns hold and increase, and it is real, then its not simply a case of everything getting warmer. weather patterns become more drastic in their swings. it gets a lot colder when its normally just cold, a lot hotter when its normally just hot. areas that are wet become dry, other areas that are dry may become wet. this will make it a *** to hold any solid agriculture from year to year... blah blah blah, its the end of the world /Ad nauseam i dont think there is enough data out there to make a solid conclusion either way. we just have to wait and see. i have to side w/ the group that says its chiefly natural, but its also rediculous to think we dont have some impact on the globe. so... while i hate to hear ppl tell me to switch out my filament lightbulbs for ones filled w/ mercury (how is that **ing 'green'?), if the global warming scare can get some amount of enviro responsibilty out of major industry and governments, then i guess something good could come out of the whole sham. i just wish ppl could get over the global warming crap and focus on us being more responsible custodians of the planet. on a U.S. side, w/ a guy in office (and voters) that thinks jesus is coming soon so we dont need to worry about the future, it just seems like one big joke. i'm bored at work, can ya tell? ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 18:27:00 - [18] Originally by: HankMurphy the biggest mistake they ever made was calling it global warming. if it is anything outside of natural phenomena (i cant help but think some of what we do has a big impact, but that doesn't mean we can say A=B) it is more of a case of global weather extremism. That's why I called the topic Climate Change. Media calls it global warming, and well, as I stated earlier, it's getting colder at the south pole! Originally by: HankMurphy i dont think there is enough data out there to make a solid conclusion either way. we just have to wait and see. i have to side w/ the group that says its chiefly natural, but its also rediculous to think we dont have some impact on the globe. Well, I think data showing the last 3000 years of temperatures is quite evidential. I somehow don't think the Romans and such were using hydrocarbons on the scale we are today, yet it was hotter then than now. Originally by: HankMurphy i just wish ppl could get over the global warming crap and focus on us being more responsible custodians of the planet. on a U.S. side, w/ a guy in office (and voters) that thinks jesus is coming soon so we dont need to worry about the future, it just seems like one big joke. Even though I disagree with everything that people quote about "Global Warming" and how we're killing the planet, I still recycle and turn things off. It's not a matter of saving the planet, more making it a better place to live. Pollution is the big killer here. Originally by: HankMurphy i'm bored at work, can ya tell? Yes. But thanks for contributing to the thread anyway
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:21:00 - [19] Originally by: Khan d'barr So what if they're Christian, Muslim, Athiest? Science is science, and what people have understood from Al Gore is completely incorrect. If you discredit scientific research because they're Christian, then you've got something wrong with you. Same goes for any other religion. The problem is not that the Discovery Institute are religious, the problem is that they are anti-science: that's what creationism and related doctrines are all about. You'll have as much luck trusting your "science" to them as trusting your kids to Michael Jackson.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:30:00 - [20] Originally by: Isiskhan The problem is not that the Discovery Institute are religious, the problem is that they are anti-science: that's what creationism and related doctrines are all about. You'll have as much luck trusting your "science" to them as trusting your kids to Michael Jackson. So.. what is your point? As far as I can see, Al Gore doesn't exactly use science either. In fact, neither does he use reason. On the other hand, these people makes more use of what is more science-ish. Just because you are biased, it doesn't mean everything you say, is wrong.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:45:00 - [21] Originally by: LaVista Vista So.. what is your point? As far as I can see, Al Gore doesn't exactly use science either. In fact, neither does he use reason. On the other hand, these people makes more use of what is more science-ish. Just because you are biased, it doesn't mean everything you say, is wrong. I watched Al Gore's documentary and I didn't quite like it, it relied far too much on trying to appeal to the watcher's emotions. But the point is not Al Gore, he's not a scientist, just a politician, so pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Climate change is about science, so you should listen to what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying about it. Not some organization that has made it their stated goal to override science and the teaching of it whenever they fancy it contradicts the word of their God. Or their lone professor guy with a chemistry background.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Isiskhan Originally by: LaVista Vista So.. what is your point? As far as I can see, Al Gore doesn't exactly use science either. In fact, neither does he use reason. On the other hand, these people makes more use of what is more science-ish. Just because you are biased, it doesn't mean everything you say, is wrong. I watched Al Gore's documentary and I didn't quite like it, it relied far too much on trying to appeal to the watcher's emotions. But the point is not Al Gore, he's not a scientist, just a politician, so pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Climate change is about science, so you should listen to what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying about it. Not some organization that has made it their stated goal to override science and the teaching of it whenever they fancy it contradicts the word of their God. Or their lone professor guy with a chemistry background. So where are these climate scientists? I'm yet to hear what they have to say.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:54:00 - [23] Edited by: Isiskhan on 11/05/2008 19:54:45 Originally by: LaVista Vista So where are these climate scientists? I'm yet to hear what they have to say. You either trolling or live under a rock. Instead of listening to charlatans from one side or the other, read a friggin' newspaper (or even better, science magazines / journals) once in a while and form your own opinions, I promise it won't hurt.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Isiskhan Originally by: LaVista Vista So where are these climate scientists? I'm yet to hear what they have to say. You either trolling or live under a rock. Instead of listening to charlatans from one side or the other, read a friggin' newspaper once in a while and form your own opinions, I promise it won't hurt. The latter. Oh, btw. I read 3 newspapers every morning(All the free ones at the train station) while taking a train. I'm yet to see them quote any credible source.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:58:00 - [25] Of course, I totally belive these peope, these very same people who have absolutely no agenda at all. Not as an institute that premotes industry over enviromental issues, an institute that premotes 'end of days' philosophy over scientific evidence. Sure, its a myth. After-all all the evidence from all those other scientists -- I believe them, honest I do, would I lie to you? Dwi Cymraig
Jago Kain Amarr Ramm's RDI	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:59:00 - [26] OK. Let's assume for a minute that the cries of global warning are correct and that the polar ice-cap is melting. East Anglia and the Netherlands will shortly dissapear under a rising tide, whilst we get better summers and shorter winters. I fail to see the downside. Next. ___________________________________________________ The game will never be over, because we're keeping the meme alive.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 19:59:00 - [27] Originally by: LaVista Vista Oh, btw. I read 3 newspapers every morning(All the free ones at the train station) while taking a train. I'm yet to see them quote any credible source. Well, perhaps you should consider better ones, or as I added above some accesible popular science magazines. I assure you that climate scientists have not been locked away to an underground prison in Uranus.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Isiskhan Originally by: LaVista Vista So.. what is your point? As far as I can see, Al Gore doesn't exactly use science either. In fact, neither does he use reason. On the other hand, these people makes more use of what is more science-ish. Just because you are biased, it doesn't mean everything you say, is wrong. I watched Al Gore's documentary and I didn't quite like it, it relied far too much on trying to appeal to the watcher's emotions. But the point is not Al Gore, he's not a scientist, just a politician, so pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Climate change is about science, so you should listen to what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying about it. Not some organization that has made it their stated goal to override science and the teaching of it whenever they fancy it contradicts the word of their God. Or their lone professor guy with a chemistry background. I'm sorry but if you watch the presentation, you would see that not once is religion mentioned/involved. Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. It's against evolution which is a) a different matter entirely and b) evolution can't be proved 100% with science. I don't know if you've done any research, but Al Gore's team's document/dossier thing was discredited by a very large majority of scientists around the world. This to me shows that it's complete media *******s.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:19:00 - [29] Originally by: Khan d'barr Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. It's against evolution Congratulations, you just won the internet.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:20:00 - [30] Oh wow, take that right out of context. Some scientists don't believe in evolution. Oh yeah, it's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. See now, a theory isn't fact. So well done, you won nothing.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:32:00 - [31] Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2008 20:32:15 Originally by: Khan d'barr Some scientists don't believe in evolution. SOME scientist don't believe the CURRENT theory of evolution can PREDICT with exact certainty everything that went on on this planet. That's a huge difference from what you're saying. No REAL scientist would be caught dead saying the theory of evolution is wrong in any significant amount. Quote: Oh yeah, it's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Just like the THEORIES OF GRAVITATION, you mean ? Quote: See now, a theory isn't fact. NOTHING in science is a fact. EVERYTHING in science is "the best model we have come up with so far". The word you are looking for, the things you describe... that's "hypothesis", not "theory". Quote: So well done, you won nothing. And you just failed at... everything. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:36:00 - [32] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Khan d'barr Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. We need a "rolling on the floor clawing my eyes out at the sheer stupidity of this statement" emoteicon Right, so now that people are Christian, they don't believe in gravity or breathing. Well done that makes sense. It isn't "science", if it was it would be taught in schools wouldn't it? Except wait, it isn't... only micro-evolution aka adaptation is taught because it's been proved. Evolution will never be proved unless a monkey produces a human or time travel is invented. defintion of theory: a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events Originally by: Akita T Quote: evolution which [...] can't be proved 100% with science So, you mean, "99.9% of the data corroborates with the theory so far, and we still have the other 0.1% of the data missing and therefore unchecked" is not scientifical enough for you ? As opposed to, say, "we have absolutely no evidence for this, but that's what some book written a couple of thousand years ago said, so it must be true" ? Sorry but I refuse to believe everything was down to chance, and billion and billions and billions of years of changing. Evolution is mutation, and mutation is the basis of death, like cancer. So quite frankly it doesn't work (in my eyes). That's my opinion, you can't change it. Oh and what you said goes against the rules of Off Topic Forum, and the basis of this thread. I wanted to discuss Climate change, now everyone seems to be discrediting Christianity because they don't believe in evolution. How the ** did that happen eh? Can we get back to the discussion about Climate Change** and not how Christians defy gravity.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:39:00 - [33] I didn't fail at everything. I tried to create a debate, and you ****s turned it into an argument. If you believe we came from monkeys, thats your choice. Whether an institute does or not, does not discredit their PROOF that climate change doesn't exist.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:42:00 - [34] If you start a debate, you'd better stick to the ISSUES at hand and address the concerns you are faced with. If you however start spouting nonsense like you ended up spouting, don't expect anybody to keep taking you seriously, or not retroactively re-judge everything you just said as potentially wrong (even if initially you might have had some decent arguments before you spoke nonsense). Ok, let's TRY to get back to the original topic then. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:45:00 - [35] Quite frankly the facts stated by the presentation, and many other sources that are listed on http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/ show that the real story is being shown by the media. Climate change is natural, and human activity has very very very little to no effect on the climate.
Havok Dryke Golden Gavel Enterprises The Cooperative	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:45:00 - [36] Normally I would troll this thread for all it's worth, but the OP is doing a remarkably good job of it so far. Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Khan d'barr Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. We need a "rolling on the floor clawing my eyes out at the sheer stupidity of this statement" emoteicon Quote: evolution which [...] can't be proved 100% with science So, you mean, "99.9% of the data corroborates with the theory so far, and we still have the other 0.1% of the data missing and therefore unchecked" is not scientifical enough for you ? As opposed to, say, "we have absolutely no evidence for this, but that's what some book written a couple of thousand years ago said, so it must be true" ? I'll just add my props to this reply and go elsewhere. Creationism is not science. It is fundamentalist Christianity wearing a "Science" nametag. And yes, credibility does matter when evaluating the accuracy of a statement issued by a "scientific" organization. You wouldn't give little bobby saying that the moon is made of cheese any credibility would you? ------------------------------ EVE is a cold, harsh world, filled with people that would kill you without a second thought. The forums are even worse.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:47:00 - [37] Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2008 20:48:13 Originally by: Khan d'barr Quite frankly the facts stated by the presentation, and many other sources that are listed on http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com/ show that the real story is being shown by the media. Climate change is natural, and human activity has very very very little to no effect on the climate. The fact that I happen to agree with this particular statement of yours doesn't mean I don't regard your ideas about creationism as utter nonsense Truth be told, we simply do not have enough evidence YET to claim either way... that man did affect the climate change we see now (either caused or accelerated them)... or that what we see now on the globe is part of the natural planet cycle. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:47:00 - [38] Edited by: Khan d''barr on 11/05/2008 20:49:21 I didn't state that Creationism was science, it's a belief. What you people are saying essentially means scientists can't be religious as well which is nonsens. Even so, why isn't evolution taught in schools. Now stop derailing the ******* thread. EDIT: Thank you Akita, thats all you needed to say really. I don't mind if people don't believe in religion or such factors. It's up to individuals to believe what they want when it comes to religion. It just doesn't affect scientific data provided by thousands of scientists, some of which aren't religious.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:51:00 - [39] Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2008 20:52:03 Originally by: Khan d'barr Even so, why isn't evolution taight in schoos. IT IS taught in schools everywhere EXCEPT a few states in the USA... and probably some 3rd world countries. I WAS taught genetics AND evolution in school. Quite thoroughly too. I can't say you got the same education. And the fact that religious zealots try to push it OUT of the school curricullum or push ID/creationism in sickens me to no end. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:51:00 - [40] The planet's temperature has been shifting since it's early life, cycles of hot and cold, an ice ages at regular intervals, massive volcanic activity triggering climate shift, all sorts of crap. The governments of the world campaigning for people to reduce their carbon footprint, and asking everyone to buy a frigging Prius and put solar panels on their roof is going to do nothing to help the natural shifts of climate that our planet goes through. I mean, christ, we've been polluting the atmosphere for thousands of years, lighting fires to keep warm and cook, burning down acre upon acre of forest to graze cattle and build villages, towns then cities. Right up to present day we've been dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Literally millions of square miles of rainforest and scrubland have no problem with recycling this into the air we breathe. We live in an oil dependant society, where the black stuff is the basis of everything we use on a day to day basis. Petrochemicals, plastics, solvents, most of our polymers used in industry, fuels (be it solid, gas or liquid). What the governments of the world have started to realise is that with almost seven billion people crawling around on the face of the planet, there's only so much of the stuff down there and sooner or later we'll run out. That's where the pressure is coming from, to try and make it last as long as possible, and give us a better chance at devising stable, alternate sources of energy that are scalable to meet everyone's demands, from mass industry to the average household. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a cheap almost free source of energy has already been devised, but those in charge are too scared to release it to the world and would rather let it filter out gradually. I mean, imagine what would happen to economies across the world if the price of oil became nearly obsolete in a matter of a couple of years? Global chaos, entire oil producing nations would see their net worth plummet. Massive petrochemical conglomerates such as Shell, BP, Texaco and Exxon would end up operating in the red rather than pulling a 4 billion/quarter profit. To me, the entire notion of global warming is a pile of puerile, useless, baseless crap designed to do nothing more but scare the average consumer into buying a hybrid car, or dropping a pair of solar panels on the roof of their house. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:54:00 - [41] Yay Verone agrees with me! Originally by: Verone I mean, imagine what would happen to economies across the world if the price of oil became nearly obsolete in a matter of a couple of years? Global chaos, entire oil producing nations would see their net worth plummet. Massive petrochemical conglomerates such as Shell, BP, Texaco and Exxon would end up operating in the red rather than pulling a 4 billion/quarter profit. The Middle East gets screwed because one of their main incomes becomes useless and several major corporations lose business and thousands of jobs are lost. Even so, I agree with what you are saying. It's not a matter of saving the planet, it's a matter of making it a better, more sustainable place to live in.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:58:00 - [42] Just imagine what would happen to Saudia Arabia, if the price of oil dropped. Some of those princes down there, would be ****ed off
Havok Dryke Golden Gavel Enterprises The Cooperative	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:58:00 - [43] Edited by: Havok Dryke on 11/05/2008 21:00:30 Originally by: Khan d'barr Oh and what you said goes against the rules of Off Topic Forum, and the basis of this thread. I wanted to discuss Climate change, now everyone seems to be discrediting Christianity because they don't believe in evolution. The Catholic Church accepts Evolution Over half of Christians are in the Catholic church ------------------------------ EVE is a cold, harsh world, filled with people that would kill you without a second thought. The forums are even worse.
Havok Dryke Golden Gavel Enterprises The Cooperative	Posted - 2008.05.11 20:59:00 - [44] Edited by: Havok Dryke on 11/05/2008 21:06:28 Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2008 20:52:03 Originally by: Khan d'barr Even so, why isn't evolution taight in schoos. IT IS taught in schools everywhere EXCEPT a few states in the USA... and probably some 3rd world countries. I WAS taught genetics AND evolution in school. Quite thoroughly too. I can't say you got the same education. And the fact that religious zealots try to push it OUT of the school curricullum or push ID/creationism in sickens me to no end. Strange, I'm in a Christian school and we teach the same evolution curriculum that the public schools teach. Quote: I didn't state that Creationism was science, it's a belief. What you people are saying essentially means scientists can't be religious as well which is nonsens. thread. Scientists are free to keep their religious beliefs. However, they must not let it get in the way of their science. And unfortunately, that's what is happening. Back on topic, I think this link might be fairly useful in understanding "risk analysis". The guys who made this also made tons of accessory videos, encompassing almost every single agruement that could be made. It's quite a good watch. ------------------------------ EVE is a cold, harsh world, filled with people that would kill you without a second thought. The forums are even worse.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:02:00 - [45] I'm in England and I think we got the best deal tbh. No religion was introduced to our curriculum, and genetics and micro-evolution were taught thoroughly. But anyway, back to the topic please
Fink Angel Caldari The Merry Men	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:04:00 - [46] Originally by: Verone I mean, christ, we've been polluting the atmosphere for thousands of years, lighting fires to keep warm and cook, burning down acre upon acre of forest to graze cattle and build villages, towns then cities. Right up to present day we've been dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Literally millions of square miles of rainforest and scrubland have no problem with recycling this into the air we breathe. It's a totally different scale since the industrial revolution. The amount of coverage of the Earth by forestation has also changed dramatically. As Jello Biafra said: "It's the only world we've got. Let's protect it while we can. It's all there is, and there ain't no more."
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:09:00 - [47] Okay guys, this thread was about climate change wasn't it? How did we get onto creationism? If we carry on like this, the thread is going to be locked. I actually happen to agree with the OP on this occasion. The climate has been changing, and has been recorded to have been changing throughout human history. Life on Earth has survived super-volcanoes, asteroid impacts, coronal mass ejections, melting ice-caps, ice ages, you name it. At the beginning of the last massive-great-big-****-off ice age in the time of the woolly mammoths and hairy guys with big eyebrows and sharp sticks, the global temperatures were decreasing at about ten times the rate that they're increasing now (or so it's believed by geologists who I tend to believe know what they're talking about). Also, consider the fact that carbon dioxide is not actually a particularly potent greenhouse gas. I posted in an earlier thread that I thought water vapour wasn't a greenhouse gas, and poked fun at the guy who mentioned that it was. However, having read more into the subject, it seems it is. More potent than carbon dioxide, in fact. I should have guessed as much from observing that cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones. And given how much water vapour there is in our atmosphere, I can't help but think that our adding to the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having the most negligible effect on the environment. However, just for the record, I feel I should state that I think creationism is a load of old cobblers. --------------------------------------------------------------------
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:15:00 - [48] Originally by: ReaperOfSly How did we get onto creationism? Because the guys behind the movie, supposedly a biased towards intelligent design(Look up some of their other movies, plenty of intelligent design crap).
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:37:00 - [49] Edited by: Khan d''barr on 11/05/2008 21:38:18 Water Vapour is something like 100 times more potent. It's why we feel hotter when it's humid. From the data shown from the presentation, and many other documents that haven't been discredited (if someone can tell me somewhere to host a .PDF free I will load it up - or I will try to find it on the interwebs) that show that the amount of CO2 we produce by burning trees etc. doesn't affecting melting. In fact, the increase in CO2 is due to warming, the ice caps melting in the north and releasing CO2, not the other way around, since it's all due to solar activity and what our Sun is doing. Besides, the south pole is thickening. What does that tell us? As one author said: "Up, down, up, down... its called the weather". Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: ReaperOfSly How did we get onto creationism? Because the guys behind the movie, supposedly a biased towards intelligent design(Look up some of their other movies, plenty of intelligent design crap). Yup thats how, and it has nothing to do with this debate really does it? lol.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:58:00 - [50] Edited by: Verone on 11/05/2008 21:58:07 Originally by: Fink Angel It's a totally different scale since the industrial revolution. The amount of coverage of the Earth by forestation has also changed dramatically. Yes, since the last ice age when the majority of it was killed off in the extreme north and south, it's actually increased apparently. Originally by: Fink Angel As Jello Biafra said: "It's the only world we've got. Let's protect it while we can. It's all there is, and there ain't no more." Eric Reed Boucher as he's more formally know is an imbicile who's own band members sued him, and who no one takes seriously. He's not exactly the "political activist" you want to be quoting to get your point across. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.11 21:59:00 - [51] Well, it does have to do with credibility In other words, if you have reasons to doubt some conclusions, you will be extra-carefull in accepting other conclusions. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Khan d'barr Amarr	Posted - 2008.05.11 22:05:00 - [52] I just don't see how the data provided by the "Discovery Institute" if affected by how they think we originated and whether there is a god. It has zilch to do with climate change What reasons are there to doubt the conclusions made by Dr. Noah Robinson (Professor, Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine)?
Mr Friendly	Posted - 2008.05.12 02:08:00 - [53] Originally by: Khan d'barr Oh wow, take that right out of context. Some scientists don't believe in evolution. Oh yeah, it's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. See now, a theory isn't fact. So well done, you won nothing. oh dear Originally by: CCP Prism X Also, posting in a Jenny thread.
Havok Dryke Golden Gavel Enterprises The Cooperative	Posted - 2008.05.12 02:20:00 - [54] Originally by: Mr Friendly Originally by: Khan d'barr Oh wow, take that right out of context. Some scientists don't believe in evolution. Oh yeah, it's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. See now, a theory isn't fact. So well done, you won nothing. oh dear Normally arguing with a creationist is similar to bashing your head on a brick wall, but this statement compels me to link this. 3:19 is the point that needs to be made here, although the video is a good watch in general. ------------------------------ EVE is a cold, harsh world, filled with people that would kill you without a second thought. The forums are even worse.
Tek'a Rain Gallente Collegium Mechanicae Holding	Posted - 2008.05.12 03:44:00 - [55] Originally by: Khan d'barr It's why we feel hotter when it's humid. Actually we feel hotter when its humid because the natural evaporative cooling mechanism of sweating (perspiration, rather)is much less effective when ambient humidity is high. As for global warming, well.. I certainly agree with the idea that one shouldn't waste energy, or vent particularly harmful gasses and wastes into the air/ecosystem. But when it comes to the "Human-created, out of control and dangerous heating" definition of Global Warming, well, I cant really believe it. It stinks of global-scale bogeyman. I mean, what about global cooling? wasnt that an issue a few years back? what ever happened to that? If that was a big issue, how come it never happened? tl;dr: Global Warming is a bogeyman. Pollution is bad, but not as bad as people with agendas say. And being sane with resourced is just common sense, but not for mystical un-science reasons.
pwnedgato	Posted - 2008.05.12 05:59:00 - [56] Semi-off-topic but does anyone else think that maybe a few of the currently endangered species are dieing off as nature continuing to move on and evolve? I mean come on a large mammal that only has 1 food source and breeds only on very rare occasion?
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.12 06:24:00 - [57] Edited by: goodby4u on 12/05/2008 06:25:36 Hey why dont you guys stop poking at religion(which will get this thread locked)and start debating on global warming/climate change. Ok on topic, I believe its happening, and theres nothing we can do about it because its a natural cycle of our earth as we are coming out of a mini iceage... Though im not saying that we can screw with the earth all we want, we still have to worry about the ozone and pollution, but climate change is at the bottom of the list for me. But ofcourse I could be wrong, im not a scientist.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2008.05.12 06:48:00 - [58] This Thread Explained.
Seroquel	Posted - 2008.05.12 07:02:00 - [59] You guys have gone on for nearly two pages about what a big bad troll the OP is. Yet, no one seems willing to actually provide any information on where any scientific evidence is located. Right now a snopes.com link or two would be a big improvement. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.12 08:43:00 - [60] Originally by: Khan d'barr Oh wow, take that right out of context. Some scientists don't believe in evolution. Oh yeah, it's the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. See now, a theory isn't fact. So well done, you won nothing. Wow, as usual you fall into the 'ive been listening to abunch of idiots and I believe them cos im a religious fool myself' trap. Originally by: Wikipedia In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity. So, what YOU are saying is that any scientific theory of Evolution is no more than a 'maybe' argument because a few dont. Oh well, only a few dont make the majority, which funnily enough, is those that believe in Evolution. Originally by: Khan d'barr See now, a theory isn't fact. So well done, you won nothing. Well YOU certainly won something.. its the 'most stupid post of the day' award. Dwi Cymraig
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.12 08:44:00 - [61] I'm posting in a thread with 2 guys managing to try and look cool by flaming the op, yet fails epicly at contributing to the thread
Fink Angel Caldari The Merry Men	Posted - 2008.05.12 09:04:00 - [62] Originally by: Verone Yes, since the last ice age when the majority of it was killed off in the extreme north and south, it's actually increased apparently. Well, whatever happened before happened over tens of thousands of years and was dealt with naturally. the planet Earth is generally very good at sorting itself out. However we are accelerating the changes very rapidly. We're talking about a hundred year scale now, if not tens of years. I have no doubt the Earth will be able to sort itself out again, but we may not be in the picture to see it. If we don't try to start at least pushing things in the right direction, it may be too late for us ever to make ammends. You don't think in a hundred years time, our ancestors will not look back on this period as a time of over consumption of natural resources? Originally by: Verone Eric Reed Boucher as he's more formally know is an imbicile who's own band members sued him, and who no one takes seriously. He's not exactly the "political activist" you want to be quoting to get your point across. I know his real name, and that there was a major fallout with East Bay Ray (over royalties I believe) but that's not relevant to this discussion. He's hardly an imbecile, and I for one have got a lot of time for his thoughts and have listened to most of his spoken word stuff. I might not agree with all of it, but I'm more than happy to quote him if it helps to make my point.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.12 09:13:00 - [63] Originally by: Verone ....burning down acre upon acre of forest to graze cattle and build villages, towns then cities. Right up to present day we've been dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Literally millions of square miles of rainforest and scrubland have no problem with recycling this into the air we breathe. Unfortunately we have reached the point where deforestation has reached critical proportions for the balance to be maintained. There is also a hypothosis that well established forests and plants have reached saturation point in their ability to take in carbon particles and they can take no more. When they are burnt they release all their stored carbon particles back into the atmosphere. Also, when a well established area like the Amazon Basin or Southest Asia are destroyed it results in a collapse in biodiversity contributing to the Holecene Mass Extinction theory. This has far more reaching consequences that you can imagine. Something for you to think about: consider the plight of the humble Bee. There are fears that with the world-wide population being devasted by disease, what will pollinate the crops over the coming years leading to possible massive food shortages. In the USA most of the agricultural regions rely solely on bees for pollination. Originally by:* Wikipedia It is estimated that one third of the human food supply depends on insect pollination, most of which is accomplished by bees, especially the domesticated Western honey bee. Contract pollination has overtaken the role of honey production for beekeepers in many countries. Monoculture and pollinator decline (of many bee species) have increasingly caused honey bee keepers to become migratory so that bees can be concentrated in seasonally-varying high-demand areas of pollination. Recently, many such migratory beekeepers have experienced substantial losses, prompting the announcement of investigation into the phenomenon, dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder," amidst great concern over the nature and extent of the losses Dwi Cymraig
Michayel Lyon Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.12 09:16:00 - [64] Originally by: Khan d'barr Oh and before anyone starts telling me about Al Gore's paper, it was discredited by thousands of scientists, so I'm siding with the majority. What thousands of scientists? "With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change --- Lasiverin Dark > Is everyone here allied? Red Knight > we are allied by our zombie like ability to ***** missions GM Xamother: "Beeing online is not considered harassment or exploit."
Trind2222 Amarr Soliders Of Eve	Posted - 2008.05.12 09:33:00 - [65] where I live we use to get 1 meter whit snow or more every year the last 3 years we got like 20-30 cm snow and the winter have bean sorter for every year. So yes I think global warming is a problem.
Ixianus	Posted - 2008.05.12 09:36:00 - [66] Anything.... ANYTHING, produced by the Discovery Institute is not credible. If the religious/stupid affiliation of an organization doesn't effect its credibility then how about we open up an investigation of the Holocaust, clearly Iran has some problems with it, which of course isn't discredited due to Iran being totally balls to the wall insane. End of line.
annoing Amarr MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.12 10:06:00 - [67] Originally by: Ixianus Anything.... ANYTHING, produced by the Discovery Institute is not credible. If the religious/stupid affiliation of an organization doesn't effect its credibility then how about we open up an investigation of the Holocaust, clearly Iran has some problems with it, which of course isn't discredited due to Iran being totally balls to the wall insane. End of line. ^^^ you won this thread... ty for this, seriously, I really mean it ^^^ Dwi Cymraig
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2008.05.12 10:36:00 - [68] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 10:45:35 Let's steer the conversation back on track again before we drive straight into a ditch. Forget that discovery institute then and go to the source of the information they have caught up on, originally made in a 10 year study which they fought to get published because the "accepted academic community" only wanted to hear of global warming theories, but failed to be able to refute the study.. human comedy in action. The study, not based on speculations but on real hands down hardcore research, tests and documentation proving that clouds are the regulators of our entire climate on earth and that the sun controls the amount of clouds along with cosmic rays. and that there was 10 times as much co2 in our atmosphere at the last ice age than we have now. and that the cycle we are in is perfectly normal and determined by our solar system moving on a spiral arm of the galaxy.. yeah what an incredible concept, the universe actually effects you.. u know like the moon affecting the tide and all that mumbojumbo ... that should shut up al gore pretty well, if he would ever choose to listen that is (too busy making money off doomsday prophecies and all that don't you know.) it's also interesting to think about how exactly did we get that high levels of co2 in our atmosphere in the past when there apparently were no civilization in existence at that time.. oh wait.. the sphinx has unquestionable and unmistakeable (everybody knows and can't refute, but nobody seems to really want to talk about it) signs of _water_ errosion on it and the pyramids don't.
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.12 10:41:00 - [69] Edited by: Akiba Penrose on 12/05/2008 10:41:29 Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Isiskhan Originally by: LaVista Vista So.. what is your point? As far as I can see, Al Gore doesn't exactly use science either. In fact, neither does he use reason. On the other hand, these people makes more use of what is more science-ish. Just because you are biased, it doesn't mean everything you say, is wrong. I watched Al Gore's documentary and I didn't quite like it, it relied far too much on trying to appeal to the watcher's emotions. But the point is not Al Gore, he's not a scientist, just a politician, so pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Climate change is about science, so you should listen to what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying about it. Not some organization that has made it their stated goal to override science and the teaching of it whenever they fancy it contradicts the word of their God. Or their lone professor guy with a chemistry background. So where are these climate scientists? I'm yet to hear what they have to say. http://www.ipcc.ch/
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.12 14:40:00 - [70] Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 10:51:41 Let's steer the conversation back on track again before we drive straight into a ditch. Forget that discovery institute then and go to the source of the information they have caught up on, originally made in a 10 year study which they fought to get published because the "accepted academic community" only wanted to hear of global warming theories, but failed to be able to refute the study.. human comedy in action. The study, not based on speculations but on real hands down hardcore research, tests and documentation proving that clouds are the regulators of our entire climate on earth and that the sun controls the amount of clouds along with cosmic rays. and that there was 10 times as much co2 in our atmosphere at the last ice age than we have now. and that the cycle we are in is perfectly normal and determined by our solar system moving on a spiral arm of the galaxy.. yeah what an incredible concept, the universe actually effects you.. u know like the moon affecting the tide and all that mumbojumbo ... that should shut up al gore pretty well, if he would ever choose to listen that is (too busy making money off of doomsday prophecies and all that don't you know.) it's also interesting to think about how exactly did we get that high levels of co2 in our atmosphere in the past when there apparently were no civilization in existence at that time.. oh wait.. the sphinx has unquestionable and unmistakeable (everybody knows and can't refute, but nobody seems to really want to talk about it) signs of _water_ errosion on it and the pyramids don't. Awesome, and it actually seems pretty solid.
Isiskhan Gnostic Misanthropy	Posted - 2008.05.12 14:56:00 - [71] Here's a comprehensive survey of the scientific opinion on climate change, "as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists". TL;DR: These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Kusha'an Gallente Equinox Industrial Co.	Posted - 2008.05.12 16:30:00 - [72] Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 10:51:41 Let's steer the conversation back on track again before we drive straight into a ditch. Forget that discovery institute then and go to the source of the information they have caught up on, originally made in a 10 year study which they fought to get published because the "accepted academic community" only wanted to hear of global warming theories, but failed to be able to refute the study.. human comedy in action. The study, not based on speculations but on real hands down hardcore research, tests and documentation proving that clouds are the regulators of our entire climate on earth and that the sun controls the amount of clouds along with cosmic rays. and that there was 10 times as much co2 in our atmosphere at the last ice age than we have now. and that the cycle we are in is perfectly normal and determined by our solar system moving on a spiral arm of the galaxy.. yeah what an incredible concept, the universe actually effects you.. u know like the moon affecting the tide and all that mumbojumbo ... that should shut up al gore pretty well, if he would ever choose to listen that is (too busy making money off of doomsday prophecies and all that don't you know.) it's also interesting to think about how exactly did we get that high levels of co2 in our atmosphere in the past when there apparently were no civilization in existence at that time.. oh wait.. the sphinx has unquestionable and unmistakeable (everybody knows and can't refute, but nobody seems to really want to talk about it) signs of _water_ errosion on it and the pyramids don't. THIS. ---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand?
Arvald Caldari The School 0f Fine Arts	Posted - 2008.05.12 17:02:00 - [73] i say we glass the planet and start from scratch Quote: Shooting the hostage does usually remove a critical bargaining chip of the hostage takers I don't think it mattered at that point, we were already bargaining with missile launchers
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.12 17:17:00 - [74] Originally by: 7shining7one7 The study, not based on speculations but on real hands down hardcore research, tests and documentation proving that clouds are the regulators of our entire climate on earth and that the sun controls the amount of clouds along with cosmic rays. I watched the video and there is no proof what so ever in it,, it is presenting a theory about how clouds might be created. If he is right it will probably have a large impact on the climate discussion tho. Here is a something from wikipedia for you: Originally by: Wikipedia In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover"[8], which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years. Svensmark responded by saying "Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds".[9] However, Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, who has worked on the issue, has described the work as important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data". Harrison's research[10], which studied the UK only, has suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation. As you can see, nothing is proven and the theory is still being tested.
Captain Bringdown Minmatar Rage Against the Answering Machine	Posted - 2008.05.12 18:16:00 - [75] Edited by: Captain Bringdown on 12/05/2008 18:16:35 I love how ppl still quote wikipedia for credible facts and theories... "whats that? my theory is incorrect?! makes wiki article there we go, all safe and sound again"
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.12 18:54:00 - [76] Originally by: Captain Bringdown Edited by: Captain Bringdown on 12/05/2008 18:16:35 I love how ppl still quote wikipedia for credible facts and theories... "whats that? my theory is incorrect?! makes wiki article there we go, all safe and sound again" Im not sure i understand,, Are you saying that I made the wikipedia article?
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.12 19:15:00 - [77] Originally by: Akiba Penrose Originally by: Captain Bringdown Edited by: Captain Bringdown on 12/05/2008 18:16:35 I love how ppl still quote wikipedia for credible facts and theories... "whats that? my theory is incorrect?! makes wiki article there we go, all safe and sound again" Im not sure i understand,, Are you saying that I made the wikipedia article? No hes not, but remember who surf on the internet, what usually happens is some guy gets on wiki with an agenda and fills every part of it in with"facts". Or he just says its all because of the vikings, which is a solid theory indeed.
Digital Anarchist Minmatar	Posted - 2008.05.12 19:51:00 - [78] Even if the most catastrophic predictions would come true, is a bureaucratic-regulartory apparatus really the answer? Socialism has been tried before at a large scale and it never seems to work out. And no, carbon trade is not "capitalism". With trillions of dollars on the table, most hope of rational discussion breaks down. As the new green™ industry speaks, it's stuffing its pockets with the loot, while government and hapless greens are goading them along. But that said, there are plenty of monsters left to parade if nothing happens. Or indeed, global cooling may be a more catastrophic scenario to entertain (hence, more profitable). ------------------------ This space for rent
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2008.05.12 20:49:00 - [79] akiba, the video is general information about the study, not the study itself, not the tests and so forth, that's for scientific articles and the likes. also the initial study was first proposed published in 1996 but nobody seemed interested in publishing it. it has now been 12 years since then and svensmark and the rest haven't been sitting on their butt doing nothing. the study and the research and test and so forth are there and becoming further refined also. furthermore you should read between the lines and see that the opposition represents the "academic community" who don't want their co2 global warming idea shot down, it's big money don't you know just look at al gore, he got a pulitzer. there ain't too much money in coming out and saying that everything is pretty much normal, ppl and corporations tend to not want to pay that much money for that. and we definately ought to be more environmentally aware, but that it's not like the entire planet will crash and burn because of our pollution. it should however come to a dramatic stop due to the damage we are doing to the animal and plant life, as for the sphere itself, it can take a huge beating before it cleans itself up without taking prisoners and out of pure necessity. now as for the earthquakes like the recent one in china, well that's more due to ******s messing about with technology and advanced knowledge they can't handle wisely, albeit highly primitive knowledge, such as scalar weapons which can cause chain reactions in the systems within the sphere, such as earthquakes and tsunamis and the likes. but offcourse knowing al gore et al they'd probably like to blame co2 and global worming for that too. getting even more money for researching means to stop pollution.. and so on.
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.05.12 21:10:00 - [80] ... There are still people who think climate change/global warming isn't happening? Wow. The human species never fails to amaze. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2008.05.12 21:12:00 - [81] Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 21:12:18 Originally by: Frug ... There are still people who think climate change/global warming isn't happening? Wow. The human species never fails to amaze. climate change happening?: yeah. because of co2 based pollution?: no.
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.12 21:33:00 - [82] Edited by: Akiba Penrose on 12/05/2008 21:34:24 Originally by: 7shining7one7 akiba, the video is general information about the study, not the study itself, not the tests and so forth, that's for scientific articles and the likes. yes, i understand. What i was commenting on was the way you presented this video: "The study, not based on speculations but on real hands down hardcore research, tests and documentation proving that clouds are the regulators of our entire climate on earth and that the sun controls the amount of clouds along with cosmic rays." which is not the case.. PS I know the work of Svensmark and Christensen from when i was a student (2000). The turmoil they created when they presented their theories was quite amusing. Other scientist was actually yelling at them during and after their presentations.
nahtoh Caldari Bull Industries	Posted - 2008.05.12 21:44:00 - [83] Originally by: Havok Dryke Normally I would troll this thread for all it's worth, but the OP is doing a remarkably good job of it so far. Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Khan d'barr Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. We need a "rolling on the floor clawing my eyes out at the sheer stupidity of this statement" emoteicon Quote: evolution which [...] can't be proved 100% with science So, you mean, "99.9% of the data corroborates with the theory so far, and we still have the other 0.1% of the data missing and therefore unchecked" is not scientifical enough for you ? As opposed to, say, "we have absolutely no evidence for this, but that's what some book written a couple of thousand years ago said, so it must be true" ? I'll just add my props to this reply and go elsewhere. Creationism is not science. It is fundamentalist Christianity wearing a "Science" nametag. And yes, credibility does matter when evaluating the accuracy of a statement issued by a "scientific" organization. You wouldn't give little bobby saying that the moon is made of cheese any credibility would you? Anybody who quotes Al "i invented the internet, I served a endangered specise as food and my power bill is higher than minimum wage and fly in a privte jet to to tell people not fly it hurts the enviroment" Gore is just as spaced out... Sorry but you can't use they just appeal to emotions there fore can't do any science at all to someone who basicly does the same over a different issue... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.12 21:45:00 - [84] Oh god. Climate Change AND Evolution. All we need now is some America-bashing to round off the unholy trinity, and the very fabrics of the forum can be torn asunder by a rift of pure **-storm. ------ Originally by:** Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.12 22:11:00 - [85] Originally by: Patch86 Oh god. Climate Change AND Evolution. All we need now is some America-bashing to round off the unholy trinity, and the very fabrics of the forum can be torn asunder by a rift of pure **-storm. All Americans are fat stupid cheese-burger-inhaling ex-colonials who can't spell "colour" correctly. BEHOLD, THE UNHOLY TRINITY IS COMPLETE!** --------------------------------------------------------------------
IonHammer Minmatar Black Avatar Lost Sheep Domain	Posted - 2008.05.13 02:06:00 - [86] Quote: I'm sorry but if you watch the presentation, you would see that not once is religion mentioned/involved. Being pro-creationist is not anti-science. It's against evolution which is a) a different matter entirely and b) evolution can't be proved 100% with science. last time i looked supporting religious dogma and doctrine was pretty much anti science. Further, since it would be bias to single out those people supporting religious dogma and doctrine only I would point out that this is a fundamental failing of many organisational structures not only religious ones. So what evidence would it take for u to disregard creation dogma. The same that u used to disregard evolution? If thats your real life i'm very jealous - Petwraith
Kusha'an Gallente Equinox Industrial Co.	Posted - 2008.05.13 03:18:00 - [87] Originally by: Frug ... There are still people who think climate change/global warming isn't happening? Wow. The human species never fails to amaze. You really should bone up on your current events. ---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand?
Omni Dryke	Posted - 2008.05.13 03:55:00 - [88] Originally by: Arvald i say we glass the planet and start from scratch Hear hear! 10 bucks says it still wont kill the c ockroaches in my basement.
Arron S Gallente Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.05.13 04:24:00 - [89] I stoped giving a **** about Global warming when the alarmists started calling the shots.
Trind2222 Amarr Soliders Of Eve	Posted - 2008.05.13 07:31:00 - [90] A man made a expedition to prove ocean was in danger it was Thor Heyerdah http://www.kon-tiki.no/Heyerdahl/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl many did not believe that he who'd find any proof but he did allot of things have changed because of the proof he did find like removal of phosphor in washing powder less toxic waste in to ocean. If he not fund those proof the ocean food have not been safe to eat to day.
Plaetean Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.05.13 08:32:00 - [91] Yes, suprise suprise, just like the rest of politics, its a load of old tosh. -----
Mr Friendly	Posted - 2008.05.13 10:35:00 - [92] Originally by: 7shining7one7 Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 12/05/2008 21:25:26 akiba, the video is general information about the study, not the study itself, not the tests and so forth, that's for scientific articles and the likes. also the initial study was first proposed published in 1996 but nobody seemed interested in publishing it. sorry? 12+ year old study on a dynamic field like climate? utterly useless for anything (even if it showed you could save the planet by turning off a single lightbulb once a week) dude...lol Originally by: CCP Prism X Also, posting in a Jenny thread.
KingsGambit Caldari Knights	Posted - 2008.05.13 12:23:00 - [93] I love how they changed the term "Global warming" to "Climate change" to try and get people out of the mentality that it's a good thing ;-) i personally love the hotter Summers we get here in the UK now. I must admit I'm rubbish when it comes to the environment...drive often when I don't need to, forget to recycle things that could be and I have plenty of power hungry electronic gadgets. I would like to be less of an offender although I don't believe I'm a major polluter. I think however that it's the responsibliity of Industry to make the changes and the government to enforce them. They want to tackle global warming, they NEED to make our electricity come from wind farms, hydropower, etc. At the moment, f.ex, in the UK you can get solar panels on your roof. They cost about ú8000m, but the government will subsidise this so the householder would pay ú6000. Now considering they produce about 25kJ and a small household uses perhaps 250kJ, you're effectively paying ú6,000 here to save 10% on your electricity bill, perhaps ú70 year. Now although I'm not an economist, spending ú6000 to save ú70/year is not particularly sensible financially, short of living in that place for 80+ years. I think it's the same with the cost of converting a car to electric...it costs so many thousands, that it's cheaper to simply continue filling up on expensive, polluting petrol. These are the things that need to change. All the about changing to different light bulbs and not putting TV on standby is frankly bull***t. I'm not going to stop driving, using electricity or buying things, so what needs to happen is a huge shift at the top that means I (and the bulk of the populace) are driving cars that don't pollute, using electricity that isn't killing the ozone layer and packaging that is either recyclable or bio-degradeable, etc, etc. -------------
Jakus Orellius	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:20:00 - [94] All I can say is, 1970s, Global "Cooling" scare. Where did that go exactly? And if I'm right we were still burning quite a lot of hydrocarbons then right?
Roxanna Kell Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:27:00 - [95] IMO, If Global warming was a lie, its a good lie. WHY? Props: more jobs Less pollution wish reduces certain illness, Assuming cars are less polluting in the future. Better environment in a nutshell Cons. Idiots full of smug who think they re better than everyone else just because they drive a hybrid. Hybrid cars and less polluting cars are cheaper to run and don't pay congestion charge :) Lots of tax payer money wasted into research that will reach to the same conclusion of bullst. Lets just accept that we need to be cleaner and less polluting and thats it, live a normal life. Basically it has become a political game, and i want nothing to do with it. Idiots who vote for green party, lol. Quote:** There is no Dishonor in winning fools, so do it any way you can.
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:04:00 - [96] It does seem like we have managed to save the ozone layer tho. We where destroying it, and there is still a big hole in it over Antarctica. After banning (restricting) the use of CPC gasses in the Montreal Protocol (1987) it seems to be reversing again. Last estimates was that it might be fully restored around 2065. So it is possible to make a difference. Hopefully we will react in time again.
Akiba Penrose Minmatar PAK	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:59:00 - [97] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange or maybe we'r allready to late,,
Jakus Orellius	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:43:00 - [98] Carbon Dioxide isn't that bad... for crap sake the World was "COOLING" only 30 years ago... when CFCs were used and emissions were rising. What's the big deal, lets go with the floooooow.
M00dy Killed In Action SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:00:00 - [99] I wish this thread would have been locked on the first page. It's caused my man crush on Verone to be completely obliterated . Killed In Action
Great Artista Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:18:00 - [100] Good to see someone put all the facts together for a nice vid. Don't get me wrong, all this data has been out for at least a year, I would have appriciated this more if it came out a year or two ago. But tell you what, for the first time in years I'm gonna CARE. I'll foward this to the newspapers, TV and other medias I know. Maybe there is hope in humanity afterall. (Prove me wrong please. ) _______ ◕◡◕

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

◕◡◕