Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're still clinging to that? It's already been shown repeatedly to have been an overblown reaction - by those who already denied climate change - to a few misunderdstood phrases (out of 13 years of emails, mind you).

Thanks. But you're wrong.

Was data destroyed?? Yes. Why was it destroyed? Well...we dont know, but several emails say that it is because there is a decline in temperature and they had to hide it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the true temperatures because the real data has ben thrown away and all that is left is "value added" data, which of course was tampered with to delete colder temperatures and anything that didnt agree with their viewpoint.
 
''World is ending in 2012'' ''Ice age'' ''Everyone is going to die of swine flu'', blah, blah, blah....Same thing every year. Something is always trying to destroy the Earth, but it won't happen.
 
Thanks. But you're wrong.

Was data destroyed?? Yes. Why was it destroyed? Well...we dont know, but several emails say that it is because there is a decline in temperature and they had to hide it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know the true temperatures because the real data has ben thrown away and all that is left is "value added" data, which of course was tampered with to delete colder temperatures and anything that didnt agree with their viewpoint.
That's YOUR reading of the e-mails. It's entirely possible that you (and many others) completely misinterpreted what those quotes meant. You have no sense of context with which to interpret those quotes accurately. They are incredibly vague.

You're asserting assumptions to be fact.
 
''World is ending in 2012'' ''Ice age'' ''Everyone is going to die of swine flu'', blah, blah, blah....Same thing every year. Something is always trying to destroy the Earth, but it won't happen.

WHO TOLD YOU OUR PLAN!? :cmad::cmad::cmad:

Ummm.... hmm... I mean: Yeah, people ARE dumb. :awesome:
 
That's YOUR reading of the e-mails. It's entirely possible that you (and many others) completely misinterpreted what those quotes meant. You have no sense of context with which to interpret those quotes accurately. They are incredibly vague.

You're asserting assumptions to be fact.

And you're ignoring evidence to suit your viewpoint...which is what the scientists did.

They ABSOLUTELY destroyed evidence. There is no way to check their results as being real or fraud because they no longer exist. The emails do have vague references to deleting files...so, since evidence WAS destroyed...no one is disputing that...I prefer to think that they had a reasn to do so. You prefer t think they just did it for no reason and should be trusted.

Things like the "Mike's Nature Trick" can only be explained away by using slight of hand. Taken literally, there is no doubt that it was fraud.
 
Man can artificially create rain though can't we? I saw a program about the trail from North Vietnam to South Vietnam during the Nam war. America dropped some chemical pellets(can't remember the chemical) into the clouds to cause it to rain thusly flooding the trail.
 
your arguement is precicesly why I support a slow and gradual move towards communism instead of a drastic seizing of the state. we gotta take it one day at a time and be very careful. first how to figure out how to make our economy very efficent, get a little practice managing this kind of thing with universal health care. get our economy simple and efficent so there aren't so many things to deal with. In order to do that technology has to come a long way.

Without money motivating the guy to do it, why would anybody bother to pick up a mop or a spatula? Or not call in sick every monday? As of right now we need capitalism, with heavy regulation of course, assuming the heavy regulation is smart regulation. But we also need some elements of communism. Most we've already had for decades such as publicly run roads, publicly run schools, publicly run medicare, publicly owned NASA.

most people who claim they oppose communism have no idea what communism even is. They don't even realize that they actually support a lot of programs which are communism.
You completely miss the point.

No human or small group can physically and efficiently manage the wealth of information. It is impossible to consider the millions of complex and unique interactions of a civilization. They've failed in the past and will fail again. Only an arrogant Utopianist would entertain this notion.
 
And you're ignoring evidence to suit your viewpoint...which is what the scientists did.

They ABSOLUTELY destroyed evidence. There is no way to check their results as being real or fraud because they no longer exist. The emails do have vague references to deleting files...so, since evidence WAS destroyed...no one is disputing that...I prefer to think that they had a reasn to do so. You prefer t think they just did it for no reason and should be trusted.

Things like the "Mike's Nature Trick" can only be explained away by using slight of hand. Taken literally, there is no doubt that it was fraud.
I know that evidence was destroyed, and I'm not defending that action, nor am I saying that THOSE particular scientists should be trusted. However, you have no clue what "Mike's Nature Trick" actually IS, and neither do I. Moreover, it does NOT prove that the whole thing is a hoax, as you would claim and have others believe.

You're also the guy who with NO support whatsoever claimed that ACC policies have killed millions of people, so forgive me for not at all taking you seriously.
 
Considering I'm from Canada an Ice Age would just be an endless winter. No big deal, just really annoying and depressing.

Regardless, this is stupid and won't happen for another few thousand/million years.
 
I didn't realize Canadians didn't need to eat. You guys are ****ing weird.
 
I didn't realize that all food ceases to exist during the winter. That's ****ing weird.
 
You know what? You're right. Crop production won't be affected at all. Good call.

:facepalm:
 
You realize that we don't only eat crops right? And you also realize that not all of our meat and crops are concentrated in one geographic area, right? As if you're actually challenging me on this subject. You have no chance. Quit now before you get humiliated some more.
 
Still, a lot of people would wind up starving to death. Not a nice way to go, but it would make the population more managable, and hey, no more Canada, so it's win-win.
 
From my understanding the last ice-age happened at our current poles, so the next one should happen around the equator due to a shift in the axis (which is just one theory of course).
 
You're cute. Outclassed and slightly ******ed, but cute.

Let's take this nice and slow, 'kay?

We currently have a world population that is barely supported by the crop yield we have right now.

A sharp decline in global temperature means less viable land for growing crops. Nobody said that ALL viable land will be rendered useless.

Now, let's do some math. If we are barely able to put out enough food for everybody NOW, and if our global population is GROWING, and there will be even LESS capacity for providing food in the face of an ice age...what is the outcome?

Now here's something a bit more complicated. Put on your thinking cap for this one.

"You realize that we don't only eat crops right?" Yes, I do. I'll assume you're referring to the fact that we also eat meat. Here's a fun fact: if all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million.

It takes FAR MORE food to raise livestock than it takes to feed people.

So good job on that one, sparky.

Anything else?
 
From my understanding the last ice-age happened at our current poles, so the next one should happen around the equator due to a shift in the axis (which is just one theory of course).
...the axis is expected to shift?
 
There will still be so much land to cultivate, and if we were to concentrate our resources into the remaining fertile land we could still survive (for the most part) and you're also forgetting the massive amounts of aquatic life that humans can consume.

Regardless you implied there would be nothing left to eat and that we would die. You didn't change your argument until after I rebuddled. You can't win. Just quit. I'm the ****ing Asteroid-Man.
 
There will still be so much land to cultivate, and if we were to concentrate our resources into the remaining fertile land we could still survive (for the most part)...
...based on??

Aseroid-Man said:
...and you're also forgetting the massive amounts of aquatic life that humans can consume.
Too bad we're acidifying the oceans to an extent that could SEVERELY reduce their productivity. That's a problem in and of itself right now.

Asteroid-Man said:
Regardless you implied there would be nothing left to eat and that we would die.
I never said that or implied it. Way to make ASSumptions. :awesome:
 
I know that evidence was destroyed, and I'm not defending that action, nor am I saying that THOSE particular scientists should be trusted. However, you have no clue what "Mike's Nature Trick" actually IS, and neither do I. Moreover, it does NOT prove that the whole thing is a hoax, as you would claim and have others believe.

You're also the guy who with NO support whatsoever claimed that ACC policies have killed millions of people, so forgive me for not at all taking you seriously.

I dont know what Mike's Nature Trick is???

Honestly...if you dont know, then you are a fool.

It is a trick...that Mike...used in Nature.

Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

In 2006 Michael Mann (one of the top scientists implicated in this fraud) used a fraudulent "hockey stick" chart to show warming temperatures when the data didn't actually show anything special at all. This happened in Nature Magazine.

The fact that the pro-fraud crowd CANT admit a link between the "trick" and "Mike" is because it is a clear link to fraud.

Oh, and why do I have to prove that people are starving to death in underdeveloped countries? You need proof of this? Those same countries are going ballistic over the treaty that is about to be signed in Copenhagen because more of their citizens will die...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"