namelesstavern.net

Diekan wrote:

Narrock wrote:

Frankly, I don't care what you think Diekan. You're just another arm-chair quarterback spewing forth crap you listen to from biased sources like "algore, the complete retard" or The New York Crimes.

Really? I guess I'm just wasting my time earning a Master's degree (one year to go) in BIOLOGY - backed by a Bachelor's degree in BIOLOGY.

Yeah... really... lol... you dolt.

Hey look I pulled a Rust!

Way to dance around every other point I made.

it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

statistics show that every single one of our record high temps have occurred in the last 14 years.

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

That's exactly why it's called "cyclical." Ten years from now summers will most likely not be as hot. We're just in a heating trend right now which is based entirely on cyclical weather patterns. I will agree that we should all play our part in reducing ozone-depleting particulates, like: Developing better cooling systems, better vehicle exhaust systems, extinguishing forest fires more quickly, etc., but what we are experiencing right now is not "global warming."

there is evidence that global warming is occurring.

the only discussion which carries any weight is "how much of it is attributable to man"

we don't have a correct undeniable answer to that yet. however, "all of it" is just as unlikely an answer as "none of it"

so the answer must then be "some of it"

to which i say "then why risk it? is it really worth the gamble?"

the correct reply is a resounding NO.

let's err on the side of caution. let's assume we're causing it, and take steps to change our pollution levels. if it turns out we WERE causing it, GREAT! crisis averted! if it turns out we were wrong-- oh well, at least our air is cleaner and we have all these great alternative fuel sources, which is great because we were running out of oil anyway!

conspiracy theories aside, i think when bush refused to be part of Kyoto he was partially doing it because he didn't like the idea of a bunch of other countries telling the U.S. how they should run their business, and on a certain level i can respect that. however, i think we're all stuck on this planet together for a long time, so we should ALL take part in being better stewards of it-- and his cowboy attitude on the subject might end up hurting everyone in the long run.

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

That's exactly why it's called "cyclical." Ten years from now summers will most likely not be as hot. We're just in a heating trend right now which is based entirely on cyclical weather patterns. I will agree that we should all play our part in reducing ozone-depleting particulates, like: Developing better cooling systems, better vehicle exhaust systems, extinguishing forest fires more quickly, etc., but what we are experiencing right now is not "global warming."

And your sources are........?

brinstar wrote:there is evidence that global warming is occurring.

the only discussion which carries any weight is "how much of it is attributable to man"

we don't have a correct undeniable answer to that yet. however, "all of it" is just as unlikely an answer as "none of it"

so the answer must then be "some of it"

to which i say "then why risk it? is it really worth the gamble?"

the correct reply is a resounding NO.

let's err on the side of caution. let's assume we're causing it, and take steps to change our pollution levels. if it turns out we WERE causing it, GREAT! crisis averted! if it turns out we were wrong-- oh well, at least our air is cleaner and we have all these great alternative fuel sources, which is great because we were running out of oil anyway!

conspiracy theories aside, i think when bush refused to be part of Kyoto he was partially doing it because he didn't like the idea of a bunch of other countries telling the U.S. how they should run their business, and on a certain level i can respect that. however, i think we're all stuck on this planet together for a long time, so we should ALL take part in being better stewards of it-- and his cowboy attitude on the subject might end up hurting everyone in the long run.

I agree that we should do what we can to prevent further damage to the Ozone layer.

Diekan wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

That's exactly why it's called "cyclical." Ten years from now summers will most likely not be as hot. We're just in a heating trend right now which is based entirely on cyclical weather patterns. I will agree that we should all play our part in reducing ozone-depleting particulates, like: Developing better cooling systems, better vehicle exhaust systems, extinguishing forest fires more quickly, etc., but what we are experiencing right now is not "global warming."

And your sources are........?

Why don't you go ahead and Google it yourself. Any source I cite you're just going to discredit it anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time with you.

Diekan wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

That's exactly why it's called "cyclical." Ten years from now summers will most likely not be as hot. We're just in a heating trend right now which is based entirely on cyclical weather patterns. I will agree that we should all play our part in reducing ozone-depleting particulates, like: Developing better cooling systems, better vehicle exhaust systems, extinguishing forest fires more quickly, etc., but what we are experiencing right now is not "global warming."

And your sources are........?

Around fifteen years ago I lived about 100 miles from where Brinstar lives, most summers were pretty warm, and usually for a week or two it was very hot. I definitely remember weeks where it broke 100 degrees, I remember seeing 110 on the local bank's reader board.

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

Brinstar won't shut up about his degrees!

haha

It's pointless trying to discuss the validity of GW with folks who have zero scientific training, or education. They're one sighted on the subject and will sooner take the word of someone else who have no real science background over someone who might actually know what they're talking about.... it's the American way.

Seriously though... I do think that part of the problem is the association of environmentalism with wacko super far left liberalism. The "movememnt" might be taken a bit more serious if it had a more moderate face put to it. But, the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hanittys wont allow that.

Once the republicans and big business realize that profits really wont be all that affected by the conversion to green... it'll move along a lot more smoothly.

Hell, energy companies (electricity producers) could actually make MORE money in the long run. The demand will always be there. If their demand is for 10,000 MW - it's really not going to matter if said MW's are produced by wind generation or through burning coal... it's all the same in terms of energy. They'll end up saving money because their need for workers will decrease. It doesn't take nearly as many people to maintain a hydro station, a wind or solar farm.

Other companies wont really give a shit where their electricity comes from as long as it comes on when they flip the "switch" and as long as their bills don't go up. Despite that, however, many people in this country are just too complacent. Either they don't have enough education on the issue, they're completely mislead by false expert talking heads, or they just simply don't care. It'll take the government to step in and mandate change.

The only companies that will experience a direct effect.. a real effect... are the oil companies. Yet, they're not doomed to go completely out of business either. We're still going to need plastics, paints, drugs, and everything else non-fuel that oil is used to produce. It's just that they won't be seeing BILLION dollar, record profits again - and that's something neither they, nor their in-pocket politicians are willing to accept.

Zanchief wrote:

brinstar wrote:it's been over 100 fucking degrees every day for the past week (ten years ago we'd only get over 100 like three or four times a summer)

interpret that as you will

Brinstar won't shut up about his degrees!

Diekan wrote:It's pointless trying to discuss the validity of GW with folks who have zero scientific training, or education. They're one sighted on the subject and will sooner take the word of someone else who have no real science background over someone who might actually know what they're talking about.... it's the American way.

I give credit where credit is due. Sorry, but your biology classes don't make you an expert in global warming. You can have your opinions on the subject just like anybody else, but nobody here is qualified to give expert testimony on the subject. Except Rust. Oh wait, nm. lolz

My so called opinions, you dipshit, are based on scientific fact. What... you think that over the 6 years of biological training we just occassionally "discussed" the topic once or twice?

I may not be an "expert" on the subject to the degree you think I think I am... but I gaurantee you I know exponentially more about it than you'll ever dream.

What makes my opinion more valid than yours? Mine are based on scientific evidence. Your's are based on the rantings of some white, blue blood, "nigger" hating, bible thumping, radio talk show host who has his cock so far up Exxon's ass they have to wear hats to hide the circumcision mark across their forehead.

You know NOTHING of science. You know NOTHING of the causes of glodal warming. You know NOTHING of these so called cycles you keep blaming it on. In short you know nothing about the topic at all... you just think you do.

Diekan wrote:What makes my opinion more valid than yours? Mine are based on scientific evidence. Your's are based on the rantings of some white, blue blood, "nigger" hating, bible thumping, radio talk show host who has his cock so far up Exxon's ass they have to wear hats to hide the circumcision mark across their forehead.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHA

Zanchief wrote:

Diekan wrote:What makes my opinion more valid than yours? Mine are based on scientific evidence. Your's are based on the rantings of some white, blue blood, "nigger" hating, bible thumping, radio talk show host who has his cock so far up Exxon's ass they have to wear hats to hide the circumcision mark across their forehead.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHA

jabl

To be fair, Mindia, you did freely admit that your science background is quite limited. Not trying to slam you in any way, please understand, or insult your intelligence; everyone has things they are and are not good at, (me, I suck at foreign languages), science just doesn't happen to be YOUR strong suit, as you said. So, when people who ARE skilled in science state their opinion, you might consider giving some weight to said opinion, regardless of their political leanings. Because, I assure you most heartily, that by no means are everyone who believes in global warming trying to push some liberal agenda. The myriad of scientists with PhDs in environmental studies who DO believe in GW believe in it because that's what they feel all of the data they have available to them points to. These scientists are not confined to any one end of the political spectrum, there are conservatives and moderates a plenty as well.

Take a long look at who subsidizes many of the scientists who speak out against global warming, and I think you'll find that the vast majority of them are associated with big businesses who have economic cause to disbelieve in GW. As a result, I consider their opinions to be as tainted as the opinions of the medical doctors that worked for Tobacco companies that repeatedly swore, under oath, that there were no harmful side effects to smoking, that all those cases of lung cancer were coincidental.

BTW, when scientists talk of cyclical effects, they're not talking on a scale of 10 years. They're talking on a scale of several centuries or millenia, 10 years is too small a time span to be able to discern changes that occurred in the past. As I have said before, even if you believe that the underlying cause of most of the effect we've been seeing is due to cyclical effects (and I know you do), the megatons of pollution we spew out cannot POSSIBLY be good for us, right? It has far more effects than just global warming or impacting the ozone layer.

Consider it as something akin to Descartes' challenge about believing in God. As he put it, if you do believe in God, but he does not exist, you suffer no negative effects from your belief, either while living or after you die, and indeed, you may well have seen a number of positives from it. If you DON'T believe, however, and he DOES exist, well, then you're fucked. heh. Look at Global Warming the same way: if we do work against its effects, and it doesn't exist, all we've done is help clean up the planet and made life better for everyone by cutting pollution. However, if we DON'T work against its effects, and it DOES exist... well, then we're ALL fucked.

-Arlos

Diekan wrote:My so called opinions, you dipshit, are based on scientific fact. What... you think that over the 6 years of biological training we just occassionally "discussed" the topic once or twice?

I may not be an "expert" on the subject to the degree you think I think I am... but I gaurantee you I know exponentially more about it than you'll ever dream.

What makes my opinion more valid than yours? Mine are based on scientific evidence. Your's are based on the rantings of some white, blue blood, "nigger" hating, bible thumping, radio talk show host who has his cock so far up Exxon's ass they have to wear hats to hide the circumcision mark across their forehead.

You know NOTHING of science. You know NOTHING of the causes of glodal warming. You know NOTHING of these so called cycles you keep blaming it on. In short you know nothing about the topic at all... you just think you do.

Dipshit? Getting personal are we? I hate to break to you chump, but I know just as much about Global Warming as you do. And what is this business about nigger-hating and having their head up Exxon's ass? You know nothing about Sean Hannity. Sean is also against big oil business ripping people off. Maybe you should tune in once in a while and listen to him instead of reading anti-coservative websites, and stop sounding like an ignorant retard. If you're talking about Rush, I already told you... I don't like, or listen to, Rush Limbaugh.

arlos wrote:To be fair, Mindia, you did freely admit that your science background is quite limited. Not trying to slam you in any way, please understand, or insult your intelligence; everyone has things they are and are not good at, (me, I suck at foreign languages), science just doesn't happen to be YOUR strong suit, as you said. So, when people who ARE skilled in science state their opinion, you might consider giving some weight to said opinion, regardless of their political leanings. Because, I assure you most heartily, that by no means are everyone who believes in global warming trying to push some liberal agenda. The myriad of scientists with PhDs in environmental studies who DO believe in GW believe in it because that's what they feel all of the data they have available to them points to. These scientists are not confined to any one end of the political spectrum, there are conservatives and moderates a plenty as well.

Take a long look at who subsidizes many of the scientists who speak out against global warming, and I think you'll find that the vast majority of them are associated with big businesses who have economic cause to disbelieve in GW. As a result, I consider their opinions to be as tainted as the opinions of the medical doctors that worked for Tobacco companies that repeatedly swore, under oath, that there were no harmful side effects to smoking, that all those cases of lung cancer were coincidental.

BTW, when scientists talk of cyclical effects, they're not talking on a scale of 10 years. They're talking on a scale of several centuries or millenia, 10 years is too small a time span to be able to discern changes that occurred in the past. As I have said before, even if you believe that the underlying cause of most of the effect we've been seeing is due to cyclical effects (and I know you do), the megatons of pollution we spew out cannot POSSIBLY be good for us, right? It has far more effects than just global warming or impacting the ozone layer.

Consider it as something akin to Descartes' challenge about believing in God. As he put it, if you do believe in God, but he does not exist, you suffer no negative effects from your belief, either while living or after you die, and indeed, you may well have seen a number of positives from it. If you DON'T believe, however, and he DOES exist, well, then you're fucked. heh. Look at Global Warming the same way: if we do work against its effects, and it doesn't exist, all we've done is help clean up the planet and made life better for everyone by cutting pollution. However, if we DON'T work against its effects, and it DOES exist... well, then we're ALL fucked.

-Arlos

Arlos, I never made the claim to be an expert in the sciences. I get my information from factual sources. I will repeat, Diekan knows no better than anybody else about global warming. I also listen to what PhD's at Berkeley say about global warming. It is not caused by people. It is cyclical, whether you want to admit it or not. Yes, people are not helping the cause because of our lifestyles, but forest fires are doing more harm to the ozone layer than particulates from refrigerants and vehicles. I don't really care to get into a cut & paste war with you or anybody else. I'm just tired of idiots like Diekan claiming they know more about GW than other people. It is giving me a good laugh though. :P

Narrock wrote:
I hate to break to you chump, but I know just as much about Global Warming as you do.

LMAO

While I may disagree with the way Diekan said it, I would bet he knows a fair amount more with regard to Global Warming (from a scientific viewpoint) then you do. I was a Computer Science major and in my limited science study, it was covered consistently. I had many friends in the Bio and Bio/Chem field and they were looking at it on almost a daily basis.

What education do you actually have on Global Warming? What is the source of your vast knowledge on the issue? I am not saying you are completely without knowledge on this and many other issues. However in this case, you are dealing with a person who has studied the subject in depth. You may disagree with him and his political view; however that does not change the fact that he really is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board on the subject.

gidan wrote:While I may disagree with the way Diekan said it, I would bet he knows a fair amount more with regard to Global Warming (from a scientific viewpoint) then you do. I was a Computer Science major and in my limited science study, it was covered consistently. I had many friends in the Bio and Bio/Chem field and they were looking at it on almost a daily basis.

What education do you actually have on Global Warming? What is the source of your vast knowledge on the issue? I am not saying you are completely without knowledge on this and many other issues. However in this case, you are dealing with a person who has studied the subject in depth. You may disagree with him and his political view; however that does not change the fact that he really is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board on the subject.

If he's so knowledgable on the subject, why is he sounding like such a retard about it?

Narrock wrote:

gidan wrote:While I may disagree with the way Diekan said it, I would bet he knows a fair amount more with regard to Global Warming (from a scientific viewpoint) then you do. I was a Computer Science major and in my limited science study, it was covered consistently. I had many friends in the Bio and Bio/Chem field and they were looking at it on almost a daily basis.

What education do you actually have on Global Warming? What is the source of your vast knowledge on the issue? I am not saying you are completely without knowledge on this and many other issues. However in this case, you are dealing with a person who has studied the subject in depth. You may disagree with him and his political view; however that does not change the fact that he really is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board on the subject.

If he's so knowledgable on the subject, why is he sounding like such a retard about it?

Keep digging, cool guy.

That's exactly why it's called "cyclical." Ten years from now summers will most likely not be as hot. We're just in a heating trend right now which is based entirely on cyclical weather patterns. I will agree that we should all play our part in reducing ozone-depleting particulates, like: Developing better cooling systems, better vehicle exhaust systems, extinguishing forest fires more quickly, etc., but what we are experiencing right now is not "global warming."

This quote already shows that you do not have a great understanding of the subject. He may not be telling you in a nice way, but he is right. If you really want to argue the subject and have people take you seriously that's great, but site your sources. Give people someplace they can look to see where you are getting your information (Saying google it, doesn’t cut it). Step back for a minute and realize that on this topic other do know more then you. Listen to them and accept the fact that you could be wrong.

As for what he has been talking about, most of it isn’t even technical stuff regarding Global Warming but more political. The biggest point he has been trying to make is that people should get scientific information from a scientist and not a politician. Politicians have political agendas they are trying to meet. This is true of every politician and is not limited to one group or another. The running trend however appears to be that many of the right wing groups are choosing to go the route of money > environment. While some of the left wing groups are trying to bring us back to the dark ages.

The solution is obviously somewhere in between and Arlos said it best.

[quote=â€