Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

[TheViper]

Hold up a moment...did you just allude to the notion that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory?

 

[redraider89]

Hold up a moment...did you just allude to the notion that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory?

It's a valid theory, but it's only a theory, not fact. Not all theories are true.

 

[TheViper]

Gravity is also a theory. The only reason either are theories and not laws are because we are still learning about them so a finalized law cannot yet be determined.

Evolution itself is a scientific fact. If you mean Darwanism, then you have all rights to be skeptical.

 

[redraider89]

I believe in micro-evolution, between species, but not macro-evolution. It's macro evolution that is the most dangerous. That is the evolution that says we are all merely a different kind of animal and nothing special. That is the kind of evolution that led to the Holocaust in Germany and the mass executions by Marxists in the communist/socialist countries.

 

[redraider89]

And macro-evolution is the evolution that allows radical environmentalists, those who believe in global warming, a subset of environmentalism, to say save the planet at all costs.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

When we start deciding who lives and who dies it becomes a slippery slope.
Chinas policies are well known, who can have what kind of babies, and is designed and enforced by law.
Theres arguments for the usage of DDT, as malaria has taken more lives without DDT than what we truly know of the impact on its usage.
It reminds me of the spinache debacle. Spinache was considered to have tons of iron in it, but, low and behold, years later, when itwas retested for content, the original numbers were off by 1 decimal point, and spinache actually only has 1/10 of what wed previously thought, but again, everyone jumped on the wagon and promoted spinache.

Now that was just a digestable vegatable, now imagine the fate of millions of peoples, trillions of dollars etc. Im all for landing on the side of caution, but to invest so severly into it is foolhardy as well.
If not for our finite oil reserves, this wouldnt be a concern, as well as population growth and the expanding usage of our finite resources. This is whats driving these "concerns", and making oil prohibitively expensive wont drive the markets, and the switchover is no wheres in sight, so available alternatives are too varied per region etc, and here again, we enter into world greed.
The worlds movers and shakers want in on the next saviour , as they can keep their positions , but again, none has surfaced, but they have managed to put together in one place, one thing, a power ability to control what we have left. So, its in their best interests this too plays out, and global warming becomes something more than it is.

My concerns are this: All studies need to be open sourced from the begining, something which hasnt been done with global warming, its being done with my money, so yes, I have that right.
All studies pro or con, one way or the other needs further clarification, to its end if you will, for fact finding, as each pro or con does contribute to the overall end facts, which then can be applied to better solutions.
Grasping a "we need to do this right now, if its already not too late" has a certain window, which if we take this route, will soon play itself out, and since its such a drastic approach, needs to be held with no amount a derivation at all, meaning, if they say we have to do this, and do it now, then itd better be as they say, no ifs or ands, but right on their marks, and if found wrong, charges can/will applyLike a mayor of a city, making decisions for its people, he/she is liable for his/her decision making, and so too also this applies.
If we followed these patterns, wed see an open approach, containing much more usable data, with more open minds coming to a wider and more approachable solution, with responsibility thrown in for its proposed importance, as welll as using the peoples resources, changing them however, and making the makers of these policies sharper in their conclusions

 

[Bleet]

Global warming......

Global cooling.....

Humanities ability to change the natural cycles that happen to a rock orbiting just the right distance, speed and tilt from a Huge, trillions of years lasting, thermonuclear reaction (the sun) in the void of space.....

Are you freaking serious?

One burp from our magnetic field and we are all irradiated...

One belch from the Sun we are all fried...

A sun anomaly that reduces its thermal output by a small percentage we all freeze...

Hit by a large meteor, we burn then freeze...

Why are we even worried about global warming.....

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The earths been pretty lucky, being its only 4+ billions of years old

 

[amnotanoobie]

This proves that Deforestation, like you so ignorantly claim, has little to do with the United States. If deforestation has so little to do with the United States, why is it that all the global warming activists want to develop restrictions mainly one country, the United States. It cannot be due to deforestation since the United States is not involved in significant deforestation as you claim.

Because most of the resources are extracted from 3rd world countries. Most of the forests in the US are probably intact because they could still get wood cheaper on other poorer countries. Also why do you think Alaskan Oil is only starting to be tapped now? It's a logical step for any nation, consume others before using your own!

Also the US government is one of the governments that they could talk to, let them try to pull these stunts on other countries and they could be shot or imprisoned.

What could be more important than saving the planet? It's a religion to them, and apparently to you too. Their religion dictates that they believe that they can save a planet, regardless of the facts that say that it doesn't need to be saving. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung all did it for less. So, I have the farsighted vision based on logical conclusion, that you cannot see apparently.

Every topic has fanatics, and obviously your overwhelming hatred for these "nature hippies" makes you no different.

Also, redraider, where do you think the demand for all this wood is? In the poor countries that do the logging or us, the rich countries who want fancy wood for items?

^+1

The primary cause of deforestation is the local people clearing land for grazing and farming.

and then supplying raw materials to wealthier nations!

Exactly right Bleet. The same people who believe we can destroy the earth believe in evolution and under the theory of evolution, we are just another animal on the planet. In fact, the global warmers ought to be glad if we got wiped off of the planet because according to them, we are the worst and most damaging animal on the planet. They want it both ways. They lament so woefully that people will be killed like people have value, then they turn around and say human beings are just aweful, and evil and are destroying the earth. They are not far from believing what Mr. Smith said in The Matrix that humanity is a virus to this planet and needs to be expunged. They want it both ways but you can't have it both ways. Either human beings are worth saving, or they are the worst creature on the earth. Which is it?

Human beings are the worst creature on the earth, as the earth could go on without humans. But as a human, aren't you going to save your own ass?

 

[amnotanoobie]

I'm actually much more concerned about the weakening of the magnetic poles of the earth, as it is one thing we could do nothing to prevent.

This article sums up the other cosmic events that could kill us all long before "waterworld," 5 Cosmic Events That Could Kill You Before Lunch.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Arent these the same bleeding hearts that dont want to show the Orca as it is, like eating a seal?
Or a dog killing cats?
Or a cat killing a Canary?
All creatures kill or live off of dead creatures.
Are we so different?
When the buffalo herds trampled everything in sight, ruined the grasses and created dirt storms, should they too be held for these atrosities?
Funny, like admitting man is evil is something new.
How long did it take scientists to figure that one out?
The worlds been here 4 billion years, and yes, theres been collisions, theres been temp differences etc, and whats it caused?
Life on earth. A perfect solution so balanced a 1 nm cpu is to be laughed at.
How do we even know if the earth needs to be within its eact location in the milky way galaxy, and the milky way needing to be placed exactly within its location of the universe itself for life to exist on earth?
We dont, but its possible, being as the balance we now see is so uncomprehendible as it currently is.
Lets open it up all the way, not just partially. What if were struck by Gamma rays from a far distant galaxy?
Yes, man is evil, weve known that since Adam, however you want to call the first man.
It isnt for evil that we exist, is it?

 

[strangestranger]

I would like to point out that again, this is not about a change in temperature, it is the rate of change.

AFAIK, barring a freak natural accident, there has never been a change in temperature like has been seen now. I believe ice records prove such as do tree rings.

 

[TheViper]

I would like to point out that again, this is not about a change in temperature, it is the rate of change.

AFAIK, barring a freak natural accident, there has never been a change in temperature like has been seen now. I believe ice records prove such as do tree rings.

LOL, you might want to go read the hacked emails. They stopped accepting tree ring data because it stopped supporting temperature increases since 1950 and they couldn't explain why.

 

[welshmousepk]

i would be perfectly happy for humans to be wiped of the face of the planet.

i would not be happy to know we would destroy our atmosphere and the prospects of all life in our departure.

there are millions of planets out there that may have one point sustained life(mars for instance). eventually though, the requirements for life to exist are thrown out of balance by nature and the planet once again becomes unliveable.

do we as humans really need to continue contributing to this? our planet has millions of years left. but at the rate we are dumping stuff into the soil/sea/atmosphere, it onyl has a few thousand.

yes, 'global warming' is more than likely just another cycle in our planets life. but all of you pretending out planet is indestructable are just in denial.
humans, by evolutionary law should not still be here. but we're to smart, to stubborn and too selfish to go away.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But of course were still here, were the ones who thought up evolution werent we?
But as everything "human" goes, defined by some. all our inventions become like us, Frankenstein monsters that kills its creator.
So easy to figure out, but alas, Im unamused, seen it all before.
Why scientists are acting obtuse as to the human element is beyond me, maybe its the look of a young child, people helping others without asking for anything back, who knows?
Sure, helping has to end, the children must die, what a wonderful life those scientists have planned for us. Maybe its them who are the problem? Other opinions need not apply......

 

[amnotanoobie]

humans, by evolutionary law should not still be here.

I think we were just impressively lucky. On what I've watched about the creation of Earth, it is amazing that if even one thing had gone wrong before, Earth would be unlivable.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Oh, and I have to add the moon and its exact placement and composition as well.
So, the moon, its composition, the earth its composition, all placed exactly the right distance from our sun, again, the exact needed size and age, with all the other planets effecting the earth moon and sun concurrently as well, all in balance for 4+ billion years, yea, luck, thats it

 

[strangestranger]

Yes, chance, laws of probability.

Also, the earth will not support life forever, this is just a mere snapshot as jaydeee points out, allowed by the moon.

It is essential for all stability and seeing as it is moving away slowsly things will change slowly for the worse. The moon is theorised to have been alot closer when the earth was first formed and has been slowly moving away from us ever since IIRC.

However, I think jaydee was wrongly asserting that the earth has been balanced for it's entire existence, that is false, it has only been balanced and stable enough for life for a short period of time and will likely end this time long before the sun stops providing enough light and heat.

At least for life such as ourselves, basic life has been around much longer and will survive much longer as they are more adaptable and less reliant on the environment.

 

[Bleet]

Yes, chance, laws of probability.

Also, the earth will not support life forever, this is just a mere snapshot as jaydeee points out, allowed by the moon.

It is essential for all stability and seeing as it is moving away slowsly things will change slowly for the worse. The moon is theorised to have been alot closer when the earth was first formed and has been slowly moving away from us ever since IIRC.

However, I think jaydee was wrongly asserting that the earth has been balanced for it's entire existence, that is false, it has only been balanced and stable enough for life for a short period of time and will likely end this time long before the sun stops providing enough light and heat.

At least for life such as ourselves, basic life has been around much longer and will survive much longer as they are more adaptable and less reliant on the environment.

Basic life is less reliant on the Environment? Give me some of what you are smoking.

Is global warming causing the moon to move away?

We are causing the moon to go away?

This all totally agrees with my statement that global warming is the least of our worries and our time here could be ended at any second.

Why do you think the moon is responsible for our existence? If anything Jupiter and its meteor sucking gravity along with the largest thing in our solar system, Jupiter's Magnetosphere are the reason we have not been pounded or irradiated into nothingness...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Everything thats occured from the begining is the reason why were here is what Im pointing out.
Taking the theorists position, it was the combination of all this for life to occur at all.
There couldnt have been life before the earth cooled etc, or when the sun was too bright, or the moon was too close etc etc. Or the meteorites etc, as all these things had to happen in a small time frame for life to have sprung, and thats how "lucky" weve been

 

[strangestranger]

Basic life such as bacteria can adapt itself to whatever circumstances it finds itself in, humans can't. over time we have spread to other parts of this globe but it doesn't take much to change that unlike with bacteria which will survive.

The moon is well known to provide a stabilising force as well as responsible for the tides and other things. It is very important.

 

[Bleet]

Basic life such as bacteria can adapt itself to whatever circumstances it finds itself in, humans can't. over time we have spread to other parts of this globe but it doesn't take much to change that unlike with bacteria which will survive.

The moon is well known to provide a stabilising force as well as responsible for the tides and other things. It is very important.

Why is there no life on the moon if "basic life" is not reliant on the environment?

We can not adapt? We adapt faster then anything ever through technology. We have eradicated several means for the natural checks and balances the world has thrown at us hence our population explosion via modern medicine. I think you under estimate the resiliency of Humans.

We "adapted" to living in outer space for some periods of time.

We will shortly begin the first phase of colonizing other celestial bodies.

That is overcoming the limitations of this planet and its environment completely not merely adapting to it and what is throws at you.

 

[strangestranger]

Who says there is no life on the moon?

Humans adapt but they can only adapt so much and nowhere near as much as "simpler" lifeforms.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Simpler lifeforms have to be near their food, they cant grow their own, nor migate distances to it, especially without higher lifeforms to make even this possible.
So no, I dont believe in the lower only likeform thing, not at the begining nor now, as lower lifeforms are too constrained within their enviroment to actually exist by themselves.
Enviroments change, and its been recorded many a time, as we "evil" humans made this happened, without our knowledge at the time, but even so, by some writers of history, we are the evil ones. Weve unknowingly brought in species that caused other species extinction, as we changed the enviroment, just by adding a new creature.
How did man survive the ice age? He changed his enviroment close to him, somehow found nourishment. This wasnt chance here, this "luck" everyone points towards.
When the vents move at the bottom of the ocean, or the ice thaws allowing for too much sunlight beneath the ice in Antartica, those lower lifeforms will die. Guess theyll be just outta luck

 

[strangestranger]

But somehow those lower lifeforms pop back out of thin air?

No, they adapt to whatever new source of energy they can find, even plutonium.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Bacteria-and-Viruses/We-Are-Surrounded.html