Global warming will kill us all!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TheHamster22, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. Baal

    Baal Tank

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    We really need to stop arguing whether Global Warming will wipe out the human race or not; because it won't.

    The only things that will wipe us out are:

    Solar radiation on a planetary level (many different scenarios)
    Celestial impact
    Yellowstone erupting (or an equally large volcanoe)

    Even a Yellowstone eruption might not necessarily wipe us out, but it'd sure do more damage than Global Warming ever will. Global Warming is more of a lifestyle change than anything. Drastic changes? Likely, but they still remain just that.
     
  2. bbson john

    bbson john Tank

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    3,290
    Likes Received:
    1
    If there is no animal, or in your term, all the unadaptable species were to cull out, there is no food at all. Can we synthesie our own food? Yes, we can. But not enough for feeding all 6 BILLIONS people there have have in the world, and not enough for giving a single ration for computer nerds like us. Owing to the lack of food, we will all die. And you won't survive no matter how 'fit' you are. Moreover, if all the plants were to die out, who will be going to convery CO2 into O2 we respire? By artificial machine? I am sure we don't have enough of them even we exhaust all the metal we have on Earth. Without oxygen, no complex lifeform, human inclusive, can live without aerobic respiration. We will soon die out, no matter how advance we are or how adaptive. Temperature rising to 35 degree Celsius is not the major harm of global warming, its side-effects are far greater.

    You IQ did not diminish a bit, since 0*1/2 = 0

    We are worring about the future of our generation. If you wish humanity can take care of itself, I am sure it will take care of itself(die). Do you want every sons of us curse us everyday for what we did? There should be a balance. We should defend for our happiness, but as well we should let our species continue existing.

    The world destroys itself after Five billion years when sun turns into a redgiant. We catalysed it and the world destroy itself after about two hundred years. Compare that, five billion years and two hundred years. Isn't the time worth buying. I've left it at that.


    Yellowstone eruption is something temporary, most life-form can survive through, but global warming is not. It is a permanent change of the world. It is a complete break down of the food chain. Since it lasts long, most organisms cannot plow through it.
     
  3. Tollbooth Willie

    Tollbooth Willie The Freeman

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    17,472
    Likes Received:
    647
    We have a bigger problem on our hands here people!

    [​IMG]

    They are past the spears......Now they want us dead.
     
  4. StardogChampion

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Just been watching Channel 4 (the channel this documentary was broadcast on), and it's just been said that the creator of it has been accused of creating misleading shows in the past, and one of the contributors has already come out and said that he was taken miles out of context.
     
  5. Absinthe

    Absinthe The Freeman

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    14,040
    Likes Received:
    26
    Indeed, that accusation was made in one of the links Kage provided earlier.
     
  6. Baserape>

    Baserape> Spy

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will adapt.

    :bonce:
     
  7. Baal

    Baal Tank

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Screw it; I'm doing a 180 on everything I've said in this thread to date. We're speeding up the climate change (or global warming), and now I'm convinced.

    I have made this decision after some reading around, but I also found this video which is incredibly interesting and gives me hope for the future.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4569577556800822039&q=amory+lovins+rose

    This is an interview with Amory Lovins, a man generally focused on the economics of oil production and how to reduce the cost of energy consumption. However, his studies go hand in hand with changing the course of global warming.
     
  8. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    If (as claimed in this thread)the ice caps keep melting and reforming, then how come we have ice core records going back 800,000 years(more than three interglacial periods) ?
    And here's the bad news ...
    From "Deep ice tells long climate story" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm
     
  9. TheHamster22

    TheHamster22 Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tbh, the art teacher probably is, if the facts that are coming out are true. The majority of the IPCC is made up of unqualified scientists, hell there was one on the BBC last night saying he was a guy that studied mosquitos in the amazon and was a part of IPCC. He himself said he didn't know anything about climotology and not to talk about it to him. D:

    The IPCC is a shambles it seems :(
     
  10. Direwolf

    Direwolf Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    0
    See the other thread about that particular BBC show. Don't take it at face value.

    And the problem here is that both sides of the debate are doing it a disservice. The global warming debate worldwide is stymied by the sheer amount of bull that both sides use regularly. This has led to a situation in which it is impossible for even the most intelligent, well-informed, and open minded people to determine what is real and what is not. The sooner we can come to a consensus the better it will be for everyone.
     
  11. jondy

    jondy Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone read the Guardian editorial today? It debunked the whole show by discrediting the contributors - a lot of the evidence it put forward has already been refuted in peer reviewed journals.
     
  12. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where in that editorial was anything debunked. It just said the show and it's contributors were wrong. Didn't say why. Didn't list any, "peer reviewed journals," refuting the evidence. What are you talking about?
     
  13. Vigilante

    Vigilante Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea what to think after reading through that other thread.

    I believe that humanity should start heavily funding research toward hydrogen and ethanol research and see what happens 100 years from now. The only issue with this is the general public may not have the money to buy a hydrogen powered car. I say hydrogen and only hydrogen because ALL current internal-combustion engines can be adapted to run on ethanol; it will cost a little bit of money, but its worth cutting our oil-dependency (ethanol will eat through rubber fuel lines and o-rings, those will have to be replaced with synthetic blends, but they are all cheap parts).

    I will be the first one to admit that I drive a car that has a V8 under the hood and sucks gas like no other. I love my car and would never want to get rid of it. HOWEVER, I would, without any doubt, spend money to adapt it to run on ethanol.
     
  14. <RJMC>

    <RJMC> The Freeman

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    11,049
    Likes Received:
    70
    why this ended in politics?
     
  15. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0

    Because it has more to do with politics than science?
     
  16. Mechagodzilla

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Denial of science is, sadly, a political problem.

    Science isn't a democracy. You can't vote your way into changing the laws of nature to support your favorite party platform.
    Frankly, if you don't believe in global warming, with all the conclusive evidence out there: you're retarded, folks.

    I'm not hugely worried about it; I don't think it'll destroy humanity or even the petrochemical industry. But it is, based on all evidence, unescapably real.
     
  17. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    What "conclusive," evidence is there that it is either human-caused or human-accelerated? What, "conclusive," evidence is there that it is anything more than a natural warming trend as has happened numerous times throughout the billions of years the earth has been around? Scientific consensus? Since when is science decided by consensus? As you say yourself, science isn't a democracy. Did you watch the show?

    I don't think there is a whole lot of denial of global warming. The denial comes in when a certain group or groups advocate for passing unnecessary laws to "protect" the earth from us when there is meager evidence that we are cause or contributor. These groups dress their advocacy in a faux-crisis, e.g. "OMG, warming will destroy us all in 10 years if we don't stop using oil and driving big evil SUV's." For reference, see An Inconvenient Truth for exactly this type of crisis-mongering.
     
  18. Jintor

    Jintor Didn't Get Temp-Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    10
    Consensus says that Gravity keeps you anchored to the earth. DOES IT? DOES IT REALLY?

    *Fearmongers*

    By the way, some rain for Australia would be nice.
     
  19. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? Gravity is scientific law. The effects of gravity are quite plain to see and calculate. How does this relate to human-caused global warming?
     
  20. Jintor

    Jintor Didn't Get Temp-Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    10
    I was kidding using easily refutable crap-logic i pulled from my ass.

    /EDIT I would still like some rain though.
     
  21. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh...well....ha ha:E
     
  22. jondy

    jondy Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, yes, it did. The theories of one of the main contributors to the show -that were used in the show- have been debunked by three articles in peer reviewed journals.

    I don't have the article on hand, so I can't argue specifics yet.. I might be able to pull it up online somewhere, I'll have a check.
     
  23. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    You want peer-reviewed papers? OK, you got it(not that you will be bothered to read them, mind)

    LINK
    link
    LINK
    LINK
    LINK

    Its hard to know when to stop, I suspect that no amount of evidence or science will convince some people.
    Oh well, at least it wont be for lack of trying......
    Each of those headlines has its own link if you go from THIS PAGE
    I would also reccomend THIS page for countless examples of disinformation, political or otherwise.

    EDIT : ps , here is the link for the Monbiot article for Jondy. Its a good read, but sadly it doesnt use citations for the claims it makes( though they can all be verified if one is bothered) http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2032361,00.html
     
  24. Warbie

    Warbie Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    10,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not so sure. My parents are both geophysicists and both have a particular interest in this subject. As such they rented The Inconvinient Truth and we all sat down to watch - for much of the show they were smirking at the misinformation and downright untruths while explaining to me in which areas Mr Gore was talking complete and utter bollox (which happened to be most of them). Pretty much everything they'd mentioned, and more, can be seen in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    The planet has been far warmer than it is now on counltess occasions before humans arrived (my dad has personally been involved in some of these studies). It has happened many times since we've been here and will most likely continue to happen long after we've blown ourselves up. The affect man made co2 has on global warming is so extremely negligible it's barely worth mentioning.

    I agree we should stop polluting the planet and knocking down trees - that's just common sense. I don't believe we've we've had any affect on global warming, though - infact, the whole notion strikes me as pure vanity. Mighty man changing the very temperture of the planet! - it's been doing that very well on its own for millions of years.
     
  25. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah yes, the recently-deceased "other thread" RIP.
    I see two of my posts(rather good ones as well, imho) in that list, but I believe that Comrade Badger's contribution has special relevance...
    To summerise, its a scientist who doesnt think that the evidence is equal to the hype, but finds that the science is sound. He just wants more time to be sure , we will come back to that point.
    Who is (re)publishing his viewpoint is of more interest, the CATO institute is founded and run on Libertarian principles and ideology. Libertarian philosophy can fairly be summed up thusly...
    (taken from wiki)SOURCE
    So why would a political group who hold human economic freedom in the highest regard care about man-made global warming?
    Simple, they have looked beyond the science, through to the neccessary actions required to do something meaningful about it - taxes and lots of them, plus binding global econmic legislation, economic co-operation rather than neo-liberal competition. In short, everything that they -as a group- are diametricaly opposed to. Variations on this are responsible for most government inactivity on the subject, it just goes against the global capitalism trend that everyone has agreed to, its just too close to.... say it .... SOCIALISM!!!
    Its ahuge stumbling block and it will be the biggest test of human ingenuity for the 21st century.

    Ok, back to Richard S. Lindzen (the not-quite-sceptic from MIT) again, his position of uncertainty is crucial to the whole debate.
    In an ideal world we would be able to run a series of experiments and observe the results until there is no doubt in anyone's mind and then act accordingly.
    Unfortunately, we have one experiment we can run, in fact its running as we speak, its called the global ecosystem and once it has run its course we wont be able to undo it. So rather than sit back and watch Rome burn(so to speak) we have to make do with climate models. Simulations that we can run at accelerated time-speeds over and over. Nobody can argue that a simulation is as good as the real thing, but its the best we have(short of doing nothing) for deciding what action to take before its too late.
    This is where the heart of the contraversy lies, which of two competing paths to take ;

    1) Take action that changes global economic power structures, in the belief that we can stop climate change before it becomes unmanagable(presuming that there will be such an effect, and that we can affect change).

    2) Do nothing, wait for more evidence and plan for adaptation to whatever comes next(if indeed anything does happen)

    My own position is this; there is a limited window of oppotunity in front of us, once CO2 reaches a certain threshold, many of the planets systems will go into positive feedback, expelling greenhouse gases where once they would have absorbed and held them. We have to make sure that this threshold is not reached, for if it is global warming will be out of our control and we will have no choice but to look on helplessly in that knowledge that we could have acted but didnt.



    Edit, WARBIE, care to post some verifiable evidence rather than second hand hearsay?
    If your parents are geophysicists, then it shouldnt be too difficult to dig up.
     
  26. Warbie

    Warbie Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    10,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want me to ask them for more specific information I can surely do that - this is their favourite subject right now. Both of them work in algeria at the moment looking for oil (argh, they must be biased! ;)) so are an email away.

    I'd like to point out that my knowledge on this subject is limited - i'm basing my views pretty much on what i've read on a few forums/websites and my trust in my parents, who've both spent a life time studyng the planet.

    //edit

    I hope you're not questioning whether my parents being geophysicists is something i've made up btw, and that 'too difficult to dig up' wasn't an attempt at lame geology humour. I've grown up with Geology Rocks t-shirts and no longer find this stuff amusing ;)
     
  27. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I would appreciate it if you could do that.
    Not being argumentative btw, its just that in a science debate we need more info, not less.
    No shame in that, we all have to start with an empty cup.
     
  28. Warbie

    Warbie Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    10,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    As luck would have it my dad just called (he's curently staying with the Bedouin and has limited access to certain technology - this may sound exciting, but trust me, Geology isn't ;))

    A few years ago he was doing a study of the Ordovician glaciation of North Africa. This goes back around 14 million years. The ice sheet covered the entire region, making it one of the largest there has ever been (bigger than than antarctica - it was massive). Various tests (I forogt to ask which ones - can ask if you like) confirmed that at this time time there was 14 times the more co2 in the atmosphere than in contempory climate. Other studies over various time periods have yielded similar results. He asks how you can reconcile that with with the theory of global warming?

    He then went off on one, but basically said that as a Geologist (he's a geophysicists by job description, but geology is where he specialises) he sees so much evidence of cyclic climate change at times when man wasn't on the planet that you have to question what influence we could have. He also pointed out that one of the greatest contributers of co2 are mature trees and that climate models are notoriously unreliable - 'don't trust them, we can't even predict with accuracy the weather next month, let alone in 100's, 1000's, or tens of 1000's of years time'

    I also sent an email to my mum.
     
  29. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually I did read those. The word "uncertainty" pops up quite a bit. The authors were also careful to point out thst their conclusions were a possible explanation. If one reads news reports based on this research, uncertainty becomes certainty and possibility becomes absolute probability.
     
  30. DaMaN

    DaMaN Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've posted in other Global Warming topics, but I figured I might as well post here too:

    First of all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcezh2-jO8

    On a more serious note, as far as I can see, there are three primary elements to Global Warming:

    1. Is the Global Warming phenomenon itself real? (Do Greenhouse Gases heat the Earth?)
    2. Are there more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time?
    3. Is the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases attributable to humans?

    In this post, I intend to prove all three of these postulates.

    1. Global warming is real. Adding carbon dioxide or methane to Earth's atmosphere makes the planet's surface warmer. If it didn't, the Earth would be uninhabitable. See Wikipedia:
    Click here for more on the Greenhouse Effect, first discovered in 1824


    2. Currently, there is a much higher concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in comparitively similar periods of time.

    Refer to Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. This scientific report gives the current concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as well as concentrations prior to the Industrial revolution.
    Some highlights:
    Carbon Dioxide:
    Pre-1750 Concentration: 280 ppm
    Current Concentration: 377.3 ppm​
    Methane:
    Pre-1750 Concentration: 730/688 ppm
    Current Concentration: 1847/1730 ppm​
    Nitrous Oxide:
    Pre-1750 Concentration: 270 ppm
    Current Concentration: 319/318​
    Tropospheric Ozone:
    Pre-1750 Concentration: 25 ppm
    Current Concentration: 34​

    For further information on this report, see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
    Note: Scientific sources, calculations and experimental methods are also contained within this report​

    For more information about the increase of greenhouses gasses, see Wikipedia's entry on Increase of Greenhouse Gasses


    3. The increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is attributable to humans.

    As seen in point 2, with the advent of the Industrial Age has come increased Greenhouse Gases. There have been no extreme global events (such as volcanoes spewing ash for 300 years) other than human activities that account for this. Therefore, it seems likely that the increase of Greenhouse Gases is the fault of humans.

    To lend credence and authority to this statement, I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations".


    Hence,
    1. Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect is real.
    2. There are more Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere now than in a comparitively similar period of time.
    3. According to the IPCC, there is a greater than 90% chance that this increase is caused by humans.
     
  31. Direwolf

    Direwolf Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what little I know this all does actually ring true. I was a dinosaur nut as a kid and its well established that the CO2 levels and global temperatures were much different than today and have changed vastly over time.

    However, I've always understood that the problem with global warming is not actually the warming itself (nothing unsurvivable), but rather the speed with which it is coming on and the various problems this could create (which are likely unpredictable...but its hard to foresee them being good). In addition, while the earth has experienced much warmer (and much colder) temperatures than anything we're ever likely to see, the planet has also suffered more than a handful of mass extinctions in its time. Its vain to think that we could kill the planet, but we've seen in the past that its possible for us to kill a whole lot of people and animals very quickly.
     
  32. Mechagodzilla

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duh, because legitimate scientists effectively never make absolutist claims unless there is near-absolute certainty. And even then, it's poor procedure.

    If a scientist claims 100% probability of being correct, that is usually a blatant sign of fraud.

    So, by your reasoning there, all science is invalid.


    Also, in response to an earlier point you made:

    science is indeed measured by evidence and not consensus, but scientists do have an ethical obligation to evaluate facts to the best of their ability. If scientists in a relevant field have a signifigant consensus, there is a reason.

    You can claim it's a conspiracy (by who?) or some kind of massive systemic error (based on what evidence?), but it's obviously far more likely that the consensus exists because that is where the summed total of relevant knowledge has brought us thus far.

    As people have been pointing out, basic knowledge of how science works debunks most of these sorts of dumb conspiracy claims.
     
  33. Hapless

    Hapless Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never claimed a conspiracy. My point is that there is a lot of alarmism and wild claims with little basis in fact. For instance. I recall that at the end of 2006, there were several reports that 2007 would be the hottest year on record. Thus far, February of 2007 is reported to have been one of the coldest on record. After the hurricane season of 2005, the hurricane season of 2006 was supposed to be even worse, with unimaginable carnage. The hurricane season of 2006 turned out to be nothing of note. This sort of irresponsible "news" reporting, as well as very vocal agitating by some lunatic fringe groups and Al Gore's idiotic ramblings, not to mention calls for decertification of "deniers," by Heidi Cullen, have made it nearly impossible to determine what is actually going on here.
     
  34. Jintor

    Jintor Didn't Get Temp-Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well, yes, I agree that there probably is a lot of that.

    But we should still stop being dicks and ****ing the environment over, right? You can't argue with that.
     
  35. Mechagodzilla

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    6,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    You were, just a few posts ago, criticising mainstream science based pretty much entirely on a pseudoscientific TV documentary and your misconceptions about how science works.
    Now you're complaining that the media is actually the shadowy entity at fault, for broadcasting "fringe" theories that aren't scientific enough for you.

    Do you not see the blatant self-contradiction there, because I think it's rather amazing.


    Seemingly, only "fringe" theories that tangentally support the views of the political left are bad. But what do you even define as "fringe"?

    An Inconvenient Truth is "fringe" to you?
    The movie that has been consistently praised by scientists for its accuracy, and criticized all but exclusively by the same pseudoscientific group you consider worthy of baseless but nonetheless unqualified trust?

    So you're calling it "lunatic idiotic ramblings" based on what, exactly? Did you divine the answer by examining the contents of your ass?*
    It seems that your definition of fringe is equally invalid as your definition of science, which is to say: "only when it suits me."

    In fact, I'll go so far as to bet right now that you haven't seen the Inconvenient Truth film. Or even considered seeing it.
    I might safely guess you haven't even watched the trailer.

    I'm betting right now that your entire opinion is based on the same pseudoscientific pap this thread has so efficiently and repeatedly trounced.
    I'm seeing blogs. Lots of blogs. Maybe a google video or two.
    But you sure as hell wouldn't touch the actual thing. Good lord no, that's unfeasable.

    But hey, that's cool. Everybody loves an uninformed and incoherent opinion about the evils of the media, mainstream science and LEE-BUR-OOLS.


    I'm being harsh, but it's unavoidable; I can read you like a book.
    A children's book with a depressing ending and no moral; Everybody Poops, except the animals are just shitting themselves to death.

    Try harder. Raise your standards.


    *This is an actual scam fortune-telling procedure called scatomancy. The more you know!
     
  36. Nemesis6

    Nemesis6 Newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the reason I'm willing to believe it's not real is not because I eat children, but because the ones who argue for it are nutcases, for example Cindy Shithead. She believed the hurricane "Katrina" was caused by George Bush, who caused it by not doing enough to control global warming. So in this case, it's a weapon to use against the policies of whomever you don't agree with, and as the documentary illustrated, a way for radical leftists to enter the mainstream of politics through a dubious agenda which, in reality, is only adopted to gain influence in politics, thus giving them more power to influence other political aspects. And one point of it was proven here: If you disagree, you are not an equal. "You are a heretic" as was said.
     
  37. jondy

    jondy Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shunning policy based on a vocal minority is a poor attitude to have. If you can agree with the science, then the debate is over - you're not aligning yourself with these crazies just because you support one of their policies.
     
  38. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the climate change "deniers" have more than their fair share of whackjobs also
    Not a really useful contribution to the discussion, but I just had to share this.

    Also...
    F***ing priceless Mr Mecha :LOL:
     
  39. DaMaN

    DaMaN Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are willing to fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence because there are some nutjobs in the world? And I must agree with SAJ here, it would seem to me that the population of nutjobs is higher on the global warming deniers side...
     

Share This Page