Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 19, 2007 08:29 AM

Subrosa said:
I like how "studying geochemistry at uni" is now equivalent to the knowledge base of huge, vast majority of climate change scientists.

Oh, it was a proper British Uni? Oh REALLY?! Well then. Let's gas up the Hummer and burn down a rainforest.


Brought to you by the guy who thinks that in "a few years" Great Britain as a state will dissolve into something like "Northern Pakistan" and yet also that the world would be better off with a restored British Empire - after all, it's not like the first one has created any lasting problems in world relations.

Uptight made more sense than this guy.

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

JUN 19, 2007 09:10 AM

Zarth said:

Subrosa said:
I like how "studying geochemistry at uni" is now equivalent to the knowledge base of huge, vast majority of climate change scientists.

Oh, it was a proper British Uni? Oh REALLY?! Well then. Let's gas up the Hummer and burn down a rainforest.


Brought to you by the guy who thinks that in "a few years" Great Britain as a state will dissolve into something like "Northern Pakistan" and yet also that the world would be better off with a restored British Empire - after all, it's not like the first one has created any lasting problems in world relations.

Uptight made more sense than this guy.



Mucci made more sense than that guy.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 19, 2007 10:39 AM

joker_c said:
Mucci made more sense than that guy.


Pleae be nice!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

JUN 19, 2007 11:09 AM

Zarth said:

joker_c said:
Mucci made more sense than that guy.


Pleae be nice!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.



He was so nice it pissed me off.

But yeah, I agree.

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

JUN 19, 2007 01:55 PM

Zarth said:

joker_c said:
Mucci made more sense than that guy.


Pleae be nice!

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.



I missed the final meltdown, I was busy with work. But yes, he was nice.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUN 19, 2007 03:14 PM

Zarth said:
I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.



I agree. I always really liked him, despite my despair over his spelling and grammar and my disagreement with most of his posts.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 19, 2007 03:22 PM

mingol said:

Zarth said:
I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.


I agree. I always really liked him, despite my despair over his spelling and grammar and my disagreement with most of his posts.


Exactly. He was surprisingly openminded, and almost always calm and reasonable even when being hit with tons of abuse.

I mean, he was not bright. But he was nice.

And that stands in stark contrast to some other folks I can think of who've been spazzing out the CE lately.

joker_c said:
I missed the final meltdown, I was busy with work. But yes, he was nice.


It was pretty spectacular.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

JUN 19, 2007 03:26 PM

You guys must be talking about a different Mucci. The Mucci I knew took part in a hate crime. I mean, he was kinda entertaining and all, but that was a matter of style and not substance.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 19, 2007 03:28 PM

wildswan said:
You guys must be talking about a different Mucci. The Mucci I knew took part in a hate crime. I mean, he was kinda entertaining and all, but that was a matter of style and not substance.


I don't think anyone's disputing the awfulness of the substance of his views.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

JUN 19, 2007 03:32 PM


I prefer an asshole with a true heart of gold any day.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 19, 2007 03:33 PM

wildswan said:
I prefer an asshole with a true heart of gold any day.


Bite me.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

JUN 19, 2007 04:05 PM

Zarth said: Bite me.



Oh, I'll bite you alright.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUN 19, 2007 04:13 PM

wildswan said:

Zarth said: Bite me.



Oh, I'll bite you alright.



Room. Get. You two.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 19, 2007 05:08 PM

Zarth said:

joker_c said:
Mucci made more sense than that guy.


Pleae be nice!

I miss the Mooch. His final meltdown notwithstanding, he was always so nice. You don't get that anymore.



Agreed. Also, he was actually open to argument, if you were polite and avoided hitting his buttons.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 19, 2007 05:10 PM

Zarth said:

wildswan said:
You guys must be talking about a different Mucci. The Mucci I knew took part in a hate crime. I mean, he was kinda entertaining and all, but that was a matter of style and not substance.


I don't think anyone's disputing the awfulness of the substance of his views.



No indeed. But as I say, he was a person who could be convinced that he was wrong.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

JUN 19, 2007 05:14 PM

The thing I remember most about The Mooch was his "Bullentin Flah!"

Which I believe was a bulletin flash, but it didn't quite come off.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 19, 2007 05:29 PM

therisen said:
A fewwwwwww simple facts, like the amount of CO2 produced by man in miniscule compared to the overall output of CO2 into the atmosphere. For CO2 to have any significant effect on climate, you'd need a global increase of over 100% - that my friends is a lot of CO2, far more than mere man could ever hope to produce.



Source for these claims, please.


Another thing that people tend to forget is that CO2 is a plants favourite gas to breath. Yes, plants love CO2. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more lovely trees and slimy algae we get. Which isn't a bad thing considering plants put O2 back into the atmosphere for us animals to breath. It's a beautiful thing.



Being patronising does not make friends. It does influence people. Just saying.


How about another simple fact. Wind the clock back a few hundred million years and you'll find that the Earth's atmosphere had a much higher O2 content, which is why instects were much bigger back then. Big insects? WTF are you on about....well, it's a well known biological nugget that insect size is restricted by the amount of O2 in the atmosphere. It's all due to the way they breath, but you can go and find out for yourselves as listening to a has-been politician jumping on a convenient bandwagon is bound to fill your brains with bullshit.



- Your credentials would be a mite more impressive if you could be bothered to spell. Which university were you at, again?
- Your manner is patronising and offensive. It's hard to distinguish it from someone trying to fill my brains with bullshit.


Lets have a quick poke at 'renewable energy sources' shall we. First of all, what's renewable about them? I don't know, I guess 'renewable' is just one of those wankwords to make it sound great.



You don't know? Really?


Wind power is a great idea, but has anyone considered the effects it would have on climate. I'm serious here...Stick enough big fekkin windmills out there and the 'wind' is going to lose some of it's energy. Has anyone done any research about what happens when you take energy away from the weather? It will have a knock on effect.

Same with wave or tidal generators, you start sucking energy from the waves or tide and your whole coastal ecosystem will change.



This I agree with. Shame you've already alienated the vast majority of the people you're talking to.



{snip}

Not that it matters of course because whilst CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's a product of climate change rather than an influence on climate change.



Go look up "feedback", please.


{snip}
If you still think that CO2 is a cause of climate change (and hey, it's not like climate change is new to this planet, it's been going on long before us shaved apes arrived) and want to make a difference, there are several things you can do.



If you think carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas, you need to do some actual experiments.


Ask yourself this, who was responsible for the last ICE AGE (and no, not the fucking movie)? Like the weather everyday, the Earth's climate has swung from one extreme to another thousands of times. Just because we happen to be around when things look to be getting a bit warmer over the last few years (and a few hundred years is a drop in the ocean in geological times, it really is insignificant) doesn't mean that we have to be so arrogant and presume that it's our doing. A couple of volcanic eruptions around the globe will piss about with the atmosphere more than man can......



I have emphysema from my job. Should I quit smoking?

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

JUN 19, 2007 05:48 PM

Zarth said:
It was pretty spectacular.



It really was spectacular, and nonsensical too.
The story arc of that one is complete for me now, thanks Zarth.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUN 19, 2007 06:47 PM

How did this post make it through? What's next, "maybe the earth is really flat", or "evolution is all a hoax to prop up the textbook industry"? Is there anyone left on earth who actually believes this garbage?

Calling yourself a "skeptic" for denying the reality of human caused global warming is an insult to the concept of skepticism. You're not a "skeptic" for doubting something just for the sake of doubting. A real skeptic looks at claims objectively, and weighs them for what they really are, not what you want to believe. I want to believe that global warming isn't happening and that it's not our fault, but wishing doesn't make it so. This is why global warming skeptics (like Michael Shermer) are reversing their opinion 180 degrees. Reality doesn't support the opinion of the doubters, so the skeptics stopped doubting.

Not only is global warming caused by humans, but it's worse than anticipated. This becomes more and more clear the more scientists study climate, and politicians who try to convince the public otherwise are guilty of what will be the worst crimes against humanity we've ever known in history. Of course, when the next US city gets destroyed, everyone will be shocked, and we'll be subjected to endless weeks of "how could we ever have seen it coming" and "well we don't know conclusively that global warming is related" in the media, with nothing but excuse after excuse, all because driving something else and using a different kind of electricity is soooo haaaard.

So put down the Wikipedia, and read real science written by actual scientists who work in the field. Doubting sound science doesn't make you a skeptic. It just makes you wrong.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

JUN 19, 2007 07:28 PM



Of course, when the next US city gets destroyed, everyone will be shocked, and we'll be subjected to endless weeks of "how could we ever have seen it coming" and "well we don't know conclusively that global warming is related" in the media, with nothing but excuse after excuse, all because driving something else and using a different kind of electricity is soooo haaaard.



You forgot the next part where people reflect on the damage that has been done, look at what got them there, and say "Fuck it, the OC is on", and then throw another bag of coal on the fire.

People don't care unless there are dire consequences in the immediate future. It's more likely we will do something to cool off the Earth (like artificially cut solar transmission or vent the heat to space) than actually cut back on emissions

traceelement

traceelement

Australia
March 2005

JUN 19, 2007 11:31 PM

Funny how during the course of my university studies (BSc: earth science) at a "proper" Australian university I have come to a conclusion that is quite the opposite of therisen in regards to global warming. tongue

Pick up any first year text book on climatology and you will see very quickly that man made features such as "urban heat islands" have an affect on global climate and they didn't just spring up out of nowhere. wink so saying man made climate change is bollocks .. isn't quite true.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

JUN 20, 2007 04:13 PM

freshprncebelair said:


Of course, when the next US city gets destroyed, everyone will be shocked, and we'll be subjected to endless weeks of "how could we ever have seen it coming" and "well we don't know conclusively that global warming is related" in the media, with nothing but excuse after excuse, all because driving something else and using a different kind of electricity is soooo haaaard.



You forgot the next part where people reflect on the damage that has been done, look at what got them there, and say "Fuck it, the OC is on", and then throw another bag of coal on the fire.

People don't care unless there are dire consequences in the immediate future. It's more likely we will do something to cool off the Earth (like artificially cut solar transmission or vent the heat to space) than actually cut back on emissions




In Real World, Emissions cut back You!

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUN 20, 2007 04:22 PM

traceelement said:
Funny how during the course of my university studies (BSc: earth science) at a "proper" Australian university I have come to a conclusion that is quite the opposite of therisen in regards to global warming. tongue

Pick up any first year text book on climatology and you will see very quickly that man made features such as "urban heat islands" have an affect on global climate and they didn't just spring up out of nowhere. wink so saying man made climate change is bollocks .. isn't quite true.


Or maybe proper Australian universities just don't smartify you as much as proper British "Uni"s. I mean, they don't teach you how to spell "few" with seven w's, do they? Huh? Do they?

Didn't think so.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

JUN 20, 2007 05:16 PM

Zarth said:
Or maybe proper Australian universities just don't smartify you as much as proper British "Uni"s. I mean, they don't teach you how to spell "few" with seven w's, do they? Huh? Do they?



Do seven w's equal fourteen ewes?

traceelement

traceelement

Australia
March 2005

JUN 20, 2007 06:44 PM

Zarth said:

traceelement said:
Funny how during the course of my university studies (BSc: earth science) at a "proper" Australian university I have come to a conclusion that is quite the opposite of therisen in regards to global warming. tongue

Pick up any first year text book on climatology and you will see very quickly that man made features such as "urban heat islands" have an affect on global climate and they didn't just spring up out of nowhere. wink so saying man made climate change is bollocks .. isn't quite true.


Or maybe proper Australian universities just don't smartify you as much as proper British "Uni"s. I mean, they don't teach you how to spell "few" with seven w's, do they? Huh? Do they?

Didn't think so.



You got me, I wasn't good enough for the advanced courses where they teach that sort of enlightenment. blackeyed

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next