Tungsten the caveman SUV driver

[red team]

[quote]Originally posted by red team+--> (red team)It's a proven scientific fact that the Earth would be frozen planet without greenhouse gases. So more greenhouse gases would heat it up some more. There is the correlation, regardless of incidental solar activity. The sun is pretty much constant in its activity because it's fuel supply of hydrogen gas is measured in billions of years and human civilization only existed in the time scale of thousands of years. Any heating of the Earth due to minor increase in activity of the Sun would be insignificant to the much large effect of heat trapping gases and therefore be entirely controllable through emission restrictions.


Tungsten the caveman SUV driver:
What caused the ice age? Cavemen in SUVs?


red team
the result of environmental changes brought on by the impact of a giant space rock.

...including supervolcanism (where Magma rises from the earth�s mantle and accumulates in the crust. The heat of the liquid rocks causes more of the solid crust to melt, forming a magma chamber which often causes the pressure to rises more and more and can lead to eruptions on such a massive scale that an ice age can be triggered as a result), and extensive climate warming - combined over thousands of years to strangle the planet's biodiversity.

As far as I know there wasn't any recent asteroid impacts. :lol:

Or multiple "super" volcanic eruptions. :lol:

So why don't you admit to being the ignorant fool that you are and let everyone share in the laughter. :lol:

[Tungsten]

red troll

But the impact explanation for the great dying is an argument that has struggled to find favour.

The prevailing theory is that several factors - including supervolcanism (where Magma rises from the earth’s mantle and accumulates in the crust. The heat of the liquid rocks causes more of the solid crust to melt, forming a magma chamber which often causes the pressure to rises more and more and can lead to eruptions on such a massive scale that an ice age can be triggered as a result), and extensive climate warming - combined over thousands of years to strangle the planet's biodiversity.
Earth may well have been hit by extraterrestrial objects, but it is unlikely there was some killer punch from space, these other researchers contend.


So why don't you admit to being the ignorant fool that you are and let everyone share in the laughter. :lol:
Why don't you email those other skeptics and inform them of what ignorant fools they are, too? I'm sure they'll be impressed by all your relevent qualifications (zip) and research into the subject (5 mins + a search engine). What are you waiting for? Go and put them back in their places.


As far as I know there wasn't any recent asteroid impacts. :lol:

Or multiple "super" volcanic eruptions. :lol:
Or how about solar activity? Maybe the thing responsible for heating the earth in the first place might have something to do with it...

Nah, couldn't be. :rolleyes:

patton

To funny!
Don't feed the trolls. Or the wannabe philosopher kings.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Tungsten"
Why don't you email those other skeptics and inform them of what ignorant fools they are, too? I'm sure they'll be impressed by all your relevent qualifications (zip) and research into the subject (5 mins + a search engine). What are you waiting for? Go and put them back in their places.Yes. Attack him, not his arguments against you.
The Asteroid theory has a few incongruence's, but to say that Carbon Dioxide is not causing the slow degeneration of the atmosphere is about as profound as running around with your hands over your ears. :lol: You only have to look over your shoulder for evidence of Global Warming (here (http://www.google.com/search?q=proof+of+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a))

[t_wolves_fan]

http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=55161

"SUV sales accounted for 27% of all new-car sales in Venezuela in 2005. In addition to the Ford Explorer, the Chrysler Jeep Cherokee and the Grand Vitara and Trailblazer are selling well in that market. In fact, sales of all light trucks are growing and now account for nearly 37% of the market. “Due to the characteristics of this country—with plains, flat roads, and mountains—SUVs and pickups are in great demand for urban and rural use,” noted Pierini."

[Tungsten]

Zero

Yes. Attack him,
I give what I get.

The Asteroid theory has a few incongruence's, but to say that Carbon Dioxide is not causing the slow degeneration of the atmosphere is about as profound as running around with your hands over your ears.
The evidence presented isn't conclusive, but anthropogenic global warming does serve the politcal ends of statist politicians, which would explain why it's generally given more air-time and why the skepticism is justified.
patton

Are you one of Bushs sceince advisors?
I wish. Are you his English teacher? If so, it would explain a lot.

[inquisitive_socialist]

harsh words over a still inconclusive scientific argument. one day im sure we can look back at this and laugh, and then gag on the clouds of gas that drift across the nuclear holocaust landscape of earth. thats just what i figure will happen, you know. IMHO.

[Tungsten]

He has to save face to prevent himself looking like a prick. It's not the first time he's done it, either.

[colonelguppy]

regardless if theres a scientific correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature, to think that driving SUV's is going to have any real effect on anyhting is absurd.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 02:03 pm
He has to save face to prevent himself looking like a prick. It's not the first time he's done it, either.
Fuck you tungsten. Your arguments have been proven false, as they have many times before. Either fess up or shut up.

[Intellectual47]

I'm sorry is this the "hate Tungsten" thread?

And I'm just saying, the chances of you being killed as a direct result of global warming are about as high as your chance of being hit by Santa's sleigh. Because Santa is an awesoe driver.


Global warming does not exist because of this (http://junkscience.com), this (http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/) and because Gore is actually a robot. It's true. Just check this out (http://www.imao.us/archives/000364.html)

If you still don't believe me, then all is lost.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:27 pm
I'm sorry is this the "hate Tungsten" thread?

And I'm just saying, the chances of you being killed as a direct result of global warming are about as high as your chance of being hit by Santa's sleigh. Because Santa is an awesoe driver.


Global warming does not exist because of this (http://junkscience.com), this (http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/) and because Gore is actually a robot. It's true. Just check this out (http://www.imao.us/archives/000364.html)

If you still don't believe me, then all is lost.
First of all, this is the "hate tungsten" thread. He's a restricted member, and a daft one at that. Of course, that would be a rather redundant statement, as all restricted members are daft.

Secondly, If you think that global warming does not exist, then you are a fucking idiot. Every major climatologist in the world agrees that global warming is happening, and it is caused by humans.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 04:49 pm
Secondly, If you think that global warming does not exist, then you are a fucking idiot. Every major climatologist in the world agrees that global warming is happening, and it is caused by humans.
QFT. Nicely put. The same people who are criticizing global warming are usually criticizing evolution. That alone is enough for me to question their ability to analyze scientific data. Furthermore, I find it hillarious that people think having global warming not exist will suddenly make SUVs not bad for the environment. They affect the environment even if global warming is false.

[Intellectual47]

You know, the same thing was said about anyone who didn't believe in eugenics in the 1930's. And that kind of attitude led to the Aryan master race and various bad things after that.
And don't you think it's prejudiced to assume anyone on the restricted member list is "daft"? There was the same attitude with "enemy of the state" or "counterrevolutionary". In fact the Russians would send you to a Psikhushka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka) if you were a political prisoner. This would make the people think anyone who opposed the USr was crazy. Which is exactly what ya'll are doing.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:51 pm
You know, the same thing was said about anyone who didn't believe in eugenics in the 1930's.
Your example isn't a good one. Eugenics has a moral component that global warming lacks. If morality is thrown out the window, eugenics (even extreme eugenics) is highly favorable scientific method when it comes to accomplishing its goals.

I think you might have something with your line of thinking, though, so if you could find an example where modern science was extremely convinced something was true (outside of morality) and proven wrong, that might be helpful.

[Intellectual47]

Your example isn't a good one. Eugenics has a moral component that global warming lacks.
Global warming has a moral component. If you don't cut down on carbon dioxide, you're essentially taking a dump on the world you leave your kids and all the animals will die. :rolleyes:
That's not a moral component?


I think you might have something with your line of thinking, though, so if you could find an example where modern science was extremely convinced something was true (outside of morality) and proven wrong, that might be helpful.
I believe most scientists used to believe that fire was caused by the releasing of phlogesten. They were very sure of it and turned out to be wrong

[Zero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 01:32 am

I think you might have something with your line of thinking, though, so if you could find an example where modern science was extremely convinced something was true (outside of morality) and proven wrong, that might be helpful.
I believe most scientists used to believe that fire was caused by the releasing of phlogesten. They were very sure of it and turned out to be wrong
You can't just stop there.

After later scientific evidence proved that the previous conclusion was false through the Scientific Method it was accepted as untrue.

If there is striking evidence for one conclusion, and little evidence for the next. You weigh the conclusions; if one turns out to hold the majority of scientific data this one is chosen as the most likely outcome. If the evidence promoting this conclusion is later deemed to be untrue, this conclusion is revised, or in some cases reversed. This is why there are no laws in science outside the laws of physics. Which even now are being revised at the Quantum level.

The Scientific Method promotes an ever-shifting view of the world as more evidence flows in. Therefore, acting upon the result of the scientific method is the only logical route to take. The majority of the scientific community in Biology, Climatology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Oceanography, and other scientific disciplines agree on the data presented: Global Warming is a reality. Therefore, acting upon this conclusion is the only rational course of action. Even if Global Warming is deemed at a later time to be a farce, then changes can be pursued. Though smaller effects on the local scale have been observed. Such as the prolonged effects of CO2 on the Human body, Nuclear radiation and residue on the Human genome, prolonged exposure to chemical agents and residue on everyday products...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:32 pm

Your example isn't a good one. Eugenics has a moral component that global warming lacks.
Global warming has a moral component. If you don't cut down on carbon dioxide, you're essentially taking a dump on the world you leave your kids and all the animals will die. :rolleyes:
That's not a moral component?


I think you might have something with your line of thinking, though, so if you could find an example where modern science was extremely convinced something was true (outside of morality) and proven wrong, that might be helpful.
I believe most scientists used to believe that fire was caused by the releasing of phlogesten. They were very sure of it and turned out to be wrong
I was looking for a modern example, and scientific method itself (as someone mentioned) was still what refuted the evidence previously believed. I think you proved my point though. Global warming has a moral component (I shouldn't have said otherwise and was aware of your claims but misorder my argument) but it still exists regardless of whether it is convienent to believe in it. Similiarly, eugenics is still efficient regardless of whether or not we use it.

[Tungsten]

Muigwithania

Fuck you tungsten. Your arguments have been proven false, as they have many times before.
You'll have to point out where I've been proven false, because there sure aren't any instances of it in this thread.

Secondly, If you think that global warming does not exist, then you are a fucking idiot.
It might exist (a debated issue), but whether it's anthropogenic (an even more contraversial issue) is another thing. The truth is, there isn't any wide scientific consensus and the evidence is sketchy.

Every major climatologist in the world agrees that global warming is happening, and it is caused by humans.
No, every major climatologist doesn't. It even said so in the article red team posted, which I've highlighted. But you, being thick, have decided to jump on every bandwagon you believe to be either anti-capitalist or anti-business, regardless of it's credibility. What does that tell us about your credibility?
Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

The same people who are criticizing global warming are usually criticizing evolution.
Where do you see me critcising evolution?

That alone is enough for me to question their ability to analyze scientific data.
Oh yes, look at all years genetics was denounced by communists as "fascist" and therefore non-scientific.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:25 pm

That alone is enough for me to question their ability to analyze scientific data.
Oh yes, look at all years genetics was denounced by communists as "fascist" and therefore non-scientific.
What the fuck are you babbling about. THere are loads of transhumanist communists, and it's hard to be a transhumanist if you don't follow genetics - and that's just for starters. I've not once heard a communist denounce genetics as facistic - so do enlighten me on what the fuck it is you're on about.

[Intellectual47]

Jazzratt, does the name Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) ring a bell? Check the link. Stalin condemmed genetics as facist many times. He had many of them put to death or sent to a gulag. You may want to think before you speak.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:43 pm
Jazzratt, does the name Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) ring a bell? Check the link. Stalin condemmed genetics as facist many times. He had many of them put to death or sent to a gulag. You may want to think before you speak.
Sorry, did I ask for your opinion on what Stalin thought of genetiscists? No.

I would like you to explain how you know better than communists what they think of genetics.

[RNK]

I think it prudent to point out that there have actually been several ice ages that have accosted the planet. The first evidence of an ice age dates back hundreds and hundreds of millions of years ago, when life consisted mainly of strange, gooey creatures that lived in the oceans.

Ignoring this environmental arguing, what about the fact that over the past couple hundred years of human development, the planet has been subjected to such a mass extinction of animal species not seen since the last ice age?

[red team]

Some scientists have long suspected that the extinction at the boundary of the Permian and Triassic (PT) Periods could have occurred quite abruptly - the result of environmental changes brought on by the impact of a giant space rock.

It is a similar argument to the one put forward to explain the demise of the dinosaurs at the much later date of 65 million years ago.

A geological structure, known as the Bedout High, in the seabed off the northern coastal border of what is now Western Australia, has also been suggested as the possible crater remains from the PT impactor.

But the impact explanation for the great dying is an argument that has struggled to find favour.

The prevailing theory is that several factors - including supervolcanism (where Magma rises from the earth’s mantle and accumulates in the crust. The heat of the liquid rocks causes more of the solid crust to melt, forming a magma chamber which often causes the pressure to rises more and more and can lead to eruptions on such a massive scale that an ice age can be triggered as a result), and extensive climate warming - combined over thousands of years to strangle the planet's biodiversity.

Earth may well have been hit by extraterrestrial objects, but it is unlikely there was some killer punch from space, these other researchers contend.

Well, what are the several factors?

Asteroid impacts? Supervolcanism? :lol:

And now for more senseless babble from the caveman SUV driver:

Originally posted by Tungsten the caveman SUV driver+--> (Tungsten the caveman SUV driver)
Or how about solar activity? Maybe the thing responsible for heating the earth in the first place might have something to do with it...

Nah, couldn't be. :rolleyes: [/b]


www.solarviews.com
The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing so large that it will swallow the Earth. After a billion years as a red giant, it will suddenly collapse into a white dwarf -- the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion years to cool off completely.
solarviews.com (http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm)

Time span of human existence here on Earth: 10,000 years

Lifetime of sun until it blows up into a red giant and incinerates the Earth: 5,000,000,000 years

Fraction of the sun's remaining life as compared to human existence: 10,000 / 5,000,000,000 = .000002 of the lifetime of the sun.

Now, let's see if TungaBunga the caveman get's it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Ulam.jpg

TungaBunga the caveman: *** Grrr! grunt! snarl! ***

If you build a small campfire there is no chance of it suddenly expanding into a raging inferno and turning you into cooked meat for the rest of the tribe.

TungaBunga the caveman: erg! oog?

That's right, if you have a small fire, the fire will pretty much stay constant in heat and size so you don't have to worry about burning your fingies.

Now, go on your quest for fire (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082484/). :lol:

[Tungsten]

red team

Originally posted by www.solarviews.com
The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing so large that it will swallow the Earth. After a billion years as a red giant, it will suddenly collapse into a white dwarf -- the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion years to cool off completely.
Thanks for the astronomy lesson, now for yours:
Link (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

Time span of human existence here on Earth: 10,000 years

Lifetime of sun until it blows up into a red giant and incinerates the Earth: 5,000,000,000 years

Fraction of the sun's remaining life as compared to human existence: 10,000 / 5,000,000,000 = .000002 of the lifetime of the sun.
The % chance of the above facts being relevent to the debate : 0.0001%

And the stupidest anology of the year awards goes to...

That's right, if you have a small fire, the fire will pretty much stay constant in heat and size so you don't have to worry about burning your fingies.
Not according to NASA:
http://www.space.com/images/h_sun_mintomax_001215_03.jpg

In 1996, near the last solar minimum, the Sun is nearly featureless. By 1999, approaching maximum, it is dotted by sunspots and fiery hot gas trapped in magnetic loops.
The sun isn't a small fire and it's not even a fire in the conventional sense. Oh, and look at this:
http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif
Look at that mini-ice age. Those stinking American Revolutionaries have been at it with their freeze-rays again.

The only question now is: After the technocratic revolution, where's the robot that's going to cure your inability to look for any answer beyond the politically convenient?

[red team]

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

:lol:

Note the caption on the pictue: Northern Hemisphere Land Temperature

Let me get this straight. If the Sun gets hot enough to affect the climate on Earth these so-called scientists are going to test the Sun's relative change in energy output from the surface of the Earth on a particular continent of the Earth no less (Northern Hemisphere). Oh, expect you guys to be a bit more professional than that, like testing the Sun energy output from space or in the upper atmosphere, but that "experimental" graph takes the cake in amateurish stupidity. :lol:

[red team]

NASA Earth Observatory (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html)


Originally posted by NASA Earth Observatory+--> (NASA Earth Observatory)"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added.[/b]

EPA Climate Change Webpage (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#causes)


EPA on climate change
Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research16, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe.

The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 200618). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region.

While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program19, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

Not a true ice age. Human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

So where's your imaginary volcanoes and exploding super hot Sun now? :lol:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif

[Tungsten]

red team

Let me get this straight. If the Sun gets hot enough to affect the climate on Earth these so-called scientists are going to test the Sun's relative change in energy output from the surface of the Earth on a particular continent of the Earth no less (Northern Hemisphere). Oh, expect you guys to be a bit more professional than that, like testing the Sun energy output from space or in the upper atmosphere, but that "experimental" graph takes the cake in amateurish stupidity.
Note the source at the bottom of the picture. Those are the people you should be arguing with, not me. Calling every scientist you don't agree with a crackpot isn't going to earn you any credibility, especially when the best counter-argument you can dig up involves treating two dissimilar objects as the same. The sun is hot, a fire is hot. Therefore, their behaviour is the same. What nonsense.

"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions," Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases," he added.
How conveninent. I like the source too- a government agency. The ones that can't be trusted at any other time :rolleyes: . Anyway, I don't know why I'm replying to this troll thread- It doesn't matter whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. More than likely, it's complicated system that's been oversimplified by simpletons for political purposes*.

Not a true ice age. Human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.
And CO2 isn't the main greenhouse gas, H2O is.

So where's your imaginary volcanoes and exploding super hot Sun now?
In your imagination, where they originated- I mentioned neither. Personally, I blame you for global warming. All that hot air you're emitting has got to be going somewhere...

*Global warming and the accompanying doomesday scenarios are another excuse to tax, regulate and control. Which explains why both are popular with the left.

[inquisitive_socialist]

funny, i thought H2O was water, not a gas. just, you know, something that flitted through my mind briefly. maybe, if water is a greenhouse causing agant, we should just boil off the ocean with your super hot sun rays that magically heat earth up too much. hmm... it might work, im sure i could find some sort of bullshit graph with bullshit statistics that supported my idea too!

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 05:02 pm
funny, i thought H2O was water, not a gas. just, you know, something that flitted through my mind briefly.
Well you're wrong. H(subscript 2)O becomes a gas at 100 degrees celcius (in its pure form anyway). People usually call this "steam" and it's what is pouring from my ears at seeing somone on my side of the argument being so stupid.


maybe, if water is a greenhouse causing agant, we should just boil off the ocean with your super hot sun rays that magically heat earth up too much. THat's the last thing we want to do, the amount of steam released would be cataclsymic. Not to mention the fact that steam, by its very nature is a hot gas which can easily kill, and considering the impurity of the ocean the tmemperatures needed would be so immense that contact with the steam may well strip skin.