#1
It’s not surprising to most people that Enron delivered truckloads of money to politicians in an attempt to influence the political process. What may surprise many, however, is that Enron believed that one of its main opportunities to make money by gaming the political system was global warming.

http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm

if your CALIFORNIAN you know anything this company would want to endorse or creat is just going to **** us up the ass one of these days.

It was a total surprise to me, i new this was some sort of scam but knowing KEN LEY was apart of this just gives me goosebumps.

along with the leaked emails, the "CLIMATE GATE" scandal who knows if were willingly going to let Copenhagen pass us by while these oligarchs destroy nations all in the name of this new scientific crusade on CARBON EMISSIONS.
Last edited by showshow453 at Nov 26, 2009,
#2
It makes me so glad to see that someone has woken up in the Pit.
Feel free to add me on STEAM: thesystemhasfailed
XBL tag: cbiggs18
#3
i is lost

████████████████████

███████████████████████
███████████████████████

█████████████████████

███████████████████████

█████████████████████

█████████████████████

███████████████████

█████████████████████

████████████████████
#5
"oh look, a bunch of E-mails taken out of context, that definitely trumps mountains of empirical evidence"

...Get back to me when you've got some legitimate science to talk. And by me I mean someone who gives a shit.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#6
Quote by Ur all $h1t
"oh look, a bunch of E-mails taken out of context, that definitely trumps mountains of empirical evidence"

...Get back to me when you've got some legitimate science to talk. And by me I mean someone who gives a shit.



i'm not sure anyone could have summarised it all quite so elequently, bravo sir
#7
Quote by Ur all $h1t
"oh look, a bunch of E-mails taken out of context, that definitely trumps mountains of empirical evidence"

...Get back to me when you've got some legitimate science to talk. And by me I mean someone who gives a shit.

um i wasnt talking about the emails ur shit.

i was pointing out the fact that ENRON was responsible for alot of legislation passed that was pro CAP and TRADE, or legislation that sets up a foundation for carbon tax.

anywho you should read up the emails and not discard such evidence as balogne.
#8
Quote by showshow453
um i wasnt talking about the emails ur shit.

i was pointing out the fact that ENRON was responsible for alot of legislation passed that was pro CAP and TRADE, or legislation that sets up a foundation for carbon tax.

anywho you should read up the emails and not discard such evidence as balogne.



So without tax how do you propose we tackle carbon emmissions? a big butterfly net?
#9
We're already creating a global warming gestapo, I wouldn't be surprised. I can't get a TV over a certain fucking size for Christ's sake!
Feel free to add me on STEAM: thesystemhasfailed
XBL tag: cbiggs18
#10
Quote by heavenbesideyou
We're already creating a global warming gestapo, I wouldn't be surprised. I can't get a TV over a certain fucking size for Christ's sake!


Would you be so kind as to enlighten a British man?

V Thank you very much.


EDIT: So it doesn't take place until 2011?

By then I would imagine that the good ol' people down at the research centres would have developed more reliable OLED technology by then, AND have the OLED TV's come down in price a bit by then too.

|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄
Last edited by osXtiger at Nov 26, 2009,
#12
Quote by showshow453
um i wasnt talking about the emails ur shit.

Ya, you were, in fact you explicitly mentioned them in your OP.

i was pointing out the fact that ENRON was responsible for alot of legislation passed that was pro CAP and TRADE, or legislation that sets up a foundation for carbon tax.

Your surprised that a company had an influence on law in the USA? Do you live under a rock or something?

anywho you should read up the emails and not discard such evidence as balogne.
I have, that's why I feel comfortable dismissing them.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#14
Quote by Ur all $h1t


Your surprised that a company had an influence on law in the USA? Do you live under a rock or something?

.

no i just dont live in your fairy lala la la land where i just take organazations motives at face value that is it.
#15
Quote by showshow453
WE DONT, because carbon isnt causing global warming.

the earth hasnt been warming since 1998.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

al gore had to admit that carbon is only responsible for 40% of climate change.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Tell you what dude, I'm going to stick with every national academy of sciences in the Industrialised world, you can have your conspiracy websites.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#16
Quote by Ur all $h1t
"oh look, a bunch of E-mails taken out of context, that definitely trumps mountains of empirical evidence"

...Get back to me when you've got some legitimate science to talk. And by me I mean someone who gives a shit.


+1.
#17
Quote by showshow453
WE DONT, because carbon isnt causing global warming.

the earth hasnt been warming since 1998.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

al gore had to admit that carbon is only responsible for 40% of climate change.


Ok, Ok. First off I would apreciate it (If you reply to this post) to read it, re-read it and actually take into consideration the points I am about to make.
this is a disclaimer of sorts. I plan to expand it.

Ok.

You make 40% sound like a low number, and you make it sound like we should do nothing for "global warming".
I'm not exactly an obsessive person when it comes to eco-friendly stuff, but I do think that it would be a better course of action if we actually try to do something for it.

|_|0|_|
|_|_|0|
|0|0|0|
▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄
#18
Quote by Ur all $h1t
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Tell you what dude, I'm going to stick with every national academy of sciences in the Industrialised world, you can have your conspiracy websites.


In fact, the planet as a whole hasnt warmed since 1998.

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.

so its not getting hotter if anything the record breaking heat platoud and now weve actually becom cooler since 1998 and there is no signs of things getting warmer in the next decade.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/


"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

something the scientist said in the emails and as for sticking for conspiracy website, F-U im no consparisist, no more a conspirasist than all those people who warned NWO order in 1990.
Last edited by showshow453 at Nov 26, 2009,
#19
something the scientist said in the emails and as for sticking for conspiracy website, F-U im no consparisist, no more a conspirasist than all those people who warned NWO order in 1990


#20
Quote by imthehitcher

I warned you ladies and gentlemen! The collapse of the dollar! 9/11! Now this??
Feel free to add me on STEAM: thesystemhasfailed
XBL tag: cbiggs18
#21
Quote by showshow453
In fact, the planet as a whole hasnt warmed since 1998.

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.

so its not getting hotter if anything the record breaking heat platoud and now weve actually becom cooler since 1998 and there is no signs of things getting warmer in the next decade.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/



Yawwwn. The UK is not the globe. The general trend is distinctly upwards. Here's the global temperature graph from New Scientist.
1998 was indeed the warmest year, but as the graph shows it was an outlier. Lrn2statistics.




"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

something the scientist said in the emails and as for sticking for conspiracy website, F-U im no consparisist, no more a conspirasist than all those people who warned NWO order in 1990.


Ok, I'm going to say this once more, but I'll say it in huge text this time so that the message gets through and you prevent yourself from looking like a retard next time.

Ahem


E-MAILS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT DO NOT CONTRADICT MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. WHEN YOU USE AN OUT OF CONTEXT SOURCE, SOMEONE WITH EVIDENCE IS GOING TO MAKE YOU LOOK FOOLISH RATHER QUICKLY.


Now, for the science part, I've copied and pasted this from a poster on another forum who said it much more succinctly and cleverly than I am able to. I'm sure he would rather the information be spread around, so I will credit him: His profile

The email "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline" has nothing to do with "hiding evidence of global cooling." The email is referring to the tree ring divergence problem, a well-known and actively studied phenomenon where dendrochronological proxy reconstructions diverge from instrumental data starting at around 1950. In other words, studying the relative width of tree rings from very old trees can give reconstructions of the climate during those years, except this stops working for trees in Northern-hemisphere forests after 1950. There are many hypotheses as to why this occurred, but there is no definite answer yet. A good overview of the problem can be found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

Direct instrumental data clearly shows a warming trend since 1950, as well as other proxy reconstructions, however because of the divergence problem, tree ring proxies from the Northern hemisphere do not correlate with any of these. Therefore, when creating the chart of proxy compilations, tree ring data was only included up until 1960. The chart is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


The lightest-blue line is the tree-ring proxy. Notice that it correlates quite well with all the other proxies, although it stops at 1960. If the omitted data was included, it would have shown a clearly juxtaposed decline. This is what "hide the decline" referred to.

If you refer to the above pdf, on page 3 they have a chart that shows the full proxy, where the decline can be seen. It also shows how the proxy diverges with instrumental temperature records. No data is being hidden from the public, it is readily available (it took me all of 2 minutes to find it).

Lastly, the "trick" from the email was referring to plotting instrumental data along with the proxy data. This is a very common practice to show that instrumental data correlates with proxy data. In the chart above, instrumental data is the solid black line, which as can be seen, follows the exact same pattern as the most recent proxy data.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Nov 26, 2009,
#22
Damn Ur all $hit, you tend to own every thread I see you enter.
Lift not the painted veil which those who live
Call life; though unreal shapes be pictured there,
And it but mimic all we would believe
#23
Quote by Ajax413
Damn Ur all $hit, you tend to own every thread I see you enter.



kiss arse
#24
Well shit, here we go again with the liberal overtaking of threads.

To me, CO2 just seems like a stupid cause of "man made" global warming, first off, its illogical, second the science behind it dosent seem to fit. I could care less what every nations scientists say about it, its still just a theory, just like evolution. They base the entire graph and numbers off of 120 years of data, how old is the earth again?

That graph above me, lets see, 1880 had a extremly high co2 count, while 1910 has an extremly low co2 count. I do beleive cars wernt around in 1880, and were in 1910. Contridiction? Also, 1980's, it jumps like an insane mofo, why, I would think thats around the time that Mt Saint Helens blew up, amiright? Going back in time to the 1930's, I dont think to many people were driving in the Depression, back to the 1970's, this time had the most polluting cars ever made, muscle cars(hell yes!!) seems to stay pertty steady to me. Then, after we have 90 billion different methods of reducing pollution and crap, it jumps like a bat out of hell. Dosent make sense. And to top off this illogical mess, .4 Degree change, you got to be ****ing kidding me, right? Thats like 2-3 degrees ferienhite, that is so small that I doubt anything would notice it, plus we live on Earth, with an ever changing environment.

Nuff with my rant. I can beleive that Enron has something to do with this stupid carbon tax crap.
#25
Quote by ethan_hanus
Well shit, here we go again with the liberal overtaking of threads.

To me, CO2 just seems like a stupid cause of "man made" global warming, first off, its illogical, second the science behind it dosent seem to fit. I could care less what every nations scientists say about it, its still just a theory, just like evolution. They base the entire graph and numbers off of 120 years of data, how old is the earth again?

1. Learn what the word theory means in a scientific context you dolt. Gravitation is also a theory, care to jump from a high place?
2. The numbers are based on far more than just the graph I posted, we a go much further back than that.

Here's CO2 for the last 650,000 years


Here's global temperatures for the last 4,600 million years


Here's temperature for the last 2,000



That graph above me, lets see, 1880 had a extremly high co2 count, while 1910 has an extremly low co2 count. I do beleive cars wernt around in 1880, and were in 1910. Contridiction? Also, 1980's, it jumps like an insane mofo, why, I would think thats around the time that Mt Saint Helens blew up, amiright? Going back in time to the 1930's, I dont think to many people were driving in the Depression, back to the 1970's, this time had the most polluting cars ever made, muscle cars(hell yes!!) seems to stay pertty steady to me. Then, after we have 90 billion different methods of reducing pollution and crap, it jumps like a bat out of hell. Dosent make sense. And to top off this illogical mess, .4 Degree change, you got to be ****ing kidding me, right? Thats like 2-3 degrees ferienhite, that is so small that I doubt anything would notice it, plus we live on Earth, with an ever changing environment.

1. Congrats on not understanding the concept of outliers
2. Next time read the graph, it is a graph for temperature not co2
3. A change of even 2 degrees in global temperature has huge ramifications for the planet. Global change is not nearly the same thing as local change.
One degree Fahrenheit may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history. Earth's climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature is stable over long periods of time. Furthermore, small changes in temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment.

For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Nov 26, 2009,
#26
Do you know how tiny 650000 years is compared to Earths history? Also the last two graphs contridict each other. The last one says the temp is riseing, and teh middle says the temps are staying rather low. And basing my opinion off your last graph and the theory of evolution, it would seem logical to say that warmer temps brings about more evolution than the lower temps. And going off the middle graph yet again, the higher temps seems to suggest to me that the Earth does alot better when its hotter, since thats when all the life seems to come out, rather than not much happening when its colder. And yet again reading the middle graph, it shows that at present, its colder than normal. I do remember that there are still glaciers around, so that kinda means were still in the ice age, right?

So I'm not all that concerned with rising temps based on the graphs you presented me, cause it seems natural for the planet to be rather warm. Plus your CO2 graph, is blown way out of porportion, that huge jump is over about 300-1000 years if not more. Very small increments on that graph equall alot of time. Come up with something better than Al Gores crap.
#27
Quote by imthehitcher
kiss arse


Only if it's true.
Lift not the painted veil which those who live
Call life; though unreal shapes be pictured there,
And it but mimic all we would believe
#28
Quote by ethan_hanus
I do remember that there are still glaciers around, so that kinda means were still in the ice age, right?

I will chime in and say no to this.
#29
Quote by ethan_hanus
Do you know how tiny 650000 years is compared to Earths history?

Yep, but I wanted to present accurate information taken from Ice cores.

Also the last two graphs contridict each other. The last one says the temp is riseing, and teh middle says the temps are staying rather low.

You seem to be completely incapable of interpreting a graph correctly.

They cover vastly different time periods. You can't even compare the two of them as the time period that the last one shows is too insignificant on the second one to be validly compared.
And basing my opinion off your last graph and the theory of evolution, it would
seem logical to say that warmer temps brings about more evolution than the lower temps. And going off the middle graph yet again, the higher temps seems to suggest to me that the Earth does alot better when its hotter, since thats when all the life seems to come out, rather than not much happening when its colder

Dude, learn some basic science would you. Correlation =/= causation. Species evolve from selective pressures, not "more species when it's warmer, less species when it's colder". That's pretty basic evolutionary theory.
Although considering you used the phrase "just a theory" a few moments ago I'm not surprised that you are ignorant of the workings of evolution.


. And yet again reading the middle graph, it shows that at present, its colder than normal. I do remember that there are still glaciers around, so that kinda means were still in the ice age, right?


So I'm not all that concerned with rising temps based on the graphs you presented me, cause it seems natural for the planet to be rather warm.


Go look up what would happen to the world if it got that warm again. It would mean the end of life as we know it (although not necessarily the end of our species) and a whole heap of death, destruction and starvation.

Plus your CO2 graph, is blown way out of porportion, that huge jump is over about 300-1000 years if not more. Very small increments on that graph equall alot of time. Come up with something better than Al Gores crap.

The graph is presented honestly and proportionally, there is no discrepancy between intervals and time periods.
Have you not noticed the straight upward line between 1950 and now, no?
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#30
Man, I can argue with you till the world freezes over
Do you have an opinion of your own ever?!? I mean, its ok to agree with what the world says on a few issues but damn man, your more liberal than Barny Frank and Obama put together. You agree with everything that dosent make a lick of sense.

Guess what, evolution is still a theory, hasent been proven yet, cept alot of people beleive it, just like some people think the Sand people are going to eat them.
The Gravity theory on the other hand, has been proven, thearfor makeing it FACT or in scientific terms a LAW instead of a theory, and nobody disagree's with it. When everybody can agree that a theory is correct, then it becomes a fact, untill then, its a theory.

I read your graphs completly correctly, mabey your not seeing what I'm seeing since your graphs are extremly abstract, especially the middle one. Can be interpeted a million different ways. The first graph, how in the hell can you tell that that jump in the line is exactly 59 years? That line is like a couple of mm long on that graph(sideways), and thats alot longer than 59 years sonny.

And nobody can perdict what would actually happen if the world did heat up say 5 degrees, nothing could happen, or we might burst into a fireball, who knows, scientists can't perdict it, since to many of them disagree on the same subject.

Also, did you ever take into account how much money this global warming thing might bring to some individuals? Do you think that it would even be possibe for this to be made up so someone or someones can make a shit tone of money? Since I know your a big hater of corportaions and free market. Could it be possible, dosent mean it is, but could it?

Alright, I'm going to bed, we'll continue this argument tomorrow my good friend
#31
Quote by ethan_hanus
Man, I can argue with you till the world freezes over
Do you have an opinion of your own ever?!? I mean, its ok to agree with what the world says on a few issues but damn man, your more liberal than Barny Frank and Obama put together. You agree with everything that dosent make a lick of sense.

Guess what, evolution is still a theory, hasent been proven yet, cept alot of people beleive it, just like some people think the Sand people are going to eat them.
The Gravity theory on the other hand, has been proven, thearfor makeing it FACT or in scientific terms a LAW instead of a theory, and nobody disagree's with it. When everybody can agree that a theory is correct, then it becomes a fact, untill then, its a theory.

I read your graphs completly correctly, mabey your not seeing what I'm seeing since your graphs are extremly abstract, especially the middle one. Can be interpeted a million different ways. The first graph, how in the hell can you tell that that jump in the line is exactly 59 years? That line is like a couple of mm long on that graph(sideways), and thats alot longer than 59 years sonny.

And nobody can perdict what would actually happen if the world did heat up say 5 degrees, nothing could happen, or we might burst into a fireball, who knows, scientists can't perdict it, since to many of them disagree on the same subject.

Also, did you ever take into account how much money this global warming thing might bring to some individuals? Do you think that it would even be possibe for this to be made up so someone or someones can make a shit tone of money? Since I know your a big hater of corportaions and free market. Could it be possible, dosent mean it is, but could it?

Alright, I'm going to bed, we'll continue this argument tomorrow my good friend



You have no clue what you're talking about!
#32
Quote by ethan_hanus
Man, I can argue with you till the world freezes over
Do you have an opinion of your own ever?!? I mean, its ok to agree with what the world says on a few issues but damn man, your more liberal than Barny Frank and Obama put together. You agree with everything that dosent make a lick of sense.

I believe in evidence based politics for the most part. I have no interest in Obama or Barney Frank, they don't influence my views and most of my views don't coincide with theirs a whole lot, I'm much less authoritarian and much further left. But ya, I do have my own opinions, but they are based in fact, evidence and logical argument.

This isn't a political issue that we are discussing, it is a scientific one, and in science your opinion has to be based on evidence. Mine is, your's is not. Climate change makes a lot of sense, the fact that you don't understand it doesn't change that.

Guess what, evolution is still a theory, hasent been proven yet, cept alot of people beleive it, just like some people think the Sand people are going to eat them.
The Gravity theory on the other hand, has been proven, thearfor makeing it FACT or in scientific terms a LAW instead of a theory, and nobody disagree's with it. When everybody can agree that a theory is correct, then it becomes a fact, untill then, its a theory.

WRONG

1. Just go look up the scientific definition of the word theory (and the word law) and then come back here because really, you're making yourself look like a ****ing idiot who clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
There are laws of evolution, just as there are laws of gravitation, however those laws are embedded in wider theories. The different terms do not refer to different levels of fact, a scientific law is, quite simply, a simple principle that underlies a theory. Law =/= fact anymore than theory = fact.
Theories are well tested explanations, you are confusing them with hypothesis.
2. Proof does not exist in the natural sciences, it only exists in things like Mathematics.
3. There is no legitimate opposition to evolution by natural selection.
4. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, the same as gravity. Perhaps this will explain it better:
Evolution has been observed occurring both in the lab and in nature. We have seen one species come from another different species. There is also mountains of evidence to show that it has occurred in the past. This makes it a fact. The fact of evolution. However the mechanism through which it occurs, i.e. the explanation for it, is embedded within the theory of evolution.
Similarly we know that gravity occurs, however the explanation for the mechanism through which it occurs is embedded in the theory of gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_with_gravity

I read your graphs completly correctly, mabey your not seeing what I'm seeing since your graphs are extremly abstract, especially the middle one. Can be interpeted a million different ways.

No, it can't. The middle one is there simply to show basic temperature patterns for the last few billion years.
The fact that you think it can be interpreted in a million different ways suggests that you really can't read it.

The first graph, how in the hell can you tell that that jump in the line is exactly 59 years? That line is like a couple of mm long on that graph(sideways), and thats alot longer than 59 years sonny.

No, it's not. If you like you can take a ruler and measure it, both arrows are incredibly close together.

In fact, lets have a closer look together, and I'll show you exactly how close together they are (1 pixel).



And nobody can perdict what would actually happen if the world did heat up say 5 degrees, nothing could happen, or we might burst into a fireball, who knows, scientists can't perdict it, since to many of them disagree on the same subject.

No, but it can predict that certain events will happen with relative certainty and it can give the most likely scenarios. Not all events are equally likely, to suggest they are because we don't know one for certain is stupid.

Also, did you ever take into account how much money this global warming thing might bring to some individuals? Do you think that it would even be possibe for this to be made up so someone or someones can make a shit tone of money? Since I know your a big hater of corportaions and free market. Could it be possible, dosent mean it is, but could it?

Alright, I'm going to bed, we'll continue this argument tomorrow my good friend
Nah, not with this kind of scientific consensus and not with this much evidence. If you knew how science worked you might understand why that is.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Nov 27, 2009,
#33
Quote by ethan_hanus
Man, I can argue with you till the world freezes over
Do you have an opinion of your own ever?!?



Wait, so because he trusts evidence instead of going 'OPINION LOL' and ignoring it, that's a sign that he's a sheep?

Might it not actually be a sign that you're an idiot?
#34


Sup, bitches?
The DNA results show that Jeremy Kyle is a nob.


Quote by titsmcgee852
I want to look at your sexual naked body.
#35
Quote by ethan_hanus

Guess what, evolution is still a theory, hasent been proven yet, cept alot of people beleive it, just like some people think the Sand people are going to eat them.


Evolution happens. The "theory of evolution" refers to the so-called "survival of the fittest" hypothesis put forward by Charles Darwin.

Let me present this in the style of a Fox TV sitcom so you'll understand.

Scientist 1: Look, aminals change their look over time!

Scientist 2: Unlike your mom!

*canned laughter*

Scientist 1: Seriously, Professor Wangernanger *canned laughter* look at these fossilised remains charting the progress of modern-day avians...

Scientist 2: Yes it would seem EVOLUTION IS, IN FACT, A... FACT. *canned laughter*

Scientist 1: But how do you suppose this happens?

Scientist 2: Well it's JUST A THEORY but I guess natural selection.

Scientist 1: Ah yes, animals with advantageous genetic mutations are more likely to succeed in passing their genes to the next generation, and therefore the mutation becomes standard.

Scientist 2: Well, like I said, THAT'S JUST MY THEORY.

Scientist 1: Let us call it.. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

*canned laughter*
*applause*
*fade to black*
*adverts*
#36
Quote by Johnny_Ibanez

Scientist 1: Ah yes, animals with advantageous genetic mutations are more likely to succeed in passing their genes to the next generation, and therefore the mutation becomes standard.

Scientist 2: Well, like I said, THAT'S JUST MY THEORY.

Scientist 1: Let us call it.. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

*canned laughter*
*applause*
*fade to black*
*adverts*

You're forgetting the essential ''fair and balanced part''


I was going to add stuff but Ur all $h1t pretty much covered everything.
Without a good harmonic knowledge, one cannot expect to become a great jazz soloist ~ Horace Silver

Quote by dietermoreno
Is it possible for 6 string guitar to tune lower than drop C and scales still work?
#37
What about all the scientists that are comeing out with hard evidence against this man made globlal warming "theory" and saying that the cause is not CO2, but other factors? They have nothing to loose, they dont have million dollor government grants to loose by saying that its not man made, unlike the majority of scientists, which like money for thier projects. I see that the evidence is great, but so is the evidence on the opposing side.

How easy is it to change one number and make a graph look the way you want it? I'm just asking. Also, thats not where I'm looking on that line, that straight up bull is just that, bull, I'm looking where the line starts to asend again, which is a couple of years back. Also, what in the hell started to happened in the 50's to make that line jump that high that fast?
And you know what, Theory still means a possibility, not a fact. And there is fact in natural science, I dont need to explain rocks to you do I?

But this global warming crap, nobody is going to win this argument till something drastic happens, not just a bunch of numbers perdecting that were all going to die unless we kill off the humans(which breath out CO2) eat tofurky, convert everything to "green energy" which GE is makeing a shit tone of money off of, and drive Smart Cars everywhere.

You know what I see in Al Gores eyes and every other Global Warming supporter

$_$

All this shit is about is money and greed is more than enough to change some numbers and make people say the things that other people want them too.

The Cap and Trade bill is a joke in the aspect of Global Warming, it dosent reduce it nor prevent it. All it does is make taxes jump like insainty and gives other companies the insentive to make a shit ton of money, and gives the govenment yet more power over the market. It in no way reduces CO2 emmision, because thats not the goal of the bill, the goal of the bill is to tax carbon emmissions. If you wanted to reduce CO2 then you would have to shut down the powerplants burning coal to produce electricty and go to nuclear power(which we never will) Plus, the coal power plants make almost 60% of our nations electricty, what happens when you put a huge tax on them? It gets passed down to the counsumer, and eventually drives the Power plant out of business, now we have less electricty, so price jumps yet agian, its like dominos.
#38
Quote by ethan_hanus
What about all the scientists that are comeing out with hard evidence against this man made globlal warming "theory" and saying that the cause is not CO2, but other factors? They have nothing to loose, they dont have million dollor government grants to loose by saying that its not man made, unlike the majority of scientists, which like money for thier projects. I see that the evidence is great, but so is the evidence on the opposing side.

No, not it's not. There isn't anyone on the other side.
Allow me to repeat myself again
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


How easy is it to change one number and make a graph look the way you want it? I'm just asking.
Not that easy. There is a thing called scientific integrity, if you break that by messing about with graphs that is the end of you career, forever. Given the way that the scientific community works, everyone trying to point out the smallest flaw in everyone else's work (thank you peer review) it would be found out fairly quickly. Particularly if someone like NASA did it, which is where that graph came from.


Also, thats not where I'm looking on that line, that straight up bull is just that, bull, I'm looking where the line starts to asend again, which is a couple of years back. Also, what in the hell started to happened in the 50's to make that line jump that high that fast?

How is it bull? That is the level of carbon over time, what part of that do you have a problem with it? How is it dishonest? The level rose so much over such a short period of time due to the following factors.




And you know what, Theory still means a possibility, not a fact. And there is fact in natural science, I dont need to explain rocks to you do I?

NO IT DOESN'T YOU COMPLETE ****ING MORON.

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"
-United States National Academy of Sciences

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact"
-American Association for the Advancement of Science


I never said that the natural sciences don't have facts, I said that they don't have proof, which they don't. Proof only exists in Maths, it does not exist in natural science, all we have is evidence. Learn to read.


But this global warming crap, nobody is going to win this argument till something drastic happens, not just a bunch of numbers perdecting that were all going to die unless we kill off the humans(which breath out CO2) eat tofurky, convert everything to "green energy" which GE is makeing a shit tone of money off of, and drive Smart Cars everywhere.

I could bear up strawmen all day.
We don't need to eliminate all CO2, just a lot of the massive amount that is being spewed out now.

All this shit is about is money and greed is more than enough to change some numbers and make people say the things that other people want them too.
Except that there is vastly more money to be made by denying global warming if you're willing to be crooked and sacrifice your career.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Last edited by Ur all $h1t at Nov 27, 2009,
#39
Quote by ethan_hanus
What about all the scientists that are comeing out with hard evidence against this man made globlal warming "theory" and saying that the cause is not CO2, but other factors?
They need to publish their work (assuming they have done any work) like the rest of scientist.

Quote by ethan_hanus

They have nothing to loose, they dont have million dollor government grants to loose by saying that its not man made, unlike the majority of scientists, which like money for thier projects. I see that the evidence is great, but so is the evidence on the opposing side.
If there actually was evidence against global warming it would get rejected and the first part made no sense.

Quote by ethan_hanus

How easy is it to change one number and make a graph look the way you want it? I'm just asking.
That's why there is something called peer-reviewed procedure.

Quote by ethan_hanus

If you wanted to reduce CO2 then you would have to shut down the powerplants burning coal to produce electricty and go to nuclear power(which we never will)
USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, so much for never going to nuclear power.
Without a good harmonic knowledge, one cannot expect to become a great jazz soloist ~ Horace Silver

Quote by dietermoreno
Is it possible for 6 string guitar to tune lower than drop C and scales still work?