republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Germany Refuses To Implement 'Three Strikes' Law » A few million Euros (Francs) Later
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
page: 1 · 2
AuthorAll Replies

jc100

join:2002-04-10


2 edits
reply to DarkLogix
Re: A few million Euros (Francs) Later

Ice caps are growing? Where might this one be happening? I have YET TO HEAR that one listed anywhere on a factual source. What is happening is that Permafrost in Antarctica is quickly melting, causing ice the size of small countries, to float away. Matter of truth, Alaska has ALSO seen it's ice shelf collapse upon itself. Please, I really want to know since you made this claim. Where are the ice caps growing in large numbers to offset what's happening elsewhere? This will be interesting.

Smog isn't good. But on your basis, it existed long before we got here. L.A. and Mexico City had that problem before man. We just came along and "noticed it", right. Wrong. We create a problem by pumping stuff into the air. If you for one second believe probably a BILLION cars on the road and millions of factories don't cause air pollution I got a bridge to sell you. Stick a cigarette into a closed box, and you tell me if it doesn't fill up with smoke =).

I'm stuck in a cube? No no, this place known as Texas is stuck in something called the 19th century. Hell, I'd be if i looked hard enough, I could find people here who still think the world was flat. Facts, Science, don't mesh well. Land of the churches. Obviously, it must be helping natives here. Seeing how Texas has one of the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rates in the nation. All that religion and old school thinking, really bodes well for clouding reality.

As for why Mars is warming, well I don't know, maybe it lacks that thing known as an Ozone layer to FEND off the sun's radiation. You know those pretty invisible wavelengths of light that one can't see. It's the same reason Planets further away are hotter than earth. O that's right, I bring up science to a man who thinks based off scripture, not reality.

...Welcome to Texas style thinking.

DarkLogix

join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

2 edits
...


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest

said by DarkLogix See Profile :

You fail to grasp the scale of the planet (and Plants kinda need CO2 to live)
You sir fail to grasp that the planet, while quite large is basically a closed system; and there are billions of us and growing all the time, and more and more of us are burning fossil fuels each year as previously "less developed" areas gain more modern technology and machines.

While the variables are indeed many, the simple fact is there is always a cause and effect. While many scoff at the idea of Man-made climate change, I have to say it makes a lot of sense to everyone but the fanatics.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

jc100

join:2002-04-10

reply to DarkLogix
RLH,

A volcanic eruption can THROW OFF THE CLIMATE for months. Look at major eruptions in history. You will have SEVERE changes in weather. SO your analogy just goes to show that AN EVENT can has catastrophic consequences. Man is that event right now. Our actions are single handedly screwing up this planet. We are polluting, cutting down trees (remove carbon from the air), and causing species to go extinct in record numbers.

As for mars. Well no dude, things take time. It's like an oven, it doesn't reach full heat the second you turn it on. It takes quite a while to heat up. Mars has probably been warming nonstop for years. It just is a gradual process considering the surface area that has to get hot. No ozone layer means its not protected. It however doesn't mean that it just HAPPENS instantly. See above rationale.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

reply to jc100
Fine, here is an article from TIME magazine:

»www.time.com/time/magazine/artic···,00.html

quote:
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
Sound familiar? Yep, it is the same rhetoric used for the so called "global warming" argument and that is just the first paragraph.

Now look at the second paragraph:

quote:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
The title of the article was "Another Ice Age?" At the time, we still used leaded gas, we had pollution way beyond what we have now and Los Angeles was always clouded in smog.

The beginning of the third paragraph really is telling:

quote:
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.
Whoa, more ice in Iceland and we are looking at another Ice Age? Fire up the furnace.

This paragraph is quite amusing:

quote:
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Which is it? Are we responsible for cooling or warming?

Face it, withing the span of 40 years we went from fearing another Ice Age to a planet warming up to fry us all.

There is not enough data to support either side right now and this planet is a lot more resilient than you care to think.

jc100

join:2002-04-10

An article from 35 years ago to prove a point? Really? See, that's like taking the argument the world's flat from science in the 16th century and arguing against modern day science. Things change. People are wrong. Yes. However, we have MUCH BETTER TECHNOLOGY now than in 1974. It's called computers, which were rudimentary in those days. We have satellites monitoring the ice receding. We have time lines to show that patterns are changing. Is everything man made? Probably not. Are we a big contributing factor. I imagine so. Your argument is the biggest cock and bull story. 35 year old article to refute things.. Moon.... You've made my day with the laugh factor.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

An article from 35 years ago to prove a point? Really? See, that's like taking the argument the world's flat from science in the 16th century and arguing against modern day science. Things change. People are wrong. Yes. However, we have MUCH BETTER TECHNOLOGY now than in 1974. It's called computers, which were rudimentary in those days. We have satellites monitoring the ice receding. We have time lines to show that patterns are changing. Is everything man made? Probably not. Are we a big contributing factor. I imagine so. Your argument is the biggest cock and bull story. 35 year old article to refute things.. Moon.... You've made my day with the laugh factor.
Oh really? What about the global warming alarmists that say our planet has been warming since the beginning of the 20th century? How can we have warming and cooling within a small time span?

Face it, we have heard all these arguments before and each time they predict another version of doom and gloom with more junk science. You can have all the computer models in the world but none work without some sort of prior data and the data is still all over the place.

Laugh it up. It is you who will pay the new carbon tax based on fear mongering.

jc100

join:2002-04-10

Easily. How come the World was flat in one century and round in another. Science progresses, and the technology to assess situations does too. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.

Species are going extinct at a faster rate than any time in history

We are polluting Rivers, Cutting down Forests (Which reduce carbon dioxides), and harming are air at record rates.

Smog didn't exist prior to us being in Mexico City and L.A. Man caused it.

Forests existed before we CHOPPED LARGE TRACTS of them down

If you for once think that what we do has no effect on this planet, you're naive. It's like Lead, DDT, and other substances we have created. They are harmful to man. Just as what we pump into the air is harmful. However, it's not just hurting us, but the planet. Nice try. Science progresses and a 35 year old article by you is a hysterical joke with a multitude of laugh factors.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

Easily. How come the World was flat in one century and round in another. Science progresses, and the technology to assess situations does too. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory.

Species are going extinct at a faster rate than any time in history

We are polluting Rivers, Cutting down Forests (Which reduce carbon dioxides), and harming are air at record rates.

Smog didn't exist prior to us being in Mexico City and L.A. Man caused it.

Forests existed before we CHOPPED LARGE TRACTS of them down

If you for once think that what we do has no effect on this planet, you're naive. It's like Lead, DDT, and other substances we have created. They are harmful to man. Just as what we pump into the air is harmful. However, it's not just hurting us, but the planet. Nice try. Science progresses and a 35 year old article by you is a hysterical joke with a multitude of laugh factors.
Wow, lots of conjecture and assumptions there.

Actually, the Greeks knew the world was round back when Oenopides did his calculations (around 450BC) which were later refined by Eratosthenes.

How do we know species are dying faster than at any time before? I would imagine that the meteor that hit off the Yucatan coast would have caused a lot of damage.

Weather has been recorded for a while but if all you are going to look at just the last 100 years, that is barely one letter in the book of this planet's history. Have humans caused issues. Definately but not to the point the alarmist are claiming. And why did Al Gore try to get Ted Koppel to "witch hunt" any scientist who did not agree with his global warming message?

The global warming science is not passing the sniff test and many are trying to find a way out without damaging their reputation.

Try again.

jc100

join:2002-04-10

Science is a study of patterns. How do we know something is happening? We compare changes of Glaciers from Photos 100 years ago to now.

What Photos Show:

Glaciers have receded by 10s of miles. Antarctica and Ice filled regions are Melting Rapidly.

What Science Shows:

Amount of Carbons and Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere have increased substantially in the time we have measured. Cars didn't exist (nor did Smog in L.A. or Mexico City) before Man built them. Factories weren't pumping TONS OF Pollutants into the air before the industrial Revolution. Now we are. So you tell me Moon.

2+2 = 4

Cars = Cause Smog

Deforestation = Less Trees to Purify the air

Factories = Pollute the Air with Chemicals that make people sick. Hell look at Chernobyl in Russia. Mind moving there? Sure that radiation will be good on the body?

Polluting Rivers with industrial waste.

Man's activities have consequences. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Cutting down an Animals Habitat leads its numbers to disappear. Polluting water ways Kills off species. Pumping Shit into the air via cars and factories causes smog and raises Ozone levels which can cause breathing problems. So If on a small scale, we can see that happening, then I'd venture to guess our actions have a wider consequence. You can cite whatever you want. A 35 year old article is not proof of anything. ONE PERSON IN THAT ARTICLE GOT IT WRONG. It wasn't as if the scientific community all said we were in for a New Ice Age. Plus, empirical data and computers weren't around to create models and analyze large sets of data.

Believe what you wish. It's like trying to convince a religious person his or her religion is just one of many. We can go at this all day and it's pointless.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to moonpuppy
Such a myopic view. Thank god you aren't a man of science because you certainly lack any logic needed to form a coherent opinion.

jc100

join:2002-04-10

reply to moonpuppy
Don't even take what I said out of context. I meant modern record that was verifiable. Now, we can use carbon dating and other such tests to check weather. However, in this case I was referring to the practice of written record. I don't know if I trust what the Roman's did in 450B.C as historical fact. People take the bible as Historical Fact and we see how many variations and takes there are on religion itself. Let's just say I'd prefer the modern, educated record keeping practices. See how in 450 B.C. sea monsters and the world was flat. While SOME OF THEIR SCIENCE has stood the test of time, there were far more errors than successes. The difference? We have technology to test our work, versus say, best guess practices.

Though for Pre Modern Times, Pythagorean and others did figure out some complex stuff. Once again, not all wrong, but a lot.

There lies the difference. Our science is based off computer models, satellite data, historical photographs, carbon dating / weather patterns. Their data was a best guestimate if you wish to call it that.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

Don't even take what I said out of context. I meant modern record that was verifiable. Now, we can use carbon dating and other such tests to check weather. However, in this case I was referring to the practice of written record. I don't know if I trust what the Roman's did in 450B.C as historical fact. People take the bible as Historical Fact and we see how many variations and takes there are on religion itself. Let's just say I'd prefer the modern, educated record keeping practices. See how in 450 B.C. sea monsters and the world was flat. While SOME OF THEIR SCIENCE has stood the test of time, there were far more errors than successes. The difference? We have technology to test our work, versus say, best guess practices.
Sorry, but taking weather patterns only for the last 100 years is by no means accurate since patterns take MUCH longer to manifest themselves.

The Ice Age was millions of years ago yet we know this through geology because man was not around to record it.

The Romans were known for their record keeping. However, even their period was too short to record much data plus it was only for their little area.

said by jc100 See Profile :

Though for Pre Modern Times, Pythagorean and others did figure out some complex stuff. Once again, not all wrong, but a lot.

There lies the difference. Our science is based off computer models, satellite data, historical photographs, carbon dating / weather patterns. Their data was a best guestimate if you wish to call it that.
Again, if the formulas behind the models are off, so is the data and our sat data is barely 50 years old. That is not enough data. Even the sunspot cycle takes 13 years.

You want to limit your data to barely 100 years, be my guest but my logical people would laugh at you and dismiss ANYTHING you said about the subject.

Try again.

jc100

join:2002-04-10


1 edit
A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years

- Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify
- Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt
- Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement.

Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture.

B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live.

No trying again on my part.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

A) We are NOT SIMPLY COMPARING WEATHER PATTERNS FROM 100 Years

- Looking at Written Data From 100 years that we can Verify
- Using Science to dig further Back where records cannot be proven without doubt
- Using Photographs / Satellite Imagery etc to Supplement.

Contrary to your Stance, Rocks, Trees, fossils all hold evidence of growth and change over the millenias. We can compare this to records to paint a picture.

B) Chopping down Animals Habitat means less places for them to live and less trees to take carbon dioxide out of the air. Basic Science. Trees take Carbon and turn it into Oxygen. less Trees, Less Carbon "Filters". More species extinct as less habtitat to live.

No trying again on my part.
First only the last 100 years of data is reliable then you bring in other stuff.

The key to winning a debate is to take one side and hold it, not flip flop like John Kerry.


jc100

join:2002-04-10


1 edit
Flip Flopping? You're the one trying to do that. I've picked a side and substantiated it FAR BETTER than a 35 year old article by ONE SOURCE.

Empirical data (Look up the word)..

100 years of weather Data is Reliable. That's about as far back as the weather service goes BY HUMAN RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Not including Photographs. Thats about 150-170 years.

From there you can use Carbon Data, Growth Patterns on Trees, Rock Formations, etc to tell RELIABLY HOW THINGS OCCURRED. IE... Where the Written Proof ends, Nature provides documentation.

Also, Photographs, Satellites, etc aid too in comparing pictorial evidence.

Basic Science bud. You get an "F". Trees = Animal Habitat. Trees = Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.

Fewer Trees (Deforestation) = Less "Air Filters for Pollution" and less animal habitat.

No conjecture. Simple, plain facts. Flip Flop? Nope. Reasonable? Far more than your ONE 35 year old article.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

Flip Flopping? You're the one trying to do that. I've picked a side and substantiated it FAR BETTER than a 35 year old article by ONE SOURCE.

Empirical data (Look up the word)..

100 years of weather Data is Reliable. That's about as far back as the weather service goes BY HUMAN RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. Not including Photographs. Thats about 150-170 years.

From there you can use Carbon Data, Growth Patterns on Trees, Rock Formations, etc to tell RELIABLY HOW THINGS OCCURRED. IE... Where the Written Proof ends, Nature provides documentation.

Also, Photographs, Satellites, etc aid too in comparing pictorial evidence.

Basic Science bud. You get an "F". Trees = Animal Habitat. Trees = Turn Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.

Fewer Trees (Deforestation) = Less "Air Filters for Pollution" and less animal habitat.

No conjecture. Simple, plain facts. Flip Flop? Nope. Reasonable? Far more than your ONE 35 year old article.
100 years of data is not enough in a system that has known fluctuations over thousands of years.

And if 100 years is enough, why bring up tree rings, rock formations and carbon data? That becomes "theoretical" data, not empirical. Why is it theoretical? Because while we might have a reasonable theory as to what happened, it is not always proven.

FAIL!

jc100

join:2002-04-10

You just don't get it do you?

Its called building the big picture. You take all your data, compile it, to create a layout of the environmental changes that have taken place.

You might want to look up the word Theoretical. Its too big for you to use. Obviously, you don't know the meaning. When something is theory, it's not fact. Trees without a doubt show the climate changes that have occurred over millennium. Soil samples show the different layers that have formed and the climate at that time. Rock Formations and Geology show fossilization and what took place. None of that is theory.

Then again, I'm talking to the Kentucky's Creation Museums #1 visitor. The man who probably believes earth is 10,000 years old and we roamed it with dinosaurs.

Failing is something you do bud. Not me. Science looks at the big picture, not a narrow one tracked view based on a 35 year old article. Not everyone is right or uses a practical approach. Technology, however has improved. We can compare pictures over the last 170 years. We can compare weather data over the last 100. And to go further back, we use soil, rock, geological, and carbon dating. All of which gives evidence of whats happened.

Your evidence, an article. Failing. You give that word a new perspective and a whole new meaning. Obviously, you couldn't pass first grade science.

Trees WITHOUT A DOUBT REMOVE CARBON DIOXIDE. We are deforesting the planet. Animals live in Forests. We chop them down, species disappear. Less trees, less things to purify our air. More factories, cars, and pollution with less trees, = more sticks around.

This isn't rocket science. Then again, I'm trying to convince someone who couldn't get passed high school and believes wikipedia is a source the fundamentals of life. AH yes, this is a big challenge to say the least.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL

said by jc100 See Profile :

You just don't get it do you?

Its called building the big picture. You take all your data, compile it, to create a layout of the environmental changes that have taken place.
Big picture with barely 100 years of data? Yeah, that makes sence.

said by jc100 See Profile :

You might want to look up the word Theoretical. Its too big for you to use. Obviously, you don't know the meaning. When something is theory, it's not fact. Trees without a doubt show the climate changes that have occurred over millennium. Soil samples show the different layers that have formed and the climate at that time. Rock Formations and Geology show fossilization and what took place. None of that is theory.

Then again, I'm talking to the Kentucky's Creation Museums #1 visitor. The man who probably believes earth is 10,000 years old and we roamed it with dinosaurs.
Looks like I am talking to Al Gore sheeple #1.

said by jc100 See Profile :

Failing is something you do bud. Not me. Science looks at the big picture, not a narrow one tracked view based on a 35 year old article. Not everyone is right or uses a practical approach. Technology, however has improved. We can compare pictures over the last 170 years. We can compare weather data over the last 100. And to go further back, we use soil, rock, geological, and carbon dating. All of which gives evidence of whats happened.

Your evidence, an article. Failing. You give that word a new perspective and a whole new meaning. Obviously, you couldn't pass first grade science.

Trees WITHOUT A DOUBT REMOVE CARBON DIOXIDE. We are deforesting the planet. Animals live in Forests. We chop them down, species disappear. Less trees, less things to purify our air. More factories, cars, and pollution with less trees, = more sticks around.

This isn't rocket science. Then again, I'm trying to convince someone who couldn't get passed high school and believes wikipedia is a source the fundamentals of life. AH yes, this is a big challenge to say the least.
ORLY?

Check out this website.

»omniclimate.wordpress.com/

Specifically:

quote:
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

And here is an other couple paragraphs you should read:

quote:
About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.


GAME, SET, MATCH!!

jc100

join:2002-04-10

Big picture with barely 100 years of data? Yeah, that makes sence

You don't make "Sense". No one claimed 100 years of data. I said 100 years of weather data that is written down. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO ANALYZE DATA PRIOR TO SUCH RECORDINGS. Does stupid come with a tshirt? I'll buy you a few.

- Carbon Dating
- Geological Surveys
- Pictorial Comparisons
- Environmental Surveys
- Fossil Patterns / Life

All show o lets say 100s of millions of years. So Written Data is one thing. I know a man of your lack of intelligence probably is religious. You believe that fictional work called the bible right? Why, cause it's written down so it has to be right. Prove to me Jesus existed? Were you there? I want proof. O wait, you can't. Damn. Yet, your church have you believe he was real with "loads of evidence". Funny... You take their word but oddly enough, come science, it's all magical hokey pokey ay?

I give up. Your "BLOG" of "Blogs" has won me out. I mean some wackjobs writings just overpower me with evidence. All bow to the might conspiracy theory blogs. O and he claims 150 scientist agree. Wow... The church claims to have scholars on religion. Funny enough, for bright minds, I'm wondering why the world has like 1000s of different beliefs. Seems if these scholars were any damn good, theyd have convinced the world that their religion is right. O snap, that's right. This same church has you believing the world is 10,000 years old and we walked with Dinosaurs.

Non Conjecture = Trees Take Carbon Dioxide from the air and turn to Oxygen. That's FACT. That's Proven. 100 percent of scientists agree on it.

Fact #2 = Cutting down trees lessens the numbers of forests. IE causes species to disappear. If I bulldoze your house, you are homeless. If you cut down a forest, animals have less space to live. Not to mention See Fact 1 which is universally agreed upon. Trees are the world's air purifiers. You cut a tree in half, and it's rings show growth patterns and weather change. Trees filter out carbon dioxide.

O wow, the mighty Graph. Part of the Global Warming theory smart one is that SOME AREAS OF THE EARTH WILL ACTUALLY GET COOLER while others heat up. The Poles are melting and ocean temperatures rising. However, just like any other weather, changes are going to fluxuate. I guess you've never heard of a nuclear winter. Yea Hokus Pokus Ay? I guess a Volcano Erupting has no effect on Climate either. All conjecture. Changes have no cause and effect. Got any tin foil?

Um you're guy is a blogger. Ya, his credentials speak wonders. The Mighty Blogger. Once again. yes, the Earth has seen MANY CHANGES. NO FUCKING SHIT. The earth has also seen many species come extinct. Keep believing our actions have no effect on the planet.

Increased pollution doesn't increase cancer rates.

Drugs do no harm on people. They're just sugar pills.

Radiation is good for the Human Body. The Atomic Bomb did nothing to cause Birth Defects and Malformations.

Our actions are TOTALLY WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

No game set Match. Might try reserving that for when you're brain has five minutes to FIND A TEE TO PUT FROM. Right now, you're smacking air and tossing your clubs.
-
Forums » Germany Refuses To Implement 'Three Strikes' Law
page: 1 · 2


Saturday, 28-Nov 17:17:33 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [122] Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters
· [112] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
· [96] Apple Joins AT&T Verizon Snark Fest
· [87] New Bill Takes Aim At Higher Verizon ETFs
· [80] TiVo Sees Record Customer Losses
· [70] Verizon CEO: Hulu Will Be Dead Soon
· [69] In-Flight Internet Headed For Bumpy Landing?
· [63] Weekend Open Thread
· [62] Thanksgiving Open Thread
· [40] EFF Wages War On Fine Print
Most people now reading
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Why would I want an e reader? [General Questions]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· how to use the 2nd line with phone hooked to the 1st line? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Blue Ray: Samsung BD-P3600 or LG BD390 [Audio/Video Chat]
· Suddenly, I'm not me? [Security]
· ToC 4th boss - Preliminary Strategy for Twin Valkyr [World of Warcraft]
· Gizmo5 has added a Google Voice section in its members area. [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Windows 7 - Dell ALPS Touchpad driver [Microsoft Help]
· Bell offering 175M service :) [TekSavvy]