61 replies to this topic

[pizhhh]

should i add me 2 cents in here roar? or i will just go off topic?... lols...

peace!...

/ok.. ok.. i'm going... lorz

Please go ahead. I'd like to keep this thread alive, if the TS won't mind.

[TheCrowSword]

should i add me 2 cents in here roar? or i will just go off topic?... lols...

peace!...

/ok.. ok.. i'm going... lorz

sure the more the merrier, and the more accurate (sometimes...)

[annihilator]

"Killing Fields"

- if you haven't watched this movie yet... go watch... it is one of the movie portrayals of cruelty to humanity... one of our history's most gruesome killings in the world... it involves torture, black political propaganda, slavery, mass killings...

[TheCrowSword]

"Killing Fields"

- if you haven't watched this movie yet... go watch... it is one of the movie portrayals of cruelty to humanity... one of our history's most gruesome killings in the world... it involves torture, black political propaganda, slavery, mass killings...

YAY ^^ was starting to think you abandoned me

lol kidding xD

my opinion:

ofc remember to take such a thing with a grain of salt... it's made to make you feel horrified, we weren't there we wouldn't understand...
although it's good to watch such stuff once in a while ^^

[annihilator]

how bad of me to abandon you!!! ofc not!

hehehehe...

actually, the movie showed how the man survived in that war..... how he witnessed worthless killings, how they teach children to be cruel, how people were treated less like animals..

anyway... its one of the best historical movies i've watched.

Edited by annihilator, 19 March 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[TheCrowSword]

how bad of me to abandon you!!! ofc not!

hehehehe...

actually, the movie showed how the man in that war..... how he witnessed worthless killings, how they teach children to be cruel, how people were treated less like animals..

anyway... its one of the best historical movies i've watched.

It's a bit old though no offense old movies can be quite good.

[annihilator]

It's a bit old though no offense old movies can be quite good.

that's why it's history cause its old? lols

kehehehe...

[TheCrowSword]

that's why it's history cause its old? lols

kehehehe...

Btw, what do you think about global warming?

[annihilator]

Global warming is a natural cyclical phenomenon that's been occurring in our earth. It becomes an issue because that cycle has been dramatically altered due to human activities. According to some scientist, if the natural event of global warming takes millions of years to happen, now it only takes a few thousands years.

If you ask me how earth plunge into global warming on its own, mostly due to volcanic eruption.... Now, due to air pollution caused by humans coupled still with some volcanic eruptions.

How much inconvenient the truth is.. however it is the truth... hehehe


/sorry roar... lazy to go into details...

[TheCrowSword]

Global warming is a natural cyclical phenomenon that's been occurring in our earth. It becomes an issue because that cycle has been dramatically altered due to human activities. According to some scientist, if the natural event of global warming takes millions of years to happen, now it only takes a few thousands years.

If you ask me how earth plunge into global warming on its own, mostly due to volcanic eruption.... Now, due to air pollution caused by humans coupled still with some volcanic eruptions.

How much inconvenient the truth is.. however it is the truth... hehehe


/sorry roar... lazy to go into details...

to be honest I tend to agree with the guys believing it's caused by multiple events... check the link below for example.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[annihilator]

it is actually... my point however is that its a natural thing that happened before and it will happen again.. the difference however is that now, you include human activities as one of the reasons...

[TheCrowSword]

it is actually... my point however is that its a natural thing that happened before and it will happen again.. the difference however is that now, you include human activities as one of the reasons...

hmm more like the humans are now influencing one of the reasons ever so slightly...

[pizhhh]

it is actually... my point however is that its a natural thing that happened before and it will happen again.. the difference however is that now, you include human activities as one of the reasons...

If humanity is a product of nature, then all our crap is a product of it as well.

[TheCrowSword]

If humanity is a product of nature, then all our crap is a product of it as well.

What is more unbelievable is that we're supposed to have such a strong influence on nature... I only remember 2 real environmental crisis... (not that there haven't been more real ones... just that some people are being zealous...)

by zealous I mean that some people I have met are making some stuff up... and it's annoying the crap outta me... well guess I can only wait and see... (how this will all turn out)

another thing I'm in the firm believe that betting on natural energy is the right thing... but not for one moment did I ever think us burning up stuff that has been in the atmosphere before would ever mean anything...

[George Craig]

I looked at the article about global warming. I noticed that most of the "facts" and even some of the basic math were EXTREMELY inaccurate, and there were few sources cited, and most of those were misquoted, so I checked and it's owned by a mining engineer with a vested interest in keeping the West Virginia coal mines operating. Not exactly an impartial source. The guy is a low-level bureaucrat and AMATEUR "scientist" without any relevant knowledge or degrees.
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/09/planetologist-o.html

Registrant Contact:

ChristianWebHost.com
Domain Registration ()

Fax:
1679GatwewayCircle
GroveCity, OH 43123
US

Administrative Contact:
Geocraft
Monte Hieb (@geocraft.com)

The inaccuracies I saw at a cursory glance would probably take up several pages, but just a few of my complaints:
1. Stated as a "fact" that water vapor accounts for 95% of global warming. In the actual article, NASA states that it's about 50%. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20101014/
2. There are several instances where he uses other pages of his own website to confirm statements that almost the entire scientific community would disagree with.
3. some of the "research" he mentions was conducted by coal and gas companies, and to say that their scientific merits are questionable would be the understatement of the millennia. Again, not exactly an unbiased source.
4. His personal theories about sunspots and solar maximums being the "real" causes of global warming are contrary to the facts. Basic math is his enemy on this one.
Here's the actual data. You would have to subscribe to the scientific journal to see graph 5 at full size, but even from the preview, you could see that, while actual temperatures have tracked solar cycles pretty closely since 1850 until 1980, the actual solar activity has declined substantially from 1980 to present, but the temperature continues to rise at an accelerating pace. It is now over 1 degree celsius higher than it should be, and continues to climb. That's the exact opposite of what Mr. Hieb's website claims. In fact, historically, solar activity can account for no more than +/- 0.4 degrees celsius, and it should be at the -.4 degree minimum right now.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611001866

The fact is, there are several hundred other websites very similar to the one you cited, all of which use a similar set of "facts", which receive massive funding from about a half-dozen companies in the oil, gas and coal industries. When companies who make their money from burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal, spend a few million producing websites denying climate change, you have to take the info they provide with a grain of salt.

That isn't to say that "global warming" isn't a misnomer in itself. The fact is, the more probable outcome of man-made climate change will be that the next ice age will have a sudden onset, and will be so severe that mankind and most large mammals won't survive. The entire globe may freeze to a depth of several kilometers, which would pretty much exterminate everything larger than bacteria. It has happened before, and lasted for over 500 million years, from 1.2 billion to 700 million years ago. The other extreme has happened, too. Before the dinosaurs, the earth had a runaway greenhouse effect that turned the entire planet into a desert; that lasted over 100 million years. Like the deep freeze, it exterminated pretty much all life on land.

The fact is, though, that we'll probably muddle through. By the time we get really good at producing enough greenhouse gases to cause an extermination event, we will have changed from an oil and coal based economy, to a solar and nuclear energy based economy. In a couple of thousand years, we'll have another ice age, with all human activity combined just having postponed it by a few hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological time, and the talk then will be about "global cooling".

[TheCrowSword]

Thanks for taking your time to check out the source.

Although I still don't believe Global warming is caused by human productivity, simply because I can't see why it shouldn't be possible that we simply are passing into a ice age normally.

Now obviously I'm no expert on this, but I can also see much logic in switching over to solar energy, and other variations. Even if it doesn't matter in the face of Global warming, since there is a lot of other reasons.

But while what you said is true, I just really can't see any viable evidence for CO₂ to be the cause of it.

to be honest after reading though your sources, I must admit I find myself asking a few questions at the sources themselves. Now I'm not saying my source is any better but, (some of them, ok 1) doesn't really seem to be that honest itself, or at least forget to check something...

but really I'm not having a too good day today (headache and stuff) so everything I write might just turn out to be crap...

Also the source I gave might have a lot of wrongs, but even if you look past those, it would still seem doubt-able to look at global warming though CO₂ alone or even mainly.

and even if the person exaggerate some things (which is wrong) I doubt that other scientist (on the CO₂ team) can really claim that their data is as correct as they make it seem.

[George Craig]

The first link was just the info about the man who created the site. The second was from whois, archived from 2010. The website ownership was changed to private a few months ago, but all of the info other than the name of the owner remained the same, and so did the entire site. It's a good assumption that the ownership is still the same.

If you noticed the website addresses of the sites I linked concerning his "facts", the two sources were NASA and a scientific journal article written by a team of real climatologists at the Danish Meteorological Institute. The info concerning CO2 and solar activity in the website you linked was a really terrible misquote of the actual research that those scientists at NASA and the Danish Meteorological Institute had compiled over the course of the last half-century; since he was BADLY misquoting their data, linking the real articles that they actually published, with the real data that he had misread and misquoted seemed to be appropriate. If you question the underlying data which he misquoted, you have to just completely throw out his misinterpretation of that data.

I have to go to work now, but when I get home, I'll try to find some links to real data concerning climate change. Ther debate about it is mostly in the media, though; over 99% of real scientists who work in the field of climatology agree that those holes in the ozone layer, and the fact that the earth has recently warmed almost 3 degrees fahrenheit more than can be accounted for by all natural phenomena, are real, mathematically proven events which can only be attributed to man-made causes. Almost every real scientist who argues against eyesight and basic math works for the oil, gas or coal industry, either directly or through a non-profit organization funded by those industries.

You keep talking about CO2; the author of that website is saying that the CO2 is what scientists say caused the hole in the ozone layer and climate change. However, the real scientists say that there are several causes; there are a lot of chemicals which are damaging the upper atmosphere, like chloro-fluorocarbons, sulphur, complex chemicals released by coal power plants, etc.; I'll try to find some info about the actual chemicals and the real effects they have on ozone.

The "extinction events" that I mentioned, namely that the last time the earth lost its ozone layer, it basically cooked for over 100 million years, and the last time volcanic activity and possibly meteor strikes or other unknown causes, combined to create so much CO2 and other, heavier elements to accumulate in the atmosphere that the whole earth became a giant snowball that lasted for over 500 million years, are pretty much proven in the geologic record. I've read about both events so many times that I don't really remember the sources of the original research. I'll try to find it for you, though. You can pretty much look at any recently published book about the origin of the earth, and it will mention both events, though; the underlying data was pretty much irrefutable by anybody but a Fundamentalist who says the Bible's right and the evidence is wrong.

[TheCrowSword]

The hole in the ozone layer is being caused by CO₂? If so I might acutually believe some of the statistics... but so far I have only heard of the so called Greenhouse effect, never once have I heard anyone say that CO₂ had a great influence on the Ozone layer... (I live in Denmark all I have ever heard any Teacher any student or any documentary state was about greenhouse effects being the cause of all Global Warming... the reports I so far has found states the same... maybe I'm not skilled in finding reports on this)

Actually, damage done to the Ozone layer is one of the theories I do believe in, as well as many other theories. What I have always doubted was the people who say the Greenhouse effect is the great player in the game, causing all global warming, and what I have been taught on the Greenhouse effect is that it reflects the sun rays and contains heat basically the way clouds stop heat from leaving the atmosphere...

this meaning if you can find any scientific report stating that CO₂ is damaging the Ozone layer I'm pretty sold...

also there was a environmental crisis before with some gasses dealing sever damage to the ozone layer...

Edit: hmm, well anyways that crisis I believe was cause by Freon in refrigerators it's supposed to be solved now though (or well we're supposed to use almost infinity less Freon now, and I heard the ozone layers were healing, but if what you say is true then that would really be a lot more terrible than a simple Ice age).

Also CFC gases didn't merely pose troubles in the future for mankind, it threatend to exterminate us,
and I still can't find anything suggesting that CO₂ has any influence what so ever on the Ozone layer.

Which also seems unlikely given that CO₂ is a very natural substance that's genrally quite good for us... in fact without it we would all die (since plants uses it... oh well just posting a lot of useless random stuff)

If CO₂ acutally has any influence on the Ozone layer as you suggest, that would mean the Ozone layer has quite a quick healing rate alowing it to keep up with the emission of CO₂ from basically anything natural.

But if you didn't really mean what you said about the Ozone layer being damaged by CO₂, it's not really to late to take it back... (just saying cause I really haven't heard anything like that before)

about Freon, I'm pretty sure that almost all CFC gasses are classified as illegal today, so can't see any plants using them, all CFC gasses were created chemically if I remember correctly.

hmm... maybe I should start finding some sources before I just spew out stuff like this... Would certainly save me from the orcational whoops moments...

Edited by TheCrowSword, 22 March 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[Soran Lioncore]

HUH????? WHAT KIND OF CHEMICAL REACTION THAT MAKE OZONE DAMAGED BY C02

OZONE IS O3....................HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....I BAD IN CHEMISTRY

[TheCrowSword]

HUH????? WHAT KIND OF CHEMICAL REACTION THAT MAKE OZONE DAMAGED BY C02

OZONE IS O3....................HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....I BAD IN CHEMISTRY

I don't think there is any... (anyone who wanna prove me wrong? xD)