Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks

Page 5 of 9 [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

25 Sep 2008, 3:33 pm

Oggleleus wrote:
People use emotion for various things. Advertisers and politicians (They) use emotional response to further their cause. When a commercial comes on TV getting you to donate $$ to a charity trying to feed the poor of Africa, do they show people playing volleyball and smiling? No, they show people living in dirt? They elicit the emotional response they want to get you to feel obligated to do something about it.

Polar bears are cute and cuddly on TV but are not something I would want to really be around. They are vicious and very territorial. The media, politicians along with several lobbying groups are using polar bears to get an emotional response out of its viewers. Did anyone ask the polar bear why he was eating his friend or enemy? Nope. Did they test the polar bear's stomach contents to find out if the bear has been only eating other polar bears? Nope. So, how on earth (pun intended again) do they really know that "man-made global warming" is the culprit? They don't. They are merely suggesting it to elicit an emotional response.

There are some people that get more emotional about seeing animals in pain compared to seeing people in pain. They know this and are using it. Does it make since to humanity to burn our food for energy, while people are still starving around the world, in an effort to prevent the polar bears from eating each other, which they do anyway? Nope.

Sometimes, solving a problem or figuring something out is best done backwards. In this case, who benefits the most if all of the Global Warming people out there get their way? And, are these the same people pushing the agenda?

Where I live, we had the coolest August I can remember. Today, thanks to politicians and their green lobbyists, the local GM dealer went under. It was only the second largest dealer in the nation. Lost jobs, lost tax revenue are just an example of how the local economy is "benefiting" from the Green's agenda. Hmm, maybe that shouting match on Capital Hill between the auto industry and Democrat greenies back around 2004 or 2005 was not a good idea for US car makers.

Maybe, re-read the posts here and try to identify people typing with emotion and those that are not. Then look at which side is being supported.

Peace


Who are you masked stranger? :hail: lol..


You're on the right side of the wall :wtg:



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

25 Sep 2008, 10:00 pm

philosopherBoi wrote:
twoshots wrote:
I see nothing there particularly substantial. Again, I don't get my science from the "media", so some hand wavy "No no..." isn't particularly cogent in my eyes. The existence of disagreement does not imply terribly much.

And before you pull some I'm a doom monger crap, I've heard enough economists say it's better just to deal with it more level-headedly than butt-f**k the economy that I'm not exactly the kind of person you think you can just pigenhole me as.


The economy can benefit from going green, the fact is people like you are greedy and don't want to face the facts that it is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations.

Ahh I see a Palin clone 8O Do the math you silly person. The earth is not just heating up because of greenhouse gasses it is also heating up because of motor vehicles, electronics, factories, war, concrete cities and environmental factors like smog and deforestation especially deforestation of the rainforest.

Image


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Reodor_Felgen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,633

26 Sep 2008, 8:39 am

Does anyone remember the Y2K? People seriously believed that all computers would crash, nuclear bombs would be launched, power plants would collapse etc. Still, the Y2K turned out to be just bullshit. Man-made global warming is an even bigger hoax than the Y2K.


_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.

Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,170

26 Sep 2008, 8:59 am

Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Does anyone remember the Y2K? People seriously believed that all computers would crash, nuclear bombs would be launched, power plants would collapse etc. Still, the Y2K turned out to be just bullshit. Man-made global warming is an even bigger hoax than the Y2K.


One of the reasons that Y2K did not turn into a sudden headache is that US companies spent about $100 billion dollars testing and patching critical software that was written with the old compilers that treated 2000 as 0. This not only averted major glitches when the ball dropped in Times Square, it also resulted in an improvement to our information infrastructure. I don't know of any companies that said "Gee, there was no need to fix that old software that would have reset to the year zero on Jan. 1, 2000 - we should have stuck with that."

http://bennett.senate.gov/issues/docume ... report.pdf



ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

26 Sep 2008, 3:23 pm

monty wrote:
Reodor_Felgen wrote:
Does anyone remember the Y2K? People seriously believed that all computers would crash, nuclear bombs would be launched, power plants would collapse etc. Still, the Y2K turned out to be just bullshit. Man-made global warming is an even bigger hoax than the Y2K.


One of the reasons that Y2K did not turn into a sudden headache is that US companies spent about $100 billion dollars testing and patching critical software that was written with the old compilers that treated 2000 as 0. This not only averted major glitches when the ball dropped in Times Square, it also resulted in an improvement to our information infrastructure. I don't know of any companies that said "Gee, there was no need to fix that old software that would have reset to the year zero on Jan. 1, 2000 - we should have stuck with that."

http://bennett.senate.gov/issues/docume ... report.pdf


umm.. no. most computers had no modifications made to them, including my mom's computer. it was a hoax.. and Reodor_felgen is 100% right... it is propaganda.. hoax.. nothing more.. although this hoax will be taken to a bigger extreme religiously..



Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

26 Sep 2008, 4:23 pm

I think ShawnWilliam and Monty are both right on this Y2K stuff. It did not start out as a hoax. There were definitely some systems and software that needed to be updated, but once the media and some politicians got going, it all snowballed.

Yes companies did spend money but much of the money were Modifications to Govt. contracts for "Additional" money from the Govt. I think tax breaks were also given for the money spent to modify systems and software. Private companies were ahead of the game or had the wait and see attitude. Any time the Govt. is giving away something, some people tend to take advantage of it. For legacy systems and outdated compiled software, it meant it was time for "extra funding" to finally get rid of or convert these systems.

I was tasked to write a Y2K assessment for a software project I was working on and since we were using up to date development tools as well as a good database system we had to make no changes.

So, in essence, that is what I think has happened with this "global warming", "climate change" stuff. Yes, there is something called global warming. There is also something called global cooling. Yes, the climate changes. But, when someone says they don't believe in all of this global warming crap, what they are really saying is that they do not believe that man is increasing temperatures enough to impact Mother Nature's own natural periods of warming and cooling. I can not tell you how many times I have been jumped on because of this very reason.

I could get into the Math of this stuff but the main thing is that these models use approximations. You go through the math and then have to have a computer iterate an equation(s) and approximate a solution. Since we are approximating, any error in the data (temperature readings for example) can throw off your approximations by a very small amount all the way to a very large amount. If we want to simplify the process we can disregard a bunch of stuff and maybe just concentrate on CO2, temperature and time and the math is much easier but we are missing the big picture, like what happens when we include air pressure, water vapor, sea water pressure, sunlight intensity and on and on. The computer models we have are the best we have ever had but that does not mean they are always right.

People are trying to influence your thinking, including myself, by trying to explain my point of view, but what I suggest is, go out and figure it out for yourself. Don't just look at one side of any argument. This may be an Aspie thing but look at all sides and then apply some logic after the emotion subsides.

And, if you made it this far in the post then you earned 1 Activity point redeemable nowhere.

Peace



ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

26 Sep 2008, 4:32 pm

^^ believe me, the government knows EXACTLY what's going on.. it is no error. It is instilling fear in people to push the new environmental religion... the elite government gain a lot of control from this religion.. and scaring people over it is most important.

Have you seen the NASA climate change chart?.. LMAO.. it's laughable..

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTime ... achine.cfm

note how on the tempurature one, if you move the slider all the way right, the world is *gasp* RED!.. Oh my god! we're all gonna die!



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

26 Sep 2008, 4:39 pm

Dude, that's just a color key to visualize the temperature change data. It's a bit melodramatic but srlsly...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

26 Sep 2008, 4:50 pm

I know what it is.. and the fact that people freak out when they SEE it proves my point!..

Not only does it prove people can't think for themselves, by not just giving them the data but also a color code, but also that simple images can strike emotion in people which instills not only fear and panic, but sometimes activity..



Reodor_Felgen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,633

26 Sep 2008, 5:21 pm

Look what I found:

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm


_________________
WP doesn't have a working first amendment.

Fuck. This will override the swear word filter.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

26 Sep 2008, 5:25 pm

Not exactly a scholarly source. :roll:

Real climate gives the impression of being a decent source of information that does things like, y'know, provide citations.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

26 Sep 2008, 8:58 pm

twoshots wrote:
Not exactly a scholarly source. :roll:

Real climate gives the impression of being a decent source of information that does things like, y'know, provide citations.


It actually wraps its self up to appear more intellectual, but it's owned by authority... your source is no more credible then the above..



What reduces emissions more?
A. Someone swapping their old SUV (which gets 12 miles per gallon) for a hybrid version (18 mpg) or
B. someone upgrading their 25 mpg compact to a new 46 mpg Prius?
(ignore for a minute manufacturing issues or driving habits and assume the miles driven are the same).


the first paragaph alone is meant to instill an image in your mind... strikes emotion to give credibility to the facts.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

26 Sep 2008, 9:06 pm

Now, if you could provide a substantial criticism this could go somewhere...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,463

26 Sep 2008, 9:10 pm

Oh, shit I must have forgot.. I'm not capable of providing substantial thoughts.. :roll:



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,229
Location: Boötes void

26 Sep 2008, 9:35 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:
Oh, shit I must have forgot.. I'm not capable of providing substantial thoughts.. :roll:

Providing a critique of style when there are substantial points made with references is asinine.


_________________
* here for the nachos.