And the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is... the EU!

Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Least deserving Nobel Peace Prize winner?
2012- The EU 26%  26%  [ 5 ]
2009- Barack Obama 42%  42%  [ 8 ]
2007- Al Gore 11%  11%  [ 2 ]
Other 21%  21%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 19

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

12 Oct 2012, 6:37 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Not sure how this became "GGPViper's thread".


Any thread which disregards scientific evidence will rapidly be owned by yours truly.

Jacoby wrote:
It is a legitimate point that he is making about 'global warming' distracting from other environmental matters. Helping poor Africans doesn't sell hybrid cars or other 'green' products and it doesn't get unlimited government funding to do research on.

And no, they don't care about the 20k that died in Bhopal. They don't care about 50 million people that have died from Malaria since 1972 either.

Saving human life isn't an objective of the modern environmental movement, for a certain segment depopulation is the actual goal.


I don't think you are aware of the implications of global warming... That entire Sahara thing... Do you think the desert will get *smaller* due to global warming?

But who am I kidding... No one cares about Africa...

Depopulation is necessary, by the way. Thermodynamics isn't just for kids.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

12 Oct 2012, 6:45 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Idiot. When you make some *actual* claims about the real world I might bother lifting a little finger to dismiss your arguments...


I have already made them. Back up your claims that global warming is the most important environmental issue. Nobody has died because of rising temperatures yet. Thousands of people died in Ukraine because the USSR didn't bother to secure their nuclear plants.


Quote:
More BS.


Look who's talking. :roll: So far, you've only proven that you're a pseudo-intellectual who can read. That's not a whole lot, is it?

Quote:
One tiny problem, though. Al Gore is right. You are wrong. And yes, 9,000 Americans *are* idiots...


I'm more educated on the matter than both you and Al Gore combined. That's all that matters for now. Al Gore is not backed up by 9,000 Americans with PhDs in science. No idiots have a PhD in science.

Quote:
*Ignores the rants of an insignificant poster who thinks her/himself equal to PNAS*.


I guess you're really significant then. So far, all you have to show for yourself is ad hominem. Maybe you think that snow is more important than third world people.

Quote:
The rest of you post is just rubbish...


You jelly?



Last edited by Kurgan on 12 Oct 2012, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

12 Oct 2012, 6:53 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Any thread which disregards scientific evidence will rapidly be owned by yours truly.


There is no scientific evidence for manmade global warming.

Quote:
I don't think you are aware of the implications of global warming... That entire Sahara thing... Do you think the desert will get *smaller* due to global warming?


This is besides the point, as the temperatures are perfectly capable of rising without human intervention.

Quote:
But who am I kidding... No one cares about Africa...


You clearly do not.

Quote:
Depopulation is necessary, by the way. Thermodynamics isn't just for kids.


That's easy for someone with access to birth control or contraception to say. Many Africans do not have access to this, nor do they get nice pensions from their governments when they grow old.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Oct 2012, 6:59 pm

Kurgan, at this point the evidence is so overwhelming that you have moved beyond skepticism, past denial, and into fantasy.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Oct 2012, 7:05 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Not sure how this became "GGPViper's thread".


Any thread which disregards scientific evidence will rapidly be owned by yours truly.

Jacoby wrote:
It is a legitimate point that he is making about 'global warming' distracting from other environmental matters. Helping poor Africans doesn't sell hybrid cars or other 'green' products and it doesn't get unlimited government funding to do research on.

And no, they don't care about the 20k that died in Bhopal. They don't care about 50 million people that have died from Malaria since 1972 either.

Saving human life isn't an objective of the modern environmental movement, for a certain segment depopulation is the actual goal.


I don't think you are aware of the implications of global warming... That entire Sahara thing... Do you think the desert will get *smaller* due to global warming?

But who am I kidding... No one cares about Africa...

Depopulation is necessary, by the way. Thermodynamics isn't just for kids.


Global warming doesn't cause desertification.

Depopulation is necessary tho? Kind of showing your hand there and proving the point.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

12 Oct 2012, 7:05 pm

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Idiot. When you make some *actual* claims about the real world I might bother lifting a little finger to dismiss your arguments...


I have already made them. Back up your claims that global warming is the most important environmental issue. Nobody has died because of rising temperatures yet. Thousands of people died in Ukraine because the USSR didn't bother to secure their nuclear plants.


*Thousands*? You clearly fail to understand the gravity of the problem.


Kurgan wrote:
Look who's talking. :roll: So far, you've only proven that you're a pseudo-intellectual who can read. That's not a whole lot, is it?


Perhaps your computer fails to present this link to you:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html

You are apparently a pseudo-intellectual who *can't* read.

Kurgan wrote:
I'm more educated on the matter than both you and Al Gore combined. That's all that matters for now. Al Gore is not backed up by 9,000 Americans with PhDs in science. No idiots have a PhD in science.


No, you are not. If you actually possess a PhD in a field relevant to climate change, then someone wasted a lot of money on you...

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
*Ignores the rants of an insignificant poster who thinks her/himself equal to PNAS*.


I guess you're really significant then. So far, all you have to show for yourself is ad hominem. Maybe you think that snow is more important than third world people.


If you cannot appreciate the fact that I countered your claim with a reference to PNAS, then perhaps you should think twice before presenting yourself as "educated".

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
The rest of your post is just rubbish...


You jelly?


*yawn*.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

12 Oct 2012, 7:06 pm

LKL wrote:
Kurgan, at this point the evidence is so overwhelming that you have moved beyond skepticism, past denial, and into fantasy.


The evidence goes as follows:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas; cars make CO2; the number of CO2 is increasing; the temperature is increasing slightly. Therefore, it's manmade.

Many also use the God of gaps fallacy when it comes to global warming. They think that just because everything about the rising temperatures cannot be explained without global warming (allthough the hockey stick graph was explained a while ago), global warming is manmade.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Oct 2012, 7:09 pm

None of the assembled Eurosceptics seems to have come up with an argument against the most obvious fact at issue.

Three times in the last 150 years, France and Germany have gone to war, and the last two times they have brought much of the rest of the world into the conflict with them. And today? War between European powers is, effectively, unthinkable.

Whatever the failings of the EU are--and they are myriad--one cannot deny that the prospect of an intra-European war is remote in the extreme. And that has a great deal to do with the integration of various European powers into the larger political entity.

And the least deserving Peace Laureate must surely be Kissinger--aspirational to be sure, but at least Le Duc Tho had the good sense to refuse the prize, not least because peace had not yet been achieved in Vietnam. A close contender must be Arafat, Peres and Rabin.


_________________
--James


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

12 Oct 2012, 7:11 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Global warming doesn't cause desertification.


My Wiki-Fu says otherwise. Counter-claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

Jacoby wrote:
Depopulation is necessary tho? Kind of showing your hand there and proving the point.


Please elaborate.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

12 Oct 2012, 7:15 pm

GGPViper wrote:
You clearly have no idea of what ad hominem really is, but I do not have the years required nor the desire to indulge you by attempting to explain the concept.

Read this (And I mean *read* it)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html

How can you seriously think that scientists have overlooked the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you live in some sort of cocoon reality where *you* know everything and people who have devoted their entire scientific careers to studying climate change are idiots?

Peer reviewed science > random internet petition.

Oh, and...

BS

Now please stop trolling my thread, troll.


Are you for real or are you trying to make AGW proponents look bad? Yes, man-made global warming is real but it's still far from being the only major pressing issue in the world today.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

12 Oct 2012, 7:18 pm

GGPViper wrote:
*Thousands*? You clearly fail to understand the gravity of the problem.


The manmade part is 3% of the gravity here. 97% of the annual emissions are directly from mother nature herself.

Quote:
Perhaps your computer fails to present this link to you:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html


I have commented on this. PNAS is one scientific journal. There are many others. You argument goes as follows:

Someone said something and that someone has more education than you do. Therefore someone is right and you're wrong. Ad populum, in other words. I'm capable of using Google as well, like you just did. One mouse click will find several scientists "who knows more than you do".

Quote:
You are apparently a pseudo-intellectual who *can't* read.


I read better than you, by the look of it. I debate better as well, as I do not use outdated fallacies believing that it impresses people.

Quote:
No, you are not. If you actually possess a PhD in a field relevant to climate change, then someone wasted a lot of money on you...


I do not have a PhD in a relevant field, but by the sound of it, you do not even have a high school diploma. Al Gore dropped out once from law school and once from theology. He does have a bachelor's degree in political science, though, but this has nothing to do with climate.

Quote:
If you cannot appreciate the fact that I countered your claim with a reference to PNAS, then perhaps you should think twice before presenting yourself as "educated".


You've demonstrated that you can use Google, copy and paste. Congrats!

I can do that as well, look:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

Hey everyone, I'm right! Someone on Google agrees with me! This is my thread now! I, like everyone else, am able to use Google to find professionals who agree with me on something!



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

12 Oct 2012, 8:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:
None of the assembled Eurosceptics seems to have come up with an argument against the most obvious fact at issue.

Three times in the last 150 years, France and Germany have gone to war, and the last two times they have brought much of the rest of the world into the conflict with them. And today? War between European powers is, effectively, unthinkable.

Whatever the failings of the EU are--and they are myriad--one cannot deny that the prospect of an intra-European war is remote in the extreme. And that has a great deal to do with the integration of various European powers into the larger political entity.

And the least deserving Peace Laureate must surely be Kissinger--aspirational to be sure, but at least Le Duc Tho had the good sense to refuse the prize, not least because peace had not yet been achieved in Vietnam. A close contender must be Arafat, Peres and Rabin.


It would seem like NATO and the unified front against Soviet domination kept Europe at peace than their shared market place. Correct me if I'm wrong but the EU as it exists today hasn't even been around that long.

The loss of democracy and self determination will not end well in Europe tho. Europe doesn't seem very peaceful today with the rioting, the rise in extremism, the gaining momentum of secessionist movements. It seems like only a matter of time until there is blood shed.

It's a questionable to say that the EU alone has kept Europe at peace since WWII to say the least but I can say the EU will be responsible for whatever comes out of the crises that are going on with in it's borders now.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

13 Oct 2012, 1:45 am

Kurgan wrote:
The evidence goes as follows:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas; cars make CO2; the number of CO2 is increasing; the temperature is increasing slightly. Therefore, it's manmade.

*BZZZZZZZT*
No, wrong, try again. Maybe do some research first. You might start by reading a little basic Sagan from five decades ago.
Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Hey everyone, I'm right! Someone on Google agrees with me! This is my thread now! I, like everyone else, am able to use Google to find professionals who agree with me on something!

'Cause the WSJ opinion page is an equally valid source regarding science... :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Oct 2012, 11:00 am

The Nobel Peace Prize is bogus. Did you know that Yasser Arrafat once won it?

ruveyn



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

13 Oct 2012, 11:48 am

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
*Thousands*? You clearly fail to understand the gravity of the problem.


The manmade part is 3% of the gravity here. 97% of the annual emissions are directly from mother nature herself.

... but the science demonstrates that global warming is caused by the *man made* part, so your post is as relevant to climate change as phrenology is to medicine.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Perhaps your computer fails to present this link to you:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html


I have commented on this. PNAS is one scientific journal. There are many others. You argument goes as follows:

Someone said something and that someone has more education than you do. Therefore someone is right and you're wrong. Ad populum, in other words. I'm capable of using Google as well, like you just did. One mouse click will find several scientists "who knows more than you do".

There are many scientists who know more than I do about climate change. But it warms my heart that 97-98 percent of them agree with me.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
You are apparently a pseudo-intellectual who *can't* read.


I read better than you, by the look of it. I debate better as well, as I do not use outdated fallacies believing that it impresses people.

More BS. You make Harry G. Frankfurt proud.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
No, you are not. If you actually possess a PhD in a field relevant to climate change, then someone wasted a lot of money on you...


I do not have a PhD in a relevant field, but by the sound of it, you do not even have a high school diploma. Al Gore dropped out once from law school and once from theology. He does have a bachelor's degree in political science, though, but this has nothing to do with climate.

Irrelevant (I have a master's degree with grades equivalent to summa cum laude, by the way.)

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
If you cannot appreciate the fact that I countered your claim with a reference to PNAS, then perhaps you should think twice before presenting yourself as "educated".


You've demonstrated that you can use Google, copy and paste. Congrats!

I can do that as well, look:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

Hey everyone, I'm right! Someone on Google agrees with me! This is my thread now! I, like everyone else, am able to use Google to find professionals who agree with me on something!


I have to stand in AWE (alongside LKL) when facing someone who compares an article from a top tier scientific journal with an opinion piece in a newspaper. You make George Carlin proud, too.

Oh, and look at this.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsro ... -influence

Your capacity for source criticism can be described with the following formula (where 0 is complete stupidity, and 1 being infallibility):

The number 1 divided by Graham's number

Acknowledgement of Excessive Exaggeration of Self-Importance: Now please stop trolling Jacoby's thread, troll.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

13 Oct 2012, 12:51 pm

GGPViper wrote:
... but the science demonstrates that global warming is caused by the *man made* part, so your post is as relevant to climate change as phrenology is to medicine.


No it's not. The CO2 cycle of mother nature is not governed by some invisible hand that automatically adjusts the photosynthesis, the albedo or the greenhouse effect neatly to counteract any natural emissions, while flipping mankind the finger when the CO2 levels increase a tiny bit.

Continental drift (and thus volcanic activity) has increased a lot since the mid 19th century. This is the main reason for the increased CO2. The systems of the earth that regulate the CO2 cannot tell the difference between CO2 from a car and CO2 from a volcano, CO2 from decomposing organic matter or the CO2 living creatures exhale.

Quote:
There are many scientists who know more than I do about climate change. But it warms my heart that 97-98 percent of them agree with me.


Your link only shows 1,200—1,300 scientists, handpicked for their views. It would be just as easy 14 years ago to find an equal number of scientists who believed in the y2K. I just posted a link with more than 30,000 scientist who did not believe that it was manmade.

Quote:
More BS. You make Harry G. Frankfurt proud.


You're proving more and more how little you know.

Quote:
Irrelevant (I have a master's degree with grades equivalent to summa cum laude, by the way.)


Besides the point unless your degree is chemistry or petroleum related. The mandatory subjects related to the environment in a science degree (be that a master's degree or a PhD) are few.

Quote:


Your capacity for source criticism can be described with the following formula (where 0 is complete stupidity, and 1 being infallibility):

The number 1 divided by Graham's number

Acknowledgement of Excessive Exaggeration of Self-Importance: Now please stop trolling Jacoby's thread, troll.


Excellent comment from someone who takes the word of Al Gore over 30,000 scientists.