So that's it for the election.

[Loke]

HBB, we've always gotten along so don't take this the wrong way, but I just wanted to point out that 80% the posts on page 59 were from you with 5 of them being consecutive. Two of them quoted the same post followed by a one sentence reply. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better than that from you in the future.

[Orruar]

It's kinda funny how this thread has covered pretty much every major topic of discussion and Altari has managed to be wrong on every single one.

[Orruar]

It would be pretty awesome if anthropogenic global warming is true. First, it would mean man is powerful enough to effect the climate. This is very good news in a world where a very serious volcanic event or meteor strike can cool the globe for decades. Second, it would likely increase the carrying capacity of earth, as it would open up vast areas of Canada and Russia for agriculture. Warmer periods in Earth's history were characterized by much more abundant life, with plants reaping many benefits from increased CO2 levels. We should hope we could move the Earth back in that direction again.

Any notion that Earth would turn into Venus or otherwise completely uninhabitable are not too serious. The vast difference in solar insolation and atmospheric density makes this highly unlikely. And if the warming began to threaten humanity, we already know many ways to cool the climate that would actually cost less than the pointless carbon taxes being proposed.

[Hasbinlulz]

I'm just asking for some backup on your statement dude. I asked you once and you diverted with a very opinionated and unsubstantiated editorial on your feelings.

I ask you again doc, please explain this position of "mankind doesn't affect the environment" a bit better. Maybe a couple links to useful analysis published in a peer reviewed journal?

Oh wait..

They don't exist??

ERMEHGERD

[Splorf22]

I am not saying that mankind doesn't impact the environment. In fact I think that global warming detracts from real environmental issues like preserving the rainforest and endangered species and such.

You think that my previous post represents my feelings because you are just as religious about global warming as Daldoma is about jesus, and you are demanding the same appeal to authority he is.

The reality is: the earth's atmosphere is a very complicated and chaotic system which is extremely difficult to model with mathematics and computers. We know it changes substantially on its own anyway, so the burden of proof is on the nuts (you) who want to fuck with the lives of millions of people. Anyway, since it appears you like links, how about:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0...e.2007.22.html Go to figure 2 and note the width of the pink bar - its almost 50% of the size of the change! OK, you say, the pink bar is still going up. The reality is that the models are predicting the data on which they were trained (a huge no-no in classification) and they still have this kind of error. In other words: we don't know. Since its in Nature I'm sure you'll accept everything they say without questioning.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf And here we have a discussion about troposphere warming and how the IPCC is lying through its teeth.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not saying that mankind doesn't impact the environment. In fact I think that global warming detracts from real environmental issues like preserving the rainforest and endangered species and such.

You think that my previous post represents my feelings because you are just as religious about global warming as Daldoma is about jesus, and you are demanding the same appeal to authority he is.

The reality is: the earth's atmosphere is a very complicated and chaotic system which is extremely difficult to model with mathematics and computers. We know it changes substantially on its own anyway, so the burden of proof is on the nuts (you) who want to fuck with the lives of millions of people. Anyway, since it appears you like links, how about:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0...e.2007.22.html Go to figure 2 and note the width of the pink bar - its almost 50% of the size of the change! OK, you say, the pink bar is still going up. The reality is that the models are predicting the data on which they were trained (a huge no-no in classification) and they still have this kind of error. In other words: we don't know. Since its in Nature I'm sure you'll accept everything they say without questioning.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf And here we have a discussion about troposphere warming and how the IPCC is lying through its teeth.

Geez, you were quick to throw me under the bus the second the same people started fucking with you. I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars -- especially seeing as how I am less informed than those scholars. Neither my nor Alawen's opinion on the matter is more valuable than the scholarly consensus, so him trying to convince me is utterly worthless. It's also ridiculous to entirely disregard scholarly consensus and make a statement like "there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus" like it's fact.

Anyway, you'll learn soon enough that you're not quite being trolled but the result is the same.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Geez, you were quick to throw me under the bus the second the same people started fucking with you. I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars -- especially seeing as how I am less informed than those scholars. Neither my nor Alawen's opinion on the matter is more valuable than the scholarly consensus, so him trying to convince me is utterly worthless. It's also ridiculous to entirely disregard scholarly consensus and make a statement like "there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus" like it's fact.

Anyway, you'll learn soon enough that you're not quite being trolled but the result is the same.

Holy shit, are you always this butthurt when someone knows more about something than you do? Give it a fucking rest man.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He's about three posts away from "U MAD BRO???????"

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Holy shit, are you always this butthurt

At least you've got all your bases covered.

[Alawen]

I have way too much to do to get into this one. Plus, I can't even say things like North Atlantic Oscillation without a PhD in meteorology.

[Lucky]

global warming doesnt exist, just left-wing retardism since liberalism is a mental disorder.

you cant take these people seriously. they want to overtax an already suffocating economy to give to people who don't deserve it all while the country is already bankrupt.