^

i think you might want to re-read what i've written in this thread since its obvious you havent gotten a good understanding of it yet

hell, i was even content with calling gravity a law

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 3:18:00 PM

I actually don't really read your posts anymore. I'm going on past discussions.

Anyway, I was talking to hooksaw, not you.

1/16/2007 3:26:43 PM

Quote :

"The scientific consensus on both of those issues, especially evolution, is that they are both occuring, so it doesn't fucking matter what a bunch of ignorant ass-backwards kooks believe."

Fucking hell, IcedAlexV. You are a fucking moron and that needed to be said.

Global Warming

Definition 1: The observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future. (Wikipedia Definition)

Definition 2: The observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades as a result of mankind through the influence of pollution. (Theory)

The first definition is the correct definition. The planet is getting hotter for some reason. That is what Global Warming means. So, according to your quote, that would be correct. There is a consensus that the world is getting hotter.

The second definition is a theory. The problem with idiots like you is that you interchange the two definitions as if they were the same thing. Saying that Global Warming is occuring is NOT the same as saying that human influence is making the world hotter, you fucking dumbass.

Global Warming as influenced by mankind holds much less weight than evolution. In fact, there is more evidence that other factors play a significantly larger role than man does. Does man have SOME effect? Probably. Is it a LARGE effect? No one knows. I can pretty much sum up the majority of the "Global Warming as a result of man" arguement. . .

"The world is getting hotter, and man is producing more waste. They must be related."

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2007 3:37:00 PM

^ And I would simply add the following (you may not agree, though): Even if we all accept--beyond any doubt--that global warming is happening, there is probably little that humankind can actually do about it. As George Carlin said, and I'm paraphrasing, Mother Earth could shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

1/16/2007 3:48:22 PM

Quote :

"The problem with idiots like you is that you interchange the two definitions as if they were the same thing"

that pretty much sums it up

1/16/2007 3:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Even if we all accept--beyond any doubt--that global warming is happening, there is probably little that humankind can actually do about it."

you claim that people are erroneous saying that there is certainty behind our impact on climate. it's equally erroneous to claim that there is nothing we can do about it. there is plenty of research into what we have done and what we can do about it.

1/16/2007 4:22:17 PM

Orly? There is evidence that there are big things that humans can do that will affect the temperature on our planet on a global scale? We better send you right to the UN with this ground breaking discovery.

IF pollution is the direct cause of the majority of Global Warming, sure, there is something we can do about that. If, on the otherhand, the process is a result of a constant trend of warming and cooling, there is little we can do. You fall into Definition 2 my friend.

1/16/2007 4:28:36 PM

its just as erroneous to claim we can do something about it as it is to claim we cant do anything about it, considering we dont know the impact we are having

you could disagree and say "if we burn less fossil fuels, we would essentially decrease our contributions" which is true...however theres no evidence that our reducing emissions would have any impact in counterbalancing the earth's own natural changes

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : ^yeah...same thing, different wording]

1/16/2007 4:28:53 PM

Isn't this another great reason to do away with Government run schools? Then, the government couldn't ban stuff from the schools, it would be between the school administrators and parents.

1/16/2007 4:50:46 PM

Quote :

"but it doesnt defeat the whole purpose...climatology isnt "an exact science"...you can teach a kid that 9 x 9 = 81, because that is a fact...you can prove it with axioms and postulates...math is definite "

In a democratic society like hours the purpose of universal primary education is to prepare people to make well thought out choices when voting. (Well, at least it's one of the main purposes if not THE main purpose). This means teaching school children to think critically. So the purpose of science education isn't so much to teach kids facts (e.g. the chemical formula for water is H20) as it is to teach them the scientific way of thinking, i.e. learn the facts, analize the facts that you learned, and form an objective conclusion based on the facts. The whole point I am trying to make is that what is or isn't in the Bible has absolutely no place in a science classroom because Bible thumpers typically read the Bible, believe what it says on blind faith, and pick and choose which facts they believe based on whether or not those facts fit in with their faith in the Bible. This way of thinking is the exact opposite of what science education is meant to teach, so introducing it into a science classroom defeats the purpose of teaching science.

1/16/2007 7:21:19 PM

I especially enjoyed the indignant southerners in this thread
defending the home state

1/16/2007 7:45:44 PM

The nature of scientific knowledge is predicated on the capacity of a given "scientific" statement to be empirically disproven. Whether or not your faith agrees with global warming or evolution has no bearing in a science classroom because articles of faith cannot be thus disproven. If you take issue with this matter, there are plenty of parochial schools available to you and your little proselytizers, and I suggest you send them there posthaste.

Thank you.

1/16/2007 9:47:40 PM

then you'd have a bunch of lawsuits for infringing on 1st amendment religious rights

1/16/2007 9:53:13 PM

^^^ Perhaps you don't understand pride in one's heritage.

1/17/2007 4:21:50 AM

^ reading the original post,

Quote :

"complaints from a fundamentalist family"

if that's what my "heritage" is as an NC native (hell, i thought i was just a whitey), then No, I don't understand pride in one's heritage. If your heritage is fundamentalism, then it's too bad you were offended - he did you a favor by leaving. Wouldn't you rather someone intolerant of your views move across the country from you, or would you rather have that person around having a voice in your local government?

I see no reason to be upset about his original comment, other than it hurts your ego that there is someone out there that doesn't think NC or fundamentalism (take your pick) is ideal. Don't worry, it's just a flesh wound.

1/17/2007 11:45:53 AM

I especially enjoyed the supposed environmentalists that have no concept of the scientific process, but instead just regurgitate whatever propaganda they hear on television

ps: most people who "dont think NC is ideal" move away...you dont have to be rich to move to another state

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

1/17/2007 11:52:13 AM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Don't come back, fuckface."

aw, Bridget, i thought you was my girl.

Quote :

"moop: I see no reason to be upset about his original comment, other than it hurts your ego that there is someone out there that doesn't think NC ... is ideal"

at least someone gets it.

FWIW, i gots kinfolk in rural NC, ancestors that fought in NC regiments in the Civil War and the American Revolution.

but when someone says "backwoods born-again bible-thumpin retards" you think of NC long before you think of Seattle. So like imagine my surprise when i moved out here to (what i thought was) the Liberal Mecca of the US (next to San Fran, anyhow), and I find out this place is full of backwoods born-again bible-thumpin retards, too.

i mean, damn. you know.

what's worse, is Seattle is actually the headquarters of The Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/), the leading intellectual think-tank and public policy advocate for promoting the teaching of of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution in public school science curriculum.

So, when the anti-science crowd comes around your NC town trying to push the Bible in your schools through the backdoor, just remember they probably get a lot of their curriculae and legal strategies from Seattle. to me, thats just too ironic.

anyhow, the original point was not really to bash NC. Just a tangential cheap shot I can never resist passing up.

The point is... Al Gore is not a scientist, but he's a public policy expert, and he's made a good effort to understand the mainstream scientific evidence supported by thousands and thousands of researchers across the globe. The value of the video is that he's a very effective presenter and can distill the core issues in a manner that is accessible to the layman. any high schooler or fairly bright middle schooler can understand his presentation and use it as a basis for further exploration.

but then you get some fundamentalist moonbat who cant figure out birth control who think because the bible doesnt describe it, it must not be true. well, the bible says PI=3 and rabbits chew their cud, and the earth stopped rotating a few thousand years ago so some cat named Joshua could complete an extended battle in sunlight.

but if you want to teach your kids that bullshit, thats what home schooling is for.

whats also really funny is that you fucknuts who claim Gore's video is full of falsehoods, never come off with any examples.





[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ]

1/19/2007 12:58:51 AM

Quote :

" I stopped reading the article when it called "An Inconvenient Truth" a "documentary"...but then I finished it "

You're acting as if a true documentary has already been made. They don't exist. Every documentary has bias in it.

1/19/2007 7:04:33 AM

Quote :

"The point is... Al Gore is not a scientist, but he's a public policy expert, and he's made a good effort to understand the mainstream scientific evidence supported by thousands and thousands of researchers across the globe. The value of the video is that he's a very effective presenter and can distill the core issues in a manner that is accessible to the layman. any high schooler or fairly bright middle schooler can understand his presentation and use it as a basis for further exploration."

A decent point, but I'd like to make one argument against it. When you pick an arbiter, you usually don't pick one that already made up his/her mind. Gore obviously thinks humans are the direct and major cause of the warming trend we have seen. In fact, he asserts it in the movie as truth. Thus, instead of high schoolers and middle schoolers using it as a base for exploration, they will take it at face value and assume it to be the truth. Some of the facts in Gore's movie are blatant misrepresentations (namely, much of his "all ice is melted!!!" mumbo jumbo) of the truth. Thus, putting it in a class room where students are left to assume they aren't being lied to, the kids are misled.

1/19/2007 8:51:06 AM

^^you're acting as if I didn't finish the article anyway

1/19/2007 11:48:25 AM

Above all else remember this: SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW JACKSHIT ABOUT SCIENCE

1/19/2007 11:52:58 AM

how many people in this thread arguing about this have actually seen the movie?

1/19/2007 11:58:55 AM

i've seen over half of it

1/19/2007 1:02:17 PM

ive seen it, the whole thing.

my only problem with it was that there were parts of it that were politically oriented, and i don't think the science should be politicized. those parts did not have to do with the science, but it was like Gore was making a confessional of sorts in an attempt to redeem himself, personally, for his failure in 2000. it doesnt affect the science, but i can see where it will put some people off.

but i guess it really doesnt matter, because those people are just going to find a way to continue denying the science anyhow.

in any event, the science is accurate, in context, and is not being misrepresented. if you're going to say that it is, i'll be waiting for you to post credible citations.

1/19/2007 2:59:32 PM

I haven't seen it but I did watch him on Opera the other day and he did a mini presentation. I was impressed with it...I am definitly going to see it and read the book.

1/19/2007 3:00:51 PM

the science that is accurate are the concrete/quantitative things, like the temperatures and gas concentrations measured

what is not accurate, because it cannot be proven or quantified, is how much humans have impacted these changes...THAT is what people are skeptical of, and THAT is what is constantly misinterpreted as scientific consensus...the consensus in the scientific community is that temperatures have risen...NOT what has caused these temperature changes or how much...thats why its often like talking to a brick wall when discussing global climate change with people who are falsely convinced that there is a consensus that humans are responsible for these changes and that these changes will definitely continue to occur

1/19/2007 3:22:13 PM

So it's kind of like saying someone murdered Ms. Mother Nature. There were only three people at scene when it happened. Dr. Solar System, Mr. Mankind, and Niño Junior. Well, since we can't prove who did it then they are all free to go. End of story.

Great work there sherlock!

1/19/2007 3:45:07 PM

if only science were based on bad goofy analogies, you might have an inkling of a point

Your first mistake was saying "someone murdered Ms. Mother Nature."

The temperature is a couple degrees hotter and you equivocate that with the death of the planet?

1/19/2007 3:47:33 PM

^i think what he is trying to say is...just because you can't prove exactly who or what is responsible doesn't mean it didn't happen or is going to happen.

Its proven that excessive CarbonDioxide is bad so thats one thing we can cut down on. That doesn't mean don't drive your car or whatever, or ride the bus. It just means the people with the power to regulate...like governments...should have stricter regulations on product developments that cause these excess gasses. It is dumb to think we should keep doing what we're doing until its proven that we are destroying the planet and wait until its too late to do anything about it....it doesn't hurt to be cautious.

1/19/2007 4:04:12 PM

there is consensus that we are causing a shitload of pollution and that is bad. regardless of climate change questions the fact that the air in big cities across the world is hard to see through all the shit in it is bad for us. not bad for our grandkids or the planet. You and me.

1/19/2007 4:04:58 PM

Quote :

"just because you can't prove exactly who or what is responsible doesn't mean it didn't happen or is going to happen"

and by the EXACT same rationale, it doesnt mean it has happened or will happen

1/19/2007 4:11:49 PM

so why not err on the side of caution?

i mean i think a science teacher who teaches any science as absolute fact to anyone above grade school has some other issues they should deal with.

1/19/2007 4:14:24 PM

you know, you could be right...however...

doing nothing has a higher risk of catastrophy (sp?) then being informed and trying to do something to avoid it.

it doesn't hurt us to cut down on pullution and other wasteful/harmful things to the enviorment.

1/19/2007 4:15:05 PM

Quote :

"so why not err on the side of caution?"

Quote :

"it doesn't hurt us to cut down on pullution and other wasteful/harmful things to the enviorment."

i agree with both of those...theyre fine to do...its smart but its not science...its being responsible

going with caution and making an effort to pollute less is great...its also completely different from trying to convince people that all scientists agree that humans are causing destruction to the planet

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2007 4:17:06 PM

i mean people need a reason or cause as to why we should cut down. If we just say "cut down on pollution" you think that will work? theory is theory...you cannot prove it or disprove it.

1/19/2007 4:18:37 PM

Quote :

"theory is theory...you cannot prove it or disprove it."

1/19/2007 4:20:31 PM

Quote :

"so why not err on the side of caution?"

I agree with erring on the side of caution, but I don't want to make untrue claims based on speculation

However were you of the opinion of erring on the side of caution when the issue was monitoring terrorist communications and not global warming? ie

"ok, global warming may or may not be caused by humans...but even still, we should be cautious and do what we can to clean up the planet, just to be on the safe side"

"ok, terrorism maybe very isolated or maybe widespread...but even still, we should be cautious and do what we can to keep track of them, just to be on the safe side"

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2007 4:23:15 PM

it's not the same issue. one has to do with developing technology, the other potentially invading privacy.

1/19/2007 4:24:31 PM

theyre definitely separate issues

but while monitoring communications could potentially invade your privacy, limiting what you can drive or if you can smoke, etc, could potentially impede your freedoms

in that sense, they are similar...potentially give up privacy/freedoms in an effort to make the world safer

yet people often have drastically different views on each topic

[Edited on January 19, 2007 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2007 4:26:04 PM

Quote :

""Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "

He'd be less tired and cranky from raising seven kids if someone had taught him about condoms when he was in school...

1/19/2007 4:31:51 PM

he probably has 7 kids because he got all the chicks since his name was Frosty

1/19/2007 4:33:24 PM

i like that you were shocked he has 7 kids but made no comment on the fact that he thinks the earth is 14000 years old.

1/19/2007 4:43:11 PM

The fact that he thinks the Earth is 14000 years old really has nothing to do with his belief that condoms don't belong in schools. His 7 kids are likely a direct result of it.

1/19/2007 4:58:05 PM

they arent related at all? really? ill bet there is a slight connection.

1/19/2007 5:06:47 PM

i just read something interesting.

apparently Mr. Frosty is a prominent member of the local Mormon Temple -- and over half the school board goes to the same church.

whoda thunk it.

you know thats one thing i have to give NC credit for. You guys do a good job of keeping the lid on the Mormons. The fuckers are running rampant out West.

1/20/2007 2:38:12 AM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: going with caution and making an effort to pollute less is great...its also completely different from trying to convince people that all scientists agree that humans are causing destruction to the planet "

nice strawman.

how about you fill in the blanks for me, mmkay?

All _______________ do _______________ .

go ahead ... put anything you want in there. And then, you can feel real smart when you knock it down because, well, gee Wally, everyone knows that

not ALL _________________ do ________________ .

of course there are some scientists who say that humans arent causing global warming. Hell, some scientists say the globe isnt really even warming at all. Some scientists say we never landed on the moon, and some scientists say the federal government is hiding frozen dead alien corpses and their spacecraft in a hangar in New Mexico. Some scientists say that the globe is 14,000 years old, and that carbon isotopes used to decay with a half-life shorter by orders of magnitude when Jesus was running around Galilee. There are some scientists who say that psychiatry is the sum of all evil and dance on couches at Tom Cruise's mansion.

So... whats your point? that some scientists are delusional idiots? I mean, really, you could go get a phD in circle jerking from Oral Roberts University, and say whatever the fuck you want, right?

1/20/2007 2:57:04 AM

wow, that mature retort really shows that you know what you're talking about

1/20/2007 3:43:22 AM

are you completely and totally incapable?

ok. let's this try again. This time i'll spell it out for you since, apparently, parallel abstractions only serve to confuse you:

650,000 years of data show immediate and direct correleation between increased atmospheric carbon and increased global temperatures. in just the past century we are spiking the carbon levels in our atmosphere far and above beyond the normal cyclic variations ever shown. As a result, our average global temperature is also spiking above temperatures ever demonstrated during that 650,000 year period. and the rates are increasing exponentially.

what part of this don't you get? what are you still missing?

a 2004 study showed that of all 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published in the past 10 years, every article either confirmed that human activity was the cause of global warming, or the article did not specify the root cause. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

I'm thinking you must have an agenda. like maybe you're a major stockholder in some coal-fired generator, or something. Because it's hard to believe the alternative, that you are just willfully stupid.





[Edited on January 20, 2007 at 4:42 AM. Reason : ]

1/20/2007 4:31:32 AM

Denial: not just a river.

1/20/2007 7:25:55 AM

does that mean that Gores movie belongs in schools?

1/20/2007 7:43:48 AM