what does dan brown think?

6/21/2006 2:03:46 PM

Fuck this, nobody's ever credible enough for you people.

Let me know when any of you has an opinion besides "YOU CAN'T TRUST _______!!!"


[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2006 4:17:26 PM

you can trust dan brown.

6/21/2006 4:24:45 PM

wow all the idiots in this thread give me a headache

6/21/2006 4:27:05 PM

that idiot who's sensationalizing his fictional movie gives me a headache cause he's so boring

6/21/2006 4:39:37 PM

Quote :

"even if you dont read his book, you can look at the information he references and the countless speeches and interviews he has done on the subject. youve just shot your credibility to shit if you dont think crichton has a well researched and legitimate position on the issue."

thank you, thats exactly what I was shooting for!

Quote :

"what does dan brown think"

Does Dan Brown have a million footnotes to real scientific publications in his book(s)? B/c I didn't see them when I read them...

6/21/2006 7:08:37 PM

Quote :

"youve just shot your credibility to shit if you dont think crichton has a well researched and legitimate position on the issue"

hey look we can all play this game!

until you start spouting some references of michael crichton, it's nothing but talk.

6/21/2006 7:31:47 PM

open the book you stupid fuck

it will help you

Quote :

"Does Dan Brown have a million footnotes to real scientific publications in his book(s)? B/c I didn't see them when I read them..."

nor did he spend 2+ years researching the topic. but sober does the thing where he thinks he has a clever point but doesnt have anything quite a lot.

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 7:36 PM. Reason : *]

6/21/2006 7:34:55 PM

Quote :

"open the book you stupid fuck"

calm down. and no.


and here i thought curbing pollution was a good thing. what an idiot i am.

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 7:40 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/21/2006 7:39:42 PM

^if you stepped back for a moment you'd realize that the individuals that you are arguing with right now also think that pollution should be reduced. But that is not what anyone is arguing about.

6/21/2006 7:46:41 PM

^^ i agree with you, we need to be responsible with our polution

Global warming alarmists are the people i cant stand

im all about some ethanol or hydrogen alternate fuel options too. Ethanol is just so damn simple and clean it just makes sense.

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 7:53 PM. Reason : i didnt mean read the book, i meant to find his sources.]

6/21/2006 7:52:52 PM

I'm Michael Crichton, lol.

Global warming = eugenics.

6/21/2006 8:12:40 PM

^^Nice... I'm glad someone knows something about ethanol and agrees instead of outright bashing it because it's pansy liberal lies... ... but seriously its easy to get excited over this subject all im saying is why cant we do the things that are in our power and not that difficult to curb pollution... i think global warming is in large part due to us humans... but if not we're atleast contributing to it right?... i mean you cant dump CO2 into the atmostphere and not contribute to the global temp...? So lets quit argueing and all agree that we should curb pollution...

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 8:16 PM. Reason : arrows...]

6/21/2006 8:15:21 PM

nobody is saying ethanol fuel is bad

but everybody realizes its extremely impractical to go and convert your own car until their are governmental mandates that require more ethanol fueling stations, at minimum

6/21/2006 8:17:25 PM

Maybe... but you know when we'll get government mandates like that??? Never unless we get proactive in government... And whens a better time than now to right your congress man and tell him you would like to vote for a canidate that pushes for ethanol?

6/21/2006 8:22:45 PM

lol... and yes before you ask i allready did that

6/21/2006 8:23:33 PM

congressmen dont care about you unless you give them a bunch of money

thats true if you're talking about democrats or republicans

money talks

6/21/2006 8:27:00 PM

Thats why the republicans in congress are sitting on there hands with that new immigration bill that George W. is trying to pass right...? your full of it dude...

6/21/2006 8:28:32 PM

so you're denying that congressmen dont cater to their biggest donors

Quote :

"congressmen dont care about you unless you give them a bunch of money thats true if you're talking about democrats or republicans money talks "

how can you even deny this? are you living in reality with some of the rest of us or are you in a dream world?

you're full of it dude

6/21/2006 8:30:41 PM

It's not even worth argueing with you... its like argueing against a 5 year old... i was simply saying that

Quote :

"congressmen dont care about you unless you give them a bunch of money thats true if you're talking about democrats or republicans money talks"

Is obviously false given current political issues and actions taken by republicans... While big business plays a big role in the politics of many Politicians its retarded to say that no one cares about their constiuency... <sigh>....

6/21/2006 8:38:53 PM

they care about their constituents that pay them

damn you're living in a fantasy world

and holy shit your spelling is atrocious

Quote :

"its like argueing against a 5 year old with a college degree in science"

you probably believed every single second of michael moore's f911 flick too didnt you

6/21/2006 8:40:50 PM

Jesus Christ, "argueing".

6/21/2006 8:45:54 PM

6/21/2006 8:46:28 PM

Let me see if I understand this... global warming is caused by increased CO2 levels... evil big-buisness-beholden politicians refuse to take steps to reduce emissions... blah blah blah ... we should use ethanol instead if only we were like Brazil...

Consider the following formula,

(C2)(H5)(OH) + 3O2 -------> 2CO2 +3H2O

What does this mean ? Maybe you should stop breathing, that also increases CO2 levels, I mean if you were really dedicated to the cause that is the logical course of action.

(if you like ethanol cause it's cheap I'm not complaining to you, I can respect that)

6/21/2006 9:05:43 PM

6/21/2006 9:08:03 PM

What, the sun has a noticable effect on the temperature of the earth. No kidding. That's terribly unscientific of you to question the established fact of global warming. After all, science is about holding unbendable truths w/o regard to experiment or common sense. Yep.

6/21/2006 9:14:39 PM

but al gore had a close family member die of lung cancer, who happened to smoke cigarettes for a long time...and gore told us that tobacco smoking can cause lung cancer

so because he was correct on that, he must be completely accurate about global warming...its not like he's still pissed about the 2000 election and thinks he can get some people on the Gore in 08 wagon...

6/21/2006 9:18:56 PM

^^^
16 years is a ridiculously small sample to discredit global warming

6/21/2006 9:21:25 PM

how about 400,000 + years that show long term trends



unless mankind emitted extremely high levels of CO2 410,000 years ago, 320,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, and 130,000 years ago

let alone the fact that scientists dont know enough about the carbon transfer between the oceans and atmosphere

6/21/2006 9:24:03 PM

what trend is that?

now you're being ridiculously large

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2006 9:26:26 PM

you see how CO2 levels go up and down over time in the graph? that trend

6/21/2006 9:29:06 PM

do you see you at the very end it's above 340 ppm?

6/21/2006 9:30:52 PM

do you see its been above 340 ppm at multiple times in the last few hundred thousand years WITHOUT humans burning fossil fuels?

6/21/2006 9:32:11 PM

not on that graph

6/21/2006 9:33:01 PM

pardon, my bad

do you see that the temperatures have been higher than current temperatures at multiple times in the past, even though there were lower CO2 levels?

6/21/2006 9:34:45 PM

OK... if you want to know about the fluctuations on that graph i can point you in the right direction so you can Educate yourself... I'll only give a brief over view on it because I am getting ready for bed...

There are two main CO2 resevoirs on earth that absorb and release CO2 in the quantities that apply to our subject... Terrestrial, and Ocean related. These two sinks for carbon do run in a cycle and are the main causes for the peaks and valleys you see above in the red and blue graph. The main point behind my argument here is that from studes scientist have been conducting for the past twenty years it is becoming obvious that neither the biosphere nore the Ocean are releasing any vast ammounts of CO2 into the atmostphere... quite to the contrary the ocean in particular is actually becoming more saturated with CO2 as time progresses... So why are we seeing a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature rise? What natural process can be dumping so much carbon into earths system?

Humans. Now let me post a link to a very credible website and scientific study/conference where you can look all this up for yourself... because its painfully obvious that all those MEA classes you took weren't enough....


http://www.climatescience.gov/default.htm

and here is what wikipedia has to say on the CARBON CYCLE (cheesy and theatric 1940's science video announcer voice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

6/21/2006 9:55:10 PM

and its also a good time to note that looking at my previous graph a couple pages back the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now over 380 ppm and taht no where on that graph of 400,000 years is the CO2 concentration higher ... by ten ppm or so... infact they all reach right around 365 ppm.... but maybe this isnt proof enough... and it might not be... lets just wait 10 years for it to escalate over 420 or so... hell prob higher... then we might say its a problem?

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : puntuation.]

6/21/2006 9:58:10 PM

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

6/21/2006 10:16:31 PM

what... no summary? i was atleast polite enough to give you one... am i really gonna have to read that article taht completely discredits The Us Global Change Climate Project?.. maybe tom....

6/21/2006 10:22:31 PM

strategery

6/21/2006 11:02:33 PM

Quote :

"Let me see if I understand this... global warming is caused by increased CO2 levels... evil big-buisness-beholden politicians refuse to take steps to reduce emissions... blah blah blah ... we should use ethanol instead if only we were like Brazil..."

The earth has a natural cycle of heating up and cooling off. There is no unquestionable proof that its caused by C02 levels...so no, that is not what we're talking about exactly.

So lemme get this straight. You're freaking out b/c carbon levels at present times are around 380ppm whereas according to that graph the previous high is 365ppm. So you think that the entire earth is warming up b/c the C02 amount in the atmosphere has increased roughly 0.000015%?

Yeah I'm pretty worried.

6/21/2006 11:12:56 PM

actually 15/380.... is 4%.... or another way to of putting it is 4% over the highest its ever been in 400,000 years... or yet another way of putting it is 4% in just around 2 year..... and one last way to put it might be:at this rate we'll be at 570 ppm CO2 in our atmosphere in 25 years... if not sooner... i wonder what that 50% increase will mean to global temps.... but anywayz... your point was?

[Edited on June 21, 2006 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2006 11:43:09 PM

Quote :

"even if you dont read his book, you can look at the information he references and the countless speeches and interviews he has done on the subject. youve just shot your credibility to shit if you dont think crichton has a well researched and legitimate position on the issue."

Ahaha, so when Crichton says that "environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists," which study is he quoting again? No bias there. Rly.

Quote :

"unless mankind emitted extremely high levels of CO2 410,000 years ago, 320,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, and 130,000 years ago"

No, major geological events were the causes of those spikes. What major event is causing our most recent, exponential climb?

Quote :

"http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm"

lol.

THIS WALL STREET JOURNAL OP-ED PIECE HOSTED BY AN EXXON SHILL MASQUERADING AS A SCIENTIST PROVES MY ARGUMENT!1

( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience )

Quote :

"There is no unquestionable proof that its caused by C02 levels"

And this appears to be where t3h right is on the issue now. gg guys. Just like with evolution, it's a game of "HAR HAR GUYZ, YOUR SCIENCE CAN'T PROVE THIS 100%."



[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 3:10 AM. Reason : .]

6/22/2006 3:03:53 AM

its nothing like evolution you incompetent fool

Quote :

"Ahaha, so when Crichton says that "environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists," which study is he quoting again? No bias there. Rly."

when did i said he wasnt biased or have an opinion? who the fuck are you arguing against? It must be some little voice in your goddamn head.

youre obviously ridiculously ignorant of this topic so this is the last post ill be directing towards you.

[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 9:20 AM. Reason : *]

6/22/2006 9:18:41 AM

HUMANS ARE THE WORST LIFE FORMS EVER

WE CAN DESTROY THE EARTH IN A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS EVEN THOUGH THE EARTH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS

THE EARTH HAS NO SELF REGULATION MECHANISMS, WE SHOULD ALL STOP DRIVING CARS

GORE FOR PRESIDENT IN 08

6/22/2006 9:34:08 AM

You are an idiot if you think the world is too big for humans to ruin it... Hell all it'd take is what... a smallish percentage of the Nuclear weps exchanged between China and the US.... or wait... what else could do it... I dont know... dumping huge ammounts of CO2 in the atomosphere?... And secondarily, yes the earth has its own "self regulation mechanisms" as you put it... and yes they've worked in their current cycle for atleast 400,000 year as illustrated by that graph more or less... but you don't think our actions have any effect?

In conclusion.... your an idiot Treetwista... but I don't really have to argue that as a point because you do so much better yourself than i ever could...

6/22/2006 11:00:16 AM

Quote :

"your an idiot"

6/22/2006 11:21:26 AM

Quote :

"when did i said he wasnt biased or have an opinion? who the fuck are you arguing against? It must be some little voice in your goddamn head. youre obviously ridiculously ignorant of this topic so this is the last post ill be directing towards you."

Apparently Lokken has a very special place in his heart for Crichton.

Anyhoo, I was arguing against the person (you) who was implying that Crichton has any credibility on the subject. Tons of research mean nothing when you're researching towards a conclusion you've already come to.

Quote :

"HUMANS ARE THE WORST LIFE FORMS EVER WE CAN DESTROY THE EARTH IN A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS EVEN THOUGH THE EARTH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS THE EARTH HAS NO SELF REGULATION MECHANISMS, WE SHOULD ALL STOP DRIVING CARS GORE FOR PRESIDENT IN 08"

AND NOW THAT I'VE COMPLETELY LOST THIS THREAD, I'M GOING TO MAKE A PATHETIC APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.

Humans are releasing more CO2 than the earth is naturally. Clearly we are capable of screwing it up.





[Edited on June 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : SO TREE, WHAT'S THE CAUSE OF ALL THIS CO2 AGAIN?]

6/22/2006 12:33:18 PM

so boonedocks, what catastophic changes has man caused from the CO2 emissions? how is the world vastly different than it was 100 years ago? (aside from more people, more buildings, etc)?

where is your undeniable proof that there is a problem?

and i havent lost this thread one bit...if you paid attention to anything instead of keeping your head up your liberal ass you would know i have said things such as:

- there is evidence that supports global warming and evidence that refutes it
- there is not enough definite evidence for one side or the other to make any rational conclusion
- i personally am agnostic about global warming...maybe its real maybe its not

its people like you who are so diehard for your side that are the crazy ones...i've taken science classes and written reports on and even done some environmental impact statements with large discussions of global temperature changes...and from all of that, i dont have a definitive opinion on the subject...you take me playing devils advocate as me being some hardheaded conservative...far from the truth...i admit things like global temperatures have been rising and we need alternative fuel sources...but you wont admit things like global warming isnt undoubtedly true and we dont have enough evidence

some of you guys would rather just stick to your guns regardless...you probably think everything bush does is political propaganda but that al gore made this movie with genuine concerns of our environment

6/22/2006 12:47:56 PM

There really is no point in arguing with Treetwista... or winning the special olympics... I quit .

6/22/2006 12:51:50 PM