View Full Version : Global warming debunked?
Riptide
07-15-03, 08:50 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/103443.shtml
The Baron
07-15-03, 08:58 AM
That's also the website that calls the one person who voted against the Patriot Act "for the terrorists."
It ALSO has "The Bible Reveals The Seven Secrets To Success" ad on the side.
I trust it about as much as I trust my hat. And I don't have a hat.
But global warming? Bah, we're a bunch of monkeys with sticks. Not like we could affect anything in any real way.
Global warming is such a load of crap.
I think it is a grand conspiracy to get Psy to be a mod at nvnews. Ok you had your fun Psy now call off the joke.:p
Originally posted by The Baron
That's also the website that calls the one person who voted against the Patriot Act "for the terrorists."
It ALSO has "The Bible Reveals The Seven Secrets To Success" ad on the side.
I trust it about as much as I trust my hat. And I don't have a hat.
But global warming? Bah, we're a bunch of monkeys with sticks. Not like we could affect anything in any real way.
:rofl
he said sticks :D
Originally posted by The Baron
That's also the website that calls the one person who voted against the Patriot Act "for the terrorists."
It ALSO has "The Bible Reveals The Seven Secrets To Success" ad on the side.
I trust it about as much as I trust my hat. And I don't have a hat.
But global warming? Bah, we're a bunch of monkeys with sticks. Not like we could affect anything in any real way.
Well what did you expect? New Max is a well know conservative web site.
vampireuk
07-15-03, 12:08 PM
Quick attack the source attack the source!!:D
1stFlight
07-15-03, 12:52 PM
Yeah, I love people who ignorantly assume that mankind has no affect on his environment. It's not like we produce anything the Earth wouldn't ordinarily produce...
I can't wait to see some nuclear weapons start growing from trees, or some *florocarbons, or large doses of Carbon Monoxide....
Next time you want some serious info, try something from ScientificAmerican or Popular Science even, something reputable.
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Yeah, I love people who ignorantly assume that mankind has no affect on his environment. It's not like we produce anything the Earth wouldn't ordinarily produce...
I can't wait to see some nuclear weapons start growing from trees, or some *florocarbons, or large doses of Carbon Monoxide....
Next time you want some serious info, try something from ScientificAmerican or Popular Science even, something reputable.
Yeah they also said Ozone could not regenerate. :rolleyes: Oh surprise surprise says Gomer Pile, it actually does regenerate. :D It is a theory not a fact. Oh but wait the left teaches is as fact just like evolution. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by UDawg71
Yeah they also said Ozone could not regenerate. :rolleyes: Oh surprise surprise says Gomer Pile, it actually does regenerate. :D It is a theory not a fact. Oh but wait the left teaches is as fact just like evolution. :rolleyes:
evolution is not a fact ?
:D
:beer:
Originally posted by Sazar
evolution is not a fact ?
:D
:beer:
Are you sarcastically saying it is? ;)
fastguy94416
07-15-03, 01:18 PM
Evoloution is NOT a fact. No way could we have happend by chance
vampireuk
07-15-03, 01:28 PM
Sure we could have, it makes more sense to me than creationalism.:p
omg... and I thought you guys were saying it as a joke...
ffs... lol.. I guess science is all BS and we should all just give up technology... evolution does not exist
:rolleyes:
sry darwin... all your work is bs... :D
Originally posted by Sazar
omg... and I thought you guys were saying it as a joke...
ffs... lol.. I guess science is all BS and we should all just give up technology... evolution does not exist
:rolleyes:
sry darwin... all your work is bs... :D
If it is a fact then why do so many scientist all around the world still debate it? It is still very split on this theory. If you think it is a fact then that's fine but it still remains a theory.
BTW yes Darwin's work was all BS.
1stFlight
07-15-03, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
If it is a fact then why do so many scientist all around the world still debate it? It is still very split on this theory. If you think it is a fact then that's fine but it still remains a theory.
BTW yes Darwin's work was all BS.
That's right and the world is not only the center of the universe but also flat... oh wait... looks like some other works are BS too....
At least the major concerns of evolution are documented and provable.
Originally posted by 1stFlight
That's right and the world is not only the center of the universe but also flat... oh wait... looks like some other works are BS too....
At least the major concerns of evolution are documented and provable.
Oh really then prove it. Show me the actual genetic evidence of evolution from apes to human. I am not talking about exstinct higher primate species but the actual genetic chain and its evolution.
IT IS A THEORY.
Riptide
07-15-03, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by vampireuk
Quick attack the source attack the source!!:D
And so far none of you, including 1stflight, have said anything that discredits the source. So what if it came from newsmax? Read the article. Find something wrong with the statements made by the individual in the article. If you can't do that, then you have nothing at all. That is, except the standard "It comes from there, so who cares..." bologne.
And FYI, evolution is still a theory.
The Baron
07-15-03, 02:36 PM
A. Consider the source. So, one guy says, "It's not true!" There are plenty of other guys that say, "It's true!" This guy hasn't really debunked ANYTHING.
B. Most of you obviously don't understand what "theory" means in regards to science. Atomic theory is not debated, the basics of quantum theory are not debated, the theory of gravity is not controversial (OR IS IT? DUM DUM DUM!). But yet they're all labeled theories. Why is that? Oh, it's because anything that is labeled a theory is accepted as being true. Scientists never call anything a "fact" since it is entirely possible that a central tenet of a theory will be disproved in the future. But, it means that at this time with the evidence available, it is accepted to be true. Therefore, a scientific theory, unlike the definition of a theory you would use in normal everyday conversation, is not a hypothesis.
Evolution, then, is a THEORY. It is ACCEPTED to be TRUE. Microevolution, we know, is true. No debating that. Macroevolution, what you people incorrectly label "evolution," is what you people are debating. But, the scientific community as a whole ACCEPTS macroevolution in some shape or form as being true. Most of the people that are widely hailed as being against macroevolution (Stephen Jay Gould, IIRC) are against the constant subtle change provided for by macroevolution and instead believe that there are larger events that cause sudden changes in the structure of organisms. NOT Creationism, in other words.
Sheesh.
--edit--And, for laughs, the first definition of "theory" from dictionary.com:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
enjoy.
--/edit--
Originally posted by UDawg71
Oh really then prove it. Show me the actual genetic evidence of evolution from apes to human. I am not talking about exstinct higher primate species but the actual genetic chain and its evolution.
IT IS A THEORY.
yes, it is a theory and it's the best we can explain our existance with science. Of course, onr time we believed that the world was flat, and now we know better. Maybe some day science will offer us a better explanation, but until then, I think evolution is the one that makes most sense ;)
vampireuk
07-15-03, 02:43 PM
Riptide I was taking the piss when I said attack the source;)
And yes Evolution is just a theory, just like religion. At least people are studing to prove evolution though:p
Originally posted by The Baron
A. Consider the source. So, one guy says, "It's not true!" There are plenty of other guys that say, "It's true!" This guy hasn't really debunked ANYTHING.
B. Most of you obviously don't understand what "theory" means in regards to science. Atomic theory is not debated, the basics of quantum theory are not debated, the theory of gravity is not controversial (OR IS IT? DUM DUM DUM!). But yet they're all labeled theories. Why is that? Oh, it's because anything that is labeled a theory is accepted as being true. Scientists never call anything a "fact" since it is entirely possible that a central tenet of a theory will be disproved in the future. But, it means that at this time with the evidence available, it is accepted to be true. Therefore, a scientific theory, unlike the definition of a theory you would use in normal everyday conversation, is not a hypothesis.
Evolution, then, is a THEORY. It is ACCEPTED to be TRUE. Microevolution, we know, is true. No debating that. Macroevolution, what you people incorrectly label "evolution," is what you people are debating. But, the scientific community as a whole ACCEPTS macroevolution in some shape or form as being true. Most of the people that are widely hailed as being against macroevolution (Stephen Jay Gould, IIRC) are against the constant subtle change provided for by macroevolution and instead believe that there are larger events that cause sudden changes in the structure of organisms. NOT Creationism, in other words.
Sheesh.
--edit--And, for laughs, the first definition of "theory" from dictionary.com:
enjoy.
--/edit-- Theory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=THEORY) Put up the whole definition. They all help in the definition.
1stFlight
07-15-03, 03:11 PM
It's a theory, one backed with significantly more facts than...
begin - God created man - end
In Evolution we have 99% of the same damn genes.. if nothing else it proves we're related.
That's far firmer than, "we just came to be"
Originally posted by UDawg71
Oh really then prove it. Show me the actual genetic evidence of evolution from apes to human. I am not talking about exstinct higher primate species but the actual genetic chain and its evolution.
IT IS A THEORY.
Riptide
07-15-03, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
A. Consider the source. So, one guy says, "It's not true!" There are plenty of other guys that say, "It's true!" This guy hasn't really debunked ANYTHING.
But there are others that believe it is false as well. You need to attack his ideas, not just blow it off because "there are others that think the opposite".
vampireuk
07-15-03, 03:14 PM
Why bother though? I can simply point to a site that says its real, a lot easier:p
Darth Rancid
07-15-03, 03:14 PM
Well.. to get back on Global Warming and wether we affect the envoriment...
Can we affect the envoriment? Yes.. I guess noone seriously says othervise.
Does the burning of oil and coal cause Global Warming or not?
I'd say anyone who says they KNOW the answer to this question are lying. We don't know. But I find it odd that some people seem to be unable to grasp the idea that releasing huge amounts of carbondioxide into the atmosphere might increase the amount of carbondioxide in the atmosphere... that part seems obvious to me.
But the worst part of all this is that if/when the icecaps do melt and the sea rises and the subways of London and New York get flooded along with lots of coastal real estate, and the envorimentalists shouts "TOLD YOU SO!", the conservatives will go "It would have happened anyhow! The buring of oil had nothing to do with it! IT IS NATURE!"... and we still won't know who was right...
And I agree with The Baron on the evolution stuff....
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.