Usted necesita una cuenta a fin de usar esta opción.
Anyone Here Use Digg?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 12:34pm |
 Coolness: 339725 | Originally Posted By CONNER_BW
Are you totally insane? Click this link: [ en.wikipedia.org ] The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. I think it's you who's not reading the reports, dude. At what point did "very likely" and "90% or greater probability" become a certainty? Why not actually read the quotes in the link your provided.. Not a single credible source has said with any amount of conclusive certainty that it is in fact a man made phenomena. The only people who do are non scientific people like cnn reporters and hippies. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» ufot a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 12:36pm |
 Coolness: 93160 | he's just being a devils douche-advocate... anyone should be able to see that, he's not a total mind-tard, I think he's intelligent enough to grasp the current science backing global warming being related to humans, I think he's just trying to argue the opposite to insite challenge and agressiveness...
Ufot-douches |
| I'm feeling we are dying right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Teblchple7 a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 12:39pm |
 Coolness: 44360 | Wasn't Ernst Zündel in the news recently? I mean, think about it, the link between Al Gore's blatent hypocracy and the hollocaust is a lie is undeniable! Right guys? A follows B! Stop watching CNN! Sing it with me!
/sarcasm |
| I'm feeling belligerent right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:16pm |
 Coolness: 92325 | Originally Posted By DJNEOFORM
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY CONNER_BW ARE YOU TOTALLY INSANE? CLICK THIS LINK: [ EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG ] THE ONLY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION THAT REJECTS THE FINDING OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON RECENT CLIMATE IS THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS. I THINK IT'S YOU WHO'S NOT READING THE REPORTS, DUDE. AT WHAT POINT DID "VERY LIKELY" AND "90% OR GREATER PROBABILITY" BECOME A CERTAINTY? WHY NOT ACTUALLY READ THE QUOTES IN THE LINK YOUR PROVIDED.. NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE HAS SAID WITH ANY AMOUNT OF CONCLUSIVE CERTAINTY THAT IT IS IN FACT A MAN MADE PHENOMENA. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DO ARE NON SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE LIKE CNN REPORTERS AND HIPPIES. you can't read. If you had read the link I sent you you would know that that claim(90%-very likely) was made by IPCC and oyu would also know what they said about it apart from the numbers(they being the scientists that every reputable journalist out there bases their numbers on) and about their history of spot-on accuracy. Funny thing that propaganda can turn out to be so damn accurate? what a conincedence. ooh and let's see.. let's see excerpt from Basdini's article.. Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius [1]. Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC place this value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 2 and 4.5 degrees, although values greater than 4.5°C cannot be formally excluded. What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted by some pundits to take about a century.: wow what a coincidence. They must have been using the same fake science. Originally Posted By DJneoform Why not actually read the quotes in the link your provided.. Not a single credible source has said with any amount of conclusive certainty that it is in fact a man made phenomena. The only people who do are non scientific people like cnn reporters and hippies.
gee, now let's see what these 'hippies and cnn reporters' at IPCC had to say in the article I linked you that you didn't read. "We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said: "It is extremely encouraging in that the science has moved on from what was possible in the Third Assessment Report. "If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are," he told delegates in Paris. Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), said the findings marked a historical landmark in the debate about whether humans were affecting the state of the atmosphere. "It is an unequivocal series of evidence [showing that] fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet." Yeah, they are so not convinced at all. and now for a look at how much propanganda they've subjected us to in the past: At variance But a study published on the eve of the IPCC report suggested that the international body's previous reports may have actually been too conservative. Writing in the journal Science, an international group of scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001. The paper compared the 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change report with what has actually happened. The models had forecasted a temperature rise between about 0.15C-0.35C (0.27-0.63F) over this period. The actual rise of 0.33C (0.59F) was very close to the top of the IPCC's range. A more dramatic picture emerged from the sea level comparison. The actual average level, measured by tide gauges and satellites, had risen faster than the intergovernmental panel of scientists predicted it would. Mise À Jour » moondancer a écrit sur Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:19pm they underexaggerate quite a bit for cnn reporters don't they. |
| I'm feeling hungava right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:27pm |
 Coolness: 83935 | i'm a pretty simple person personaly...
i tend not to believe things i can't see with my eyes too... but i do know water is s'possed to be transparent... as is it's vapour... and when i can see that our water as well as its vapour is not transparent anymore... i can't help but to think there is a problem somewhere??? |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:30pm |
| Coolness: 339725 | Let's test sophia's scientific credentials.
Sophia.. what's 1 divided by 0? Is it 1? or infinity? |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:32pm |
 Coolness: 685650 | AnYOnE CaN RiTe WhaT ThEy WaNt iN TeH WiKi ItS Not AcCurAtE!!1! |
| I'm feeling like a bald psycho right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:33pm |
| Coolness: 339725 | [ en.wikipedia.org ] |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:39pm |
| Coolness: 83935 | its 1 you fuckin asshats!!!
dividing it by zero means your not dividing it by anything at all!!! any scientist who claims otherwise is a fag!!! plain and simple!! |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 1:46pm |
| Coolness: 339725 | exactly. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 2:37pm |
| Coolness: 92325 | I'm sorry for not seeing the logic in dividing a number by something that doesn't exist. Any given calculation that I do with the assumption of 1/0=1 comes out right, any given calculation I do with the assumption that 1/0=infinity will come out false. You can't divide something by nothing in my mind, in some other peoples minds you can but my way works and theirs doesn't.. not to say it's wrong, it just doesn't work and it's based on the idea that trying to divide a number by nothing was a good one in the first place. I'm entitled to my viewpoint and it doesn't quite disagree with anyone else's. In my mind the fact it equals infinity just goes to show it can't be done. |
| I'm feeling hungava right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 2:42pm |
| Coolness: 83935 | Originally Posted By MOONDANCER
You can't divide something by nothing exactly!!! so you don't... and thats why it equals one. DUH!!! |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 2:53pm |
| Coolness: 685650 | Open up your calculator software.
type 100 divide 0 "Cannot divide by zero" |
| I'm feeling like a bald psycho right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 2:55pm |
| Coolness: 339725 | Originally Posted By MOONDANCER
I'm sorry for not seeing the logic in dividing a number by something that doesn't exist. Any given calculation that I do with the assumption of 1/0=1 comes out right, any given calculation I do with the assumption that 1/0=infinity will come out false. You can't divide something by nothing in my mind, in some other peoples minds you can but my way works and theirs doesn't.. not to say it's wrong, it just doesn't work and it's based on the idea that trying to divide a number by nothing was a good one in the first place. I'm entitled to my viewpoint and it doesn't quite disagree with anyone else's. In my mind the fact it equals infinity just goes to show it can't be done. Hahahahahaha.. There's no viewpoints or opinions with math. You are wrong and that is all. anything divided by 0 is undefined/infinity. As an example for you to better understand this *fact* take a look at these divisions: 1/1 = 1 1/0.1 = 10 1/0.01 = 100 1/0.0000000000001 = 10000000000000 1/0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.1 = 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 you could keep going on until you get infinitesimally small divisor. feel free to graph (1/x = y) and you'll see that the closer x gets to 0 the larger y gets, which eventually gets to infinity. There is no second guessing this. It's a proven fact that anything divided by 0 is undefined/inifinity Mise À Jour » neoform a écrit sur Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 2:57pm woops, made a typo on the last example:
1/0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Deadfunk a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 3:55pm |
 Coolness: 153065 | murdock_rock, im like you, i dont believe air exists, i cant see it! =P |
| I'm feeling angelkoreish x 10000 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 3:58pm |
| Coolness: 83935 | word up yo!!
i feel the same way about your sense of humour.... |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Wizdumb a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 3:59pm |
 Coolness: 122370 | i'm lactating |
| I'm feeling booze and movies right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 4:00pm |
| Coolness: 685650 | I'll get my umbrella |
| I'm feeling like a bald psycho right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» MURDOCK_ROCK a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 4:01pm |
| Coolness: 83935 | just keep it away from my s.u.v. baldy... |
| I'm feeling warm unicorn jizz right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey a répondu le Thu 1 Mar, 2007 @ 4:33pm |
 Coolness: 102825 | hehe... a thread on Global Climate Warming. I can't believe i almost miss this.
Nick said it best. Anyhow.. Suggested reading on the Environment and Global Climate Change... -->The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery ( a really good book, well research and well written )( if you want to learn, then this book is a good start ) -->Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning by George Monbiot ( hard read, full of research, and the solutions for cutting Co2 emissions by 90%...) -->Worldchanging : A User's Guide for the 21st Century by Alex Steffen (easy read but large volume, details how to live more "environmentally conscious" ) -->The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate in Crisis and the Fate of Humanity by James Lovelock ( reading it now. James Lovelock came up with Gaia Theory ) --------------- |
Anyone Here Use Digg?
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |
