Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Man Made Global Warming what a joke!

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Man Made Global Warming what a joke!
Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

THIS THREAD IS BOOKMARKED! ;D;D;D

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

Sounds like a doomsday doctor spewing techno-jargon in hopes of scaring us to reduce our carbon footprint.

Actually, it sounds like sarcastic humor.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

amber
Member #6,783
January 2006
avatar

Actually, I think Weatherons were featured in a Star Trek episode once. ;D :P

james_lohr
Member #1,947
February 2002

Frank, I suggest for your own benefit that you stick to prevailing theories in the future rather than those which you would like to believe. Your ability to judge credibility leaves a lot to be desired.

State of Fear was a reasonably entertaining read and it clearly captured your imagination, but sorry to break it to you: it was fiction (As was Jurassic Park, in case you were worried about dinosaurs breaking out of your local zoo).

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

As far as humans CO2 output contributing to global warming, consider how much you'd huff & puff to push even a tiny (Cooper Mini) car for 1 measly kilometer. Also consider that a man on a bicycle is the most efficient self-propelled mechanism ever discovered. Not taking into account that the man & bicycle is a very small fraction of the mass of the Cooper. And "energy efficient" automobiles get %20 efficiency as far as converting the energy of gasoline into motion. I don't know the efficiency of a man converting calories to mechanical energy.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Andrei Ellman
Member #3,434
April 2003

Frank Griffin said:

Us humans emit CO2 and I dont like to think that we are polluting this planet everytime we exhale. I wonder if a murderer at some point will say he was trying to help stop global warming. Some stupid woman in England said this was the reason she had a abortion.

The CO2 emitted by respiration comes from the food that we ate which was grown fairly recently. This means the CO2 we exhale was taken out the atmosphere about one year ago (by Photosynthesis), and that same ammount of CO2 ends up being captured by growing crops etc. Whereas fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, so burning them adds carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere, and it will take millions of years for that CO2 to return to it's fossil fuel state. Even smoking only adds CO2 that wouldn't have been taken out the atmosphere had the tobacco not been grown (although if you use a lighter instead of matches, you're using fossil-fuel (whereas with matches, the CO2 was taken out the atmosphere by the tree which was grown fairly recently (in the timescale of the fossil-fuel carbon-cycle))).

Harry Carey said:

I have never understood the obsession with making sure the planet is left in the same condition as when we were born. Is it a religious thing? "God wants the planet to be THIS was. I know because He told me so."

Leaving things in the same state ecologically means we reduce the risk of upsetting the climatic equilibrium that sustains us. When it comes to adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we risk harming an equilibrium that could raise the temperatures to a hotter equillibrium (even then, not everything will be able to cope). Or in a worse case scenario, a runaway greenhouse effect. The truth is that we don't know whether or not our CO2 production is likely to upset the equilibrium but it's best not to take the risk.

<disclaimer: what follows is pure speculation at best (although some parts of it do have a basis in science, the whole is just speculation)>
The increase in CO2 (a greengouse gas) causes the ice-caps to retreat, thus exposing more of the surface. Because of the surface's darker colour, more heat is absorbed, thus causing even more ice to melt. This is what's known as a positive feedback mechanism. But then, it gets worse. The permafrost which currently locks up Methane (another greenhouse gas) melts releasing the methane. Further warming could cause the release of frozen methane-hydrates from the ocean floor. All this warming could then cause more forest-fires - releasing yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, the resulting heat will cause more evaporation - adding more water-vapour (another greenhouse gas). Sooner or later, with all these positive feedback mechanisms in place, the temperature may eventually rise to 100c. This will cause the oceans to boil, adding yet more water-vapour into the atmosphere - not to mention the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 will be gone because there is no more ocean. Because air is not as good as conducting heat as water, the geological faults are not cooled down so easily. This will result in increased tectonic preasure culminating in increased volcanism that not only releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, but also releases sulphur. This sulphur forms sulphuric acid which comes down in the form of acid-rain. This acid-rain causes erosion of the carbon-containing rocks which leads to out-gassing of more CO2. Any organic matter that has not burned will do so leading to more CO2
</end of warning>

For all we know, our present rate of CO2 production may not be sufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse effect, or for that matter, create an equilibrium that's slightly warmer than the current equilibrium. But IMO, considering the stakes are so high, this is not a risk worth taking. What we do know is that adding greenhouse gasses to a mixture of gasses does increase heat-absorbing properties of the mixture. But what we don't know is by how much the temperature would have to increase to cause a runaway greenhouse effect to occur. 50c? 5c? 0.5c? We don't know. However, it is speculated that something similar did happen to the planet next door (Venus). Venus is closer to the sun and thus recieves more solar energy. This solar energy pushed the greenhouse-process beyond the point of no return. Although this scenario does assume that Venus started off similar to Earth. Even if we don't know if we're getting close to the point of equilibrium, one thing we can do to reduce the risk is living a more sustainable lifestyle.

For further reading, see an old post of mine and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

amber said:

Quote:

How do we know burning of fossil fuels harms the environment?

Stand near some burning fossil fuels and take a deep breath. :)

Actually, standing over burning fossil fuels causes a different kind of harm than large-scale burning of fossil fuels. In the former case, you will find the smell of the burning fossil-fuel unpleasant, risk getting injured by smoke-inhallation, and you risk setting your face on fire if you breathe too close to the source. Whereas in the latter case, increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming (the actual smoke is by then too diluted to cause any significant harm).

AE.

--
Don't let the illegitimates turn you into carbon.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

Whereas fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, so burning them adds carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere,

The rampant life that grew when the oceans covered much more land than now? So there was "global warming" then (although the then-current life forms adapted, or maybe the darwin selection thing)

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

Allow me to summarize your post:

Frank Griffin basically said:

I read a bunch of crap of on the internet that supports my previously held bias, therefore it must be true!

This is going back to something earlier, but I love it when someone says something flame-worthy and I find out that someone else has already done it. 8-)

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

The IPCC has 1,600 scientists that signed the document and some of them deny that their research actually supports the IPCC conclusions. I will have to hunt down the link but there is another document of about 17,000 scientists that say man made global warming does not exist or is way over hyped. So basically more scientist do not believe in it. The climatologist who created the weather channel said that global warming is probably the greatest hoax ever to be played upon the world. So I am in good company.

So Thomas what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time. I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it so it looks like you are not living up to your own standards.

The claims of global cooling are not contradicted? It shur looks like they have been. All of this is just part of a bigger cycle that your time line does not show. You need to go back just a little farther in time.

The polar ice caps on Mars happened to retreat at the same time they did on earth. How many SUVs are on mars? Is it the Co2 or the Sun?

With your definition of bias anyone with an opinion on anything is now biased.

As for spending money we could go off into a million different directions but intelligent choices need to be made on which should be mitigated with limited resources. While people like you would spend billions on fighting GW I would use our resources on proven dangers with reasonable chances of success. Another one of these would be the ability to nudge an asteroid from hitting the earth. This would be far more worthy of our tax dollars. Every dollar spent on a goose chase is a dollar less to use on the real dangers that face us.

"gut feeling the people in England are poor" -Samuli
"taken out of context it's an awesome quote" - Jonatan Hedborg

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

A link from Frank Griffon said:

Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

If man ended the "little ice age" unnaturally, then what happens when the natural end comes along?

Quote:

will have to hunt down the link

[sarcasm]ok, until then I'll just blindly follow whatever you say[/sarcasm]

Quote:

what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time.

If you look at the second graph he put in that post, it goes back as far as one of the ones on one of the sites you linked to. And it shows a different trend. So someone's graph is wrong.

Quote:

The polar ice caps on Mars happened to retreat at the same time they did on earth.

The ice caps on Mars aren't retreating as quickly as ours. No one is denying that Earth goes through warming and cooling trends, we're just asserting that man is increasing the current warming trend to dangerous levels.

Quote:

With your definition of bias anyone with an opinion on anything is now biased.

That's pretty much what bias is, a pre-formed opinion. Everyone is biased, we must learn to look past our own biases when confronted with truth.

Quote:

While people like you would spend billions on fighting GW I would use our resources on proven dangers with reasonable chances of success.

Even if global warming isn't "proven" there's enough evidence that we should do something. Even with the chance that we're wrong, the consequences of inaction if we're right are too great to ignore. Unless you want to live through (or not live through, as is more likely) a catastrophic shift in global climate.

Quote:

Another one of these would be the ability to nudge an asteroid from hitting the earth.

Wow, you're claiming you want to combat real, undeniable problems, then you bring up asteroids hitting Earth. Do you know how unlikely that is? Sure, it's a possibility, and I do worry about it from time to time. But there's a better chance of dying from global warming than from an asteroid. I'm hate to break it to you, but movies like Armageddon and Deep Impact are fiction.

Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
avatar

I just heard on the Discovery channel that after the first hour of swimming your body breaths 30,000 gallons of air a minute which is a hell of a lot more than normal.

I think in complete seriousness we should outlaw this CO2 producing activity. To think of how selfish those people are being... just makes me sick you know?

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

I think in complete seriousness we should outlaw this CO2 producing activity.

For (!@*^&(! sake learn to read!
Recycling CO2 that's already part of the carbon cycle is not and never was a problem. Any problem comes from adding carbon to the cycle (ie, burning fossil fuels).

Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
avatar

Right, we have to stop all these monstrosities. Swimmers and automobile drivers should be banned from performing these acts in public.

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

30,000 gpm * (1 minute / 60 seconds) = 500 gallons of air per second?? ???

When I had cable , I used to watch the Discovery channel a lot but I don't think I ever learned anything. Pretty pictures though. :D
If the sci-fi channel didn't exist I don't think there's any reason I would really want cable except for maybe the independent movie channel.

Back on topic :
Teachers' Domain: Global Warming: Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

linked web page said:

When we extract coal and oil from Earth's crust and then burn these fossil fuels to provide energy for transportation, heating, cooking, electricity, and manufacturing, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere more rapidly than it is naturally removed through sedimentation and photosynthesis. Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have ever been over the last half-million years or more.

Can everyone agree on that at least?

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

To be honest, most of what I would otherwise have said has been well-covered by others already, so I'll just focus on this bit:

Quote:

So Thomas what do you think about the higher temps in the past with the assumption you dont think the chart makers are lying. Everyone can agree on the graph you provided, I just assert that it does not go back far enough in time. I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it so it looks like you are not living up to your own standards.

Neil Black has dealt with whether or not your previous posts actually agree with the graphs I provided, I take issue with "I only asked you one question and you failed to answer it".

The post which I believe you are suggesting contains a question begins with "Grab your pop corn." and ends with "... will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children. "

That post does not contain a single question mark outside of the areas quoted from my earlier post. I've noticed that you don't always use "correct" punctuation, so it's probably worth looking further at the contents.

The first part of the post (from the begining down to "...Guess what YOU are back in style my friend") contains your answers to five questions I'd posed. None of your answers pose any questions. There's then a personal attack, an allegation that the IPCC have orchestrated a cover-up of evidence and another personal attack (taking us to "You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable").

There is then a request to defend myself. I did this with my original follow-up post. You instruct me to "find a temperature graph that does not make my point" and in my original follow-up I explained that I'd already done that. Then you gave us insight into how you think people formulate questions when taking part in discussions.

Finally you closed on an assertion that money should only be spent if it makes sense to spend it.

At no point did you ask me "one question". I would be interested to hear which part of the post you think constitutes asking me "one question" and exactly what you think the question was.

I also feel reassured that the worst thing you can think of to say about "my standards" is that I may not be living up to them. If that is true then I'm proud — I consider it admirable to attempt to better oneself.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Right, we have to stop all these monstrosities. Swimmers and automobile drivers should be banned from performing these acts in public.

Ok. So, assuming you understood what I wrote in my previous post, I take it you are of the opinion that swimmers consume fossile fuel?
Neat, I didn't know that one.

Fladimir da Gorf
Member #1,565
October 2001
avatar

Quote:

The IPCC has 1,600 scientists that signed the document and some of them deny that their research actually supports the IPCC conclusions. I will have to hunt down the link but there is another document of about 17,000 scientists that say man made global warming does not exist or is way over hyped.

:D My aunt's sister's dogs's friend just told me there's another 18,000 scientists who say the earth is flat! OH NO!

OpenLayer has reached a random SVN version number ;) | Online manual | Installation video!| MSVC projects now possible with cmake | Now alvailable as a Dev-C++ Devpack! (Thanks to Kotori)

jhuuskon
Member #302
April 2000
avatar

There's nothing quite like waking up at noon on a monday, still a bit buzzed from last night and discovering a thread like this that has derailed into an epic lulzfest.

You don't deserve my sig.

GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
avatar

I can say nothing that is better than what you said, jhuuskon.

"Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours"
Allegro Wiki, full of examples and articles !!

Slartibartfast
Member #8,789
June 2007
avatar

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

Like I said before you are not living up to your own standards Thomas. If you feel my comments rise to the level of personal attacks I think you have a very low threshold for declaring that. You seem to have made several nice little so called personal attacks of your own. Let me share some of your ignorance or forgetfulless on the subject.

"You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs."

"I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.
"

"Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll start doing his opinionated and logic bereft rants to them instead of us?"

"Do you think there's a way we could get some sort of hotline fitted to his house, so we can just get him to come and deal with it every time Frank Griffin posts one of these idiotic posts of his?"

"One of the many reasons that I think nobody is engaging you in conversation is that you spend half your posts playing to an audience that you imagine is the primary reason for the existence of bulletin boards like this.

As you seem to be with your evidence, I notice that you are ignoring any parts of any posts that don't fit with what you want to say."

"That's what conversations are really about, by the way — trying to persuade people. Not trying to win points, no matter how many people you are able to drag into your mire."

"We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion."

"And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view."

"I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?"

Let me also remind you that use started off posting on this thread with insults without even contributing to the discussion in any way. I hope I gave enough examples of your behavior to sufficiently make my point to you on this matter?

You are also a picky little bugger. You are right I didnt ntnotsk a question it was a suggestion that you try to intelligently answer my assertion that your time lines do not go back far enough to see the VERY visible pattern of heating and cooling from the past. This would go a long way to help you understand that this is just a cycle that has been repeated over and over throughout history.

I will put it in question form since you have trouble functioning without explicit commands.

Do you see a pattern of warming and cooling going back the last 100,000 years?

Does the warming during peak tetemperatureseach levels equivalent to todays warming?

Since I personally see nothing special about our current warming tend from looking at past temperatures what makes this warming period so special? The spikes and troughs look the same during each heating and cooling cycle.

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

Ok now on to other biz. The poster meaning for bias implied that the opinion was based on nothing. Opinion based in fact is a good thing. Thats how good decisions are made. Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

Just to inform some people on what the drudge report is and is not. The Drudge report is a collection of news that has been reported else where. It rarely creates its own news. Think of it as a collection point of the days most interesting new reports.

"gut feeling the people in England are poor" -Samuli
"taken out of context it's an awesome quote" - Jonatan Hedborg

Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
avatar

Quote:

You are also apparently completely incapable of understanding the issues, beyond pulling some key words out of newspaper headlines and forming your own pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Whether or not you're actually incapable of understanding the issues, he's at least partly right because you obviously don't understand the issues.

Quote:

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

I read this as a comment on the likelihood of you answering those questions, not your capability to do so. If he hadn't made this comment you probably wouldn't have answered his questions.

Quote:

Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll start doing his opinionated and logic bereft rants to them instead of us?

While I agree with this statement, it is a personal attack and doesn't improve his argument so it would have probably been best left unsaid.

Quote:

Do you think there's a way we could get some sort of hotline fitted to his house, so we can just get him to come and deal with it every time Frank Griffin posts one of these idiotic posts of his?

You are getting kind of tiresome, Frank.

Quote:

One of the many reasons that I think nobody is engaging you in conversation is that you spend half your posts playing to an audience that you imagine is the primary reason for the existence of bulletin boards like this.

In other words, A.cc is not your personal forum to spread your political ideals. Sure, you can talk about how you think things should be, but when every other member who answers you disagrees, maybe it would be best to drop the issue.

Quote:

That's what conversations are really about, by the way — trying to persuade people. Not trying to win points, no matter how many people you are able to drag into your mire.

This thread really has become a mire, hasn't it?

Quote:

We're saying the earth rotates around the sun, you're saying that it's flat and illuminated at God's discretion.

We're listening to the science that, while not giving a comfortable message, is probably right. You're trying to rationalize a belief that the world isn't changing in order to justify ignoring this worrying new science.

Quote:

And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view.

This is completely true. Look at the evidence on our side, not just what we've posted but the other evidence out there. Look at it objectively and you'll see that while Earth does go through warming and cooling trends (no one is trying to deny that), man seems to have pushed this warming trend to dangerous levels.

Quote:

I dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?

This is simply pointing out the number of mostly pointless and completely useless threads you've created. It's another personal attack, but since it's trying to shame you into not making more threads like this it at least has a good purpose.

Now that I'm done explaining the things you quoted I'll move on to your actual post.

Quote:

You are also a picky little bugger.

Personal attack. I'm not going to say anything against it because I've made a few myself. But both of you are being hypocrites on this subject by denouncing personal attacks and then using them

Quote:

You are right I didnt ntnotsk a question it was a suggestion that you try to intelligently answer my assertion that your time lines do not go back far enough to see the VERY visible pattern of heating and cooling from the past. This would go a long way to help you understand that this is just a cycle that has been repeated over and over throughout history.

Yes, we all see the pattern. The problem, as I've pointed out before, is that man has increased the current warming trend, and we may have pushed it into dangerous levels.

Quote:

I will put it in question form since you have trouble functioning without explicit commands.

Another personal attack.

Quote:

Do you see a pattern of warming and cooling going back the last 100,000 years?

I've made my views on this clear.

Quote:

Does the warming during peak tetemperatureseach levels equivalent to todays warming?

Yes, it does. But our warming doesn't seem to have peaked, does it?

Quote:

Since I personally see nothing special about our current warming tend from looking at past temperatures what makes this warming period so special? The spikes and troughs look the same during each heating and cooling cycle.

Like I said in answer to your last question, the current warming trend hasn't peaked yet, even though it's already reached the peaks of other warming trends. Unless you go back to before the dawn of man, but that isn't applicable because the whole point is that the warming is reaching levels that are dangerous to man, and man wasn't around to be endangered during the Triassic.

Quote:

I appreciate that's quite a few questions in a row, so I anticipate you will ignore most of them or try to brush the group of them away without further comment.

What's the point of this? So far he has shown that he will answer every part of you post (for that matter so have I). Saying this just makes you look stupid and ruins what little credibility you have left.

Quote:

Ok now on to other biz.

Sorry, you don't get to arbitrarily end the argument.

Quote:

The poster meaning for bias implied that the opinion was based on nothing. Opinion based in fact is a good thing. Thats how good decisions are made.

You're right, bias was the wrong word to describe your opinion. "Wrong" would have been a much better word to describe your opinion.

Quote:

Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

Now you're throwing personal attacks at an entire group of people. What's worse is that you're wrong.

Quote:

Just to inform some people on what the drudge report is and is not. The Drudge report is a collection of news that has been reported else where. It rarely creates its own news. Think of it as a collection point of the days most interesting new reports.

I'll have to claim ignorance on this one. I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the thread, although I may have just missed it.

Slartibartfast
Member #8,789
June 2007
avatar

Quote:

Opinion based on feeling is called liberalism.

This seems like an opinion based on feeling, which makes you a liberal.
And I have just expressed an opinion that is based on a feeling that your opinion is based on a feeling, which I guess makes me a liberal as well.
Damn. Contagious.

Fladimir da Gorf
Member #1,565
October 2001
avatar

I believe no one in this thread is capable of arguing this subject since none of us are really experts on the subject. Frank, do you really believe that all those 16,000 scientists that agree on the climate change have never seen the things you just posted? They know it pretty well. In fact, we were teached those things in a school biology class. But they also know the facts that you don't know.

A few years back only something like half of the top environmental scientists agreed that the global warming existed. Now it's almost difficult to find anyone who disagrees with it. That's not because they're brainwashed (after all, disagreeing with the mainstream opinion gets you to news much easier), but because with all the gathered facts, somehow they're still convinced.

I bet a better idea than discussing this in a programmer forum would be to find a forum or chat which is regulated by professionals on the subject. There you can try if you get all those scientists believe you. Maybe in the meantime they could provide you with the facts you're missing.

OpenLayer has reached a random SVN version number ;) | Online manual | Installation video!| MSVC projects now possible with cmake | Now alvailable as a Dev-C++ Devpack! (Thanks to Kotori)

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

Neil Black your quoting and commenting on every line of a post is a bit much. The post was mainly directed for Thomas I do not want you to do his homework for him especially since you seem to be misinformed on most counts. Neil you miss the beauty of my comments towards Thomas. The very first post he made was an attack and he has posted way more comments that could be considered attacks. Then he gets upset after interpreting something as a slight to him and he declares a problem with personal attacks. Doesnt this stike you as funny, kinda reminds me oh HRC. His mindless comment about me ignoring questions if foolish since look I am even responding to your posts about me that were not even directed at you hehe. I try to answer most questions or comments. I reused some of the same verbage he sent my way since he does not live up to his own standards. "Sorry, you don't get to arbitrarily end the argument" jeez you are just looking for trouble. I spent the whole top portion of the post trying to get Thomas up to speed and I was just turning my attention to other posts. I do not expect to convince people like you or thomas. I may sway a few people that are more open minded and less confrontational about their beliefs. That does not mean that you are even wrong since people interpret data differently. I also figured someone like you would latch upon the quotes and have to comment on them and look you are the lucky winner to get there first congrats. The play by play on almost every single sentence is truly "getting kind of tiresome" as you would put it.

Now on to more important Biz.

BTW Niel global warming stopped 10 years ago. Global cooling began 3 years ago.
Time to jump on board the new band wagon before the grant money runs out.

Here is that link I told you guys about. There is a petition containing 19,000 signatures now from scientists that disagree with the Global warming Hoax. They are urging the USA to avoid costly co2 caps and argue that a modest increase in temperature is actually good for the planet.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm

I may have typed it wrong but there are 1,600 who signed the IPCC document not 16,000. There are far more scientists that disagree with global warming than agree with it. The true believers in global warming are just more vocal. This is the off topic area if I remember correctly. You are correct that this is a scientific issue BUT the main push behind action on this are political people like Al Gore who is no more qualified than all of us to make this decision so I see nothing wrong with us talking about it. Enough facts are sitting right in front of us. The main problems is how they are being interpeted. Misguided spending will have consequences even on all of us programmers so it is relevant. There will never be a aha moment about this because the issue is just going to slowly disapear without any fan fare just like 99% of all the mass media scares do.

"gut feeling the people in England are poor" -Samuli
"taken out of context it's an awesome quote" - Jonatan Hedborg



Go to: