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!
FMC
Member #4,431
March 2004
avatar

Quote:

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."

There is a (actually more, this is just one) good reason for NOT wanting change, the effects that the increase in the water level would have on our coast cities (delete them from the maps).

[FMC Studios] - [Caries Field] - [Ctris] - [Pman] - [Chess for allegroites]
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them. -Anacharsis
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

X-G
Member #856
December 2000
avatar

Quote:

What is wrong with the evolution of the planet? Why are you all trying to not let nature take it's course?

Because I rather like being alive, thank you.

--
Since 2008-Jun-18, democracy in Sweden is dead. | 悪霊退散!悪霊退散!怨霊、物の怪、困った時は ドーマン!セーマン!ドーマン!セーマン! 直ぐに呼びましょう陰陽師レッツゴー!

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans. The only problem is that we dont like to wait and demand quick action.

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.

Climate is simply a result of 30 years worth of observations of what temperatures and such are. It does not actually make predictions it just a result. If weather starts to change in an area the climate is still the climate not matter if it goes up or down. So basically we dont like the results of the tests so we must do something like social promotion of the environment. Dont hold our climate back in the first grade promote him.

Not all greenies are void of reality. There are some that are smart and recognize that GW is the least of our worries and state that we could save many more lives by using our resoucres to fight malaria and other diseases. We would get a bigger bang for the buck, have visible results and be 100% certain that we did some good, instead of fighting the latest boogie man spewed forth by the main stream media.

Evert must love bubble baths with all this talk of bubbles comming from him. The main point about the seasons is that all this is caused by sunlight and the seasons are a quick and easy way to see how temperatures change very quickly with loss of sunlight. Evert just needs to open a few books but not in the tuby wuby of course cuz they will get all wetty.

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

It looks like BAF did put his face next to a vat of acid BTW.

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

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans

"No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should"

The buddist viewpoint

“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

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Quote:

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.

Oh boy... OK, I don't know if CO2 is harmful to the environment or not, but your example is downright stupid. Lets say it is harmful in large amounts. With the amount we breathe out plants can process it to O2 so thats no worry. But you know how much CO2 jet airplanes (!), cars, etc. emit? HUGE unnatural amounts. So the plants can't keep up and there is a problem...

Quote:

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

No its not! :o

In capitalist America bank robs you.

X-G
Member #856
December 2000
avatar

Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans. The only problem is that we dont like to wait and demand quick action.

Right; I don't know about you, but I don't plan to stick around for the literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of years it's going to take for the planet to "restore itself" (not that that's a very useful phrase anyway--restore to what exactly?). Me, I prefer having an environment worth living in for at least the rest of my life, preferably longer than that. In other words, it's not about "saving the planet" and no one in this thread has suggested it is other than you. It's about making sure that we maintain a hospitable environment for ourselves for as long as we're around.

--
Since 2008-Jun-18, democracy in Sweden is dead. | 悪霊退散!悪霊退散!怨霊、物の怪、困った時は ドーマン!セーマン!ドーマン!セーマン! 直ぐに呼びましょう陰陽師レッツゴー!

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

The planet actually heals itself with no help from us humans.

Right, no one needs to be worried about life on Earth, which will be around when we are all long gone. I do care about the world I (and my children) have to live in though.

Quote:

OK, I don't know if CO2 is harmful to the environment or not, but your example is downright stupid. Lets say it is harmful in large amounts. With the amount we breathe out plants can process it to O2 so thats no worry. But you know how much CO2 jet airplanes (!), cars, etc. emit? HUGE unnatural amounts. So the plants can't keep up and there is a problem...

The amount is not what matters either, actually. What matters is that those sources are burning fossil fuel, adding carbon to the cycle that was not part of it before (ok, it was during the Carboniferous period, as I said above).

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

Quote:

Some of you guys make me feel like that astronomer that said the earth actually rotates around the sun.

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

Quote:

I have read articles on all sides of this issue and the data does not support global warming.

And your bias stopped you from giving due attention to any articles that disagreed with your point of view. 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 dare expect you'll be back next week with a post titled "When will people accept that you can square a circle?"

The IPCC, an international body that is supported by all significant governments recently published this graph:

{"name":"figspm-1.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a50694b1c2b12e8bd836880556aa410a.gif","w":600,"h":876,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/5\/a50694b1c2b12e8bd836880556aa410a"}figspm-1.gif

The real debate is the following:

  • has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?

  • if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?

  • is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?

  • if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?

  • if so, then what?

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.

For the record though, most of the right-wing gang prefer to say that the climate is changing but either that humans aren't culpable or else that the change isn't a problem. You're in an extreme minority by trying to claim that no change is occurring at all.

Quote:

To recast global warming as global climate change is just a febble attempt to say oh we were wrong about the warming thing so we will make it even more vague and harder to disprove.

Obviously you say this without any evidence. Here are some clues concerning whether "global warming" has recently been recast as climate change:

The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988. The relevant UN body is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The international treaty concerning climate change is the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Quote:

You know you guys that are upset about climate change, I bet every change of the seasons must give you guys a heart attack. The climate changes 4 times each year in most places. Climate change is a natural thing that happens every year.

This is probably why the newspapers often call it global warming instead of climate change. Otherwise small minded idiots think of something else.

Quote:

What did people call weird weather before lefties plastered a label on it called climate change? The seasons the daylight and nighttime temps they are all caused by access to sunlight. It is just too difficult to admit that its more probably that the sun responsible for this climate change. The term Climate change is so vague it can mean anything.

Yeah. And "Expressionism" actually includes all art, because it's all meant to express something, right?

Quote:

Thomas Harte and kazzmir should should be ashamed of their behavior. Did either of you even read the link I provided. It is all fair to disagree with me but senseless attacks on the messenger do not make you right or me wrong.

I read the link. Based on your responses in your recent thread on drilling, I saw no reason to believe that you were interested in any sort of rational debate.

For the record: a trend is an "inclination in a particular direction". Trends are not negated even if one data value doesn't follow the pattern. That's the difference between a pattern that is following a trend and one that is monotonically increasing.

Quote:

I think you guys probably dont know enough to even debate on the subject and should just bow out of the discussion.

It is easier to preach if you can remove dissenting voices. I recommend you set yourself up on an American cable channel.

EDIT:
Frank posted inbetween me starting to write the above and posting it. Some new comments on his newest post, and things in general:

Quote:

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 real world doesn't use a strict causation test to ascribe liability. Nobody here has argued that it does. You're setting up straw men.

Quote:

Climate is simply a result of 30 years worth of observations of what temperatures and such are.

Accurate records go back to the 19th century.

Quote:

Not all greenies are void of reality. There are some that are smart and recognize that GW is the least of our worries and state that we could save many more lives by using our resoucres to fight malaria and other diseases. We would get a bigger bang for the buck, have visible results and be 100% certain that we did some good, instead of fighting the latest boogie man spewed forth by the main stream media.

The problem with malaria as a specific problem (and, I know, that wasn't your point) is that it isn't currently a problem that can be solved, in that there is no existing vaccine. And, even if there was, humans aren't the only thing that can carry it, making applying one universally very difficult.

That aside, this looks like a diversionary argument. You've posted on the basis that man did not make what you seem unable to stop calling global warming. The rest of us are discussing that. If you want to change your argument to one that climate change is not the most optimal use of human resources because other things are more demanding then you impliedly admit that climate change is a real problem. I suggest you either stick to your original argument that it doesn't warrant resources because it doesn't exist or else explicitly reject your original argument.

Quote:

The only boogie man I actually think that is worth our time is bird flu.

If I had to guess, I would have thought you were probably also strongly in favour of the War on Terror as currently implemented. It's not relevant to this thread, so feel free to ignore this comment, but I would be interested to know.

P.s. it doesn't affect the meaning of your words or the quality of your argument whatsoever, and is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, but why don't you use apostrophes? Of course, I rely on the principle that omitting expected punctuation slows most readers down as a reason why I haven't just answered my own question.

Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
avatar

kikabo
Member #3,679
July 2003
avatar

Quote:

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

That's my point, I don't know, the same way that I don't know that I'm not going to get killed if I cross the road with my eyes closed, I just think it's a little foolish to rely on the possibility that we 'might' not be harming the environment.

Quote:

Why are you all trying to not let nature take it's course?

It's not nature that is, for example, cutting down rain forests, it's man. Nature would regrow a rain forest in about a 1000 years, as Frank rightly says the planet would heal itself from us if we were gone and would heal to some degree if our activities were lessened.

It's not a duty to God or the planet to leave it the way it was, the planet and the species left will go on fine regardless of what happens to us.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

eats popcorn

Damn it, I was just at the store, I should have picked some up :(

--
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

Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
avatar

Frank Griffin
Member #7474
July 2006

Grab your pop corn.

Thomas Harte is misguided on so many levels BUT I do like that you took the time to get some data. Now lets see if your data can stand up to questioning. If you havent noticed I tend to answer most questions that are posed to me. I think most would agree.

Question 1
"has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?"
Here is a longer history of temperatures
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

So the answer is NO.

Question 2
"if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?"

Since there were no SUVs during these past time periods it is certain man had nothing to do with global climate change.

So the answer is NO.

Question 3
"is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?"

Changes in the environment are a concern for humans and always will be. The only problem is that we need to spend our resources problems we can do something about. Also we need to fight problems that we know exist.

Question 4
"if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?"

Since the answer was no to the previous question.

The answer is NO.

Question 5
"if so, then what?"

The answer is NO. There is no apparent problem so no solution is needed. All we need to do is observe and if something does come up then we can take action. Jumping the gun to do something just for the sack of doing something is insane. Trust me this global warming BS is just going to silently fade away into the night just like global cooling did 30 years ago. This is just like what they say about clothing fads. Hold onto your cloths until they come back in style. Guess what YOU are back in style my friend.

The only one that has acted unintelligent is you at times Thomas. The main problem with the data you presented is that just like the IPCC they do not go back far enough in time. In past meetings of the IPCC they did go back farther in time but once all the gov co money got into the act and money was to be made the inconvenient tail port of the graphs were no longer shown since they did not help make the point. You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

Now defend yourself. Find a temperature graph that does not make my point, the search will do you some good. All your questions kinda hinged on your interpretation of incomplete graphs like you and the IPCC presented.

Pissing away billions of dollars trying to solve a non existant problem will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children.

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

ReyBrujo
Moderator
January 2001
avatar

As a side note, it has been raining for over a week by now (with minor stops every some hours) down here, tomorrow they are forecasting more storms, and for the first time in years there was a waterspout in the river some kilometers from here (there has never been one since I was born almost 30 years ago, for example).

Weather is changing, like it or not. As a thumb rule, I don't believe corporations, so when they tell me cigars don't produce cancer or that oil burning does not damage our planet, I tend not to believe them.

--
RB
光子「あたしただ…奪う側に回ろうと思っただけよ」
Mitsuko's last words, Battle Royale

Erikster
Member #9,510
February 2008
avatar

Ron White said:

"... so he says to me, 'Cows are polluting the atmosphere with their flatulence, but what are you doing to help the Earth?' I said, 'Well, I'm eating the cows!'"

That's the first thing that leaped to mind when I read the title of this post. Man has made Global Warming a joke. ("An Irritating Truth," for example)

Then I started to read a little deeper into the posts.

Here's the thing. Humans are the only creatures on Earth who can alter the environment to the extent that it has today. Yes, I just said that we altered the environment. And it's not in a positive way.

We cannot forecast the future of Earth's environment. There are simply too many variables. However, you cannot disregard the heavy evidence of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

However, it's also been noted that we as humans have killed off several species of animals, but that's not true. Certain species of animals have been dying of for as long as the Earth has survived. It's Darwin's theory. (Survival of the fittest)

My main question is: Are we jumping at shadows? Or is this a real issue we need to deal with?

Grabs Root Beer

Cheers.

Cat! I'm a kitty cat. And I dance dance dance, and I dance dance dance.

Thomas Harte
Member #33
April 2000
avatar

Quote:

Thomas Harte is misguided on so many levels BUT I do like that you took the time to get some data. Now lets see if your data can stand up to questioning. If you havent noticed I tend to answer most questions that are posed to me. I think most would agree.

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. I'll take it as given that you have conceded that:

  • the massive majority of scientists are, and have been right through the modern era of international research into the climate, concerned about climate change, not global warming

  • as it is your believe that "global warming is just a load of hot air" you are withdrawing any implication of an argument that money shouldn't be invested in it just because there are other more needy causes

Quote:

Question 1
"has the climate changed more in the last 100 or so years than history would suggest it should?"
Here is a longer history of temperatures
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

So the answer is NO.

So, the International Panel on Climate Change, comprised of thousands of scientists across the globe says yes, but "Christopher R Scotese" and "Plant Fossils of West Virginia" say no. And you believe the second two.

Quote:

Question 2
"if so, can human activity be shown to be extremely likely to have been a factor in that change?"

Since there were no SUVs during these past time periods it is certain man had nothing to do with global climate change.

So the answer is NO.

Your answer 'no' to this question hinges on your answer 'no' to your previous question. Since I dispute your previous answer, I necessarily dispute this answer with no further reasoning required.

Quote:

Question 3
"is environmental change possibly a problem for humanity?"

Changes in the environment are a concern for humans and always will be. The only problem is that we need to spend our resources problems we can do something about. Also we need to fight problems that we know exist.

The strict answer to the question is something we agree on, even if we seem to slightly disagree on the consequential details.

For my money, it's a question of measure and degree. Society needs to weigh the probability of benefit from acting against climate change versus the cost. But cost doesn't make sense in isolation — it's just a number unless you compare it to something else, which is where we need to consider what else money could be spent on.

Nobody has yet provided any figures to promote debate on the question of measure and degree, you've given us your conclusion but not enough information for us to reach our own through anything but trust in yours. As such, I don't think I have an opinion to forward without further research.

Quote:

Question 4
"if so, should we do anything to try to prevent contributing to further change?"

Since the answer was no to the previous question.

The answer is NO.

Question 5
"if so, then what?"

The answer is NO. There is no apparent problem so no solution is needed.

As before, I have nothing interesting to say to these two replies as my reasoning above precludes engaging directly with your logic.

Quote:

All we need to do is observe and if something does come up then we can take action. Jumping the gun to do something just for the sack of doing something is insane. Trust me this global warming BS is just going to silently fade away into the night just like global cooling did 30 years ago.

"Global cooling" is a term retrofitted onto concerns about changes in the climate that were first raised in the 1970s. Those concerns led to the foundation of the modern climate change panels, which have been studying the climate for the past 30 years.

There was never any level of international consensus about what was going on, and what was claimed then is not contradicted now.

Quote:

The only one that has acted unintelligent is you at times Thomas.

I'm not sure why this personal insult suddenly falls in the middle of this long section of freeform prose.

Quote:

The main problem with the data you presented is that just like the IPCC they do not go back far enough in time. In past meetings of the IPCC they did go back farther in time but once all the gov co money got into the act and money was to be made the inconvenient tail port of the graphs were no longer shown since they did not help make the point. You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

You have no idea how old I am. I have no idea how old you area.

Furthermore, those graphs go back to the year 1000. If you want to charge the IPCC with deleting part of their graph then provide evidence. Otherwise there is no reason why anybody here should believe you.

Quote:

Now defend yourself. Find a temperature graph that does not make my point, the search will do you some good.

Hmm, I'm not sure I can find sources as authoritative as "Plant Fossils of West Virginia". I would have thought it was sufficient to provide the graph agreed with by the most people (i.e. literally thousands of them). In any case, I can't see that I'm going to persuade you with more graphs.

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.

Quote:

All your questions kinda hinged on your interpretation of incomplete graphs like you and the IPCC presented.

Perhaps it's demonstrative of your mindset that you plan questions based on their answers? I'd be curious to hear how my questions would be invalid were that graph not accurate.

Quote:

Pissing away billions of dollars trying to solve a non existant problem will definitely reduce the living style for you and your children.

I am not selfish enough to prioritise my standard of living above the need to fight climate change if it is happening. But that isn't what you're suggesting — this is just a tangential aside with no bearing to the main discussion. It's probably calculated so that people get to the end of your post, see something they can agree with, and forget about the rest regardless of their opinions.

CGamesPlay
Member #2,559
July 2002
avatar

Quote:

You are young I assume so you do not have as much lived history to draw from so your mistakes are understandable.

Ad hominem, penalty Frank Griffin, minus 5 points.

--
Tomasu: Every time you read this: hugging!

Ryan Patterson - <http://cgamesplay.com/>

Erikster
Member #9,510
February 2008
avatar

How many points do I get for my post?

(Not this one, the above one)

Cat! I'm a kitty cat. And I dance dance dance, and I dance dance dance.

Dustin Dettmer
Member #3,935
October 2003
avatar

Evert said:

You mean, meddle even more with a chaotic system we don't fully understand? You think that's wise?

Uhh.. Yeah! If it's either demise or an attempt who wouldn't try?

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

One of IWO's1 most famous members, Dr, Van Vanerhouer the II has created a graph that shows in detail:

- The average temperatures in the past.
- Present
- And the future.

{"name":"594652","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/4\/1481cda0fd10ae776575b7ff2624f4c2.png","w":900,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/4\/1481cda0fd10ae776575b7ff2624f4c2"}594652

He has done this by combining advanced hyper-nuclear fusion detecting flux generators that can detect tiny Weatherons - these are subatomic particles that make up the weather, I quote:

Dr. Van said:

Weatherons are microscopically sized particles that affect - or better said - make the weather. They are much like electrons and gravitons with one difference - I can prove their existence by scanning them with a Perplextron generator with a charge of approx. 34.2 MG of Heat Energy.

So that has helped him find what the weather will be like in the future and in the past. He is a world class Weather Man and you should read what he wrote in The Daily Weather:

Dr. Van said:

By releasing vast amounts of poisons in to the air the Weatherons are bing disrupted and overheated. This will continue happening until a core overheating happens and their state capacity will become smaller then the Appakars constant (1.77482662862) which will lead to certain death. This is because Weatherons are directly linked with Dark-Grey Matter and Solar nucleus that is most important to Water ( HO2 ) based beings on planet Earth.

Beware! :-/

1 - International Weather Organization.

In capitalist America bank robs you.

FMC
Member #4,431
March 2004
avatar

;D

[FMC Studios] - [Caries Field] - [Ctris] - [Pman] - [Chess for allegroites]
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them. -Anacharsis
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

James Stanley
Member #7,275
May 2006
avatar

I skipped through most of the thread, so this may have been said.

Anybody who is worried about Global Warming (or indeed Global Climate Change), should:

- Turn off their computer now
- Never turn their car on
- Never turn their lights on
- Never turn their TV on
- Never do anything which might use electricity
- Never do anything which might use fuel

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them.

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Anyone who is worried about dying should:

- Wrap their whole house/furniture/anything they can think of in bubble wrap.
- Wear a Safe suit - made from special foam for extra protection.
- Buy bullet proof glass.
- Create a nuclear-bunker - just in case.
- Make their house disaster safe.
- Have their food tasted for them by their friends - in case of poison.
- ...
- ...
- Never leave the house.

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them and believe them that their fear of death is reasonable.

In capitalist America bank robs you.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

If somebody does that then there's a small chance I might listen to them.

::)

Unfortuneatly society is made so you can't live without many of those. Either you have them, or you live in a shack in the mountains alone.

--
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

Erikster
Member #9,510
February 2008
avatar

No offense Vanneto, but Dr. Van sounds a bit like a crackpot scientist. I'm assuming it's a typo, but the molecule for water is H2O, not HO2.

Also, Weatherons cannot make the weather. (Weather means the state of the atmosphere) It's possible that it can affect the weather, but weather cannot be made.

I also searched the internet far and wide, and couldn't find a device called a Perplextron Generator. Also, MG's aren't units of heat energy.

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

Bullseye!

Cat! I'm a kitty cat. And I dance dance dance, and I dance dance dance.



Go to: