PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

look, i'm trying to be reasonable. because your religion is threatened, there's no reason to get mad or personal. i've distorted nothing and been honest. the data being shown publicly is meaningless(over simplified explanations and stats, small samples). if we are to stop using plastic and automobiles, fine. there are alternatives. if most everybody must die to make what you believe to be the perfect world, you first, i'll think about it. it's not my doing, no reason to be mad at me. it's not the public's fault, the public does and thinks as it's told. and i'm still not convinced that the earth hasn't gone into an inconvienient warming trend all on it's own, whether or not humanity helped. as you said, it's a very complex system. it sure LOOKS like human activity has had an effect, but it is not certain exactly what that really means. i would guess cutting down all the trees has more effect on the weather than burning hydrocarbons, but that's me....

i'm still not AFRAID of "global warming" more than i am advertising agencies...anything that has a major hot button word, name or effect to it always stinks of P.R..

this is just the off topic section of a music forum. lets not get too emotional. rant or curse all you want, please don't get overly caught up here. i'm sure this one forum won't change the course of the world no matter who's right and wrong. if you're participating for any reason other than it's an interesting topic of debate, you may be taking yourself too seriously(i know, easy to say from behind a computer screen )...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-25 17:33 ]</font>

On 2006-06-25 17:30, garyb wrote:
because your religion is threatened, there's no reason to get mad or personal.

Are you serious? What are you talking about?
Are you capable of replying to any posts without changing the subject?

Secondly my religion doesn't hang at the end of an internet thread, and can't possibly be threatened by you or any of your silly posts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-25 17:41 ]</font>

way to go Bingo. i think this should just about kill the subject.

On 2006-06-25 17:30, garyb wrote:
the data being shown publicly is meaningless(over simplified explanations and stats, small samples).

Your posts are the only meanigless "data" in this thread.

ok fine.
but i was refering to the data in the popular press. i'm an ignorant idiot, that's been established, but too bad, i may be right anyway. when the antartic ice cap melts because of lazy people driving automobiles trying to go to work to pay taxes, come back and laugh at the primitive fool. in the mean time, this subject is pretty dead. and unscientific(not that i believe in science...).

And still there's something I'd like to know about, if you knowledged guys wanna still spend some word.

It ensues evident from fossil finds, and it's common knowledge, the Hearth has gone through warming/cooling cycles.
These cycles are related to movements of the planet's axis, to the solar activty, to composition of the atmosphere.
Variations in this last factor can be influenced by the first two.

Then, wouldn't the first two factor (especially the first) have any somehow calculated rithm?

But, supposing, in the uncertainty, that we're in a Earth's warming phase mainly due to non-human factors, don't we tax payer have to expect from goverments the maximum engagment of resources, at a scientific, economic and logistic level, with the two aim of slacken instead of quicken this process and to get ready to face it up?

We, on the contrary, can't neither have clear information about.

On 2006-06-25 17:53, garyb wrote:
ok fine.
but i was refering to the data in the popular press.
....
and unscientific(not that i believe in science...).

That explains a lot and I appreciate you leveling with me. You should have said that from the beginning and not try led us to believe that you were speaking in the name of all scientists in the world.

What popular press are you talking about? You mean news press?

On 2006-06-25 17:53, garyb wrote:
in the mean time, this subject is pretty dead. and unscientific(not that i believe in science...).

You do not believe in science. Yet you use the products of science or engineering(practical science) every day. Science is about understanding and proofs, not beliefs. Believe does not make technology work, science does.

On 2006-06-26 07:45, Aries wrote:

On 2006-06-25 17:53, garyb wrote:
in the mean time, this subject is pretty dead. and unscientific(not that i believe in science...).

You do not believe in science. Yet you use the products of science or engineering(practical science) every day. Science is about understanding and proofs, not beliefs. Believe does not make technology work, science does.

Aries, you score 10 for best word juggling of the month
as science isn't about belief (but understanding and proof), how could he ?
there's no contradiction which your 'yet' suggests

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-26 07:57 ]</font>

On 2006-06-26 06:06, Cochise wrote:
And still there's something I'd like to know about, if you knowledged guys wanna still spend some word.

I apologize in case the information I'm asking for has already been discussed in this thread or one of its links; I may have read it on some dark hour, so it escapes me at the moment..

cochise, you're hearing me. noone here can answer you properly.

and astro, you're correct. science is only a technique for examining a situation. it is not a religion or god and those who practice it make mistakes ALL the time. the first thing a first semester physics teacher says is "later on you'll find out what i'm teaching this year is all wrong".

Bingo the Clowno! you say "admit" like i'm confessing to a crime....i admit nothing! i declare. aaaaarghh!

On 2006-06-26 09:34, garyb wrote:
...and astro, you're correct. science is only a technique for examining a situation. ...

oops, that wasn't me - I only quoted Aries
his short sequence of sentences is a masterpiece in rethoric - it certainly wasn't intended that way.

A says: ...not that i believe in science...
B confirms : You do not believe in science.
B accuses: Yet you use the products of science or engineering(practical science) every day.
B defines: Science is about understanding and proofs, not beliefs.
B turns it around to make A look stupid: Believe does not make technology work, science does.

All hooked to A's statement that he's a non-believer, perfectly in tune with B's own definition

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-26 10:25 ]</font>

Ehi! It seems the atmosphere has becoming quite hot in this thread

(in Italian language the word for pun, witticism, joke, is freddura translated by its root: coldness)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2006-06-26 11:06 ]</font>

if that refers to my post above, then please - the only emotion it bears is entertainment
I would have preferred a more general definition but it's much easier with the original sentence.

The verbs in the 'dissection' are over-emphasized and just placeholders - it's not even related to the content of this thread and not personal in any way.

I think I got the idea what Aries really wanted to point out at GaryB, but an example of this rethorical quality is a true nugget, worth shifting the off-topic even a bit more off

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-26 11:27 ]</font>

No sorry Tom, it may be a try to relax the tension between Bingo and Gary.
Just in the hope it doesn't arouse the opposite effect

Tom just has an analytical mind, he must analize, it's not only entertainment for us

OT: I consider Gary - Bingo's confrontation as completely based on a sincere yet unnecessory misunderstanding from Bingo's side
There was no personnal attack, there was just discussion.
No offend Bingo, just analysing

Want evidence?
Gary stayed calm, even at the end

I'd even say, Gary's input was a perfect opportunity for sharpening the mind en learn more.
One doesn't have to agree

Not intended or even wanting to start any discussion or so, just to deal my opinion, now that I did this post above

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2006-06-26 19:31 ]</font>

no enmity here...

sorry for putting words in your mouth, astroman. thanks for the illustration.

If the world's still here, climate change could kill your children in 20/30 years or your grandchildren in 40/50 years. There's nothing definate, nothing certain, but it's worth considering carefully when looking long and hard at ourselves & deciding to smile back in the mirror at such a perfect creature.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shroomz on 2006-06-27 04:36 ]</font>

i'll smile.
destruction was not my idea.

look.
if the evidence is really this clear, those in charge CERTAINLY know it. the decision was obviously made to leave things as they are. obviously, SOME feel that they have a way through any possible problem from warmer temps. surprise! it's the same people who call for a culling of the human herd.the questions begged are:
1. is ANY of this real?
2. isn't warmning dangerous for the elite also? won't their children also suffer?
3. why are profits and money more important than human beings who created those ideas for their own use? or did humans not make those ideas up?
4. if global warming is happening, is caused by man and it's dire consequencers all are real, and everyone in a position of power knows it(and be careful here. a position of power is a slippery idea. people say things about what presidents do and don't know, but there are those who inform them, and decide what they should be told. ceos of multination corporations often control more assets, humans, raw materials and finished products that some 1st world nations), after all it's obvious to a casual article reader, what is to be gained by the allowing of the tragedy?
5. if the elite among us know(they MUST or they're not elite), why are we told to blame ourselves for what happens?
6. etc, etc.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-27 12:48 ]</font>

>>>1. is ANY of this real?

evidence please.

>>>2. isn't warmning dangerous for the elite also? won't their children also suffer?

yes & well, yes..

>>>3. why are profits and money more important than human beings who created those ideas for their own use? or did humans not make those ideas up?

Greed!! & yes they did AFAIK...

>>>4. if global warming is happening, is caused by man and it's dire consequencers all are real, and everyone in a position of power knows it, after all it's obvious to a casual article reader, what is to be gained by the allowing of the tragedy?

Maybe it's not so much 'allowing', but more denial & stupidity like consuming 25% of the world's oil production yearly by running vehicules with rediculously large engines (4-6L) for no apparent reason ... FOR DECADES

>>>5. if the elite among us know(they MUST or they're not elite), why are we told to blame ourselves for what happens?

Mindfu*k, ..whatever

>>>6. etc, etc.