warri0r45

You know some countries actually are dying up.

Looks like you're the one that's been hypnotised. :lol:

You assume practicallity is good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume peace and equality between religions are good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume laws should be in the state's control. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume the purpose of laws is to protect society from harm. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Forgive me butting in but practicality is good, peace and equality anywhere is good, laws should be in the states control (it's been tried and proven) and the purpose of laws is to create order and minimise harm. Overanalysing is useless in a debate such as this, unless it's about philosophy where in that case, forgive my forcing my opinions on you.

Thanks for your sources Ambassadar. I'll check them out later. Edit: I have read the NASA site so far. Interesting picture from the nasa site and I don't doubt that there may be a long term natural variation in temperature, yet it seems the basic conclusion the site comes to is 'we're not sure yet' or 'we need a better consensus and only time will tell,' correct? I'll dig around for some sources as a rebuttal, but off the top of my head, from what I've heard, the majority of world leading scientists are 90% sure human contributions are speeding up the heating of the planet. Anyway don't quote me on that untill I can find some sources. Edit2: I have read into your UHI site. It seems reasonable to suggest that radiant heat in populated areas can give inaccurate readings of actual temperature (irrespective of there being a city in the area of measurement) and it would seem that such an affect may give us the illusion of global warming over a period of time (say the amount of time a city takes to become more populated). Having said that, the greenhouse affect is real and many sources claim CO2 levels are at thier highest point in modern human history, such that an increase in current trends could actually have a very damaging affect of the human race. Besides this, I'm sure people who have actually thought thris through more than you or I would have taken UHI into account. Again, don't quote me on that untill I can find some sources. Edit3: I have now read your site critiquing the IPCC. One thing struck me after reading it. You say the IPCC is swayed by the government, and thier results (the IPCC's) are basically quite gloomy and basically frown upon fossil fuel use, correct? Why would any government endorse information that damages such a key industry? Perhaps I've misinterpreted something, I'm not sure. And as for the dishonest member of the IPCC that resigned, I'm not surprised really. There are dishonest people and any population you analyse, it's human nature. Would you say that all of the many scientists from over 150 countries working for the IPCC are dishonest too? Again, I'm haven't started finding sources to back up my claims yet. Perhaps I will tomorrow if I get time.

Prove my point with a side of fries. Thanks. Just because it is morally accepted doesn't mean it is right. Just because something is accepted to be immoral doesn't mean it is wrong. In the first case something that is morally accepted (homosexuality) can still be wrong. And in the second case something that is accepted as immoral (incest) doesn't mean it is can't be right. If you are going to argue against incest and say it is immoral it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. Yes, we all suck and you and your beliefs rule. Congratulations. I don't need a religion to have a consistent moral system.

Like I said earlier I don't feel I or science has enough information at this point to say we KNOW what is going on. In this response I focus on man made possible causes first and then on natural possible causes. I'll try to get around to giving you actual papers and links later if you still want it. A lot of this is just common sense though. All focus on global warming appears to be on the gasses released from combustion. This would include cars, power plants, etc. That is a big problem I have with the way it is presented now. It seems waaay too agenda based and not enough real science on the issue. Why does no one talk about the thousands upon thousands of miles of new black asphalt roads that have been constructed in the past 100 years? Imagine how much heat that absorbs from the sun over the course of a year. Roads get so hot they will burn your feet in the summer. These roads replaced tree canopies that would absorb and convert the solar radiation thus keeping temperatures lower. Think about all the millions and probably billions of houses and buildings built in the past 100 years. A large number of these have black or dark colored roofs. Imagine how much heat is absorbed from that. Why no talk on this? Ever noticed on a cold night if you are out in the country it is literally about a 10 degree difference than if you drive into a city on the same night? A large part of that is heat retention of all the black roofs and roads as well as waste heat from houses. Don't you find it funny how one volcano can put out about all the CO2 that humans have in our history? The Earth has functioned well for thousands of years with volcanos going off all the time. Why would a little bit more gas in the air all of a sudden destroy the Earth's climate? The Earth has shown it can compensate for these things with the way it does with volcanos. Do you believe that temperature stays constant and climates stay the same without human interference? What ended the last ice age? Why did the Earth warm up then? How do we not know it isn't a natural occurance? It's not like we have a long history of data about the Earth's climate and causes for weather shifts. Do you think our scientists know enough or have enough data at this point to rule this out? Why does it seem like anyone that raises this option is attacked vehemently? Did you know as recently as 1975 I believe it was Newsweek(might be wrong but I think it was them) was running an article on global cooling? I'd like to see some sources for what you claim, particularly the whole roofs and roads absorb heat thing. If you think about it rooftops and roads take up an unbelievably insignificant surface area of our planet and wouldn't really have an affect (unless you provide a source that states otherwise). The biggest absorber of heat on the planet is the ocean. I reccomend any of the reports done by the IPCC (Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change) as they aren't run by any particular government, they have world leading experts from 150+ countries and they do not have an agenda. All in all, I would like to see some sources for what you claim. Edit: @bold1: For clarification, are you saying tree canopies absorb more heat or roads that replace them do? @bold 2: Ice core samples. @bold 3: If you are attacked for your views it's either a non-scientist attacking them or it's because the evidence is stacked against you. It's nothing personal and science actually thrives on you and others questioning the norm. It's productive.

Coal is a big polluter too. Natural gas is aswell, yet not so much. I think the point you make about deforestation and it's links to global warming is a very valid one. It shifts the climates carbon cycle balance.

Things (poverty, for example) are getting better these days. It's still a horrid mess in Africa, but it's better. We are richer as a planet and I believe we have come out of our all time low last century, this being WW1, WW2 and the cold war period. However, attitues seem to be at a low. Selfishness, personal greed and violent natures towards others seem to be proliferating all over the news and current affair programs. Now I believe this is for two reasons: The avaliability of drugs (alcohol, Ice and other stimulants make people violent) and the proliferation of information. We're swimming in it and that means we can't get away from the violence, selfishness and greed we see through the media. The world is a cruel place. Don't let it get to you.

Incest is wrong by nature, Darwin did alot of research on it. He found out all living things do the best they can to avoid interbreeding since it leads to defects, not passing on genes and infertility. So incest is both technically and morally wrong. I agree with the evolutionary standpoint. More specifically, I see morality as an evolutionary tool to enhance our survival rates and abilities to reproduce. Hence those with morals can live longer and stronger in a sense of community which all helps us to reproduce more. Now according to the fact that incest creates deformities by nature, it is seen as immoral because it does not utilise the strength, health or unity of the race which all diminish our abilities to reproduce and pass on our genes. Just a theory I espouse to.

It's always wondered me why people think thier perception of god or diety of choice is 'the one.'

Banannas. =P~ \

and for those who say it can cause depression... it does not. A main reason people start to do drugs[hard drugs] is BECAUSE of depression, and are hoping it will help ease their suffering. What a coincidence, I'm watching Hicks on youtube right now. :thumbsup: A great piece of comody from one of the greatest songs of all time in my opinion.

Bill Hicks... Applicable to any conversation. Too bad he died. :( He was funny as hell. :thumbsup:

So you are saying you are actualy 600,000 people? make sense next time please. So u r trying to say u cant read properly? make sense in your previous post please. You make no sense. Type in proper english with reasonable grammar and he might have understood you. Even though I still don't know what the hell you were trying to say.

Clicky Seems I'm near Ghandi.

4. There was a supernatural uncaused cause that caused the big bang. My idea is that it dosen't necessarily have to be a deity as they are highly specific and highly human perceptive. I believe this is also a plausible alternative. You can add it if you want. I'm not ruling out any of your alternatives though.

Good to see you support it. What country do you live in and do you have water problems there?

I'd say it's parody more than racism. There's no real element of hate, it's totally based on comedy.

That's the beauty of science, scientific theories and even scientific laws are all subject and accountable to change.

Your right, men these days have a diminished need for physical strength, but you can't just undo hundreds of thousands of years of evolution (that which suggests male humans are dominant over female humans). In some species, the females are stronger and more dominant. It's just the way nature works sometimes and in the case of humans, males are typically dominant. (sorry for the offtopicness of my post)

Yea, for certain. Think everyone is out to get you and act accordingly (ie: taking them out before they can take you out). If anyone looks at you weird - BAM. 8-) Paranoia and Pessimistic attitudes are your friend. :ohnoes: :uhh: :P

I haven't been looking into this post too much, but suppose the universe was created by a god. What makes people so sure thier god is the one that did it? There could have been some mystical force that created everything, but whether or not it takes a form, dosen't take a form, has a name, dosen't have a name, is good, is evil, has a conciousness, does not have a conciousness, has a gender, does not have a gender, has a personality, is limitless in it's capabilties, is still 'alive' or has 'died', is black, blue, white, opaque, solid, liquid, gas, energy etc is completely debatable. My point is that it may well be a possibility, but the nature of the creator is so open to interpretation, it's hardly a sufficient rival scientific theory and will likely never be. But then again, interpretation about the beginning of the universe and existance itself are hypothetical at best (unless I'm missing some obvious evidence for the big bang theory, I haven't really looked into it that much). I'll have to do some research into the big bang theory. Edit:

See, there isn't. And if you don't see that, and go all serious about it. Well, then you missed the point. And I guess you're too stupid. :) DD, okay. ;) I'm not serious about the song, I don't care about that. I don't appreciate being called stupid.

Fixed for Queensland And I find high schools distrubing, not scary. So many wanna-be [bleep]s (at least in this district) :| And then there's the wiggers, and what not. Just :uhh: Highschool was gay. Being a graduate FTW. :lol: :P

You don't agree with it? I do agree with it 200%, just showing it to people who don't want to agree with it. Sorry, I edited my post, couldn't quite tell your stance on the issue but now its all good.