Global Warming - NOT

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:48 am

grimey wrote:
the_professor wrote: (Any climate change studies produced before ten years ago were claiming that the earth was cooling and not warming)
You are demonstrably full of shit. Any amount of research whatsoever would have made it clear that you're wrong.

I was being facetious you moron. My point is the science is far from settled, despite the impression left by corporate Joe's endless ramblings, especially those which claim his scientists are more credible than anyone else's.

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:52 am

@#$! it, I am going to get a coffee in a styrofoam cup, hop in my 1979 Ford F250 with the big 460 in it and drive my old paint cans to dump in the nearest lake. Then I will lite some tires on fire and roast my up the deer I shot with lead slugs, yeah that's it. It's hot, getting hotter, we get it. Why is that being discussed instead of more posting of hot women in bikinis?

pika · Post by **pika** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:18 pm

Why is that being discussed instead of more posting of hot women in bikinis?

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pass the deer.

trancemania · Post by **trancemania** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:42 pm

Yeah enough of pointless arguing.

Good Call sigmet77.Lets focus on whats really important.

Hopefully it does get freakin hot so that we can have summer the whole year!!! and see nice hotties all the time.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:59 pm

sigmet77 wrote:@#$! it, I am going to get a coffee in a styrofoam cup, hop in my 1979 Ford F250 with the big 460 in it and drive my old paint cans to dump in the nearest lake. Then I will lite some tires on fire and roast my up the deer I shot with lead slugs, yeah that's it. It's hot, getting hotter, we get it. Why is that being discussed instead of more posting of hot women in bikinis?

1) I'll discuss what I want, when I want, however I want, and you have no control over that, just as Pika will post as many hot women in bikinis, when he wants, how he wants and we do not wish to control that

2) You may get it, "that it's getting hotter" but if you read the initial post about "more snow in Antartica", you can clearly see that NOT everyone gets it. Also, the only reason why I jumped into this one is because Sulako brought another interesting angle. What can we do about it? I agree that there's nothing more to say about the fact it's getting hotter. The overwhelming majority of all scientists in all fields have already proven that we are causing it.

3) More global warming does not mean more hot bikini weather. It means more extreme weather, economic downfall (the cost is already being felt), and human suffering. All these things are very bad for encouraging more hot women to wear bikinis.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:16 pm

Sulako wrote: Other than that I guess we should all quit our jobs as pilots because we are complicit in a pretty frickin' huge environmental scandal; I generate about 3,300 lbs/hour of CO2 in a Citation II; your mileage may vary (it works that each pound of fuel generates around 3.3 lbs of CO2), but that tells me I'm not exactly kind to the environment.

actually an airliner, per passenger mile is about 1.5 - 2 times more efficient than a VW Jetta TDI. A jetta TDI get 65MPG or 52 NMPG (divide by 1.25)

Take your planes range (when full of pax) multiply by number of pax, divide by number of cars needed to take all PAX, divide by Jetta NMPG (52), multiply by number of cars to get total gals needed to make same trip, divide by Gals your plane holds = times more efficient

777-200LR as example 9450NM*301 PAX= 2,784,250 NM/PAX/(301/4=75) 75 cars = 37,123 NM every car travels/ 52 NMPG = 714 * 75 cars= 53,550 Gals/47,890 gals = 1.2 times more efficient.

so we're aren't doing THAT bad, efficiency wise

pika · Post by **pika** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:45 pm

1) I'll discuss what I want, when I want, however I want, and you have no control over that, just as Pika will post as many hot women in bikinis, when he wants, how he wants and we do not wish to control that

I will do my best. Even corporate guys need love sometimes.

wxguy · Post by **wxguy** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:49 pm

I'd just like to add a few comments to this topic.
I remember one of my professors saying that global warming doesn't mean it will get warmer everywhere all the time.
As for whether global warming is man made or not, well I'm not sure. However I do know that we should all hope that it is man made! That way, we may be able to do something about it. If the Earth is getting warmer because, say, the sun's solar output is changing...well what can we really do about that?
I don't know all the answers to Global Warming - no one does, but I'd just ask that everyone keep an open mind. Question everything about Global Warming, find out what the source of the infornmation is.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:28 pm

I'll be having a styrofoam bonfire tonight to offset the effects of February.

sigmet77 · Post by **sigmet77** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:25 am

That's more like it Haz, and be sure to invite some bikini clad, beer drinking, deer eating, 4x4 loving hot girls to sit by the fire with you. Sure, they won't show up after seeing the pics of your hairy ass, but it is the thought that counts.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:52 am

hazatude wrote:I'll be having a styrofoam bonfire tonight to offset the effects of February.

1) No you won't. You're just saying you will cause you think that makes you a like rebel, which you think makes you like cool, maaaaan. I think the hip word for that is "poser".

2) Styrofoam was a popular target not because it's a cause of global warming, but mainly because it takes ten times longer than paper to decompose. People realised that styrofoam was pilling up in their local dumps and polluting much more than the alternatives, so they phased it out. Burning it will do nothing but dirty the air your breathe, stink up your backyard and dirty your lawn furniture with black smoke residue.

3) To all the people who actually encourage purposeful destruction of ressources and the environment, think about what you're saying and what that's telling us about your persona. Seriously, think about it for one second. Either you're trying to be provocative by saying you will mindlessly destroy, only to undermine the efforts of those trying to conserve, which makes you an asshole (not a hairy ass), or, you're completely idiotic and don't realize what you're doing, and in that case you shouldn't be let out in public, which does not paint a nice picture of the captain you are (or someday will be). Also, remember that most companies don't like employees (or employees to be) wasting their ressources out of spite or idiocy. Spoken words disperse themselves into nothingness, but written words stay for all to see.

ps pika: thanks for the pic of the chick near the corporate jet. I printed that baby out and I'll hang it at the FBO. Wish the stars weren't there though.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:56 am

corporate joe wrote:3) More global warming does not mean more hot bikini weather. It means more extreme weather, economic downfall (the cost is already being felt), and human suffering. All these things are very bad for encouraging more hot women to wear bikinis.

Economic downfall is dependant on where you live I guess. What costs are you referring to that are "already being felt"? It is impossible at this point to try and tie any costs to the wobbly theory behind climate change.

There have been several pieces written that suggest Canada would largely benefit from a warmer climate.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:11 am

the_professor wrote:
corporate joe wrote:3) More global warming does not mean more hot bikini weather. It means more extreme weather, economic downfall (the cost is already being felt), and human suffering. All these things are very bad for encouraging more hot women to wear bikinis.
Economic downfall is dependant on where you live I guess. What costs are you referring to that are "already being felt"? It is impossible at this point to try and tie any costs to the wobbly theory behind climate change.

There have been several pieces written that suggest Canada would largely benefit from a warmer climate.

You continue to amaze me. You ask questions about your beliefs, and when given facts, you don't bother reading the replies. Why are you pretending this is a discussion when in fact it's a monologue of you repeating your inherited beliefs which are oblivious to all the facts brought that contradict them.

Every "argument" you have brought, every link you have provided I have read and researched. I opened my mind, weighed what you have said, and I have looked for answers. You on the other hand, continue to repeat the same things that have been refuted many times by myself and other posters, you refuse to read the facts provided, yet you stand here and claim that you are not part of the "bandwagon" and that you are thinking for yourself. The roles are reversed my friend. You're thinking by yourself (not for yourself) and your mind is completely closed, yet you're projecting and accusing others of your flaws. Nonetheless, I will refute and ridiculize another one of your beliefs, AGAIN.

Show me one thorough study from a reliable source saying that Canada's economy as a whole will benefit from Global Warming.

In the meantime, I offer a 700 page study from the chief economist and Vice-president of the world bank, that says:

"global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096594.stm (shortened news story)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independe ... report.cfm (full report here)

But, if you know science better than the overwheling majority of scientists, then you probably know economics better than the world bank.

PS: for those wondering why I am such a dick right now, please see post, "why I am such a dick".

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:58 am

co-joe: a moment of perspective.

It would appear that your definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Problem is, I'll bet your opinions have changed. Your opinions when you were younger, and when you will be older, will indoubtably be different than they are now.

So, by your definition, you were an idiot when you were younger, and you will be an idiot when are are older.

But wait! Perhaps when you will be older, you will be wiser, and you will conclude that you are an idiot now.

Can someone please point out my flaws in the above reasoning or initial assumptions?

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:23 am

Hedley wrote:co-joe: a moment of perspective.

It would appear that your definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't agree with your opinions.

Problem is, I'll bet your opinions have changed. Your opinions when you were younger, and when you will be older, will indoubtably be different than they are now.

So, by your definition, you were an idiot when you were younger, and you will be an idiot when are are older.

But wait! Perhaps when you will be older, you will be wiser, and you will conclude that you are an idiot now.

Can someone please point out my flaws in the above reasoning or initial assumptions?

Wise words. One problem though. I am old, and my definition of an idiot, amongst other things, if you read clearly the post where I used that word, is someone who purposely destroys ressources. It has nothing to do with diverging opinions. My circle of friends and families are filled with people of diverging opinions. I meet intelligent people everyday with diverging opinions.

I also meet idiots with different opinions, and idiots with opinions identical to mine. If in some cases I meet people with diverging opinions, who I consider to be idiots, that does not mean that I consider all people with differing opinions to be idiots. Small, yet important nuance.

Also this case is a bit different. Suppose we are at your local lake xyz (insert name of your place of choice to fish) and we have a discussion on the type of boat that was anchored here yesterday. I say it's type A, you say it's type B. You would not consider me an idiot because we can not agree (and neither would I). However, if we met the owner of the boat and he told us that his boat is type B, and by-passers confirmed they saw it was a type B, yet I continued to explain to you why it was a type A and it couldn't be a type B, then, after a while, you would consider me an idiot. Your judgement would not be based on my diverging opinion, but rather on the way I reasoned.

Finally remember that this is not about opinions. It's about facts. It's about real consequences affecting all of us. It's about our planet and our species. When a human mind can not make the difference between fact and belief, when a human mind is incapable of correctly weighing all the evidence available and analyzing the pros and the cons, then that human mind is not working properly. If you choose to grasp one piece of information yet you do not take into account all the other pieces of informations staring you right in the face, what does that tell you about the person's mental capacity?

Does that make a little more sense to you?

PS: there is another member on these forums called co-joe. I am corporate joe. Again, small difference, but important nuance. Furthermore, I am sure he would like to be kept out of this.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:11 am

Corporate joe:

You should get Al Gore to build you a church to preach in, Al has the money and together both of you could make tons more with you as the boogeyman keeping the flock cowed in fear ......just like every other religion.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:18 am

Cat Driver wrote:Corporate joe:

You should get Al Gore to build you a church to preach in, Al has the money and together both of you could make tons more with you as the boogeyman keeping the flock cowed in fear ......just like every other religion.

I am a bit disapointed by that reply. I truly had higher expectations. Al Gore = Global warming? Is that the stage where you're at in this discussion? Does your doctor have a church to preach fear in if he's telling you smoking is bad for you?

trancemania · Post by **trancemania** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:43 am

Y2K !!!!

Now be honest.

Who of us here were scared the world was going to end?
Probably the same poeple who believe in global warming.

corporate joe · Post by **corporate joe** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:56 am

trancemania wrote:Y2K !!!!

Now be honest.

Who of us here were scared the world was going to end?
Probably the same poeple who believe in global warming.

Excellent point you bring there. Y2K is a great example!

Except you've got it upside down. Scientists and world businesses kept telling people not to worry about the year 2000, that it was just a number, but uneducated people didn't believe science and facts and were omnibulated by their own inherited beliefs.
The same way some people today still don't believe science and don't have the facts straight, the same people for whom it is more convenient to deny than to take responsibility.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:15 pm

pretty sure if scientists said nothing would happen on Y2K, it wouldn't have been such a big deal, and IT employees would have been working like dogs trying to prevent what could happen. (trust me after my friends father worked for the two solid weeks leading up to y2k without coming home, all he did was say "nothing happened" and passed out on the couch, microsoft programmer)