• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

John Kerry Says That Climate Change Is Just As Dangerous As Iran's Nukes.

IML Gear Cream!
6000 years? Lmao, try 4 billion years.

Do you also not believe that matter is made up of atoms and that the periodic table of elements is a lie, since it's just a "theory?"

Despite what retarded young earth creationists say, radioactive dating is very accurate. Carbon dating is one of many types of radioactive dating and each different type confirms each others dates when compared.


entering thread!! the big bang bafoon:) lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.
There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.
 
entering thread!! the big bang bafoon:) lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.
There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.

So...132 years of climate data isn't sufficient, but having faith in a book that runs contrary to what scientific evidence over hundred of years has shown is cool...Makes perfect sense...You're irrational. This isn't to say that there is or isn't a God, it's just to point out the hypocrisy in the fact you think we should pay no mind to 132 years of fairly conclusive evidence (At least in the minds of intelligent, educated people) about climate change while you live your life according to a book that has zero data supporting it and is highly unlikely to contain a single fact. Whenever science comes up with something that disproves that book, you either change the book or say it isn't the literal word of God. When he said years he meant millenia, 1 year amillion years, same difference, right? You probably think there is no evidence the big bang happened, and I'm not saying it did. But you believe the world is 6000 years old and that a chick ate an apple with a talking snake and it's the climate change believers who are the crazy ones? It must be fun to live in your reality...if you really want to call it that.

I have been fairly diplomatic over the decade I've been on this board, but at this point I might as well come out and say it. If you believe in any sort of religious text...You are stupid. Really, really stupid. In fact, since you can't seem to grasp scientific concepts and any that run counter to your belief system you completely ignore, I beg you to refuse any medical treatment since it is all based on science. You will be doing the world a favor, trust me, you're holding us all back.
 
Last edited:
I guess that's a little harsh, you could just be ignorant or misinformed. That is the primary problem, you have the right to believe that, but if you are dumb enough to believe it you really have no place in scientific discussion. Again, that's not to say you shouldn't believe in a God, you just shouldn't follow the book because it's bullshit.
 
entering thread!! the big bang bafoon:) lets try to stay on point, this isn't about your fav topic "creation VS evolution" I get it, most everyone gets it. You think we came from the explosion of gases over millions of years. I believe in God the Creator who gave man life.
There are some "believers" that have agreed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is where your 4 billion years occurred. Personally, it makes no difference how old the earth is, it's not going to add even one millisecond to anyones life. It changes nothing.

You were the one that mentioned the earth being 6000 years old. Btw, the big bang and evolution are different theories. Germ theory and atomic theory are just theories too, so I assume you don't believe in viruses, bacteria or atoms. Or do you just question the theories that contradict your myth about virgin births and resurrections?
 
Last edited:
As I said, completely ignore it. I mean, there's all of this data showing trickle-down economics works, which is why I assume you support it. Then again, actually thinking about problems isn't really a GOP thing. Although, it's not much of a Dem thing either.

Oh, you can't refute my statement about global warming, so you're going to bring in economics? That's awesome.

Also, I think the rich should get the shit taxed out of them. So yeah, you're wrong there, too.

I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.
 
I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.

The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.

"97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[107]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.

"97?98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[107]"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.

Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:

1. The current warming trend stated at the end of the last ice age. About 10,000 year before the industrial age that's supposedly causing global warming.
2. This is not the hottest the world has been.
3. The warming that we've seen in the last 200 years in inline with the trend that started at the end of the last ice age.

So let me ask you this: if mankind is causing global warming, what should the temperature be doing if it wasn't? Going down? Going up? Staying the same?
 
In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.

Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:

1. The current warming trend stated at the end of the last ice age. About 10,000 year before the industrial age that's supposedly causing global warming.
2. This is not the hottest the world has been.
3. The warming that we've seen in the last 200 years in inline with the trend that started at the end of the last ice age.

So let me ask you this: if mankind is causing global warming, what should the temperature be doing if it wasn't? Going down? Going up? Staying the same?

Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter except that it seems that the only folks that refute the science are not scientists. I have personally not reviewed any of the science nor am I qualified to make an assessment of it either.
 
Like I said, I have no opinion on the matter except that it seems that the only folks that refute the science are not scientists. I have personally not reviewed any of the science nor am I qualified to make an assessment of it either.

They aren't many that can afford to not tow the line. There are few that do anyway. Also, I've seen interviews where scientists said their names were put on documents supporting AGW without their permission or knowledge.
 
They aren't many that can afford to not tow the line. There are few that do anyway. Also, I've seen interviews where scientists said their names were put on documents supporting AGW without their permission or knowledge.

2-3% is a very small few. It would have to be a pretty large conspiracy to encompass that large of a majority.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Oh, you can't refute my statement about global warming, so you're going to bring in economics? That's awesome.

Also, I think the rich should get the shit taxed out of them. So yeah, you're wrong there, too.

I can't believe that people are so retarded as to believe that a few hundred years of data can tell us anything definitive about trends that have gone on for hundreds of millions of years.

I agree with you that a few hundred years can't show conclusively something is happening, I disagree with the fact that you should ignore it because there isn't more data, which is obviously your stance. The fact that we are pumping that shit in to the atmosphere is obviously causing problems. I'm not saying it's causing 100% of the problems, but it's causing problems. We should be slowing it down, not speeding it up. Even if we are only speeding it up by 5-10%.

The interesting part to me is that by far, the majority of scientists who are considered experts in meteorology are in agreement about global warming, and I wouldn't consider them retards.

I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'm completely ignorant on the topic, but when a majority of the folks that are the most trained in an area of research agree on something, I tend to accept their ideas as the most plausible.

"97?98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[107]"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only that, but 86% of all scientists who have ever published in any scientific journal. On 1 side you have thousands and thousands of the smartest people on the planet and on the other you have a handful of politicians who are driven by money and greed. How is that a tough choice to make? Politicians obviously don't even understand the problem. I lump John Kerry AND Al Gore in to that group.


In the beginning of the stupidity that is AGW, many scientists said it was wrong, or simply said the data was inconclusive. Those people lost their funding and were banned from various institutions. Feel free to look it up. There is a lot of money behind the AGW movement. Hell, AWG Jesus, Al Gore, owns interest in companies that stand to make a lot of money if they can get the idiotic bills that want to get passed. Not to mention the leaked documents about the AWG "fixing" the numbers on their experiments because they're weren't returning the "right" output.

Also, I've never seen any facts that counter these:

1. The current warming trend stated at the end of the last ice age. About 10,000 year before the industrial age that's supposedly causing global warming.
2. This is not the hottest the world has been.
3. The warming that we've seen in the last 200 years in inline with the trend that started at the end of the last ice age.

So let me ask you this: if mankind is causing global warming, what should the temperature be doing if it wasn't? Going down? Going up? Staying the same?

1)I didn't know they had data going back to the last ice age, sweet! Nobody on the planet is saying that Climate change was driven by the industrial age, only that it is accelerating it.

2)Obviously not. It's also no the wettest, what's your point? It's quite possible that it's been billions of degrees warmer here before, but that has no bearing on the problem. The problem is we are here and at some point the climate is going to make the planet unlivable. I would like that to not happen any time soon.

I agree cow farts and other things are driving this trend as well. I wouldn't even say the problem is fossil fuels, it's that there are too many of us and fossil fuels are only a small part of that.
 
Last edited:
2-3% is a very small few. It would have to be a pretty large conspiracy to encompass that large of a majority.

Believe what you want. I've seen the interviews regarding people that have lost jobs because they didn't tow the line or had their names used with permission.

What's kind of hilarious is going to be that, no matter what happens, global warming is going to continue. Living in a large country, I'll be in a place where I can laugh about it.

Fun fact: if not for global warming there wouldn't be a Great Barrier Reef (it's only 8000 years old).
 
I don't even know why we're arguing. Even if it were proven to be 100% fact, anything the government could do would either get fucked up or driven by special interests anyway.
 
I agree with you that a few hundred years can't show conclusively something is happening, I disagree with the fact that you should ignore it because there isn't more data, which is obviously your stance. The fact that we are pumping that shit in to the atmosphere is obviously causing problems. I'm not saying it's causing 100% of the problems, but it's causing problems. We should be slowing it down, not speeding it up. Even if we are only speeding it up by 5-10%.

And herein lies the problem: mixing up the issues. It's people like you that bundle AGW with pollution. Pollution is real, so AGW must be, too? Right? Right?

1)I didn't know they had data going back to the last ice age, sweet! Nobody on the planet is saying that Climate change was driven by the industrial age, only that it is accelerating it.

They have temperature data going back millions of years. If we're accelerating the warming, why is it still inline with the rate of change that started at the end of the last ice age?

2)Obviously not. It's also no the wettest, what's your point? It's quite possible that it's been billions of degrees warmer here before, but that has no bearing on the problem. The problem is we are here and at some point the climate is going to make the planet unlivable. I would like that to not happen.

What's my point? Are you fucking serious? What's the point that the Earth has, when no human's were present, gotten warming that it is now? What's the point that the Earth has gone though cyclical changes that included warming trends just like we're seeing now? The planet isn't going to be unlivable. Total sensationalist, mindless, bullshit. The only danger is to small countries if their farming belt moves to another country.
 
Last edited:
Believe what you want. I've seen the interviews regarding people that have lost jobs because they didn't tow the line or had their names used with permission.

What's kind of hilarious is going to be that, no matter what happens, global warming is going to continue. Living in a large country, I'll be in a place where I can laugh about it.

Fun fact: if not for global warming there wouldn't be a Great Barrier Reef (it's only 8000 years old).

It's not really a belief that nearly all scientists are in agreement, the studies on their opinions are very consistent.
 
I don't even know why we're arguing. Even if it were proven to be 100% fact, anything the government could do would either get fucked up or driven by special interests anyway.

Many things have been proven. Scientist and environmentalists have said that there is a floating mass of plastic in the oceans. 100% proven.

The problem with AGW is that there is a natural global warming, it's mixed up with pollution, and people want to help "save the world" so they jump on the bandwagon without actually doing any though. Plus, like you alluded to, there's a lot of money behind the AGW movement.
 
It's not really a belief that nearly all scientists are in agreement, the studies on their opinions are very consistent.

It's a belief when the facts don't exist or the proposed idea is contrary to reality. AGW is a faith just as much as any religion.
 
It's a belief when the facts don't exist or the proposed idea is contrary to reality. AGW is a faith just as much as any religion.

You misunderstood me, I'm not arguing for or against global warming, just pointing out that nearly all scientists are in agreement and the only people opposed are non scientists and politicians.
 
You misunderstood me, I'm not arguing for or against global warming, just pointing out that nearly all scientists are in agreement and the only people opposed are non scientists and politicians.

Fair enough, but not all scientists are in agreement and that they, and their work, has been compromised. I'm also pointing out that the facts are contrary to what they're stating.
 
DOMS; said:
What's my point? Are you fucking serious? What's the point that the Earth has, when no human's were present, gotten warming that it is now? What's the point that the Earth has gone though cyclical changes that included warming trends just like we're seeing now? The planet isn't going to be unlivable. Total sensationalist, mindless, bullshit. The only danger is to small countries if their farming belt moves to another country.

I think you misunderstand. Who cares if the planet had been a billion degrees Celsius, that has no impact on us now. We are here, if it ever got that hot before and there was life, it died. And it's certainly not sensationalist. Look at what's happening to the corn in the Midwest. I'm not saying that's from man made global warming, I'm saying it can easily spiral in to a problem and we are only talking a couple of percentage points of a degree. Nature is in a fine balance, look at what would happen if colony collapse disorder hit bees on a larger scale. They pollinate 30% of our crops. Of course, other insects could take up the slack, but everything in nature serves a purpose. Not trying to sound all alarmist, but the planet doesn't need to be made directly unlivable to us, it merely needs to become unlivable for something we depend on significantly.
 
IML Gear Cream!
I think you misunderstand. Who cares if the planet had been a billion degrees Celsius, that has no impact on us now. We are here, if it ever got that hot before and there was life, it died. And it's certainly not sensationalist. Look at what's happening to the corn in the Midwest. I'm not saying that's from man made global warming, I'm saying it can easily spiral in to a problem and we are only talking a couple of percentage points of a degree. Nature is in a fine balance, look at what would happen if colony collapse disorder hit bees on a larger scale. They pollinate 30% of our crops. Of course, other insects could take up the slack, but everything in nature serves a purpose. Not trying to sound all alarmist, but the planet doesn't need to be made directly unlivable to us, it merely needs to become unlivable for something we depend on significantly.

Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming cannot be stopped, right?
 
Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming cannot be stopped, right?

Yes, I just feel we need to stop doing anything to speed it up or at the very least mitigate as much of our impact as possible. We don't know if we are affecting it by 1% or 90%. We have no option B right now so the further we can kick that can down the road the better. If it was certain that our impact was negligible I would say fuck it too. We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach. All it will cost is a few people at the top of the socioeconomic food chain will have to be responsible for their impact and spend money on that rather than buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need anyway.
 
Yes, I just feel we need to stop doing anything to speed it up or at the very least mitigate as much of our impact as possible. We don't know if we are affecting it by 1% or 90%. We have no option B right now so the further we can kick that can down the road the better. If it was certain that our impact was negligible I would say fuck it too. We have no idea what our impact is, so reducing it is the sane, smart approach. All it will cost is a few people at the top of the socioeconomic food chain will have to be responsible for their impact and spend money on that rather than buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need anyway.

I'm 100% for cleaning carbon emissions for real reasons like pollution, but trying to fix problems that may or may not be real is wrong. You end up with crap like the Kyoto protocol. Even worse, as you pointed out before, any effort to "fix" things get worked over by governments and corporations.
 
Pascal's wager! Not sure about the smart or sane part unless religion is too.

I don't think that falls under pascals wager.

reducing pollution is a win if agw is real and if it isn't real. Not reducing pollution is surely a loss either way, as well.
 
I don't think that falls under pascals wager.

reducing pollution is a win if agw is real and if it isn't real. Not reducing pollution is surely a loss either way, as well.

He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment.

btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)
 
He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment.

btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)

Lol, I need to look up consonance. Smarty pants.
 
He said we have no idea what our impact is. I was responding only to his comment which was analogous to Pascal's wager. The reality of pollution is irrelevant to my specific comment.

btw, clearly certain types of pollution pose an undeniable danger. (sorry for the abundant alliteration... or would that be consonance?)

Yes, we have no idea of our impact, but we know there is one. 97% of climate scientists as well as 85% of all scientists believe it is significant or primarily driven by us. Both of those groups are smarter than you or I so I defer to them. Pascal's wager is in no way logical. It assumes the risk of going to hell is worse than the benefit of doing whatever you want during this lifetime. CC is different, we know we are speeding it up via carbon emissions and overpopulation. There is no if in this situation, the world is going to eventually end as it pertains to us, and we are speeding up the process. Besides, Pascal's Wager relies on so many assumptions it's ridiculous. It assumes that if there is a God he gives a fuck. Why does he have to give a fuck? Why can't God just be a simple experimenter performing a giant experiment? It assumes that if you don't believe you are going to hell. Why? What evidence is there that this will happen? Has a precedent been set to where we know without a shadow of a doubt that if you don't believe in God you will rot in hell? Given that one of the primary greenhouse gases is CO2 and we are pumping a ton of it in to the atmosphere we are certainly accelerating CC. Granted, both are based off a simple cost to benefit analysis, but CC is based on fairly established fact (We have an impact) while Pascal's wager is based on myth (Religion). Certainly you don't believe every cost to benefit analysis is the same as Pascal's wager.
 
Just for clarification: you do realize that the warming cannot be stopped, right?

We can stop promoting it's rapid onset.

But I stopped arguing Global Warming a long time ago, most of the changes proposed serve more than to just stop AGW. We need to stop polluting the planet period. We need to start curbing our addiction to fossil fuels, especially foreign oil for the sake of national security. There is practically a continent of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. Other countries are way ahead of us on this and if we don't get with the program we will find ourselves in a world of hurt. In Japan they can't turn on the Air Con until the temp hits 83F, in the US places have the AC cranking full blast when its 70F. We are wasteful simply put and it makes us look stupid.
 
Back
Top