The Biggest Hoax Of All Time?

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
Yog Sothoth said:
Is this thread a joke? Do you own homework, OP, I'm not going to do research for you that's already been verified and accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community.
There was a period where the idea of intelligent creation was accepted by 99.99% of the earth.

Just because people accept doesn't mean it's true or in any way validate it.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
Anarchemitis said:
I don't know why or how people can advocate against Wind power purely by visual concerns.
Because wind is, and always will be, a boutique energy supply. Please, continue to buy the wind turbines, of course, as I own stock in GE, so buy them buy them buy them, but it will never account for anything more than a tiny sliver of our energy pie.

The only feasable long term energy supply that can hope to cope with terrawatt scale demand is solar.

Period. Coal gets us to the point where solar takes over. Everything else is small potatos.

And I think global warming is a bunch of hooey, for the record.
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
The Steel Ninja said:
I voted that I agree. As a moderate with conservative leanings, I obviously get fed up with all that liberal BS (off the subject, but you seen that new Sun Chips commercial? iojwqerwiuwjaoiuwerijoargh) about how we're raping the planet, we need to stop polluting, warming is OUR fault, etc. It is a hoax, and just because some politician (Gore) who just so happens to be a left wingnut made a movie with all these "facts" (many of which were doctored to fit into his "convenient hoax") the leftists think they can suppress people who aren't afraid that they're causing the world to heat up, and conservatives aren't allowed to voice their opinion. What pissed me off was that for a project in one of my courses, one of the students did a piece about how he thought we should be more aware of global warming since we're the cause, and when I stated that I liked the piece even though I disagreed with it, I got chewed out and told I should go look up the facts on it.

Getting a bit off topic here, but I fear for our country if this liberal BS is going to be forced upon us and anyone who disagrees will be crucified.
how is wide overuse of the earths recourses a hoax? we have recorded very large losses in the planets vegitation do primarily to human activity. we have many times taken very large areas of land, inhabited by vegitation that was a part of the areas balanced ecosystem, and have literally turned them into wastelands that can no longer maintain almost any type of vegitation or wildlife. we greatly harmed many important natural ecosystems for our own use/gain, which cause a domino effect thru the food chain that eventually cause great harm to that ecosystem, and this chain reaction eventually effects many other systems, including our own. these effects on ecosystems are often not perceived for quite some time until these seemingly minor actions have finally overtime snowball into huge problems that greatly harm our civilization and way of life. it was not very long ago that fishermen began seeing a noticeablely great decrease in the amount of fish they find. this decrease in the amount of fish professional fisherman are catching is still continuing, and at the current rate, the negitive effects of this may soon become very apparent in our human society and way of life, espesually in those countrys that rely primarily on fish for food. we continue to use vaste amounts of fossil fuels, which are by no means unlimited. scientists, including those working solely for oil companys to locate places with oil, are seeing this great decline in the amount of fossil fuels left. in approximately 30 years, the special metal that makes the coils in lightbulbs that makes the lightbulb light up,[excluding florescent and LED bulbs] will be near completely gone. in approximately 100 years, scientists predict most all of the earths natural resources, like fossil fuels, will be used up and gone.

the fact is, life requires an icredibly delicit balance in order to continue. the odds of all these factors being met inorder to create this balance in the beginning on planet earth is far beyond extrordinary. but humans have advanced to a point where we are growing far to large. any scientist who knows anything about wildlife will tell you that if you have a species with very few/no preditors in a given location, the species will grow at an amazingly fast rate, but then at some point, when there is not enough food and/or land for the species, the population of that species will then drop DRASTICLY, to near exctinction. there was a famous study done depicting this very think. a scientist had about 30 deer put on this secluded island with no preditors to the deer. the deer population quicky grew to over 2000 deer. but then very shortly after that, the deer population quickly plummitted to only 8 deer. any creature species is limited by the resources and available land they have access to, and humans are no different. at some point we will no longer be able to support the large overpopulation, and our population will plumit just as those deer did.
 

Theophenes

New member
Dec 5, 2008
130
0
0
Personally, I don't think global warming is a hoax. I believe it's a theory based on correlative evidence that the media turned into a doomsday scenario because the media enjoys making people panic. Look up the Y2K bug if you don't believe me.

Al Gore is either a con-man or a deluded fool. This isn't because he believes in global warming, but because he endorses the Carbon-credit brokers, which IS MOST DEFINITELY one of the best scams since the sale of indulgences. If he is simply a con-man, he would've made a brilliant secretary of state, if he's a deluded fool, then I thank my fortune he did not become a president.

As to the discussion of power sources, can we get real about nuclear energy? It's clean, efficient, and works well when it's monitored and regulated by non-idiots. We could run the United States n nuclear/solar/geothermal, without even flinching. As for the aesthetics of wind-power, NIMBY is once again a pain in most folk's hind quarters.
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,931
0
0
thiosk said:
Anarchemitis said:
I don't know why or how people can advocate against Wind power purely by visual concerns.
Because wind is, and always will be, a boutique energy supply. Please, continue to buy the wind turbines, of course, as I own stock in GE, so buy them buy them buy them, but it will never account for anything more than a tiny sliver of our energy pie.

The only feasable long term energy supply that can hope to cope with terrawatt scale demand is solar.

Period. Coal gets us to the point where solar takes over. Everything else is small potatos.

And I think global warming is a bunch of hooey, for the record.
well, once mankind masters nuclear fusion, (which would be very safe, have very little nuclear waste, and produce an icredible amount of energy, unlike our current nuclear fission powerplants), we should be sustained with a very bountiful source of energy
..but, sadly scientist think we are still 40 to 50 years away from mastering Nuclear Fusion
 

TimTImNL

New member
Jan 14, 2009
8
0
0
WoW someone actual says somethign ive been screaming since the beginning of this whoe global warming crap yes the whole proces is going faster but since we havent become and perfect community the world will allways be inbalanced and weird shite will happen
 

Drangen

New member
Feb 24, 2008
21
0
0
Well regardless of whether it's happening or not (*ahem it is) we still shouldn't be doing what we're doing. I mean needless usage of fossil fuels still isn't a good thing.
 

Shadow5

New member
Mar 11, 2009
54
0
0
Now I do believe that the whole thing about "Man Destroying the Earth" comes from the same egotistical doctrine as "God made man in his image" and although it is probable that we are supporting the unnaturally high CO2 levels in the atmosphere there remains one point.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that exists, if some credible research went into proving that man was also releasing loads of the other kinds of gasses into the air I might give it some thought.

Back to my original point, people seem to have a hangup on being the most important beings on the planet and seem to make all kinds of things up to support it
 

Flushfacker

New member
Mar 17, 2009
307
0
0
Mazty said:
Flushfacker said:
patriklus said:
Thanks for saving me a long first post by pretty much writing word for word what I was planning on contributing. =)

I was trying to recall the program mentioned above while reading this thread, found it, then subsequently read this. Think Ill watch it again, as I seem to remember thinking it made sense.

Also I urge people to watch it (the global warming swindle) not because I want it to change peoples minds as such I would like someone?s ideas on it who is from the other side of the fence, someone who thinks global warming is man made.
Saying CO2 is caused by global warming is the same as saying ships come from ship wrecks.

Fact is there has been an increase in CO2 from the 1800's. Now that can be undoubtedly be seen as an anthropogenic change because since then, the C14 isotope has dramatically increased in the atmosphere. That isotope is only found in extremely old deposits of Carbon e.g. Oil & Coal. So how the hell did it get into the atmosphere? Through the burning of fossil fuels.
Therefore the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has certainly been because of human activity. It is a fact, there isn't any other way that isotope could have made it's way into the atmosphere.
Large bodies of water only play a role when trying to calculate the effects of global warming. That is the real unknown, hence why the IPCC report estimates have a difference of 5 meters, with the scenarios not incorporating variables such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Global warming is happening. Humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. These are both facts.
Politicians are using it to make money though, hence the UK carbon tax on industry, instead of say a tax cut on industry if they were to produce fewer emissions.
I see what you are saying, the presence of the C14 isotope in the atmosphere confirms we are producing CO2. Although what is this 'dramatic' increase you speak of (presumably from 0 parts per million ------> >0 parts per million?) if there were none to begin with id say any increase is quite dramatic, however, that is not to say it is having a dramatic effect on anything other than itself.

Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is one of the least harmful. A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs infrared rays (not reflects) to radiate them later. CO2 absorbs less of the spectrum than water vapor and methane to name just two (water vapor absorbs most of the infrared spectrum). Add this to the fact CO2 comprises less than 1% of the earths atmosphere, as many have already mentioned and you get my idea.
 

falcontwin

New member
Aug 10, 2008
229
0
0
Shadow5 said:
people seem to have a hangup on being the most important beings on the planet and seem to make all kinds of things up to support it
People do put way too much importance in their own existence. The planet could not give a fuck that your here, but people seem hell bent on wanting to prove they are so awesome that they can destroy the entire world.

As for the whole global warming debate I think it has now turned into a massive business strategy. There are hundred of billions of dollars being made by feeding peoples fears about "climate change" (look at the number of companies promoting their product as carbon nuetral/efficient).

The world will still be here after your gone and 1000 years from now someone/something will be worrying about the world ending due to it's influence.
 

Yog Sothoth

Elite Member
Dec 6, 2008
1,037
0
41
Aries_Split said:
Yog Sothoth said:
Is this thread a joke? Do you own homework, OP, I'm not going to do research for you that's already been verified and accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community.
There was a period where the idea of intelligent creation was accepted by 99.99% of the earth.

Just because people accept doesn't mean it's true or in any way validate it.
That is a valid point, but I admittedly did not support my claims in my original statement. There is some empirical evidence that supports my position to be found in the link I originally provided....

I am not cognizant enough ATM to put up a good, cited argument..... I may or may not revisit this particular conversation as it's been done to death already and always ends in a deadlock.
 

magicmonkeybars

Gullible Dolt
Nov 20, 2007
908
0
0
How about: I don't care, it's not like there is much on this planet worth saving, even if it does go down in flames.
politicians will use any excuse to raise taxes and reduce freedoms.
 

dirte

New member
Mar 19, 2009
56
0
0
ya there is a cycle, fact,we dont know what it will bring or when & how.IMO that's no reason to sit back and trash the place
 

SullyE

New member
Jun 23, 2008
22
0
0
Did anyone link Junk Science yet? They explain why the computer models are innacurate. Also, it was reported that there's more ice in the arctic now than there was in the 60s. Also, where I live, temperatures appear to be declining more and more. A single volcano can (and does) put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a person ever could hope to do. If people are concerned, they should probably just plant trees, since trees eat carbon dioxide.

The worlds temperature has risen half a degree in 50 years - fact.
Temperatures are beginning to decrease, it would seem. Compare 2008 to 1998 (we had 114 or so in 1998, but few days even made it to the upper 90s last summer), and you'll find that temperatures do appear to be dropping.

Anyways, the computer models are flawed (check out the wonderful report on Junkscience.com) and it's all about money. See, science works on grants nowadays. You produce results, and you get money to continue your research. Certain ideas can become entrenched, even if they are false, because scientists, like sane people, will try to get as much money as they can, any way they can. It stopped being about real science and taking responsibility for this rock we call a home ages ago.

Frankly, we won't see any big breakthroughs in science until this changes. There won't be another theory of relativity, or light-speed space-ships or anything of the sort. Our computers will progress, getting faster and cooler, but everything else is going to slow down and stop, because while scientists are supposed to be detached, unbiased observers, the fact is that they aren't. They're people. If someone makes a claim, and this claim goes against everything that a scientist has invested his career in (my father, for instance, has numerous metal fatigue/joining claims and patents to his name), that scientist will fight the idea. For instance, my father, brilliant man that he is, fights against composites and says that composite airliners will never work. If composites manage to eliminate metals in the aviation and automotive industries, he'll be out of a job, so he's almost obligated to fight it.

That concern for money is what's going to hold science back.

Also, if global warming was an issue, mandatory pollution-reduction laws would have been imposed on countries that don't have their own by now, and this just isn't the case.

...also, I clicked the wrong votey thing because it's 5 AM and I just got off an 8 hour shift. ._. My bad.
 

li-ion

New member
Dec 19, 2008
121
0
0
goodman528 said:
What do you have as the cost per kWh for nuclear compared to other sources? I don't want to argue, just curious.

I went to a presentation by BHP Billiton a few months ago, and they shown a bunch of graphs putting cost of nuclear at around 6p per kWh, and coal at around 3p per kWh. Despite the obvious bias of the source, it did seem quite reasonable to me. Considering all of the extra costs related to nuclear waste disposal, as well as having to invest more in the plant to begin with.
I don't know it by hard but I can see if I find some recent numbers and figures. But that nuclear power costs twice as much as coal sounds weird to me. They are pretty close as far as I remember, no way that there's 50% difference. Unless there are some special regulations that don't apply in Germany or France to nuclear power that make it very expensive somewhere else?
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
falcontwin said:
Shadow5 said:
people seem to have a hangup on being the most important beings on the planet and seem to make all kinds of things up to support it
People do put way too much importance in their own existence. The planet could not give a fuck that your here, but people seem hell bent on wanting to prove they are so awesome that they can destroy the entire world.
No. Not at all. Global warming will have a catastrophic effect on nature, but nature will do what it always has - bounce back stronger than before.

The problem is humans won't be around to see it. And that's a concern for those of us with younger family members.
The Steel Ninja said:
I voted that I agree. As a moderate with conservative leanings, I obviously get fed up with all that liberal BS (off the subject, but you seen that new Sun Chips commercial? iojwqerwiuwjaoiuwerijoargh) about how we're raping the planet, we need to stop polluting, warming is OUR fault, etc. It is a hoax, and just because some politician (Gore) who just so happens to be a left wingnut made a movie with all these "facts" (many of which were doctored to fit into his "convenient hoax") the leftists think they can suppress people who aren't afraid that they're causing the world to heat up, and conservatives aren't allowed to voice their opinion. What pissed me off was that for a project in one of my courses, one of the students did a piece about how he thought we should be more aware of global warming since we're the cause, and when I stated that I liked the piece even though I disagreed with it, I got chewed out and told I should go look up the facts on it.
The biggest hoax - someone managed to turn this into a left/right issue. I find this the most depressing part of all of this. People who care about the environment and not wiping out rain forests are all pussy liberals and you aren't a proper Republican unless you have wiped out at least one species of animal before lunch. Serious crap being spoken there Steel Ninja.
 

The Steel Ninja

New member
Mar 31, 2009
104
0
0
I am a red, and though I'll never agree with blues, it's not that I think they're wusses and hippies, though a number of them have proven the old stereotypes -- especially at college. I just get irritated when leftists shove this stuff down my throat and don't let me have my say in it whatsover, because if I don't think I'm a horrible person who's destroying our world one gallon of gas at a time, I'm arrogant and hypocritical. As a cursory Google search will tell you, the planet goes through natural changes in temperature and climate -- it all has to do with our cycle around the sun. Plus, hasn't our axis' tilt changed slightly, or something like that? Which also affects the climate. Not just that, but even if we were to wipe ourselves out in a nuclear war, the planet would eventually heal its own wounds -- nature has a way of overcoming even our own stupidity.

Why should we feel bad about wasting fossil fuels? What the government WON'T tell you is that there are billions of gallons of untapped oil and gas left over from our buddies the dinosaurs, and they're fear-mongering and using the supposed "shortage" of gas to hike prices.

If anything, though, this issue HAS started to further the divide between left and right. The left mostly kept quiet except for...how shall we say..."fringe groups" (PETA -- and I won't get into the domestic terrorism thing because that's for another topic altogether) piping up now and then, but Dems have used this as a launch pad to force their beliefs on us. Leave me alone and allow me to be a cynical Republican, ya damn sunshine-and-flowers libs.