NationStates

The Aryan Nations wrote:violence is natural. i accept that many dumb people die, and i enjoy that they do us the favor of removing themselves from the gene pool.

The Aryan Nations wrote:k

The Aryan Nations wrote:so there is a difference between 1 atom of CO2 and another? i think we're done here.

The Aryan Nations wrote:>implying that the highest levels of carbon ever in the atmosphere also had the highest levels of life ever on earth is a bad example.

The Aryan Nations wrote:global warming is going to cause an ice age? that is the stupidest thing i have ever read.

The Aryan Nations wrote:hmm. interesting. you liberals generally accept evolution.

The Aryan Nations wrote:irrelevant. a Catalyst is not a cause.

The Aryan Nations wrote:photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

whats that? they produce the same amount of CO2 as the other Removes?

unfortunately, plants do not produce at the same rate as we do.

Tubbsalot wrote:Irrelevant.

Go back and read my post, then maybe you can make an argument that addresses it.

That's not a peer-reviewed article. That's a book.

You're not very good at this 'science' thing, are you.

Yes, there is.

Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself with your astounding lack of knowledge, though why you're enjoying it so much I can't imagine.

Galloism wrote:Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

I suspect they feel that the common opinion today is as wrong as that common opinion was then.

Helcasia wrote:Yes, climate change is natural...but the planet should be cooling down, not heating up.
Between each Ice Age there is an interval of ~10,000 years. The last Ice Age was 10,000 years ago.

Avenio wrote:

The Aryan Nations wrote:>implying that the highest levels of carbon ever in the atmosphere also had the highest levels of life ever on earth is a bad example.

Yeahno.



The Precambrian wasn't a particularly super time to live, fyi.

It's a good thing I didn't say it then. Take a gander over it again. If you look carefully, I said 'come out of the icebox planet'. 'Out' in this case meaning 'leave'. An arcane definition, I know; I apologize. The icebox planet is the one we currently live in, in which ice covers a fair portion of the planet year-round.

How does triggering a mass extinction event in any way help our species evolve? Biodiversity is good. Continuing to have functional oceans is good. Evolution has nothing to do with it unless you're ignorant of what evolution actually is, and are running off an equally-ignorant model of social Darwinism that deserves to be tossed back into the grave with Galton's bones.

I was merely putting into perspective how much volcanoes put into the atmosphere vs. we do. It seemed like a pertinent example. Are you going to address it or not?

And they also undergo cellular respiration, at roughly the same rate as animal life. Whoops. Kinda throws off the balance, doesn't it?

The Aryan Nations wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:so what you are saying is that breathing doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric carbon. and therefore anything you said about it was just irrelevant bullshit specifically intended to waste everyone's time. glad we cleared that up.

now about that actually occurring increase in atmospheric carbon from digging up fossil carbon and burning it, and the extremely well known effects thereof...

the rates of the process are totally different. which you would know with a basic high school education.

The Aryan Nations wrote:you were bitching about murder being natural. i agreed with you.

The Aryan Nations wrote:actually, its a scientific study.

your not very good at this reading thing are you?

The Aryan Nations wrote:someone needs to retake chemistry...

The Aryan Nations wrote:
actually, its a scientific study.

your not very good at this reading thing are you?

Costa Fiero wrote:As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:because not everyone accepts that human extinction is the optimal solution. obviously.

also, what environmentalists are you thinking of that have tons of children?

That, was honestly, the most perplexing part, because most greens I know are well under the 2.1 children rate of replacement.

Free Soviets wrote:

Costa Fiero wrote:As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

The climate has been most stable during the warming phases. The "little ice ages" have been beset by more floods, droughts, famines, and storminess. Yet, despite all of this evidence, millions of well-educated people, many scientists, many respected organizations—even the national governments of major First World nations—are telling us that the Earth's current warming phase is caused by human-emitted CO2and deadly dangerous. They ask society to renounce most of its use of fossil fuel-generated energy and accept radical reductions in food production, health technologies, and standards of living to "save the planet."

We have missed the predictive power of the 1,500-year climate cycle.

Will the fear of dangerous global warming lead society to accept draconian restrictions on the use of fertilizers, cars, and air conditioners?

Will people give up the scientific and technological advances that have added thirty years to life expectancies all over the globe in the last century?

Massive human sacrifices would be required to meet the CO2 stabilization goals of the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty's "introductory offer" is a tiny 5 percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions from 1990 levels, but that would do almost nothing to forestall greenhouse warming of the planet. Saving the planet from man-made global warming was supposed to wait on Kyoto's yet-unspecified second stage, scheduled to begin in 2012.

We have a large faction of intensely interested persons who say the warming is man-made, and dangerous. They say it is driven by releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2 from power plants and autos, and methane from rice paddies and cattle herds. The activists tell us that modern society will destroy the planet; that unless we radically change human energy production and consumption, the globe will become too warm for farming and the survival of wild species. They warn that the polar ice caps could melt, raising sea levels and flooding many of the world's most important cities and farming regions.

However, they don't have much evidence to support their position—only (1) the fact that the Earth is warming, (2) a theory that doesn't explain the warming of the past 150 years very well, and (3) some unverified computer models. Moreover, their credibility is seriously weakened by the fact that many of them have long believed modern technology should be discarded whether the Earth is warming too fast or not at all.

Many scientists—though by no means all—agree that increased CO2emissions could be dangerous. However, polls of climate-qualified scientist show that many doubt the scary predictions of the global computer models. This book cites the work of many hundreds of researchers, authors, and coauthors whose work testifies to the 1,500-year cycle. There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the Earth revolved around the sun, but he was right! Science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false.

If we can find proof, not just that the Earth is warming, but that it is warming to dangerous levels due to human-emitted greenhouse gases, public policy will then have to evaluate such potential remedies as banning autos and air conditioners. So far, we have no such evidence.

Raw Nation wrote:

Galloism wrote:Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

I suspect they feel that the common opinion today is as wrong as that common opinion was then.

Uhh...if your brain is black then there is definitely something wrong with it

(I am not a doctor)

Free Soviets wrote:and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

The Aryan Nations wrote:as i recall, life hadn't evolved very far at that point, and we know little about the period. i chose a better period on account of it having actual life in it.

The Aryan Nations wrote:we live in an icebox? oh good thing, i was hoping that it wouldn't reach 100 degrees this summer... wait...

We're modifying the climate at a much, much, much faster rate. As in, come out of the icebox planet in a few centuries fast.

The Aryan Nations wrote:tl;dr: evolution is only good when it contradicts my own posts on NSG.

the weak die, the strong survive- its called natural selection.

The Aryan Nations wrote:i already have.

The Aryan Nations wrote:thank you, for helping my argument that Natural CO2 is caused by breathing.

The Aryan Nations wrote:Galileo may have been the only man of his Era to say earth revolved around the sun, but turns out, he was right.

Costa Fiero wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

People like you are exactly what I am talking about. Your whole moral superiority complex is one exact reason why I won't be jumping on the bandwagon any time soon. I never denied global warming. I even made a point to say that it was bound to happen anyway.

Why can't you accept the fact that some people don't tow the line and would much rather be engaged in something productive than having to deal with people like you, who clearly believe that their opinion is the only opinion and God forbid someone disagrees.

The Aryan Nations wrote:try reading this

Free Soviets wrote:

The Aryan Nations wrote:try reading this

haha, no. that's just stunningly stupid. like, wow.

Salma wrote:Talking about failure of the education system?

The Aryan Nations wrote:Galileo may have been the only man of his Era to say earth revolved around the sun, but turns out, he was right.

Um, no he was not the only one. Not at all. Bet you thought Columbus was a ROUND-EARTH IS TRUE visionary in the darkness of a flat-earth believing world.

Trotskylvania wrote:For the love of God, how can you miss the elephant in the room of 21.3 billion tonnes of CO² produced every year by burning fossil fuels. The carbon cycle can only absorb half that amount. Anthropogenic global warming is a demonstrable fact, and it will drive us to ruin unless we take quick measures against it.

Salma wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:haha, no. that's just stunningly stupid. like, wow.

Didn't you know? Never mind if it's peer-reviewed and all, if it's published it's true.