StarGateWars Forums

murkar wrote:

Semper wrote:but if they only begin to criticize then the natural implication there is that they are still doing some logical point making, or maybe the criticizing is part of the logical point making or maybe a reaction of a far superior arguer demeaning someone they view and have proven as beneath them.

I agree with your points against Jim, but as for your latter, I do not. You provided the facts I had not the energy to acquire.

I don't mean criticize as in intelligently critique; criticizing as in "that's stupid", "Al Gore is a **Filtered** **Filtered**", etc. without evidence to back it up.

murkar wrote:I would also like to point out that when people begin to criticize it's because they have no more valid points to argue, and they subconsciously know that they're arguing a false point (I live with a psychologist). *ahem* Kieltyka *ahem*

murkar wrote:I mean us as humans, everyone; there's so many of us we're going to end up wiping ourselves out unless somethign happens to make us fight for survival.

murkar wrote:First off that's a fairly narrow minded conclusion Legend, and holds no validity whatsoever. Compared to weather patterns from the last 600,000 years the earth has never experienced surges of CO2 even relatively close to half of where we're at now. The CO2 is building, and the temperature will follow, as has been the pattern for over half a million years with the last six ice ages.

And a planet will most definitely not get old over the course of three or four lifetimes; considering that this planet is approximately 4.5Billion years old, even changes over a 300 year period would be like a newborn aging to become the worlds oldest person overnight. The planet is definitely not "getting old", especially not over the course of only .0000000067% of the earths life ( I worked it out, that percent is relatively accurate). To put that in accurate perspective, it's the equivalent of a baby aging 80 years in .0000019564 of a day, or 0.169 seconds (I worked that out also, it's accurately proportional).

According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."

~Stanford Center of Solar Research, http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... -warm.html.

There are a few things to note here; our CO2 levels have multiplied by more than six times the natural amount that occurs before a warming period (which occurs before an ice age). Of course, there's a problem here. With global temperatures reaching 30 degrees Celsius and above currently, and CO2 levels going up by upwards of 400%, the temperatures can and likely will reach 120 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit).

Do you see a problem? Let me put it to you this way: human skin begins to burn at around 60 degrees Celsius, and it takes just one second for that burn to occur. Compared to10 minutes at 49 degrees Celsius, people will surely say "oh, there's no danger".

There's another point to be looked at. Everyone seems to have this gung ho "save the planet" attitude. We aren't saving the planet though; the planet will go on without us, plants and animals will once again come to live on earth after we are all gone, because no matter how harsh global warming gets, we literally can't kill the planet; we can make conditions unlivable for plants and animals, which will eventually come back a few hundred million years from now (which isn't all that much in planetary standards). We can't kill the planet; only ourselves.

Another point to be looked at is the fact that with such a high population it would be extremely easy for a contagious disease to spread at an extremely fast rate. It would be impossible to contain it. 28 days later? Without zombies of course, it's completely possible as soon as the human population gets so large. Especially if it's an airborne virus.

And Avenger I would love for you to link me to that petition so I can verify it's credibility.

I would also like to point out that when people begin to criticize it's because they have no more valid points to argue, and they subconsciously know that they're arguing a false point (I live with a psychologist). *ahem* Kieltyka *ahem*

If you have no valid points to back up an argument then please don't bother making one, it usually tends to be distasteful based on the premise above.

Medicus Atrum wrote:

murkar wrote:First off that's a fairly narrow minded conclusion Legend, and holds no validity whatsoever. Compared to weather patterns from the last 600,000 years the earth has never experienced surges of CO2 even relatively close to half of where we're at now. The CO2 is building, and the temperature will follow, as has been the pattern for over half a million years with the last six ice ages.

And a planet will most definitely not get old over the course of three or four lifetimes; considering that this planet is approximately 4.5Billion years old, even changes over a 300 year period would be like a newborn aging to become the worlds oldest person overnight. The planet is definitely not "getting old", especially not over the course of only .0000000067% of the earths life ( I worked it out, that percent is relatively accurate). To put that in accurate perspective, it's the equivalent of a baby aging 80 years in .0000019564 of a day, or 0.169 seconds (I worked that out also, it's accurately proportional).

According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."

~Stanford Center of Solar Research, http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... -warm.html.

There are a few things to note here; our CO2 levels have multiplied by more than six times the natural amount that occurs before a warming period (which occurs before an ice age). Of course, there's a problem here. With global temperatures reaching 30 degrees Celsius and above currently, and CO2 levels going up by upwards of 400%, the temperatures can and likely will reach 120 degrees Celsius (not Fahrenheit).

Do you see a problem? Let me put it to you this way: human skin begins to burn at around 60 degrees Celsius, and it takes just one second for that burn to occur. Compared to10 minutes at 49 degrees Celsius, people will surely say "oh, there's no danger".

There's another point to be looked at. Everyone seems to have this gung ho "save the planet" attitude. We aren't saving the planet though; the planet will go on without us, plants and animals will once again come to live on earth after we are all gone, because no matter how harsh global warming gets, we literally can't kill the planet; we can make conditions unlivable for plants and animals, which will eventually come back a few hundred million years from now (which isn't all that much in planetary standards). We can't kill the planet; only ourselves.

Another point to be looked at is the fact that with such a high population it would be extremely easy for a contagious disease to spread at an extremely fast rate. It would be impossible to contain it. 28 days later? Without zombies of course, it's completely possible as soon as the human population gets so large. Especially if it's an airborne virus.

And Avenger I would love for you to link me to that petition so I can verify it's credibility.

I would also like to point out that when people begin to criticize it's because they have no more valid points to argue, and they subconsciously know that they're arguing a false point (I live with a psychologist). *ahem* Kieltyka *ahem*

If you have no valid points to back up an argument then please don't bother making one, it usually tends to be distasteful based on the premise above.

About the surge part at the top, That depends on your time line. Let's say the earth is 600k years old. Not a big spike. But if you compress the data by, say, 10%, and their's a big change. Or something like that, I saw this guy explain everything and it made loads of sense. lol I.E. I don't remember it word for word.

BTW: Global Warming is total, and absolute BS. Sorry if you can't wrap your propaganda-filled-noggin' wit' it, but it's true. Canada agrees, UK agrees, and alot of US scientists agree. Now, You can say they are liars (Like you did), but that's like saying some food you have is rotten, there's alot of food, thus all food I have is rotten.

I'm sorry, actually, I'm not sorry, But your fascist Bull' is retarded.

And as for the car's producing too much CO2, Cows produce more CO2 in one day from passing gas then all the cars in the world do.

So, Maybe you should take your head out of Al Gore's bum and smell the roses.

*Bad Day Rant*

Watch it san shine! Lets not go too far. Bad day or not.

~Semper

LegendaryApophis wrote:If only there was an epidemy whose ONLY effect would be to cause sterility...that way noone would die, just less would bear

urogard wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:If only there was an epidemy whose ONLY effect would be to cause sterility...that way noone would die, just less would bear

Those who want a certain similar thing to happen don't want to wait so long.

They'll just go and hide in their underground tunnel systems and release a pathogen into the atmosphere that will wipe out most of the people on this world.

LegendaryApophis wrote:If only there was an epidemy whose ONLY effect would be to cause sterility...that way noone would die, just less would bear

*waits for criticism*

And well, global warming, you've already all threw out the mammoth's age I presume?
Like it was natural, so now, what happens is natural too.
We can discuss about it indeed, and as I see it's been done...

But saying Gore is fascist or anything like that...sorry but LMAO!
A democrat (don't remember?) is fascist...then what are republicans? Communists? (reverting theory I used to have fun :p )

What cannot be denied, is that humans destroyed, destroy, and will keep destroy (yes, those who keep doing it don't listen from ones who learnt from past mistakes, and when nothing will be left, they'll ONLY can blame THEMSELVES )
If population was smaller, less destruction would happen. That's when western countries developped themselves in numbers that destruction started.

Thriller wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:If only there was an epidemy whose ONLY effect would be to cause sterility...that way noone would die, just less would bear

*waits for criticism*

And well, global warming, you've already all threw out the mammoth's age I presume?
Like it was natural, so now, what happens is natural too.
We can discuss about it indeed, and as I see it's been done...

But saying Gore is fascist or anything like that...sorry but LMAO!
A democrat (don't remember?) is fascist...then what are republicans? Communists? (reverting theory I used to have fun :p )

What cannot be denied, is that humans destroyed, destroy, and will keep destroy (yes, those who keep doing it don't listen from ones who learnt from past mistakes, and when nothing will be left, they'll ONLY can blame THEMSELVES )
If population was smaller, less destruction would happen. That's when western countries developped themselves in numbers that destruction started.

AHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAA...... LOL, killing and destroying is as natural as breathing throughout history