Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #41  
Old 01-16-2009, 06:07 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The earth will be just fine. What can be completely eliminated is the global warming hoax, and the self loathing.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #42  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:38 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
The earth will be just fine. What can be completely eliminated is the global warming hoax, and the self loathing.
The earth doesn't care wht you or anyone else on this planet says...only what we, as a species, do...
 
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:57 AM
StrongInTheArm's Avatar
StrongInTheArm StrongInTheArm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 04-24-07
Posts: 9,310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I have conclusive proof that global warming is real!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	gwpanty.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	22.0 KB
ID:	8574  
 
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-18-2009, 10:56 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
Since cfc/ozone depletion has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, and I have ignored it, let me just state - that too is a myth. There is no correlation, never has been.
Ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming. The ozone issue is that it protects us from hard radiation from space.
You may want to ask yourself why Australia, with it's nice position just under the damn thing happens to have a SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER RATE OF SKIN CANCERS, melanomas, radiation induced eye damage, etc., than countries that are a lot hotter and see a lot more sunlight, such as many Middle Eastern countries, but have a fairly complete ozone layer on top of them.
And for the record, Arabs aren't black, so skin pigment has nothing to do with it.

And we DO know why there are gene "defects". Many are by-products of attempted evolution due to environmental stresses.

And if the Earth is fine, I challenge you to go and get a drink out of the Hudson, Yangtze or Nile rivers
 
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-19-2009, 06:24 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj
And if the Earth is fine, I challenge you to go and get a drink out of the Hudson, Yangtze or Nile rivers
Or any other river for that matter.
 
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-19-2009, 07:25 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
Ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming. The ozone issue is that it protects us from hard radiation from space.
You may want to ask yourself why Australia, with it's nice position just under the damn thing happens to have a SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER RATE OF SKIN CANCERS, melanomas, radiation induced eye damage, etc., than countries that are a lot hotter and see a lot more sunlight, such as many Middle Eastern countries, but have a fairly complete ozone layer on top of them.
And for the record, Arabs aren't black, so skin pigment has nothing to do with it.
I think everyone knows the Ozone layer doesn't affect global warming, except the guy I replied to that thinks it does. And if you have conclusive proof skin cancer in Australia is caused by the hole in the ozone layer, by all means post it. But don't use European humans as your proof. You will need to post the rise of skin cancer rates in indigenous Australians.

Quote:
And we DO know why there are gene "defects". Many are by-products of attempted evolution due to environmental stresses.
Attempted evolution? Explain.

Quote:
And if the Earth is fine, I challenge you to go and get a drink out of the Hudson, Yangtze or Nile rivers
When in the history of earth has it ever been safe to drink straight out of a river? Did rivers used to be sterile in the olden days? Of course to the self loathing liberal - a filthy bacteria and parasite laden river must be his own fault.
cite - montezuma's revenge

Last edited by pgzn; 01-19-2009 at 07:39 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-19-2009, 11:31 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's kind of hard to pin down increases in skin cancers in black people. The melanin levels of their skin generally manage to deal with UV radiation quite nicely. I think you'd be hard pressed to find much skin cancer amongst black populations anywhere that aren't exposed to toxic chemicals or hard radiation. You're basically attempting to set up a straw man there.
Furthermore, the change in their lifestyles over the last 30-40 years after the legal recognition as actual citizens make pinning any increase in cancers down to a specific cause rather difficult, however, you can look at the councer council websites from any state in Aus, and you'll see cancers of ALL types are on the rise in the Aboriginal community.
But that's the exact same tactic used by tobacco companies to say that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. An increase in the skin cancer rates, over 30 years, of any segment part of the population (other than albinos), that correlates with decreased ozone covering, should be proof enough. And there's an amazing amount of evidence to suggest it. Even in the US, you've got people like Keith Martin finding this out in their research. But here's some objective proof: http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20.../32/index.html
(and don't feed me BS about increased radiowave activity from things like cell phones. The jury's been in for ages that the radiowaves from modern appliances are too fat to actually tear electrons off atoms, so they can't cause cellular damage)

Evolution happens via cell mutation. Mutations are fairly random, because nature is just trying whatever out and seeing what works, and so most are usually not good. This is what generally causes cancer. i.e. Lung cancer in a smoker is the body attempting to mutate in order to deal with smoke damage & various toxic compounds. The cancer is cells that begin to multiply and regenerate in an uncontrollable fashion as the body is unsure of what it should actually be doing to combat the danger presented by smoking. This is an extremely dumbed down version of how the process works, but ask your local radiooncologist (cancer doctor) and I assure you they'll basically agree with it.
Now, benign, non positive mutation, is an attempt at evolving a mutation that counter acts whatever environmental stress that brought it on in the first place. Hence it is an attempt at evolution.
Does that answer your query?

And "safe" is not the same as a river being sterile.
That's logical extremism.
Many of those rivers were safe to drink from until about 100-150 years ago when the Industrial Era kicked into well and proper. The Nile and the Yangtze were the primary water sources for nearly every human settlement and irrigated farm along their course until about 50 and 30 years ago, when massive crop failures started showing up.
As a matter of fact, sterile water is probably worse for you than water with a little bit of background level bacteria. moderate levels of bacteria are good for you in a number of ways, not least of which is building up your own immune system.

[edit]
Oh, and TD would be easily overcome if people had balanced diets that included things with active cultures.
I didn't get Delhi Belly when I was in India, and I drank the tap water, and I'm pretty certain that's because I actually eat plenty of fresh fruit & veg, as well as drinking yoghurt... Although it could be because I'm used to eating cheap indian food on a Friday night/Saturday morning at 3am.

Last edited by Harveyj; 01-19-2009 at 11:35 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-20-2009, 07:37 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Like this sort of pollution, that's the sort of pollution that should worry everyone;
http://www.medicineworld.org/stories...fertility.html

Quote:
New research strengthens the link between water pollution and rising male fertility problems. The study, by Brunel University, the Universities of Exeter and Reading and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, shows for the first time how a group of testosterone-blocking chemicals is finding its way into UK rivers, affecting wildlife and potentially humans. The research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and is now reported in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives

The study identified a new group of chemicals that act as anti-androgens. This means that they inhibit the function of the male hormone, testosterone, reducing male fertility. Some of these are contained in medicines, including cancer therapys, pharmaceutical therapys, and pesticides used in agriculture. The research suggests that when they get into the water system, these chemicals may play a pivotal role in causing feminising effects in male fish.

Earlier research by Brunel University and the University of Exeter has shown how female sex hormones (estrogens), and chemicals that mimic estrogens, are leading to feminisation of male fish. Found in some industrial chemicals and the contraceptive pill, they enter rivers via sewage therapy works. This causes reproductive problems by reducing fish breeding capability and in some cases can lead to male fish changing sex.

Other studies have also suggested that there appears to be a link between this phenomenon and the increase in human male fertility problems caused by testicular dysgenesis syndrome. Until now, this link lacked credence because the list of suspects causing effects in fish was limited to estrogenic chemicals whilst testicular dysgenesis is known to be caused by exposure to a range of anti-androgens.
Maybe, when people start to realize it effects their balls they might stop shouting hoax.

 
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:53 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What does estrogen in water have to do with trying to control the weather with taxes?

More terrible news for the HOAX:

The wheels continue to come off of the Global Warming hoax

Here are some interesting excerpts from the Senate report.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists.

This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone.

So much for “consensus“
 
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:15 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Wow... nice dodge of all the information I presented, and then not understanding what "consensus" means.
Not everyone has to agree with a consensus. Consensus is reached at 50.1% of people agreeing with a position, as it's the simple majority, and you will find that the simple majority of scientists DO support Climate Change theory.

The only two real debates within the community is whether it is anthropogenic or a natural occurrence, and what should be done about it.
Carbon tax programs are supposedly meant to go towards programs to alleviate affects of it Climate change, not to actually stop it.
However, simpletons such as yourself who get no further than a headline shrilly screamed by a pundit never actually get the full picture, and confuse what is actually a multitude of issues into: "Al Gore's for it, and I don't like him for Reason X, so I don't believe in it"
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-22-2009, 06:06 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Not to mention that most of the people on that famous "400 sceptical scientists lists" turned out not to be scientists at all (some weathermen and such) and those who were scientists many of them didn't even know they were added to that list when asked about it later by members of the press and did not agree with being on there.

The pollution-deniers use the same tactics as the Intelligent Design advocates; Lies, deceit and fraud - the usual for arguments based on emotions rather than facts.


 
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-22-2009, 06:10 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What pollution deniers rally, really want us to believe is that humans dumping tons and tons of aggressive chemicals every single hour for years and years on a row doesn't influence our environment badly at all.

And at the same time they want us to take them seriously and not chase them out of town covered in tar and feathers.

 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-22-2009, 07:54 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
Wow... nice dodge of all the information I presented, and then not understanding what "consensus" means.
Not everyone has to agree with a consensus. Consensus is reached at 50.1% of people agreeing with a position, as it's the simple majority, and you will find that the simple majority of scientists DO support Climate Change theory.

The only two real debates within the community is whether it is anthropogenic or a natural occurrence, and what should be done about it.
Carbon tax programs are supposedly meant to go towards programs to alleviate affects of it Climate change, not to actually stop it.
However, simpletons such as yourself who get no further than a headline shrilly screamed by a pundit never actually get the full picture, and confuse what is actually a multitude of issues into: "Al Gore's for it, and I don't like him for Reason X, so I don't believe in it"
An anonymous insult, that's real cute, Harvey. You need to start quoting the person you insult, it looks very bad for you that you don't. It's obvious you are not addressing yourself. Grow up.
 
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-22-2009, 10:04 AM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post
Not to mention that most of the people on that famous "400 sceptical scientists lists" turned out not to be scientists at all (some weathermen and such) and those who were scientists many of them didn't even know they were added to that list when asked about it later by members of the press and did not agree with being on there.

The pollution-deniers use the same tactics as the Intelligent Design advocates; Lies, deceit and fraud - the usual for arguments based on emotions rather than facts.


400? Try about 31,072 scientists. (and growing) No one believes that hoax any more. Not even regular people. Check the polls. The hoax failed

The "pollution" angle is just grasping at straws to keep the hoax going. Won't work, as estrogen in water is just an argument to ban the pill, not ban cars, and I'm quite positive the left would never want to ban the pill ROTFLMAO.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Last edited by pgzn; 01-22-2009 at 10:09 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-22-2009, 07:59 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Atom: Hardly anonymous. Common sense dictates that unless I'm addressing someone, then I am replying to the post directly above. Furthermore, who else was I providing information to that I would accuse them of dodging it?
It's calling "making an inference from available information and historical trends".
Now, using all that, try to guess who I was talking to before.
HINT: I was replying to the post immediately above.
 
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-22-2009, 08:05 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
Atom: Hardly anonymous. Common sense dictates that unless I'm addressing someone, then I am replying to the post directly above. Furthermore, who else was I providing information to that I would accuse them of dodging it?
It's calling "making an inference from available information and historical trends".
Now, using all that, try to guess who I was talking to before.
HINT: I was replying to the post immediately above.
I knew who you were insulting, but I just think it's wrong to not at least have the decency to quote the person you are insulting, seems pretty lame, don't you think?
 
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-22-2009, 08:55 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I would say at least cite the recipient of the insult, otherwise it appears as just a cowardly jab.
 
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-22-2009, 09:48 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
400? Try about 31,072 scientists. (and growing) No one believes that hoax any more. Not even regular people. Check the polls. The hoax failed

The "pollution" angle is just grasping at straws to keep the hoax going. Won't work, as estrogen in water is just an argument to ban the pill, not ban cars, and I'm quite positive the left would never want to ban the pill ROTFLMAO.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here's that impressive list of '31,000 scientists'...some of them dead....many having no expertise in the subject at all.....if you went to school somewhere you can sign it and pass it along on the internet where you will be listed along with all the other 'scientists'......

Talk about a HOAX!?

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/
 
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-22-2009, 09:59 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
Here's that impressive list of '31,000 scientists'...some of them dead....many having no expertise in the subject at all.....if you went to school somewhere you can sign it and pass it along on the internet where you will be listed along with all the other 'scientists'......

Talk about a HOAX!?

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/
As I said before...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post
And at the same time they want us to take them seriously and not chase them out of town covered in tar and feathers.

 
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-22-2009, 11:39 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
Wow... nice dodge of all the information I presented, and then not understanding what "consensus" means.
Not everyone has to agree with a consensus. Consensus is reached at 50.1% of people agreeing with a position, as it's the simple majority, and you will find that the simple majority of scientists DO support Climate Change theory.
"Consensus" is a political concept, not a scientific one.

Assume for a moment that every scientist in the world supported Climate Change (interesting that it's no longer being called Global Warming) Theory. While that's an absolutely solid "consensus", it's totally irrelevant to whether the theory is true or not.

The percentage of people supporting any theory has no effect whatsoever on the truth or falsity of that theory. If the observed facts show that the theory is false, it's false. This happens regardless of how high a percentage of people believe that the theory is true.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming is a Hoax cldnails Controversial Social Issues 261 11-05-2008 02:19 AM
Global Warming and the End Of The World.... TechWizard Controversial Social Issues 56 04-30-2008 12:47 PM
Global Warming, Pollution and Wildfires John Scott Controversial Social Issues 39 10-23-2007 02:08 AM
Is Al Gore a Global Warming Hypocrite? SemperFidelis Controversial Social Issues 56 07-10-2007 07:33 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC