Kennedy 0 #1 January 2, 2011 Or lack thereof... I love that we can't even get everyone to agree on what's happening today, but some folks in important positions are predicting things twenty and thirty years out. The best is when they're called on it. "I predicted it. I never said it would happen."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 January 2, 2011 For those too lazy to click a clickable link, or intent on taking things out of context. I can't believe the messages I got on this one. Quote A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really? Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010? FoxNews.com has compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened. 1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000. Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers. A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made. "Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant." Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that "heavy snow would return occasionally" and that it would "probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Other scientists said "a few years" was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was. "I'd say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction," said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy. Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios. 2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990. Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S. "On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period." That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century. 3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center. 4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989. Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period. The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays. But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction." Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing: 5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions." Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question. 6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970. According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970. How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s. "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force." Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire. The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that." He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously." But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true: 7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971. Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." "When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else." 8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970 "Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time," Ehrlich told FoxNews.com. "The second part is, well -- the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench." "Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 January 2, 2011 Quote . . . or intent on taking things out of context . . . Yes, because as we know, none of the quotes in the article quoted do that at all.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #4 January 2, 2011 Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 January 2, 2011 QuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. BUt man..... and greedy conservetards in particular have done a pretty good job of polluting everything in sight for fun and profit. But go on believing that has no effect on our environment or planet .... or the health of the people who will have to live here in the cesspool that WILL be your future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #6 January 2, 2011 You have never contributed to the pollution of this planet? Only Conservatives pollute? The arrogance of Liberals never ceases to amaze me. Canada's ubber Liberal city ... Toronto "the Center of the Universe" is a cellpool of pollution. How is it that a city dominated by Liberals can be so dirty, yet it is only Conservatives who pollute? - New York is a city dominated by Liberals, it is a city with a huge pollution problem. - Los Angeles is a city dominated by Liberals, it is a city with a huge pollution problem. - Chicago is a city dominated by Liberals, it is a city with a huge pollution problem. Why is it that North America's four largest cities, all with rather nasty pollution problems are all dominated by Liberals yet according to partisan Liberals hacks all pollution in the world is result of "conservetards"? It is clear you will never shed you partisan slant on the issues as no matter what the topic is, you come here to spew your childish crap. If you want to talk about controlling cancer causing toxins in the air and the water, then I am all ears. Reducing cancer in humans and animals is the right thing to do. But humans can NOT control Mother Nature. Never have and never will, no matter what arrogant Liberals think. Raising taxes or setting up corrupt carbon trading schemes will not have any effect on Mother Nature. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 January 2, 2011 QuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #8 January 2, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #9 January 2, 2011 Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City Quote Gasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? Try LAI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #10 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. When you say "we" do you mean you and Amazon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #11 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. When you say "we" do you mean you and Amazon?Quote LMAO I bet they think we can affect the Earth's magnetic field as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #12 January 2, 2011 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #13 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Percapita is one thing - how about doing those calculations at per square mile.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #15 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? It is called "Fear Mongering" - you know tat thing that Bill, Quade, Kallend, and Amazon, the most liberal of the liberals here, claim that only the Conservatives do. I pose this question: Is the Magnetic Field weakening? If so, is that the Humans fault? Also: If the magnetic field is weakening, does it not let more of the solar winds in and warm the planet? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.htmlI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #16 January 2, 2011 Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #17 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. No yours is just because you did not pay attention to his post and looked only to make some kind of point First of 2011 Way to go"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #18 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Careful The liberal world view does not allow thinking"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #19 January 2, 2011 QuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #20 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #21 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #22 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. But Gravity in Texas sure is affected once again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #23 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense. Facts getting in the way of your argument John?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #24 January 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? Your statement is ridiculous. I dare you to go swimming in the cooling pond at Chernobyl. Before the Chernobyl accident more than 350,000 people lived in the area. Now, the only people that live there are the 400 or so nut jobs that have decided to squat in the post-apololyptic zone. The area is technically off limits, but the government doesn't have the wherewithal to maintain security so indigents sneak in. Naturally, this problem corrects itself after time. The indigents simply die of radiation poisoning.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #25 January 3, 2011 Have you given up on evolution already all in the name of your new found "Climate Change" religious beliefs? So much for the myth that Liberals possess supreme intelligence over everyone else. Life on this planet has been evolving for billions of years and it will continue to evolve until that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles away, burns up. All the "It will be the end of the world because of Climate Change" religious nut cases need a little dose of reality. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans and life on this planet is not going anywhere as life on this planet will find a way to evolve. If Liberals can't find a way to evolve, well then that's just their problem. You may have given up on evolution thanks to your new found religious beliefs. But I haven't. And I am NOT buying into the Liberal's "Fabian Socialism" dogma. It is as "make believe" as all that fake crap Hollywood continues to produce. Want to talk about preventing cancer causing toxins from being pumped into the air and the water. Then I am all ears. But if Liberals continue to think that they can control Mother Nature through their new taxation and bogus carbon trading schemes, then Liberals need to be exposed for the complete utter arrogant fools that they are make themselves out to be. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
turtlespeed 226 #11 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. When you say "we" do you mean you and Amazon?Quote LMAO I bet they think we can affect the Earth's magnetic field as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #12 January 2, 2011 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #13 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Percapita is one thing - how about doing those calculations at per square mile.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #15 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? It is called "Fear Mongering" - you know tat thing that Bill, Quade, Kallend, and Amazon, the most liberal of the liberals here, claim that only the Conservatives do. I pose this question: Is the Magnetic Field weakening? If so, is that the Humans fault? Also: If the magnetic field is weakening, does it not let more of the solar winds in and warm the planet? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.htmlI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #16 January 2, 2011 Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #17 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. No yours is just because you did not pay attention to his post and looked only to make some kind of point First of 2011 Way to go"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #18 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Careful The liberal world view does not allow thinking"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #19 January 2, 2011 QuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #20 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #21 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #22 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. But Gravity in Texas sure is affected once again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #23 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense. Facts getting in the way of your argument John?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #24 January 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? Your statement is ridiculous. I dare you to go swimming in the cooling pond at Chernobyl. Before the Chernobyl accident more than 350,000 people lived in the area. Now, the only people that live there are the 400 or so nut jobs that have decided to squat in the post-apololyptic zone. The area is technically off limits, but the government doesn't have the wherewithal to maintain security so indigents sneak in. Naturally, this problem corrects itself after time. The indigents simply die of radiation poisoning.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #25 January 3, 2011 Have you given up on evolution already all in the name of your new found "Climate Change" religious beliefs? So much for the myth that Liberals possess supreme intelligence over everyone else. Life on this planet has been evolving for billions of years and it will continue to evolve until that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles away, burns up. All the "It will be the end of the world because of Climate Change" religious nut cases need a little dose of reality. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans and life on this planet is not going anywhere as life on this planet will find a way to evolve. If Liberals can't find a way to evolve, well then that's just their problem. You may have given up on evolution thanks to your new found religious beliefs. But I haven't. And I am NOT buying into the Liberal's "Fabian Socialism" dogma. It is as "make believe" as all that fake crap Hollywood continues to produce. Want to talk about preventing cancer causing toxins from being pumped into the air and the water. Then I am all ears. But if Liberals continue to think that they can control Mother Nature through their new taxation and bogus carbon trading schemes, then Liberals need to be exposed for the complete utter arrogant fools that they are make themselves out to be. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #12 January 2, 2011 Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #13 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City QuoteGasoline consumption in the city is at the rate the national average was in the 1920s,[1] and greenhouse gas emissions are a fraction of the national average, at 7.1 metric tons per person per year, below San Francisco, at 11.2 metric tons, and the national average, at 24.5 metric tons.[2] New York City accounts for only 1% of United States greenhouse gas emissions while housing 2.7% of its population.[2] Looks like NYC is less pollutes less than one third the national average. What was that about being dominated by liberals again? per capita may be dodging the point, if you're still creating more pollution than you can manage. Historically this has been a big problem for LA, which produces air pollution that much of the rest of the state has to deal with. SF and LA make it, the valley suffers. It is appreciably better than now it was in the past. Percapita is one thing - how about doing those calculations at per square mile.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #15 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? We nuked the hell out of it in the 40s/50s. Now it teems with life and shipwrecks. The world has had higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures, and we still got here. Even really bad nuclear screwups wouldn't doom the world, just us. Thinking otherwise is stupid. Where exactly is the proof that we've fucking it up time an time again? Even once? It is called "Fear Mongering" - you know tat thing that Bill, Quade, Kallend, and Amazon, the most liberal of the liberals here, claim that only the Conservatives do. I pose this question: Is the Magnetic Field weakening? If so, is that the Humans fault? Also: If the magnetic field is weakening, does it not let more of the solar winds in and warm the planet? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.htmlI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #16 January 2, 2011 Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #17 January 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. No yours is just because you did not pay attention to his post and looked only to make some kind of point First of 2011 Way to go"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #18 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. Instead of dealing with the Liberal arrogance in their quest to socially engineer everyone into their "Fabian Socialism" dogma, maybe we should just ban humans? It's working in Chernobyl. Now that humans have left the area, the ecosystem around Chernobyl is doing quite well lately. Careful The liberal world view does not allow thinking"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #19 January 2, 2011 QuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #20 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #21 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #22 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. But Gravity in Texas sure is affected once again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #23 January 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Humans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. No amount of Al Gore's corrupt carbon trading scheme or the arrival of the messiah savior of the world Barack "the Hollywood created president" Obama will ever change the reality that humanity can NOT control Mother Nature. But that never stopped arrogant Liberals from thinking they had the mandate to socially engineer everyone's lives. Nonsense. Acid rain is but one example. Humans invented it? Good thing there was never a volcanic eruption or meteorite impact before. Nonsense response comparable to the original nonsense. Facts getting in the way of your argument John?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 January 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHumans never have and never will be more powerful than Mother Nature. Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It's not about being "more powerful." It's about fucking it up, which we've proven time and time again we're more than capable of doing. Doubt me? Go for a walk around Chernobyl. You know you can [quite safely] dive Bikini Atoll? Your statement is ridiculous. I dare you to go swimming in the cooling pond at Chernobyl. Before the Chernobyl accident more than 350,000 people lived in the area. Now, the only people that live there are the 400 or so nut jobs that have decided to squat in the post-apololyptic zone. The area is technically off limits, but the government doesn't have the wherewithal to maintain security so indigents sneak in. Naturally, this problem corrects itself after time. The indigents simply die of radiation poisoning.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #25 January 3, 2011 Have you given up on evolution already all in the name of your new found "Climate Change" religious beliefs? So much for the myth that Liberals possess supreme intelligence over everyone else. Life on this planet has been evolving for billions of years and it will continue to evolve until that great big ball in the sky 93 million miles away, burns up. All the "It will be the end of the world because of Climate Change" religious nut cases need a little dose of reality. Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans and life on this planet is not going anywhere as life on this planet will find a way to evolve. If Liberals can't find a way to evolve, well then that's just their problem. You may have given up on evolution thanks to your new found religious beliefs. But I haven't. And I am NOT buying into the Liberal's "Fabian Socialism" dogma. It is as "make believe" as all that fake crap Hollywood continues to produce. Want to talk about preventing cancer causing toxins from being pumped into the air and the water. Then I am all ears. But if Liberals continue to think that they can control Mother Nature through their new taxation and bogus carbon trading schemes, then Liberals need to be exposed for the complete utter arrogant fools that they are make themselves out to be. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
